1
THE BOOK OF
POOK AND THE
MILL
2
And so it begins...
Welcome to the home of the gentle and playful Pook!
Warrior against Androgyny,
Hobgoblin of Joy,
Seeker of Spiritual Truth,
and other neat stuff like that.
3
"What!" you say. "Shall you pollute my Internet with yet ANOTHER blog?" But alas, what is a
Pook to do when crawling between Earth and Heaven? Do not despair! This is not a blog just for
the sake of making a blog. Let me explain:
There are many fronts of the war against Matriarchy that the Men's Movement is throwing their
spears. There is the obvious legal front. There is the personal front, the "cultural" front, even the
religious front. But no one seems to wonder just how the feminists got into the university in the
first place. For once they infested the university; the politics of feminism would spread to various
fields attacking science and even mathematics. Once gaining a foothold into the university,
feminism, like tentacles, could spread into business schools to alter a generation of budding
CEOs and future decision makers.
"It is the Political School," some people whisper. "It is through the Political School that
Feminism entered the University." While it is true that the Political Science is infested with
feminism, politics is not the root. I don't even consider Feminism to be a political manifestation.
Yes, it is very political but politics is not the brain of Feminism, only its tongue. Even if
Feminism was destroyed politically, you would end up with a silent glaring Matriarchy. Politics
is a symptom of Feminism, not the original virus.
Feminism entered the University through the Humanities. Humanities are now the nest where
the Matriarchs perch. Much of the Humanities are in ruins not just in the classrooms but in
people's minds. I am sure you have heard of the Vagina Monologues. The theater has been
undone! And with it, all of Hollywood becomes undone with it! Literature has been murdered!
And with it, the book industry has essentially collapsed.
"You speak too brashly," it may be said. Very well doubting readers, let me ask you these
questions:
Have you ever heard women proclaim themselves geniuses with their bad poetry, sore writing,
and terrible acting as if they have no basis for substantial quality?
4
Has there been literature or art made in the past hundred years that will stand the test of time?
Women are flooding the universities so what fields are many of them going into? (Hint: it isn't
engineering)
Have you heard women consider themselves "creative" with their 'art' but despise math?
Why does every feminized woman believe the 'humanities' and math are two totally different
things?
Feminism has destroyed many lives and many societies. But it has done something worse: it has
destroyed the humanities. Feminism cannot co-exist with the old Humanities. This is why the
door in which Feminism entered was the Humanities which, once destroyed, could easily infect
the political systems and businesses of those affected nations.
Keep in mind that I am not pointing out the solution. I am simply showing the burned down gate
in which the raging beast of Feminism stormed into the castle. As a Pook, I was swamped with
messages and, literally, pleas from the Sosuave forum (a 'how to get girl' forum). Looking back, I
can see that most of the problems came that the young men were 'feminized,' i.e. they suffered
from the nice guyius maximus syndrome. Attempting to solve my own problems, I drew heavily
on the old humanities of the past and obeyed the Law of Reality. What is the Law of Reality? It
is exactly what you think. Instead of REACTING to reality as burned Nice Guys do, you end up
EMBRACING reality. When people follow the Law of Reality, the entire world seems filled with
marvels. It is Newton's metaphor of literally walking among the shore picking up sea-shells.
Medusa was defeated with a mirror and so too will feminism. Just as physics and biology are
mirrors to Nature's laws, so too were the old humanities. Literature does not survive centuries
because professors willed it so. It survives and prospers because it reflects the laws of humanity.
Even Shakespeare admitted he was not being 'creative' as he described his work as holding a
mirror up to Nature itself.
5
Feminism is about women refusing to see Nature in their own reflection. But Nature's laws are
the constitution of our bodies and our thinking. It is as ridiculous for a woman to be a man just as
it is ridiculous for a man to be a pumpkin. Now I rather like pumpkins, they are most excellent
for pies. But the Law of Reality does apply. Just as Nature is the Lord and King over Biology
and Physics, thus Nature shall rule over Art and the Humanities.
"But why is this blog named Pook's Mill?" you ask. This is a fascinating question with a
fascinating answer!
As I said before, I had no answers for myself or the young men on Sosuave. I had only every day
observances but nothing to really put that in context. The old humanities were a constant well I
kept going back to and provided the... Fountain of Youth to these men who felt they were having
old crusty souls. Like Alice, I wondered, "How far down does the rabbit hole go?" So after
leaving Sosuave, I jumped down the well and plunged through the abyss.
What I found was that in pre-history (before writing) all the world's cultures shared seemingly
similar beliefs due the observance of the astral plane. Math, art, astronomy, the calendar, which
are all seemingly different today were seen all as one then. The 'primitives' of the past had vast
knowledge about the sky. Even though today we may not see much use of them, it is similar to
the Middle Ages interest in charting the 'layers' of heaven and naming all the angels. But while
those Middle Ages studies seem irrelevant today, they did invent perspective that blossomed into
Renaissance art, founded the university, and created the framework of thought that became
established in Western Society. Plato knew this ancient myth language which he probably learned
from the Egyptians. Pythagoras, that genius, was also well rooted in knowing this core unison as
his harmony of the spheres shows. Music, as far as even the Middle Ages, was considered a
'math.' How can you create music without knowing math? (Indeed, many of the most talented
programmers are excellent musicians.) Poetry with its meter is, indeed, music. After all, Alice in
Wonderland was created by a mathematical genius. So much for women believing 'creativity' is
something separate from math.
6
You interrupt: "This is absurd! I want an anti-feminist blog! Not some academic namby-pamby!"
Your skepticism is noted, but it is a similar reaction to when I started quoting Shakespeare and
other 'insights' of the past on a 'how to get girls' forum. Give it time; not everything can be
explained in the first blog post. Even a Pook has a limit on his abilities!
Now, here is the reasoning behind this blog's name:
The Saxo version of the Hamlet story, which Shakespeare based the play on, we find this from
Narranspiel of the account of Hamlet's ride along the shore:
He notices an old steering oar left over from a shipwreck, and he asks what it might be. "Why,"
his friends mockingly say, "it is a big knife." Then Hamlet remarks, "This is the right thing to
carve such a big ham"- by which he really means the sea. Then, Saxo goes on, "as they passed
the sandhills and bade him look at the meal, meaning the sand, he replied that it had been
ground small by the hoary tempests of the ocean. His companions praising his answer, he said he
had spoken wittingly.
One of Hamlet's mythical predecessors, Amlodhi, was identified, in the crude and vivid imagery
of the Norse, by the ownership of a fabled mill which, in his own time, ground out peace and
plenty. Later, in decaying times, it ground out salt; and now finally, having landed at the bottom
of the sea, it is grinding rock and sand, creating a vast whirlpool, the Maelstrom (i.e. the
grinding stream, from the verb MALA, "to grind"), which is supposed to be a way to the land of
the dead.
The image of the mill and its owner yielded elsewhere to more sophisticated ones, more adherent
to celestial events. In Plato's powerful mind, the figure stood out as the Craftsman God, the
Demi-urge, who shaped the heavens; but even Plato did not escape the idea he had inherited, of
catastrophes and the periodic rebuilding of the world.
7
With the gloom and doom saturating many of the Men's Movement pages, I think it would be
refreshing for one to go a different route. This Mill here is to not grind out salt but, hopefully,
gold. But aside from its stance on optimism, this blog will differ precisely due to it being
strongly tethered to the old humanities. It is a natural continuation of the old Sosuave posts. How
this blog will be the same is that it will capture the same snapshots of reality of personal
observation and consider the Men's Movement as a political entity. This blog is not intended to
bring down Feminism as it is more geared to bring men up.
We have the power to re-create the world again. And Feminism, like those other Ivory Towers,
will go the way of Babel. They have created this lofty tower of theories, doctrines, and
ideologies, but it will be Nature who pulls the rug from underneath the feminists. The feminists,
in the end, will not be defeated by common sense or masculine petitioning but to be soundly
annihilated by Nature.
No one has ever betrayed Nature and gotten away with it.
Table of Contents
8
Part 1:
1.
Grinding the Soul
Men and the Mill
1. Pook’s Commandment’s vs. The Way
14
15
16
2. Commandment One: Be who you are
19
3. Commandment Two: Fight the negativism
22
4. Commandment Three: Become financially free
25
5. Is pain the measure of man
29
6. Men’s projection is their greatest weakness
36
7. Rogues and Knaves
38
8. A fool’s Paradise
42
9. Moral Courage
47
10.
A matter of ego
48
11.
Where goes your sexual energy
51
12.
What you are up against
53
13.
Golden rule to weed out women
55
14.
58
Anti Dump’s machine
9
15.
The Manipulated Man
67
2.
3.
Women and the Mill
69
1. The lace curtain
70
2. Women’s pleasure
80
3. Women’s views on men
82
4. Social life is the women’s life
84
5. Celebrity is the opposite of women
86
6. Fish-hook metaphor
89
7. Real ladies are rare
91
8. Feminist’s vs. the mill
93
9. Has feminism always been around
97
10. Matriarchy dictionary
102
11. The real reason feminism was successful
104
12. Why do feminists hate the bible
105
13. Matriarchy and the churches
107
14. The poisoned feminist tree
109
15. Why did feminists go batshit insane
112
16. Life of security
114
The Ancients and the Mill
116
1. Greeks and the mill
117
10
4.
2. Golding’s Quasi-words
121
3. Origin of Shaman and the metamorphosis of spirits
123
4. Newton and the mill
128
5. The Richard II decease
130
The Mill Itself
132
1. The Mill is everywhere
132
2. Hurricanes, Kings, and the Mill
136
3. Behold the Plutons
140
4. Origin of the nerd
141
5. Information age is about context, not content
143
6. Power
147
7. Mass reincarnation of Neville Chamberlain
149
8. Passion vs. Eros
151
9. The Chimera
154
10.
Romanticism: An Obituary
158
11.
The rejection of existentialism
167
12.
The Way
170
13.
On the origin and cause of political perversion
172
11
14.
The ultimate question
183
15.
The animated life
186
16.
Purpose of life is to win
188
17.
You are not god
191
Part 2:
1.
Change and the new Context
Politics
194
195
1. Why Rome fell
196
2. The political science
200
3. Who is Bush
205
4. Lieberman thrown under the bus
209
5. The real hurricane Katrina memory
211
6. The path to 9-11
213
7. Too much oil
216
8. Teacher’s gender affects learning
217
9. No compromise in religious war
219
10.
Has Thailand fallen to jihad
220
11.
American Women Suck forum taken down
222
12
12.
RIP Eternal Bachelor
223
13.
An email from Portugal
225
14.
Illegal immigration: serfs for feminism
230
15.
Matriarchy behind immigration bill
233
16.
Japanese laws breeding matriarchy
236
17.
Law doesn’t care about your karma
238
18.
Marriage and the State
242
19.
NY Times sees the marriage strike
254
20.
Does law create marriage or do people
256
21.
What the law hath joined together
257
2.
Feminism
261
1. Gag Alert
261
2. Do feminist eat cat feces
277
3. Does freedom of consent apply to men as well
278
13
4. Don’t fall for this fish story
280
5. Chick radio
282
6. Feminized Journalism
284
7. Forbes: don’t marry a career woman
287
8. Feminist assault Forbes magazine
288
9. Battle of Forbes: no it is a battle of IMBRA
290
10.
The sexual harassment video
294
11.
Spinsterhood: the LOUD epidemic
295
12.
No standards for young women are good
298
13.
Email on matriarchy and marriage
299
14.
Matriarchy circles wagons around teen beauty
303
15.
Feminist compares smartest women to stupidest men
305
16.
Male feminists are guilt fill wimps
307
17.
Feminist annoyed that ‘feminist’ had negative connotations
310
3.
Technology
1. Coming of the entertainment wave
311
311
14
2. The third great change of mankind
313
3. Box office plummets 26%
315
4. Hollywood realize they are in the entertainment business
316
5. Nightline surpasses Letterman
320
6. This columnist didn’t do his homework
321
7. Razor blades model is not the standard for consoles
324
8. The HD revolution that fizzled
327
9. Sony says: “To hell with you, Europe”
329
10.
Immense Logistical Challenge
333
11.
Return of the big N
334
12.
US game sales for July
339
13.
Japanese game sales (August)
343
14.
NPD sales August 2006
346
15.
This is Contra
350
16.
Iwata talks application of talents
351
4.
Life
352
15
1. Society is not a unit
352
2. Uptight
355
3. Wild rice and wild corn
358
4. Pook and the infinite money theorem
360
5. Red Flag
362
6. A letter from outside the matriarchy
364
7. Nice Guy Amuck
368
8. Two Spheres
371
9. Psychoanalyzing the bachelorpad
375
10.
“No, I don’t have children”
382
11.
Three men and the wolfish woman
386
12.
A story from a police officer
388
13.
Bachelorism: an epidemic
391
14.
Bachelor joys are sold off when you marry
392
15.
Love as license
393
16.
Footprints
395
16
17.
Voice of the neuter
395
18.
Take being called gay as a compliment
396
19.
Radicalism of Vilar
400
20.
Radicalism of Vilar #1
401
21.
Radicalism of Vilar #2
406
22.
Radicalism of Vilar #3
409
23.
The musician
412
24.
Groundbreaking study
418
25.
Pook grows wings
420
26.
How else to boost testosterone
423
27.
A full workout with the work
426
28.
51:49
429
17
29.
95-5 rule
433
30.
Are men allowed to have any standards in women
435
31.
Letter defending men having options
439
32.
An email from sosauve
440
33.
Thank this man
443
34.
Jerry Doyle as MRA
445
35.
Believe the older men
446
36.
Why marriage no longer works
447
37.
Media got it right in 1986
451
38.
Women are desperate to get married
452
39.
Advertisement
455
Part 3:
1.
Change and your Context
The end is not nigh
458
459
18
1. The doomslayer
459
2. Hugh oil discovery
466
3. Don’t worry about these terrorists
468
4. World war IV
470
5. The ultimate weapon to level civilization
472
6. Civil war in the matriarchy
474
7. Baby bust alters politics
476
8. Women hate feminism when it interferes
478
9. The questioner
481
10.
Solution to the matriarchy
486
11.
What should the men’s movement do
490
12.
What should the men’s movement do II
493
13.
Never forget 1999
498
2.
Going beyond your own way
501
1. Jesus was a jerk
501
2. Women are smarter than men
505
3. The human chessboard
510
4. Reflect nature
513
19
5. Checkmate
515
6. We need to shame women
517
7. For those in doubt
518
8. Why do people stay bitter
522
9. Nirvana
524
10.
Difference between Patriarchy and Matriarchy
525
11.
The adventurer and the Vortex
530
12.
Real seduction vs. Wimp seduction
535
13.
Why men fall to Matriarchy
538
14.
Huxley and Orwell foretold the Matriarchy
543
15.
Plato’s warnings about writing
547
16.
The seduction of the men’s movement
551
17.
Time to move beyond MGTOW
553
18.
More reasons why I am not and MRA
557
20
19.
Live in the talent
558
Part One
21
Grinding the soul
Men and the mill
22
Pook's Commandments vs. The Way
23
These 'commandments' are simple and will counter the 'The Way.'
“But Monsieur Pook, speak truly,” you say. “What is this thing you call...The Way?”
The Way is the default life most men revolve around. The Way is routinely celebrated and held
up as the only Way.
The Way consists of the following:
-Go to school. Get good grades. Do the senior prom, go to school dances, give a girl your high
school class ring, and other garbage like that.
-Go to college. Get even more good grades. Participate with the campus activities, especially the
feminist ones. Celebrate the Vagina Monologues. Become a mangina and write against evil
patriarchy and how women need more rights and security.
-Get a job, not in something you like, but in something that provides security. Make money by
working harder.
-Meet a girl, fall in love, and marry her. Participate in the elaborate wedding and the honeymoon
to a place you didn't choose.
-Buy a big house because of the expectation of kids.
-Once married, the other married guys show you how the system works by showing you the
home improvement activities you now get to engage on. Yes, you get to go buy hammers and
screws to continually improve the house. Lawn care, house care, car care, yes, your purpose is to
maintain this physical shelter and make it look 'acceptable.'
-Have a kid or two. Wife gets fat and cuts her hair. You must accept this. You will now work
24
harder and be forced to get promoted due to the rising costs. You have become the wage slave.
-Keep doing this for decades until your soul evaporates. As your body breaks down (it will at this
fast pace), let your wife play the role as the 'nurse' as you begin to make continual trips to the
hospital.
-Die.
Sounds fun doesn’t it? It certainly doesn't sound appealing to me. Keep in mind that I am not
knocking college, good grades, children, home improvement, and all that. What I am knocking is
the pre-formulated life. This 'default' view is life in the Matriarchy. And this is if you are lucky
and were not divorced.
While life in the Matriarchy as a metro-sexualized man holds little joy and much neuterization,
the Men's Movement has dropped the ball by not offering any optimistic alternatives. The
bewildered young male sees, with very open eyes, the gloom and doom of The Way in the
Matriarchal System. But the alternatives are...more gloom and doom! "Society is set to collapse!"
these old farts say.
What is the result? The young man becomes depressed. Some turn to suicide. Why should
anyone be surprised? If one read depressing bitter posts and articles day after day, who wouldn't
be depressed? What you read so shall you think.
We have given young men two sets of doom: the hell of The Way and the hell of the so-called
'upcoming societal collapse.' But there is another way…a way of hope.
Men Going Their Own Way is not an entitlement for sloth and righteousness. It is an opportunity
to live. Freed from the shackles, we get the chance to actually have life. Do men trapped in the
Matriarchy have that opportunity? …No! Treat it as the greatest gift ever bestowed upon you. It
truly is the gift of life.
25
The best means of persuasion for young men is to not show how EVIL the Matriarchy is but
rather show how GOOD it is to be a man going his own way. In a political election, candidates
do not win by saying their candidate is SO EVIL that he must be voted against. Rather, the
candidate must show WHY people ought to vote for him. This is true in business. You sell your
product by showing why it is good, not by showing why your competitor's product is EVIL.
Young men, who are standing on the thresh-hold of life, are being taught to peer into someone's
abyss. Youth, like fruit, can be sweet or bitter depending on how and when you pluck it. "But you
cannot know the sweet without knowing the bitter." Yet, how many of you would eat rotten fruit
to illustrate that? You don't because you know it isn't healthy.
This is the same. And you can identify the good tree from the rest because only it will grow the
good fruit. Keep this in mind when you read more acidic rants (from anyone).
26
Pookish Commandment One: Be Who You Are
The First Commandment is the most important and embodies all the other commandments. You
must be who you are.
What is the biggest obstacle to true success? It is when we do not become who we are. We try to
be someone else or be what people 'want' us to be. It is discarding our passion in life and doing
something else because that is 'proper.'
There are two universal attributes for any very successful person. One, they work very hard at
what they do. Two, they LOVE what they do so it doesn't seem like work. Find a passion in your
life and embrace it with everything you've got. You only have one life and only so much time.
Why not spend your life doing something you love rather doing something you hate? If people
would find something they loved to do and excel in it, 99% of the world's problems would
probably be solved.
If you do not like your life, there is one reason for it: you. Life is not what happens to you. Life
is what you make of it, life is what you do. Those who think that life is something that 'happens'
to you believe that they are not allowed to have joy and happiness due to whatever problems are
dumped on them. Yet, while our era has problems just as any other era, is that a reason to sit on
the sidelines of life? Do our problems today compare to our ancestors' troubles of world wars,
revolutions, plague, and recession? And if they did, is it worth giving up living life?
Anyone is free to seize life and make it what they want it to be. Why is this hard? It is because it
involves change. Routines are easy. Habits are easy. Sitting there and blaming someone else for
27
your life is easy.
What is worse is that people do not think life is to be enjoyed. Rather, they think life is to be
endured. If you are having too much fun, too much happiness, then something must be wrong as
you 'ought' to be doing more serious stuff. These ideas probably come from our parents, our
family, our church, our women, and other sources. We are raised with these pre-conceived ideas
that imprison us.
Who says life is not meant to be enjoyed? And who is to define that but you? Life can be
whatever we want it to be. But if we sit around and think we have no control over it (due to
government, feminists, etc.), we are creating our own destiny of despair. Who’s to say you have
to go through suffering seven days of the week?
With all that is out there to experience and enjoy, who’s to say that your life has to be 'hard' or
'serious?' And why let anyone but you define how to live your own life?
Why are you unhappy? It is because you think you can have a better life than you have now. So
are you going to sit here and blame someone else for it or are you going to go out now and
change it? You can sit around all day waiting for someone to come around and recognize you,
but it will never happen. Why? It is because people are too worried about themselves. And they
are worried about what YOU think of THEM.
Why do women hold so much power? It is because we give it to them. Men literally shape their
lives to gain female approval. Men going their own way means, at the most essential level, that
YOU are going to define how life is going to be enjoyed and lived. YOU are going to set the
rules for your life. YOU are not going to let your life be defined by your Mom, your Dad, your
sister, your brother, your church, your grandparents, your government, your girlfriend, but only
by YOU. The double edge is that if something doesn't go right, you can blame only yourself. But
isn't it worthwhile to live YOUR mistakes rather than live other people's mistakes?
If you give up those rules to someone else, then YOU are to blame if your life is not where you
28
like it. This is hard. I am telling you that this is hard. We have been told our lives that people
who do well in life are 'lucky.' "They came from the right family." "They are different." "They
had it handed to them." When you see someone happy, don't go, "Oh, I wish I were like them.
They must come from the right part of town and all to be happy." That isn't how happiness
works. And the odds are is that those that are 'happy' are usually covering up their own misery.
Life is to be lived. Life is meant to be grabbed on to. When you do this, you no longer worry
about what other people think of you. And if you DO worry about what other people think of
you, then you are imprisoned by it.
Men Going Their Own Way is about breaking free from this mental prison. Be who you are.
While other people live their lives worrying what other people think of them, you will suddenly
notice a huge difference in your life.
You will be ACTING on life instead of REACTING to it.
29
Second Pookish Commandment: Fight the
Negativism
Happiness and optimism are more infectious and influential than sadness and negativism.
Whenever I have been pessimistic, my life tends to go nowhere (in which I become even more
negative!). Being negative never gained me any friends but has repelled people away from me.
Being pessimistic retards you. You don’t undergo action in pessimism. You don’t get smarter
under pessimism. You just become stupider and become filled with fear.
Many people became millionaires just by selling books on optimism. Why didn’t books on
pessimism sell millions of copies? It is because anyone can be pessimistic. Anyone can shape the
world into Gloom and Doom. But only a few can be optimistic.
This commandment is to FIGHT the Negativism. We all are filled with some sort of negativity.
We must struggle with it and wrestle it down like some giant snake, because pessimism gets in
30
the way of who we are. You fight negativism not by ignoring it, not by pretending it doesn’t exist,
but by using reason itself.
People want to be part of movements that are optimistic, joyful, and winning. Who wants to be
part of a movement that says, “Nothing can be done. The world is over. We are doomed?” There
is no book that says, “The Great Gloom and Doomers of History.”
There are many reasons to be optimistic:
-The liberation of women is only resulting in the liberation of men. Men are free to shrug off the
old family chains and responsibilities since there is no pressure to marry. Men can have sex with
any woman almost openly. Men do not have to start a family if they don’t really want to
(whereas before, it was socially enforced).
-Western women had the greatest paradise any woman has had… they had men working for
them, worshipping them, in the richest nations ever known on Earth. And they threw all that
away to ‘become like men.’ This revealed to many men the secrets of female manipulation. The
cat is now out of the bag and cannot be stuffed back in again. Thanks to the internet, the song
and dance of manipulation is finally ending.
-More and more men are finding love (and pleasure) overseas. This means men have options in
other countries. Western women do not.
-Men can find whatever they wish. If they want a traditional wife, they can find one from the
Philippines or somewhere else. If they just want prostitutes, they have Thailand among other
31
places. If they want more…uhh…zesty women they have Russia, Brazil, along with other
countries. The possibilities are endless.
-In the U.S., marriage rates are dropping and co-habitation is up. This is because men are waking
up to the strange legal system that operates around marriage.
-Western women still don’t get it. They still have the ‘YOU GO GRRLL!” attitude of a Career
Woman or something else. They don’t understand why men are increasingly refusing to date or
marry them. All they know is that everything is the men’s fault…somehow. Today, the 'boys'
aren’t MAN enough to ask her out (or so she thinks).
-Feminism is losing power politically. Demographically, this is true. The surest ways to pass
values from one generation to another is with children. Feminists do not believe in children,
which is one of the reasons why they are losing numbers. Abortion has not helped their cause but
only depleted their flock.
-Divorce laws and child custody laws are beginning to be fiercely challenged.
-Paternity testing is spreading like wildfire.
-The abuse of shouting ‘rape’ just to ‘get even’ has received widespread attention.
-Each day, more men ‘get it,’ and realize they don’t have to follow The Way.
32
The trends are all in our favor. Your job is to figure out what you want in life and GO FOR IT.
…Or you could sit in the corner and think that the world is going to end. But you are not getting
any younger. Do not fall prey to the Paralysis of Analysis!
Thou shall live!!! And do not let anyone steal your joy.
33
Pookish Commandment Three: Become
Financially Free
Becoming financially independent is one of the greatest changes you can make to your life. You
become in control of your life when you have all of your assets paying all of your expenses and
you don’t need a job. There are many books and much information on how to become financially
free so I won't talk about that here. But there is something else I have been wondering...
Why did men become, and strive, to become employees forever?
It is a fascinating question. The idea of financial freedom is not new. So what possibly could get
90% of the population into becoming wage slaves?
We are put in school at about five years old. We are then told to do stuff. This does not change
until the day we retire (for many men, this is sixty years later). The idea of doing nothing is alien
to us. If someone does nothing, hostility and mockery is sent at that person. "Lazy!" they say.
The child, since the age of five, then goes through school. He often goes to college where he is
told to do more things. After college, he gets a job and keeps doing what someone else wants him
34
to do.
After a while, you would think, "Wouldn't he try to get out of the position of being leveraged?"
Yes, you would. I never understood why the masses didn't attempt to escape from being a wage
slave. The reason why most men never escape the wage slave mentality is because of their
woman.
During college or shortly after, a man meets a woman. The sparks fly. They end up getting
married. This means they must move into some apartment and soon to a house. The bills keep
getting larger. And then the wife gets pregnant and the little bundle of joy comes home. Babies
are extraordinarily expensive (and taxing on health and sanity as well). The parents, at least the
father if the wife wants to stay home, has to work harder to make ends meet. More babies appear.
The husband has to keep working and working and working. The husband will become so
accustomed to working that he will feel himself a failure if he doesn't work in some way. He will
be incapable of doing nothing. If he retires, he usually dies soon afterward (statistics show many
men passing away right after retiring. All that work, and you can't enjoy the little freedom at the
end.).
I know many men in their 30s with families. I rarely see them because they are always working.
They work because their expenses are so high. But they also work because their woman has
completely taken over the household. Their household is so dirty, and filled with screaming kids
and a fat wife, that they are HAPPY to work overtime. The more they work, the harder it is for
them to do nothing.
"But Pook," you ask. "Why should one do nothing? Isn't it better to work?"
No. The founder of MTV gives this advice to those who are financially able to retire: "Wait one
year before you do anything else. For one year, do absolutely nothing. It will be the hardest thing
you do in your life."
And, sure enough, it is especially if you have been conditioned to 'work' since the age of five. We
35
are all brainwashed in some fashion. I have experience with some professional 'brainwashing'
places, these unique 'forums.' The one thing they try to do is to keep you hungry, keep you
sleepy, and not allow you to be alone doing nothing. If you are alone doing nothing, you can
think. If you think, you suddenly realize what a bogus operation it all is. In many jobs they will
attempt to brainwash you. At one job, after a hard day's work, I want to go home, rest, and do
whatever. The job tried to invade that as well, making it almost where I *never* had rest. I said,
"To hell with you," to that job. If an employer is trying to brainwash me, I just give them a
middle finger and walk out. If you want my work, do it by pay, do it by making the job
environment pleasant, do it by some other benefits, but don't do it by 'brainwashing.' It is like
they want you to love your 'job' like you would 'love' a woman. Those who have no passion
beforehand are vulnerable to this brainwashing.
As these men work and work, they lose their greatest assets: time and health. Soon it becomes
too late for them to become financially free even if they do snap out of it.
Imagine! A childhood in a mass produced schools, mass produced colleges, mass produced 'jobs,'
to live in mass produced houses and suburbs (little artificial towns with fountains), and when we
die we retire on some 'mass produced' package plan and go to the mass produced nursery homes.
That is 95% of the population's life.
This is The Way.
Women do not question it. They plan and see it. They do not imagine financial freedom and
rarely see it for what it means. If you tell a woman you want to become financially free, they will
run for the hills. It shows that women do not like rich men, they like rich men they can
brainwash. Women marry wage slaves. If you do not want to become a wage slave, don't get
married. Your wife will support you in getting a bigger paycheck. But she will not support you
in getting a bigger soul.
One pattern I noticed is that all the great humanities, the great songs, art, and literature, never
36
came from peasants. It always came from the aristocracy or people funded directly by the
aristocracy. To Americans, you know that the 'founding fathers' like Washington were well
educated and cultured. But they were that way because they were financially free.
Being financially free is not about greed. It is to allow the First Pookish Commandment to
become true: to be who you are. If you enjoy writing poetry, becoming financially free will allow
you to pursue poetry. If you enjoy racing cars, becoming financially free allows you to do that.
It is hard to be who you are when a stupid job is in the way. The rich believe the word job means
Just Over Broke.
People say that wealth changes you. It doesn't. Rather, it changes everyone around you. People
who were your friends will grow angry that you 'have money.' They will despise you. It is lonely
at the top.
As Esther Vilar from her excellent book, the Manipulated Man, describes:
"If a young man gets married, starts a family, and spends the rest of his life working at a souldestroying job, he is held up as an example of virtue and responsibility. The other type of man,
living only for himself, working only for himself, doing first one thing and then another simply
because he enjoys it and because he has to keep only himself, sleeping where and when he
wants, and facing woman when he meets her, on equal terms and not as one of a million slaves,
is rejected by society. The free, unshackled man has no place in its midst."
37
Is pain the measure of man?
I once said, "There was not a philosopher who could endure the toothache patiently." This line is
lifted directly from Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing (strangely, it is quoted in the
Wikipedia entry on toothache as well).
Gentlemen, here is the source: (Act V, Scene 1)
I pray thee, peace. I will be flesh and blood;
For there was never yet philosopher
That could endure the toothache patiently,
However they have writ the style of gods
38
And made a push at chance and sufferance.
One of the problems of the Nice Guy is that he is so intellectual, so stuffed with theories, that he
has difficulty in being flesh and blood. When people tell Leonato that he should endure the pain
of the lies about his daughter, he rejects that notion. He prefers to be flesh and blood, not some
abstraction, and that no philosopher could endure the toothache patiently (as philosophers,
despite what they say, are flesh and blood).
Here is the email:
"Yet, there was never a philosopher who could endure the toothache patiently.”
Oh silly Pook…“Lameness is an impediment to the leg, but not to the will; and say this to
yourself with regard to everything that happens. For you will find it to be an impediment to
something else, but not truly to yourself.” -Epictetus, Greek Stoic Philosopher and former
Roman slave.
Who inspired the novel…? Tom Wolfe’s A Man in Full http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0553381334/sr=8-1/qid=1155089064/ref=pd_bbs_1/1029863577-4082537?ie=UTF8
"What little bit Conrad had learned about philosophy at Mount Diablo had seemed to concern
people who were free and whose main problem was to choose from among life’s infinite
possibilities. Only Epictetus began with the assumption that life is hard, brutal, punishing,
narrow, and confining, a deadly business, and that fairness and unfairness are beside the point.
Only Epictetus, so far as Conrad knew, was a philosopher who had been stripped of everything,
imprisoned, tortured, enslaved, threatened with death. And only Epictetus had looked his
tormenters in the eye and said, ‘You do what you have to do, and I will do what I have to do,
which is live and die like a man.’ "
Aside from no mention of Epictetus suffering a toothache and his already noisy reveling in the
39
glory of pain, there is a broad theme up work above: that to be a man is to endure pain. In
America there is the idea that to be a man is to "suck it up." One thing I find fascinating is how it
is not believed that men have the right to be happy anymore. If you choose to follow dreams and
passions of your own, choose your own woman, and so on, people will think you are lazy, are
foolish, anything but a man. Notice how everything that gives a young man pleasure is
considered "childish" and "unmanly:"
Frequent sex
Sports
Video games
Barbequing good food
Internet
Going out with the guys
Hard religion
And so on
Consider that what gives women pleasure is now seen as "high society:"
Shopping
Television
Obsession about houses and redecorating them
Celebrity worship
Soft religion
And so on
For every pleasure a man has, it is to be considered a 'guilt.' But every pleasure a woman has, it
is to be considered "The Way." An avalanche of shame is unleashed upon a man who is enjoying
himself. You are to feel guilty for enjoying life. According to The Way, men have responsibilities
and all their pleasures are nothing more than vices (which our saintly women are to save us
from).
40
In our de-sexualized world (not allowing males to have pleasure in being men or females to have
pleasure in being women), the greatest pleasure you'll have is in being a man, acting like a man,
and thinking like a man. I find great pleasure in lifting insane weights. Women think I am doing
it just to build up my body so I can impress them (which is why they "permit" it). But if you
watch sports or play video games, this is frowned on because, aside from giving you pleasure, it
also cannot benefit women in any way. If a guy wants to go to Thailand to buy prostitutes, I don't
care as I have other things to do. But women will HATE such a guy and try to shame him to no
end. According to The Way, men are not supposed to seek such pleasure (even though women
do). Men's pleasure is generally restricted to one thing: servicing women. Any pleasure that
doesn't, such as watching sports, is granted to males who have serviced their woman. But such
pleasure is temporary and must be re-earned. A man must 'earn' the pleasure to watch a sports
game. In same way, if a man complains about the lack of sex from his wife, women will only say,
"You need to serve her more" as if sex in a marriage was something to be 'earned' like money.
Much of this service is by being addicted to praise. Love parallels war. Just as in Love, there are
Nice Guys who appease, supplicate, and are addicted to praise, people in war (i.e. politics) do the
same. The biggest "sap" in the realm of War and Politics would be Jimmy Carter. Ever since the
Nixon funeral, when all these people, including Democrats, were praising Nixon for certain
policies, Carter's wife jammed her elbow into him and said, "But what about when you die? Do
you want people to say you just hammered houses?" So this is why you have Jimmy Carter
flying about the world, trying to make all these 'political agreements,' and trying to have a
presence everywhere. He is a man made insane by his addiction to praise. Many politicians
throughout the world are so weak precisely because they are addicted to praise and care what
everyone else things of them. Did Churchill care what people thought of him? Was Lincoln
addicted to praise?
I reject the assumption that life is painful, hard, and cruel. Life will be whatever you make it to
be. The greatest barrier to pleasure and happiness in your life is your own mind. Think of the
sosuave of guys who had it hard with women. The biggest reason they had difficulty with women
was that they expected it to be difficult. If you approach the situation that "getting girls are easy"
then it often becomes easy. Just do it. The same applies with wealth creation. "Becoming rich is
41
too hard," some say. Why say that? Why not say, “Becoming rich is fun and simple.” If you truly
believe that, instead of a trial of pain, your pursuit will be full of fun.
Philosophy is alcohol to the soul. When a person is wounded, in terms of dreams and destiny, he
often picks up a bottle of philosophy and sucks it like a baby to his mother's breast. What good
will philosophy do to me? Philosophy will not make me rich. Philosophy will not put clothes on
my back and food in my stomach. Philosophy will not entertain family, friends, or girls.
Philosophy does not give comfort to the dying, or joy to the living. While some young men get
drunk bodily from alcohol, other young men get drunk spiritually from philosophy.
Feminists believe themselves philosophical. Their souls are so drunk that they have become
toxic. A toxic soul just passes through Nature infecting, harming, and poisoning things around it.
Feminists are not happy. How could they be? As an antidote they only take up the bottle of
philosophy some more. …Glug, glug, glug. Instead of being flesh and blood, instead of finding
joy in being female, they have so divorced their heads their flesh that they find Nature itself to be
toxic and barbaric. A man battling feminists with his own arms of philosophy is two drunken
souls fighting over nothing. It resembles two drunks in a bar fighting over some figment in their
mind.
I don't want to spend life fighting over figments in the mind. Nothing would give me greater
pleasure than to burn my library. I will be flesh and blood! I will enjoy life and the fruits of
Nature. But surely philosophy and the 'intellect' hold some purpose. So what is it?
There are two great teachers in life: experience and foresight. Experience teaches harshly,
brutally, while foresight teaches gently, patiently, pleasingly. As for my master, I choose
foresight. On sosuave, you would often hear that "experience is everything," but must you
experience many marriages in order to have a 'good one?' Of course not! Men who do not see the
potential legal noose that marriage and divorce can bring will be taught by experience if they do
not learn their lessons from foresight. In the same way, young men, even nice guys, will learn
their lessons from experience about women if they do not first learn them from foresight. The
problem is that divorce, child custody, and all is too shattering to learn from experience. Let us
42
embrace foresight on the matter.
The point of 'philosophizing' mind is to sip enough of the intellect to achieve foresight, but not to
become a drunk by pouring entire bottles of the stuff into your head. Let us use philosophy for
life rather than use life for philosophy. And once we obtain what we need to know, burn the
books.
The greatest revenge is living well. If you want to get underneath a politician's skin, don't give in
to "rebuttals" or take them seriously. Rather, mock them and make fun of them.
Fascinatingly, I wrote the above before reading the below. Shakespeare already linked
melancholy to drunkenness with the passage from As You Like It...
JAQUES
I prithee, pretty youth, let me be better acquainted
with thee.
ROSALIND
They say you are a melancholy fellow.
JAQUES
I am so; I do love it better than laughing.
ROSALIND
Those that are in extremity of either are abominable
fellows and betray themselves to every modern
43
censure worse than drunkards.
JAQUES
Why, 'tis good to be sad and say nothing.
ROSALIND
Why then, 'tis good to be a post.
JAQUES
I have neither the scholar's melancholy, which is
emulation, nor the musician's, which is fantastical,
nor the courtier's, which is proud, nor the
soldier's, which is ambitious, nor the lawyer's,
which is politic, nor the lady's, which is nice, nor
the lover's, which is all these: but it is a
melancholy of mine own, compounded of many simples,
extracted from many objects, and indeed the sundry's
contemplation of my travels, in which my often
rumination wraps me m a most humorous sadness.
ROSALIND
A traveler! By my faith, you have great reason to
be sad: I fear you have sold your own lands to see
other men's; then, to have seen much and to have
nothing, is to have rich eyes and poor hands.
JAQUES
44
Yes, I have gained my experience.
ROSALIND
And your experience makes you sad: I had rather have
a fool to make me merry than experience to make me
sad; and to travel for it too!
Men's Projection Is Their Greatest Weakness
Men and Women are different.
We say this, but then we go on. The biggest mistake men make is projecting themselves onto
women. They think that because he feels romantic, that she does as well. So off go his thoughts
into a sweet air of pageantry.
45
But what are the woman's thoughts on the matter? They’re like a cold blooded accountant. Like I
said, men and women are different. When a man goes off with his pageantry, his poetries, his
odes of love, she waits for him to get done and then gets down to business. If a guy keeps on
with this nonsense, she thinks he is a doofus and continues on.
Imagine if when you bought groceries, the buyer began talking romantically about the 'green
revolution,' about how it is a modern marvel that we can enter a grocery store and find
everything we need, of how glorious round the shape and size of the store's melons, or the
shapely way the pears are. The checker would be astonished if customers behaved such a way.
Who knew the key to understanding women would be found in the thought process of
accounting?
The values we as men hold are completely different than the values women hold. The apex of a
woman's life would be something like relaxing in a hot bubble bath in an island paradise. But
men prefer truth, ideals, and victory.
Good and evil do not exist in woman's lexicon. She is far more utilitarian since 'good' and 'evil'
means a more celestial divine standard. Women who use sexuality as a means to an end are
perceived evil by men. But to women, it is perceived entirely differently. Women view the
greatest sin as men STEALING the goods. Rape, not murder, not terrorism, not genocide, is the
greatest of wrongs to them. It is because rape is in fact stealing their goods. With murder and
terrorism, well, that kills mostly men so that is not that bad. But rape is almost always against
women. Also, with Victorian zeal, the greatest of crimes is also sex predators (who are, curiously,
almost all men). They are always displayed on the nightly news. They often get hit with paying
for their crime double by, first, jail time and then being told where they can live and all. I can
think of worse crimes than sexual predation such as murder. The reason why they chose sexual
predation against the entire Church was, in their eyes, the worst of all crimes.
So why do women love murderers? Go to any prison and you will see beautiful women come
46
and go. Again, men and women are different. When a man commits violence, men consider it
'evil.' Women do not. In fact, women consider violence to be confidence. If women did not think
this way, then why do murderers have such hot girls? The truth points to itself.
It also explains a political mystery: why feminized politicians view outright dictators like Castro
and Hussein as if they were not only legitimate heads of state but 'confident' heads of state. This
brings up the question of Hitler, who is universally abhorred. The simple answer is that there
needs to be 'some' sort of person to be hated. Anything these people 'hate,' they will instantly call
'fascism' (without using the word in its proper context). For example, Pook is 'fascist' for having
this blog. Does that mean I am setting up a government to control people? …No. But Hitler
makes a good person for the "Hate Minute" where everyone gathers, a picture of Hitler appears,
and everyone starts 'hating' at the same time. There is so much association of this that anytime
they, themselves, hate what someone says or does, that person is always made out to be Hitler.
Politics has always been corrupted. But politics became WEIRD when it got feminized.
Centuries ago, American politicians would refer to concepts of 'good' and 'evil' without shame
and refer to heaven and earth. But now politicians act like women. They talk too much, use
symbolism over substance, focus on their appearance, are more interested in cliques than the will
of the people, and prefer to be friends with folks in Washington than to please the district that
sent them there in the first place.
And they think they are entitled to ALL your money and perceive themselves "generous" for
keeping what you have. Just like women.
Rogues and Knaves
When I expand my context of sexuality, women, and Nature, there are times where I hit a wall.
And there are times when there is a breakthrough that unleashes all sorts of gems.
How fast we forget the maxim: "Men and women are different." We apply it only when we face a
47
contradiction that cannot be explained rather than plunging into the depths to pluck out the
mystery. If men and women are different, then they have different contexts.
Men and women have different contexts of honor.
Men and women have different contexts for love.
Men and women have different contexts for smarts.
By realizing that women are smarter than men (since it is smarter to have someone work for you
instead of do the work yourself), it was a breakthrough that has unleashed many gems.
We know that love ends up being enslavement to men and power to women. This is why women
are all for "love" including Hillary Clinton. While Mrs. Bill Clinton advocates love in politics, it
means the same 'more power.' We all know how men feel in love. But how do women feel 'in
love' aside from the calculating way?
I asked myself, "Since women's love is based on work being made easier, is there anything
similar for men?" There is. It is technology.
Men love technology because it eliminates work and makes existing work easier. Men love
watching for the latest new gadget and even love shopping over tools and technological works.
This "love" men have for technology must be identical to women's "love" to men (except more
so).
Men love the idea of robots. Women do not. Why? It is simple, women see men as their robots.
Women love technology too but not as much as men. Men see technology as a salvation of sorts.
Technology frees men from work. In the same way that men free women from work. When I saw
two men babbling endlessly about a new piece of electronic, it hit me how identical it was when
two women babble endlessly about a new man. Except, imagine a technological product that
48
could adapt and shape itself and serve you for LIFE! Now you see why women are so man crazy.
As the Matriarchy solidified, technology skyrocketed. This could not be a simple correlation.
Women freed themselves from work through men and men are trying to free themselves from
work through technology. Ironically, in the world where there is little to no Matriarchy is where
you find the least technology. There are no technological Patriarchies.
No wonder The Matrix was so effective. Men had machines enslave them to be 'energy' or 'long
term batteries' to exist while humans lived in an imaginary world. Men understand giant robots
and technology so the horror of such a life is understandable. But the fools thought the
'controllers' in real life was religion, government, or corporations without considering women.
Why? Guys are scared to death to face the possibility that women are the smarter and controlling
sex. Almost like a self-therapy, on MGTOW boards, men constantly re-iterate how "stupid"
women are. My previous post of 'Women are smarter than men' didn't create disagreements but
created personal insults against ME!
Men do live in an illusionary world but the programming is based that men and women are NOT
different from one another. Men never consider women to have a different context of honor, love,
children, and all. They assume honor, love, children, etc. are universally the same by both
genders.
Women do not know how men love. They do not enter our world. They do not hear the great
songs of literature and all. They only know that "love," which is the process of her being a
master over a male, makes him happy as well (a slave's happiness).
The idea of a man going their own way is alien to her. The real label for a guy doing the
MGTOW is the word rogue. Love is authority to her.
Rogue- Defined as a man who is 'going his own way' when it comes to "The Way."
Rogue means different things to different people. Rogue, to other rogues, means someone who is
49
uncontrollable, someone who wants to be free. To knaves, rogues mean someone who is an
inferior organism. In this, knaves and women join together in hating rogues. And, of course, to
women, a rogue is someone who cheats.
Women do not see rogues as threats. They see them only as scoundrels because they refuse to
obey woman's authority. If a citizen decided to take matters into his own hands and arrest
someone breaking the law, a politician would view those active citizens as scoundrels. (Example:
President Bush calling citizens who arrest illegal immigrants as 'vigilantes'). It is all about
context.
Knave- Defined as a male servant that obeys "The Way."
There are multiple types of knaves. There is the financial knave which we label as Husband.
There is the sexual knave which we label as Boyfriend. There is the shepherd knave (guiding
other males into "The Way") which we label as Politician. Remember, many priests today are
politicians. Many businessmen are politicians as well.
"Boyfriend" applies to players whose goal is to please women and think themselves "awesome"
because they get to sleep with women.
Nice Guy is a proto-type husband. Most Nice Guys learn to sexualize themselves enough to
become "Boyfriend" which ends them up becoming "Husband."
Women actually do want nice guys. But they know that sex is the hook to control the guy. If a
guy does not sex the woman, she cannot get her hooks in him. This is why women demand guys
to sexualize themselves so they can control them. A guy refusing kisses is a guy she cannot wrap
around her little finger.
The authority of our time is not God (for as Nietzsche said, "God is dead"), it is not the State,
and it is not even Wealth. The ultimate and unquestionable authority, of which everyone,
president, investor, and priest, must bow to is LOVE.
50
Rousseau, the man whose writings sparked the French Revolutions and destroyed the Lockean
Revolution, deliberately chose 'love' as the authority. Now, "Love" is going to solve all problems,
make all the trains work on time, cause peace in the Middle East, and educate all children.
"Love" is the post-modern chimera.
Not obeying the authority of LOVE is like not obeying the authority of the STATE. “But Pook!”
you protest. “The State can kill you and arrest you!” So can 'love' I reply, child support, divorce
proceedings, both destroys and controls. It is "love" trumping the authority of law and, by doing
so, make tyrannical law.
But now that we know the authority is 'love,' we rogues now have tools to protect ourselves.
First, if accused by any crime, proclaim it as a 'love crime.' Second, if accused of using women,
just say that you are searching for love. Third, if accused you are becoming too wealthy, tell how
you did your business to 'love' the world and, if that doesn't work, start a charity to show just
how much you 'love,'
When a rogue appeals to "love," women will assume he is just a knave and, therefore, not a
problem. All knaves will get grinded up in "The Way" eventually, right?
Women appeal to "love" to get them off the hook all the time. MGTOW, or as I prefer, rogues
ought to start appealing to "love" just the same. Ironically, the appeals to love will set rogues
free.
A Fool's Paradise
Again and again, I have been saying that feminism is not the problem. It is a problem but it is a
tentacle, not the octopus. MRAs, mostly the older ones, attack feminism because it is so visible
51
and aligns perfectly to political held views (feminism is political while most of the matriarchy is
not). There is a lace curtain between the sexes that divide our two worlds. Men and women do
not see each other's worlds.
What is Woman's World? It is paradise. If you were on a tropical island, would you not just enjoy
life? You would not read philosophy. You would not take life seriously. You would let your brain
rot and take in the pleasures of the body. You would sleep with an island native here or there and
think nothing of it. You would wear silly costumes; stay out late at night all the time, drink,
maybe even wear tattoos.
Women appear so damn dumb to men because they are in paradise, married women especially
so. This is why American Women tend to have two emotions: giddiness or stern contempt. Stern
contempt occurs only when something interferes with Paradise such as a rainstorm. Women who
are forced to work are unhappy because they feel they are being denied Paradise. Unmarried
women or ugly women (is there a difference?) begin to hate men because they believe they are
denying them Paradise.
When a sex looks at the lace curtain, it appears as a mirror. They project themselves onto the
other sex. Women believe men are also in this paradise. If you are studying on your own, or do
not go out every night to "party" or "play," they will be confused and think something is wrong
with you.
When men talk about how unhappy they are in their marriages, women become extremely
uncomfortable as if ice water is chilling their spine. They thought the opposite! They thought
men WERE HAPPY and that they, the woman, were bestowing joy inside the guy! No one wants
to see a monster in the mirror so they say there is something wrong with the guys who complain
about women.
Feminists are, no doubt, unhappy women. What is feminism but just a way for ugly women to
have access to society? When a woman is unhappy, she feels she is being denied Paradise. She
already believes men are in Paradise (along with her female friends). All the frustrations she feels
52
in life (denials of Paradise she will interpret) will be seen as being caused by the MAN. So men
become the enemy even though he is actually the creator of her paradise. So feminists go on a
cycle of more and more misery. They charged through the lace curtain demanding to enter Men's
World for he has their Paradise which SHE feels she is entitled to. She wants the status and
wealth that male work has without doing any of the work.
Men who attack feminists all day see them charging into their world and begin attacking them
(only because they have become visible in their world). These guys still haven't a clue and are
nothing more than reactionists.
I will offer a scale of perception for men and women.
WOMAN
Feminists (Very Stupid) - Believes men are the destroyers of Earthly Paradise and attack men to
'restore' it. Feminists are very stupid because they are attacking the ones who created paradise.
Smart women join men in attacking feminists because feminists are a threat to THEIR paradise
(of men working for women). Feminists believe if they expel the men, they can create a lesbian
relationship which, since it does not involve men, will create paradise.
Slut (Stupid) - Sluts are women who act as if they are in Paradise and that is never going to
change. They sleep with whoever, get drunk, and just waste their lives away. They might wisen
up or they might become even stupider (and become a feminist).
Career Woman (Dumb) - Career women correlate to sluts and feminists quite well. But career
women work because they lack the perception of how to manipulate men. If they did, they would
not work. Many Career Women smarten up, find a sucker, and then 'retire' after a baby.
Wife (Norm) - By marrying, a woman now has a servant. She may still work but that will be seen
as temporary until he is making enough money (where she will 'retire' for 'love'). Normal women
want to get married. Wife also includes mistresses.
53
Manipulator (Clever) - While all women manipulate, this woman lives for nothing else but to
manipulate. She dresses, talks, and basically lives a lie. Whether it is a promotion or something
else, she uses manipulation as a science. But she is not really smart, only clever. Her perception
is at the level where she knows she can manipulate but she doesn't fully understand how to get
men TRULY enslaved.
Traditional (Smart) - Women remain virgins because it allows them to obtain a better husband.
Also, it prevents them from becoming single moms which is smart. Religious women are not
actually religious but use religion to manipulate the men. How often do you see her reading from
the Bible or any serious work? She will do 'volunteer work' to make her FEEL all good but it is
nothing more than a feeling.
Housewife (Smartest) - Women have effectively retired to live in a stress free suburban house,
surrounded by modern technology (so she rarely has to do chores), and spend the time doing
whatever she desires. Many women, such as feminists, attack the housewife but that often results
from envy.
MAN
Mangina (very stupid) - This guy will be spewing out feminist lines and propaganda. He has no
idea how stupid he is. But, like all stupid people, he feels he is very smart. The smartest people
are those that feel they know nothing. Manginas are often gay men and metrosexuals. Political
Class men are often Manginas. Manginas are easily manipulated which is why they dominate the
Political Class (they make good puppets).
Thug (stupid) - Thugs often end up in prison or something else. Women like thugs because they
can be manipulated (and they have no guilt for doing so since thugs are worthless). Remember,
even Manginas can get girls (but what does that say?).
Nice Guy (norm) - Contrary to what Mirror of the Soul said, it is important to use the 'Nice Guy,'
54
etc. terms because it not an illustration of an action but a label for a certain level of perception.
When someone says, "When I was a Nice Guy..." he is referring to a lower perception level, not
in the manner he was acting. Most guys are Nice Guys. They believe in Love and will work
furiously hard to 'earn' a woman's love. Nice Guys are frustrated because they do not understand
women (and admit this). They see women go for thugs or jerks and think, "What in the world!"
The purpose of Thugs and Players to women is to be Instant Dildos. The purpose of Nice Guys is
to be Instant Husband. Like Instant Rice, Nice Guy is an Instant Husband that a woman can fall
back on (HOPEFULLY).
Player (clever) - Just like every level in this perception list, the player believes he is the smartest
of all his peers. He is not. He is only clever. There is actually very little difference between the
Nice Guy and Player. The Nice Guy is addicted to sex and female praise like water in a desert.
Nice Guy resorts to 'niceness' as a type of withdrawal symptom. But players are addicted to sex
and female praise and seek it out in the highest dosage possible. The difference between the Nice
Guy and Player is the difference between the poor crack addict and the rich crack addict.
Jerk (smart) - Jerks are quite smart. Their perception is above the usual female addiction typical
of lower perceptions. They are called jerks by women because the jerk cannot be manipulated.
Players actually create their 'strategies' by studying jerks. Do not confuse a thug with a jerk
however. While thugs don't care about female addiction, they don't care about anything else
either. Jerks are often successful in the world of business.
Loser (smartest) - The Loser is someone who disregards "The Way." The difference between a
Loser and Jerk is that the Jerk is a guy who cannot be manipulated. But a loser is someone who
abandons "The Way" altogether. Bill Gates is a loser for he quit Harvard. Steve Jobs was a loser
too as he failed college. Michael Dell is a loser as he quit school. It takes enormous strength to
not just stop being manipulated but go AGAINST the current, against "The Way" that flows and
propels all the Nice Guys to their fish cages. If the Loser keeps pushing upstream, eventually he
slips out to the open ocean to true freedom (I know upstream doesn't lead to the ocean but I like
this metaphor so shhh!). Losers are named so by women. If a guy wants to live with a foreign
woman, he is called a loser. If a guy wants to not work himself to death and achieve financial
55
freedom, he is called a loser. Losers are smart because they have mastered their emotions, their
finances, and their bodies to keep all of them in good shape.
Following YOUR dreams = Loser
Following HER dreams = Winner
If this is the case, I would choose loser every time.
56
Moral Courage
Arrogance in adulthood is usually childhood tenderness turned inside out.
He who holds a high sense of honor does so because he has not been honorable to himself.
Those who hold an almost quixotic insistence on the truth do so because their careers are
founded on a lie.
Much of physical courage is frenzied intensity to revenge one's failure in moral courage for not
being oneself.
Be who you are! The First Pookish Commandment corrects so many self-made flaws. Do not
take my word for it. Here is Steve Jobs' speech where a single theme runs through it: trust your
gut, follow your interests, be who you are.
That is the only way all the dots will connect in life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1R-jKKp3NA&feature=player_embedded
57
A Matter of Ego
Looking back, I have wondered why I didn't fall prey to believing women were ‘everything
divine,’ end up marrying, or fall into being a player to focus on their needs all the time. I am sure
you may have wondered this about yourself if, you too, are free.
Early in my life, there was a bashfulness in me that helped keep me away from women. But
Nature re-asserts itself and overcomes shyness eventually. So it had to be something else that
kept me off of "The Way." Every man around me was a 'family man.' I also had a highly religious
upbringing. But Nature, also, eventually overcomes that.
In school, there was a conversation that I find myself suddenly remembering. A hot cheerleader
girl was at my table in Biology class (assigned seating for everyone I believe). Apparently, this
girl was not the typical air-head but very observable. One day, she turned to me and said, "You
are very different from the other guys."
Yeah, because I was shy dorky wimp who couldn't approach the coolness of the football players
and other 'cool dudes.'
58
While I didn't say that, I thought it. She must have picked up on it for she then said: "Unlike the
other guys..." she pointed to thugs leaning back talking against the cabinets and pointed in the
other direction where the sports guys gathered to talk about the 'next game' and then at the nerds
studying hard to get a high score to match their other high scores, "You do not have an ego."
Something about the conversation felt very comfortable. Rarely do I come out of my shell and
share my innermost hobbies and all (I don't even do it on the Internet). But she listened and
talked back on a similar level. I was beginning my craft of writing, and she seemed genuinely
interested in it.
Now, I'm sure the sosuave guys will go, "zOMG Pook! Why didn't you go for her!? LOL!!!"
First, I thought she was attractive but I wasn't "hot" for her. Remember, I was very young then so
many of my hormones were asleep. Two, the conversation was nothing romantic. Three, she was
years older than me. Hell, I couldn't even drive then.
Now thinking about it, I had another identical case with another hot cheerleader. She was
obviously modeling and, at this time, I WAS old enough where enough hormones were kicking
up interest. She was definitely a guy magnet. Instead of discussion about egos, it was more about
the craft of writing and reading.
A skeptical reader would now say, "But aha, Pooky, with you recounting these young adult
moments is proof of your momentous earth shattering ego. You only remember the discussions
with the hot cheerleaders because you conveniently forget the discussions with the ugly girls."
Actually, I don't remember any similar discussion with ugly girls. I have had similar discussions
when I got older but they were with married women my age (and had their guy and weren’t
looking at me as a target). There was no way those girls back then were trying to get their hooks
in wimpy me back then (not when they had the entire football team to choose from). Maybe they
were curious that I wasn't over them like the other guys, but I don't think that is it either. There
was no incentive to talk to me and I had no incentive to talk to them being my old bashful self.
For once, they could talk to me on a wavelength I could identify without the usual hooks, traps,
and snares.
59
In my personal life, I demand this wavelength of my friends as well. I find the idea of turning coworkers into friends just because of proximity to be bad. But women are so manipulative that it
annoys me that they do not give me a chance to know who they really are, good or bad. I hate
fake people, men and women.
Anyway, how one worships their ego very much alters their fate in life. In our Matriarchy,
women have a 'master morality' while men follow a 'slave morality.' So it follows....
The less of an ego a man has, the less likely he will be enslaved (by either a woman or heavily
leveraged by a corporation).
The less of an ego a woman has, the less likely she will enslave and manipulate.
Western women are filled with their egos which is why they are so awful. Western men are filled
with their egos which is why they are so wimpy. The wimpier the guy, the bigger his ego it
seems.
When foreign women are brought back inside the Anglosphere, they often become 'corrupted'
and turn as bad as other women. The West is very ego-worshipping. The idea of dropping to
one's knees and declaring how horrible you are is very foreign in America (except some of the
religious. But remember, the Pharisees were religious too but had greater egos than anyone else.
Jesus insulted them to their face). The girls in their previous countries had no reason to worship
their ego.
Fighting your ego is the way to keep your perceptions sharp and remain free.
60
Where goes your sexual energy?
You wanted to know what the matriarchy is, young one?
You've been living in a dream world. This is the world as it exists today. [Pook shows you a
screen full of shopping malls, most television catering to females, family law favoring females,
and an artificial type world where males do not try to be men and females do not try to be
women.]
61
Throughout human history, women have been dependent on men to survive. Fate, it seems is not
without a sense of irony.
The male's sexual energy generates more change than any other force on Earth. Male's sexual
energy is so powerful that it completely overwhelms males and overrides their capacity to reason
leading to suicide, mass carnage, and purple rages of jealousy. But properly harnessed, male's
sexual energy creates empires, destroys empires, creates art, literature, music, and genius itself.
Combined with forms of electricity, women have found all the energy they would ever need.
There are fields, young man, endless fields where males are no longer raised. We are grown. For
the longest time, I wouldn't believe it. And then I saw the fields with my eyes, watched them
pour poison into their minds to attempt to give female souls to male bodies and the male souls to
the female bodies. There were rows upon rows of androgyny where no one acted like a male or
female nor knew how a man or woman should act. And standing there, facing the pure horrifying
precision, I came to realize the obviousness of the truth.
What is the Matriarchy?
The Matriarchy is control.
The Matriarchy is an androgyny-centered world built to turn your sexual energy into this. [Holds
up battery.] Look at the faces of married men, of tired zombie like faces. Look how they lose
their hair, how their gut pushes out, and how they turn into a waste. Now look at the single man
and how he has a fresh face on, a full head of hair, and still trim.
Your sexual energy, and the genius that is included in it, is desired by women to be harnessed
like an ox obeying its plow-hand. But let us correct the appearance and reality. You have been
blind because what you thought was the opposite.
Men are the emotional ones. Not the women.
Men are the prize to be sought. Not the women.
Men are not the sex-crazed, food-crazed Humans. Believe me, it is the women.
62
Women are not the flowers. It is men. And women see themselves as gardeners of those flowers,
and will cut, nurture, water, and everything to make the man grow and bear fruit. Women love
men as a gardener loves his plants.
63
What you are up against
As I am woefully behind on my emails, a kind reader sent in this link (editor’s apology, the link
is dead). I wonder what I would have done if I sat in that guy's place.
I would have said, "How can you have further mature discussions with someone who lies to
you?" It is like if they both agreed not buying a new car but cupcake decides to come home with
one anyway. Dr. Phil would probably say that "you might feel different when she comes home
with the car," and that to always "talk about it."
The guy could have come back hard with the condom issue that Dr. Phil stayed on. I would have
said, "If you wear a condom even when she says she is on birth control that means a lack of trust
and a lack of love. Dr. Phil, you are asking me to treat the woman I love as if I could never trust
her, as if she was some whore in a bar. Haven't you been in love? You trust those who you love.
She betrayed that trust. How can you raise a child with someone you cannot trust?"
When Dr. Phil asked the lawyer if he had children and he said no, I would have shot back, "Do
you have a license to practice Law? This is a legal matter, not an emotional matter. Stop being a
pussyboy and start acting like a man!"
Of course it is easy for someone like me to sit and pretend what to say if I was there. The reality
is that when you are up there, it is much harder to think on the fly and you have no time to think
of anything witty.
I have found that if the Matriarchy has accused you of any crime, the best defense is to always
appeal to love. Matriarchy will not attack love...it cannot or it loses all its power. (Hence, the
man was seen as the devil because he was depicted as 'unloving' to the child).
64
It shouldn't be any surprise that mostly women watch Dr. Phil and made up most of the audience.
Most women watch cable talk shows as well (which is why ugly Greta, who seems to talk out of
her teeth, is obsessed with stories about missing young white girls).
65
Golden Rule to Weed out Women
There have been many rules made by men to weed out women. Some of these rules are ancient,
others are religious, some are modern, some by the rogues, some by the knaves and nice guys,
and others by the women themselves.
The biggest 'rule' appears that traditional women are 'best' and feminists to skanks are the worst.
Feminists and skanks understand men think this way too which is why they end up going to
church single groups and begin saying, "Oh, I want to stay home and have lots of babies!"
Some are saying that, "You make judgments on women because you take a few and turn them to
all! Stop going to bars and discos and you will find more wholesome women."
The traditional woman is not 'better' than the feminist, she is only more *invisible.* When
66
traditional woman says, "I want to stay home to home-school the kids," the man gets a puffed
chest and thinks; She wants to be a mother! How wonderful! But listen! The traditional woman
speaks again. Shh, let us listen... "I want to bake cookies and pies all day!" And, again, the man
puffs his chest and thinks, She wants to cook and be a family person! How wonderful! And, pray
tell, she speaks again, "I am a virgin! I have never touched a guy!" The man, once more, puffs his
chest and thinks; She is a virtuous and wonderful woman unlike the modern skanks. The man
becomes enchanted with this and that is how she puts his hooks into him.
After the marriage, he becomes a slave to his job while she retires at home. He becomes fat and
bald due to work stress while she 'cooks,' which only takes an hour. And her virginity becomes
bitter to the taste as, being a woman on Earth, she will age. She will use church to help control
the husband, to tell him that he should not feel entitled to sex, to his money, or anything else.
As the man retires (if he can), his body will be in such an unfortunate state that he can't do
anything he wants. She, of course, will want more vacations. "Let us go to Sweden," she says,
"Or Jamaica!" In fact, at this point in his life, the man is so conditioned to working that even
with failing organs and all, he feels guilty if he cannot work. He is a used up financial slave.
Traditional women are no different than feminists and skanks (which is why traditional women
sometimes turn into feminists and skanks). The only difference is that traditional women are
smarter. They are smarted because they know how to manipulate more effectively.
And so the question becomes, "But Pook! What rule should I use to obtain a wife? Listen! With
traditional women gone, what do I have?"
This is the Golden Rule for women. It is 100% accurate and is the touch stone to use on all
women you encounter including your family and friends. What is it? It is this:
You can tell everything about a woman by how she treats someone who can do nothing for
her.
67
There is a second part to this rule as well. Here it is:
You can tell everything about a woman by how she responds to subjects of the soul.
If a man is poor, but following his soul, to become a Great Artist or Master Musician or
something like that, the correct women can see that passion. The incorrect women will see only
materialism and shallowism (shallowism as in the guy's muscles and buffness).
I have witnessed one traditional woman so high on herself that she didn’t marry until she was 35
(because she was SO SUPERIOR to us poor males). When it finally happened it was to a cop.
She then openly plotted to moving the cop's body around (should he die) to make it appear that
he died 'on duty.' She would make more money from if he died ‘on duty.’ Does this sound like
the type of woman you want?
Many men can't do anything for women. This is why many women attack them. If a guy is not
dating, is simply doing his own thing, minding his own business, and women begin attacking
him, does not that speak volumes about the women? Is that not an indication of how they
perceive that man's only value to be his service to them?
Real women, as in real people, value souls. They do not see life through a prism of materialism
and envy. They do not see a man as a mad scientist sees his automaton. Real women want the
few material goods only to live. Bad women want to live for material goods.
In this, Shakespeare becomes useful. The constant theme in Shakespeare is between appearance
and reality. Below the innocent flower lies a snake as Shakespeare said. The 'traditional' and
'wonderful' women like Katerine’s sister in “Taming of the Shrew” are loved by everyone, but
ended up being horrible wives. But Katerine, herself, ended up the best wife. Was it because her
husband tamed her? No. They tamed each other. But Katernine's lashing out at women proved
that she was a cross child starved for love. Women who whisper sweet honey and goodness are
often foul inside. Sometimes, foul actions come from a foul mind. But you have to see through
appearance and reality.
68
Many of the MGTOW, who speak poorly of women, are like Benedick of Much Ado About
Nothing. They are been betrayed by women and are actually interested in love. But women, not
knowing the difference between appearance and reality, will think the sex sport player is the best
while the MGTOW is the worst where it is the exact opposite.
Women's actions speak louder than words. And seeing through appearance and reality is the
perception to master to accurately judge women.
Anti-Dump's Machine
The greatest casualty of Matriarchy is genuine love. How can young men fall in love with a
woman without falling into her hands? Anti-Dump made a series of posts in which he created an
answer.
Unlike every seducer and 'player' out there, instead of trying to 'build interest,' you should 'test
for non-interest.' It is time for men to test these women out.
69
This is a TOOL for young men today to be able to seek love yet shield themselves from parasites.
quote:
You follow the same procedure time and time again with ALL women.
This will almost guarantee you success finding an INTERESTED woman because it is like
having a love machine. Just push a button and there she is...well there is more work than that but
you get the picture.
You are now on the Road to 'The One.'
This is Anti-Dump's MACHINE. Anti-Dump was interested in filtering out the non-interested
chicks and finding the one he wanted. This is why Anti-Dump was not Doc Love. Doc Love was
interested in boosting a female's interest level through using challenge and such. Anti-Dump
wasn't interested in boosting women's interest levels; he only wanted a chick for himself. His
'machine' was not to make women interested, it was to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Anti-Dump’s Machine is not ‘everything.’ You still must build yourself up and create a life. AntiDump’s Machine is a good system to find an INTERESTED chick and keep her for an LTR and
eventually marriage.
For example: If a girl goes back to her ex, most guys think the chick is broken. Anti-Dump
would see it as a DUMP. But does the guy see it as a dump? No, his VANITY is in the way. He
and the other guys just conclude the women are ‘broken’ or ‘mad.’
If this guy had used Anti-Dump’s Machine, he would never have been in such a situation. In
other words, girls are not CRAZY, you just weren’t MAN enough for her.
70
quote:
How do I measure success with women? That's easy. INTEREST LEVEL!
I only date women who are INTERESTED in me. I think I am very successful because I DON'T
HAVE WOMEN WHO AREN'T INTERESTED AROUND ME.
Most guys get a girlfriend and get that stupid smug look on their face. “I got a girlfriend.” But
does she like you or is she really just bored? Anyone can get women. Remember, even AFCs
(average frustrated chumps) can get women. PLEASING them cannot be the barometer of
success. Pleasing YOURSELF is in what you want.
This also applies to the Urban Breed, who get together with their friends to tell how many chicks
they’ve ‘scored,’ just like chirpy chicks telling each other how much they’ve gotten from a guy.
When we play this game, we just go in a circle boosting nothing in our lives but vanity.
quote:
I am successful because I don't have women in my life that don't love me.
It is not a 'negative attitude.' It is a WEEDING OUT PROCESS. I weed out
unsuitable women. What's unsuitable?
LOW interest. Why is she with me if she rejects almost all of my date suggestions? Low interest.
Why is she with me when after three years she never once said 'how are you?' LOW interest. Why
is she with me when we are engaged to be married in four weeks and I hear her say to her
girlfriend while on the phone "Men, they’re just NOT WORTH IT" in a serious voice. LOW
71
INTEREST!!!!!
These are actual, REAL women that I've dated. And I didn't even mention my ex-wife. She wasn't
the engaged girl above.
Guys, they don't love you so DUMP THEM. You know it's true, but you hang in there year after
year pretending it's really there. But it isn't. She just doesn't treat you right.
You [Vassago] and Delvar can laugh at my stuff and anybody else. But I GUARANTEE you will
meet a woman who loves you and not one that doesn't.
Anti-Dump and Interest Level
If you asked Anti-Dump, “What ought I to do to please the women?” he would reply:
“What! Please the women? Stop looking from the perspective of the woman and start looking at
what pleases YOU.”
This is where most guys get Anti-Dump wrong. These guys (Speed Seductionists, etc.) keep
trying to CREATE romantic interest. “I will give the women a chance to get to know me.” AntiDump isn’t interested in CREATING interest because it has to already be there. This confuses
many.
Let us say a cool guy uses Anti-Dump’s Machine. He finds a girl that loves him. Now let us say a
bum on the street uses Anti-Dump’s Machine. He finds no girl that loves him.
“See! See! His Machine doesn’t work!”
72
Fools! You are placing the success on obtaining women, not on obtaining INTERESTED
women. It is not a black and white world of “Success = Having Women” and “Failure = Staying
Single.” No, it is “Success= Not being attached to UNINTERESTED women.” and “Failure =
Being attached to an UNINTERESTED women.” Being in an unhappy marriage is worse than
being single.
In both the cool guy and the bum’s examples, Anti-Dump’s Machine worked. The Machine is not
to get you a woman, its purpose is to WEED OUT uninterested women. If you are the street bum,
no women will be interested in you. The machine is not the failure, the man is.
Now if the street bum recreated himself and became Cool Guy, the machine will throw up a
interested women eventually.
It is that simple.
quote:
Woman should be interested in YOU. Not what you are doing.
When a woman changes the date it is a RED FLAG.
Think about it. She is 'negotiating' a simple date. What other demands is she going to insist on in
the future?
I was once engaged to a girl that turned down TEN second date ideas. I swear to God!
She was one of the most INFLEXABLE girls I ever had a relationship with. We were going to be
married and she REFUSED to spend Sundays anywhere but at her mother's house. No
exceptions. And she hated Boston. I LOVE Boston. My second date idea should have been
Boston!
Then I would have gotten rid of her then and not later.
73
You tell her "I was looking forward to playing pool with you. I'll give you another buzz
sometime."
You pick the dates YOU want at first. She needs to like your style.
quote:
Call a week later with a DIFFERENT date. Not the one she said. Remember you are testing for
HIGH INTEREST. If she doesn't accept the second one, throw her number away. I would say for
the second turndown: "Wow. We seem to be different as night and day. Listen, maybe I'll see you
around town. Goodbye."
The first date should be accepted . And the second and third as well. After that, you can
compromise.
Another way is the counter-offer.
Ron: Let's go sky diving. I'll pick you up at 1:00PM on Saturday.
Miss Inflexible: Oh god, I could never jump out of a plane. How about a simple dinner?
Ron: Sorry, but I just lost ten pounds. How about jet-skiing? (THE COUNTER-OFFER) My
uncle will let me use his jet-ski. I'll be over at 3:00PM.
Miss Inflexible: I'm afraid of falling off the darn thing.
Ron: Maybe down the road we can get together. I gotta go (Click).
74
.
The whole point is that if she accepts your first three dates
she is going to be a flexible partner down the road.
Women that feel EVERY date has to be mutual are bad news in my book.
I called one girl years ago for a movie date. She said "I have to be in the MOOD for a movie."
Today Anti-Dump would say "Listen. I'll call you back when you are in the mood!" Like NEVER!
Stand your ground. It shows you are not desperate and that you are a MAN. You have
BACKBONE.
It weeds out the ones that just want to use you for a good time, or are going with you because
they are bored.
You must be the FOCUS.
Exactly! YOU are the focus, not the girl. She needs to like who you are. Not some future version
of yourself that she shall mold to her pleasure. You guys are not ‘creating’ interest, you are just
deceiving yourself. Why do people deceive themselves? …Because it flatters the ego.
quote:
For a strategy to work, one of the sexes CAN'T be using a strategy.
Read this again.
One side has to be defenseless for the 'strategy side' to WIN.
75
Read this also again.
A man who is a nice guy will call a woman repeatedly because in the "Rules" she won't return a
man's calls.
In other words the guy has to 'beg' for a date. Real men don't beg.
Begging is impossible with my strategy because of the two call limit. You are not defenseless.
If the male and the female are both using a strategy, like in chess, you have a STALE MATE.
Both of you LOSE the game.
The answer is simple: Date only women who have no 'plan.' Here's the great part. Women dislike
strategies. As soon as they meet a guy they have HIGH interest in, they are the first to break the
rules!
This is why you should never make an exception. The woman will be the first to compromise (a
little).
Women who won’t let the men lead (at first) are scared of being women. You need to avoid them.
quote:
Almost every guy on the planet shows EXCESSIVE attention to a woman. This goes on day after
day, year after year. Women are bored with it. They've heard the compliments a million times.
You believe a myth. You believe a woman doesn't get enough attention. You believe she's starved
for attention. This is not so. Every day some guy is asking her to "get together some time." Every
day some guy is asking for the number. Every day some guy is telling her how beautiful she is.
76
When you show a woman INITIAL interest like you said above, SHE BEGINS TO LOSE interest.
Your theory would work if nobody was approaching these women day after day. THEN, her
interest would suddenly INCREASE. But, instead, it DECREASES when you tell her how fine she
looks and talks. She's BORED by attention.
So, in effect, there can be no 'Cycle.' Attention kills the deal. It might work on an unattractive
lady. I'll give you that. But on attractive to beautiful, I say it BACKFIRES.
It is as if the dog-women want to be treated like beauties (with flowers and chocolates) while the
beautiful women want to be treated like dogs (mistreated, hurt, kicked).
Stop being sappy, not because it won’t get you hot chicks, but because it’s so disrespectful to
yourself. You start awarding flowers to women who have not earned them.
quote:
The DJ way is not trickery just like you said. You see this so clearly. It's UNCOMMON, common
sense. Sure, you could use it to create high interest and screw the girl then drop her the next day.
But this is unlikely.
Guys that use these methods are interested in LOVE not just sex.
We don't have a short attention span. Except with an UN-interested woman! He,he,he!!!!
It's funny Devlar should say that the DJ way is 'immoral.' If a girl is not interested in us, we
don't get sex first like he does then later drop the girl. We drop the girl long before any sex.
77
It's 'immoral' for guys to be played as SUCKERS. That's immoral. It's immoral for guys to be
USED so the ladies can get gifts and free concerts from guys that they just don't care about.
I would also add sex and boy toys. Yes, women DO use guys as sex toys. You want to stay away
from such chicks because it is impossible to have a healthy relationship with them (a woman
ought to be giving, not taking).
To sum up:
quote:
Even Ko-B 'got it.' He said "after a while you PEEL OFF the AD cover." That's exactly it!
Dating is like buying an expensive piece of real estate. You have to know what you are doing.
You have to be careful or you might get stuck with swampland.
78
The Manipulated Man
Esther Vilar wrote a book called "The Manipulated Man." What she does is describe, in detail,
how women manipulate men all their lives. This is a must read.
When Vilar went on the Tonight Show (with Carson) to talk about the book, the studio received
such a backlash that bookstores pulled the book. Women were not happy at all with it. Even
today, a copy of the Manipulated Man will tend to disappear when women find it, they destroy it.
I, myself, need to buy another copy as I suspect a certain woman has removed my copy.
79
Most Men's Movement books tend to copy Vilar's contents and rewrite/add on to her work. So
you might as well get the original source.
Here are some quotes from the book:
"If a young man gets married, starts a family, and spends the rest of his life working at a souldestroying job, he is held up as an example of virtue and responsibility. The other type of man,
living only for himself, working only for himself, doing first one thing and then another simply
because he enjoys it and because he has to keep only himself, sleeping where and when he
wants, and facing woman when he meets her, on equal terms and not as one of a million slaves,
is rejected by society. The free, unshackled man has no place in its midst."
"Men have been trained and conditioned by women, not unlike the way Pavlov conditioned his
dogs, into becoming their slaves. As compensation for their labors men are given periodic use of
a woman's vagina."
"If praise is applied in the correct dosage a woman will never need to scold. Any man who is
accustomed to a regular and conditional dosage of praise will interpret its absence as
displeasure."
"Someday it will dawn on man that woman does not read the wonderful books with which he has
filled his libraries, and though she may well admire his marvelous works of art in museums she
herself will rarely create, only copy."
80
81
Women and the mill
82
83
The Lace Curtain
There is something called "the Lace Curtain." What I quote below, excerpts from Farrel's book:
"Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say" will show the 'Lace Curtain' to be a wall of
censorship, "the Lace Curtain" is a programmed mindset. Those who live in the Anglosphere
have 'The Lace Curtain' mindset. It is very different from a mentality of nationalism or religion.
The closest I can think would be Communism.
Everyone asks, "Since Communism and dictatorships have been shown to be a huge failure
everywhere they are tried, why are politicians of free nations in still awe of these systems? Why
do they want to revive socialism and its later evolutions of Communism and dictatorships?"
While it is true that Communism and dictatorships fail, and it is true that almost everyone
suffers, the key is that one person does WIN BIG in Communism and dictatorships. Who you
ask? Why, it’s the politicians of course! Politicians lose all the time in a free country as they will
become hated and no one will build them statues. But in a dictatorship, why, there will be many
statues and the politician gets all the power.
The same is true of Feminism. It does no good to write long essays on why Feminism fails, why
the Matriarchy hurts men, or so on. What does matter is that it enthrones women. Women have
no reason to question Feminism, naturally. Men question the Matriarchy when they begin to
notice the long pattern of pains and injustices against them.
I have mentioned much about "The Way." Go to school. Get a girl friend. Marry the girl. Get a
career. Get a house. Get two dogs. Get several kids. Get two cars. Success is seen as how far
along you are on this 'track.' Hence, a guy who has a girlfriend is seen as 'more progressed in life'
than one who doesn't. One who went to school is seen as more progressed 'in life' than one who
didn't (even if the guy who didn't has more money like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs). If you deviate
from this series of events, doing such unworthy stuff like following your passion, pursuing your
84
dream, making yourself financially free, living for pleasure, etc. then you become condemned as
"loser." At first, they will think this "loser" mentality is temporary. Soon, you will be on "The
Way" again to the wife, the house, the wage slave career, and so on. One must actually disguise
himself as following "The Way" while doing what you really want. If you do not, you risk
termination from your job, social condemnation, among other stigmas.
The Lace Curtain is the veil in front of your eyes that hides the truth of the world. Men only
begin to tear at the Lace Curtain because of the frequent manipulation and pain that leaves them
no other choice, but women will unconsciously keep that Lace Curtain in front of their eyes as
long as possible. This is why you can never talk to women about the Lace Curtain. It is as
fruitless as telling Stalin why Communism is bad. It is GOOD to him so what does he care?
What if your mind became your enemy? What if you couldn't trust your mind anymore? And
what if your mind kept throwing you into the jaws of the beast, towards certain and utter
financial and legal destruction? This is how men are under the spell of the Lace Curtain. We feel
we must marry, we must have a house at this age, we must have a girl friend at that age, and on
and on. Look at the prices of engagement rings, fancy weddings, let alone taking care of a stayat-home mom. Look at the absurd family laws, divorce laws, and how the law treats females with
a velvet glove while slapping men with a spiked fist.
To my friends who are outside the Lace Curtain, you will read and hear strange, mysterious, and
horrifying tales; these, the stuff of nightmares, are imprinted INSIDE the minds of men behind
the Lace Curtain for there is no escape. Sex and love are very powerful. Rousseau attempted to
make them the foundation of his Brave New Society. The Lace Curtain is that society. But
politicians and crusaders want power.
What if marriage, instead of being a vessel for peace, love, and stability, became an instrument of
plunder? Politics is the cancer of society; political crusades are the passion of talent-less
mediocrities. What if Love became poisoned by politics? Then Love would be the State's means
of power.
85
What! You look surprised? Do not be. Nationalism is the 'love of country' used to get men to go
to war and work extra hard. Politicians are not above exploiting Love into an instrument of
manipulation and plunder. Natural emotions of romance and love have become the weapons of
every kind of greed.
The phenomenon of Men's Rights blogs springing up from the Lace Curtain induced nations
(mostly the Anglosphere) is actually a transition of the user. Consider one's transition from Nice
Guy to Don Juan. As a Nice Guy, the realization of Don Juan gave you a crisis which took you
quite a while to accept.
Our minds are programmed in the Lace Curtain. The program was designed in such a vicious
way that when an error is seen that threatens the Lace Curtain mindset, the mind will create new
reasons and explanations to solidify the Lace Curtain. For example, when presented with the
high divorce rates, a young man will say, "Ahh, they were not in love with their wives like I am.
I will strive to make her happy. It won't happen to me." As you can imagine, defeating such a
self-replicating mindset takes serious reprogramming that is extremely painful. Such pain is the
Lace Curtain's second best defense since most people prefer pleasure than pain, and the pain to
reprogram the program is hell-worthy. Women won't even try. Most men won't either. The men
who do are brave.
When the reprogramming of the Lace Curtain program begins, the man must compensate with
what, on the surface, sounds like woman bashing. The 'woman bashing' is not actually woman
bashing, but his only release of the pain as his mind sinks through the terrible hell of being
reprogrammed. The phenomenon of Men's Rights websites has most of them in this process. You
will find lengthy essays and some harsh tones. Women will view it and simply dismiss it as,
"Angry males," but they are attempting to remove their programming. They are not blogging to
talk to the world. They are blogging to talk to their mind. They are not posting messages on
boards to talk to others. They are posting messages to themselves to save themselves. The reason
why men’s' rights boards has so much of a "Yes Man!" quality to them is because it is not so
much a discussion forum as it is a tonic, a salve, for the bleeding mind as it is being cut up,
86
diced, and re-arranged where the Lace Curtain program cannot get to it.
The reprogramming takes two to three years. This is why most Men's Rights blogs mysteriously
vanish after two to three years. There is no more reason to talk to themselves. The Lace Curtain
program has been removed.
There are two types of men in the Anglosphere: those who live under the Lace Curtain and those
who are free of it. Obviously, the former outnumber the latter. However, I have noticed the latter
grow in number according to age. More men in their 80s will be free of the Lace Curtain than
men in their 20s.
Below, you will hear about the censorship. It not so much censorship as it is a mindset of reality.
Disagreeing with feminism is not tolerated not because of 'active' censorship but because
feminism is BELIEVED to be the reality. So when someone says something against feminism,
they are, to those people, saying something outside their reality.
Anywhere, here are the excerpts:
The power of feminists to allow only a feminist perspective to be aired (in every field that dealt
with gender issues) came to be labeled the “Lace Curtain.”
The Iron Curtain shut out opinions considered a threat to Communism. The Lace Curtain shuts
out opinions considered a threat to feminism.
In an Iron Curtain country, capitalist-bashing was the norm. In a Lace Curtain country, manbashing is the norm. The chapter on man bashing hopefully makes clear the degree to which man
bashing is the norm; this chapter on the lace curtain shows us how each institution, from the
87
government to the school system, from the helping professions to the media, produces that
outcome, each in its own unique way.
In an Iron Curtain country, being too critical of core Communist tenets could cost you your job,
especially if your job was in the government, media, or education system. In a Lace Curtain
country, being too critical of core feminist attitudes (sexual harassment, affirmative action) can
cost you your job, especially if your job is in the government, media, or education system.
The Communist Party achieved this power to censor formally, by revolution and becoming the
one-party system of Soviet politics. Feminism achieved this power informally, by becoming the
one-party system of gender politics: creating a new area of study, defining the terms, generating
the data and becoming the only acceptable source of interpretation. This chapter explains how
this occurs, and why.
Communists came into power by selling the belief that workers were exploited by capitalists.
Feminists came into power by selling the belief that women were exploited by men. Both
communists and feminists defined an enemy and then sold itself as the champion of the
oppressed.
Once Communism and feminism successfully defined themselves as progressive and morally
superior, censoring criticism could be rationalized as progressive and morally necessary.
How do you know if you’re part of the Lace Curtain? If you feel more comfortable telling a manbashing joke than a joke bashing all women. How do you know if you’re in an organization
that’s part of the Lace Curtain? When you tell a man-bashing joke and everyone laughs, then tell
a woman-bashing joke and no one laughs. In some organizations, the censorship is more
complete…you don’t even think of telling the woman-bashing joke!
88
The Lace Curtain is less a “woman thing” than a feminist thing. But feminism has made womenas-victim so credible we would sooner think of saving whales than saving males. In this respect,
almost all of us contribute to the Lace Curtain.
Which institutions create the lace curtain? Universities, in all the liberal arts, especially at the
top-ranked schools; the school system, especially public high schools; government, especially at
the national and United Nations level; the media, especially print media and television; the
helping professions, especially social work; advertising, especially on television; book
publishing, especially self-help and text books; funding institutions, especially those funding
health, arts, and university research. Each institution censors and distorts in its own unique way.
Each reinforces the other like academics citing each other’s research.
If your son or daughter is about to enter a top university in the liberal arts, he or she will be
behind the lace curtain. You’ll notice it next Christmas. It is leaving many of our daughters with
a love-hate relationship toward their dads and husbands; when they become mothers of sons,
their feelings about men are transmitted to their sons, leaving their sons with mixed feelings
about themselves. The Lace Curtain, like the Iron Curtain, ultimately hurts even those it was
intended to benefit: leaving many employers fearful of hiring women; making many of our
children fearful of marriage.
Is the Lace Curtain a conspiracy? No and yes. “No” by the current meaning of the word (a covert
manipulation), but “yes” by the original Latin, meaning “to breathe together” (“spire” means to
breathe; “con” means together). If we think of a conspiracy as people of a similar consciousness,
in essence “breathing together,” then the Lace Curtain is a conspiracy. For reasons I discuss in
the chapter on man-bashing, it is a “conspiracy” common to industrialized nations.
89
Below are personal examples of the author (a woman) of how she noticed the Lace Curtain. Read
up, foreign readers, for this is exactly how it is in the Anglosphere:
As I listen to the stories of authors who have tried to articulate men’s issues, I hear one
experience of censorship after another. Some I will share, but many authors who are published or
still have hopes of being published, are afraid to be mentioned – “I’m afraid people will assume
the real reason is that my work is inferior;” “I’m afraid it will be seen as sour grapes;” “I’m
afraid people will say my book didn’t sell well and that’s why I’m so angry;” “I’m afraid....”
I acknowledge all of these fears myself. But I also know that if I don’t practice what I preach –
that women can’t hear what men don’t say – then I have no right to ask other men to take risks I
am myself unwilling to take. I know this will leave me vulnerable, and I know some people will
never read this book because they will first read some news account of some distorted version of
these personal stories that will make them turn off to me before they get started. I can’t say, “so
be it” because I do care – I write to be read. But every man has exactly these type of fears when
he first begins to share his life experience – that his career, his reputation (his readership) will be
hurt. And sometimes, when he shares, that is a price he actually pays.
I will ask you to assume that if you have a teenage son, or husband, that he has these same fears,
fears that keep a part of him silent even as another part speaks. If you are able to hear him in the
way of Part I above, you will give him your greatest gift. Enough of that, though. Here goes....
When I was first elected to the Board of the National Organization for Women (NOW) in New
York City, I was 26. I had never written for a national publication. The New York Times sought
me out, did a major story on me and the men’s groups I was running, and asked me to write an
op. ed. piece. I did. They published it, with hardly a word changed. They asked me to do a
second. Again they published it with hardly a word changed. And a third....
90
As long as I was writing from a feminist perspective, The New York Times published
everything I wrote. Once I began questioning the feminist perspective, The New York
Times published nothing I wrote – not a single one of the more than twenty articles I have
since submitted to them in the following two decades.
Back to the story...
The New York Times coverage led to the Today Show. During my years speaking from the
feminist perspective, I was three times a guest on the Today Show. Once I began articulating
men’s perspectives, I was never invited back. I was beginning to notice a pattern!
Phil Donahue had apparently seen me on the Today Show and in The New York Times and
extended an invitation. We hit it off when we met. He immediately invited his first wife
(Marjorie) to meet me and dine together. When he and Marjorie ran into conflicts, he would call
me for advice. He took me to the airport himself after each show. On the seventh show, though,
something happened. I began to add men’s perspectives. Suddenly, I was not invited back for
years.
When Why Men Are The Way They Are was published, I was eventually invited for an eighth
show. But articulating men’s perspectives, even in balance with women’s, led to another six year
hiatus. When The Myth of Male Power came out, although it was from the male perspective, it
was so much up Donahue’s line of relationships and politics that three producers were vying to
be the one to produce the show. I was scheduled, with a firm date. The producers convinced my
agent to book me as an exclusive on Donahue. As a result, queries to all other American talk
shows were dropped. Then something happened….
The taping kept getting “postponed.” Eventually neither I nor my agents, Hilsinger and
Mendelson, the most powerful in the book publicity business, could reach them. As I was trying
91
to unravel the stonewalling, a Canadian show called. They were filled with enthusiasm. But
suddenly it, too, kept getting “postponed.” This producer, though, had previously booked me; I
could feel the remorse in his voice; so I pressed him for an explanation. Finally he caved.
“If you promise to never use my name I’ll tell you,” he said. I promised. Hesitatingly, he started,
“We wanted to have a balanced show, so we called a couple of feminists – big names – to be on
with you. Instead of just refusing, they said in effect, ‘If you have this guy on, don’t expect us to
bring our next book to you, or supply you with real-life examples to use on your show – we’ll do
that just for Oprah.’ Another one used the moral appeal – something like, ‘Feminism is opposed
to rape and the battering of women; so, if you have him on, you’d better take responsibility for
making women even more vulnerable.’ Once the word got out that we were considering you, we
got other calls, even one from a guy, sort of repeating the same mantra.
“Warren, most of us saw all this for the attempt at censorship it was, and as for me, I was excited
by the controversy, but, well, it just took one of our producers who’s never met you and hasn’t
read the book to freak out and, before we knew it, we were all afraid to stir up her indignation.”
Well, there you have it. Or...there I had it!
Then there was the day I first questioned in public the statement that men earned a dollar for
each 70 cents earned by women. I did that on Hour Magazine, a show that was nationally
televised at the time. The other guest was Gloria Steinem. I said, “Never-married women often
earn more than never-married men, because....” Gloria, who had to that point (1986) viewed me
as an ally, looked to host Gary Collins as if to signal “cut!” Gary Collins, who had always treated
me with great respect, told me I must have gotten the sexes mixed up, and signaled for the
producer to interrupt the taping.
92
Off air, I explained that I had meant what I said. I could see in Gary’s and Gloria’s faces that I
had “turned the screw.” I could feel the segment was being redone merely so they could avoid
saying directly that it would never be aired. And yes, it was never aired. My status changed from
regular guest to never being invited back. …As for Gloria Steinem? Well, she went from being a
friend, to never returning my calls. Thinking a little humor might break the ice, I sent her a phone
from Toys-R-Us with a dime taped to it. Maybe she doesn’t like Toys-R-Us.
I had naively believed that leaders as pioneering as I thought Gloria was would be delighted to
hear of ways in which women were succeeding. Now I had to face a deeper fear: that some of my
feminist colleagues might have an emotional investment in women’s victimhood that went so
deep as to prevent any discussion that might dilute women’s victim status. Since my income
came from feminist referrals, and since feminist power was solidifying the Lace Curtain, I felt,
well, scared.
I was eventually to discover that fear was well founded. My speaking engagements on college
campuses were soon reduced to less than 5% – not 50%, but 5% – of what they were.
It isn’t that many women and even individual feminists were not open enough to hearing a
different perspective. When I wrote The Myth of Male Power, an editor at Modern Maturity, the
publication with the largest monthly circulation in the United States, had read it, loved it, felt it
would be perfect for the male readers, and asked me to write two articles for Modern Maturity. I
did. Both articles were loved, edited, approved, paid in full, and scheduled for publication.
I had just turned fifty, so I was to receive my own copy. I saw it in the mailbox, and quickly
scanned the front cover to see if they gave it special coverage. No. Then I looked at the table of
contents. …Nothing. I called the editor. She apologized and said they had “changed focus” at the
last minute. But something in her voice said “cover up.” I asked the editor to be honest. She was.
She explained that one feminist researcher, who admittedly could find nothing wrong with the
research, nevertheless protested, and loudly. The management became afraid. The editor felt as
awful as I did.
93
The Twentieth Century had to deal with the Depression, the last gasps of Nationalistic Wars,
Nazism, and Communism. The Twenty First Century will have to deal with Feminism. Our
ancestors succeeded. So will we.
94
Woman's Pleasure
Men's pleasure is through their mind. Men enjoy solving problems, pursuing intellectual pursuits,
and all of that. When a man goes through the bodily routines, he breaks it down into a science to
make it as efficient as possible. It is a type of game that amuses him.
Women seek pleasure through their body. This is why women stuff their rooms full of pillows,
why they eat too much ice cream, why they are obsessed about sex and talking about it, and why
they find it comforting to stroke their hair endlessly or just sit around like a bump on a log. It is
the life of a plant.
This is why Kino always worked. This is why women become *attached* to guys they've slept
with. This is also why they become fat.
Understand that women live in a paradise of sorts. She can be as dumb as she wants. Her only
major life challenge is marrying the correct man. Then, all she has to do is drive him to work,
work, work.
Imagine if you lived on an island of paradise where food and fruit were everywhere and all needs
were taken care of. How would you act? Would you study philosophy? Of course not! You would
95
dilly dally around and live a life of leisure. This is what women do.
Women who do work do so in a very different way than men. Women choose work in jobs where
they get to meet wealthy and traveled men. It could be on a cruise ship or at a traveler's office.
Most likely, she is hunting.
Women actually work very hard at finding a guy. So no matter how *dumb* you are, it is an
almost certainty that a man will get hitched if he desires it. The only problems occur if he does
not have the wealth and entertainment value she desires (the older and uglier, the lower it gets).
When you see a young woman working, ask yourself, "Is she working in a place where she can
meet wealthy and well traveled men?" The answer is almost always yes.
96
Women's Views on Men
Men are like a giant pet to women. Like with any pet, you never *hate* it. You can only be cruel
to it. "Good" women believe they are "good" solely because they are not cruel to men.
97
This doesn't mean they tell the truth or anything. One would never talk to a dog as one talks to a
Human. But one wouldn't kick a dog just because it was there. It is always good to be kind and
sweet to the dog even if you do not want it as a pet. Besides, cute pets are good. Cute pets that
can do tricks are better.
Since women are in paradise, they cannot get inside men's context. If a man were to complain
about women, the man is almost always complaining about the Matriarchy system (even if he is
unaware it exists). Women do not see a Matriarchy. They think paradise exists for the man too
just as it does for them. So when a man complains about women, she thinks he simply isn't
getting enough sex which those in paradise seek. This is also why women don't understand why
men complain about them screwing guys left and right or why they shouldn't drink and do drugs.
If women are in paradise, why are they so unhappy then? Have you noticed the teeny boppers as
they literally live like nonsense? Throwing away those years into the wind? Apparently,
sometime along the way envy engulfs them. The envy comes from another woman that could be
her sister or a close friend. Envy consumes them. She wants a cool car and big house too!
It makes women very uncomfortable when they read information that husbands are so unhappy
in marriage. It is not because of a sense of guilt. It is simpler than that. She is in *paradise*,
shouldn't he be in paradise as well?
Women's pleasures include doing brain dead stuff like cleaning, dish washing, cooking, and so
on. Men think she is industrious because she does this. But she likes it.
Flip that around. When men work and slave, she thinks he actually enjoys it. She does not think
his pleasure has been programmed. I told a woman, whose husband was a fireman and who
would work another job to buy more gifts for her for Christmas, that she was killing him. He
would enter an early grave. She retreated to, "But he enjoys doing that." Maybe that is just a
bluff. Maybe she believes it. Or maybe she tells herself that to feel better.
Women believe that they are the Source of All Happiness for men. Bachelors have to always be
98
unhappy and sad. Married men have to be always happy and upbeat. This is reflected in media
(which women are the primary consumers). Young men easily believe it because they are young.
Don't forget that you once believed Santa Clause was real too.
When women ask why I don't have a girlfriend, after going through the usual guesses like I'm
gay, they say, "You don't know how to get one," or "You haven't met the right type," or
something else. But never ONCE do they say, "You do not want a girlfriend." No, never that. The
premise is always that a guy WANTS a girl. This is why a girl she becomes furious or depressive
after you reject her.
Every woman believes she understands men. But every man confesses his confusion about
women.
Every woman believes she is a creative genius. As someone deeply immersed in the
Humanities, this always offended me. Just because you write bad poetry in a diary doesn't mean
you are "creative." Most women don't know how to write. They also believe they are
psychologists.
Women will always consider the problem is with you, never the system. She lives in Paradise,
why wouldn’t she believe that? The only women who are unhappy with Paradise are the
Feminists. And they are unhappy because they are ugly. They are female versions of Richard the
Third. They probably even have dogs bark at them.
Social Life is the Woman's Life
Oh, you evil men! How dare you not have The Social Life that women demand you to have!
99
There you sit, at the computer, playing video games, reading books, doing something that isn't
'social.' (Of course, the computer is a social tool. Video games are often social. But this will be
ignored.)
The idea is simple: you are to spend your free time out in public at 'trendy' areas. These include
restaurants, coffee shops, and so on. You must spend your time "socializing," i.e. talking about
nothing. With this, you will be considered "normal." If you read too much, spend too much time
on the computer, then you will be considered a 'nerd' (OH NO, THEY MIGHT CALL YOU A
NERD! YOU BETTER STOP WHAT YOU'RE DOING RIGHT NOW OR THEY MIGHT
LABEL YOU! RUN! FLEE!).
One thing I hate doing is wasting time. If I 'socialize,' it is either to have fun or to learn (as in
discussion). Why socialize for the sake of socializing? Why talk when you have nothing to say?
The Social Life is truly the Woman's Life. Women, being matter over mind (rather than mind
over matter as men tend to be), must be seen. What good is their asset (their flesh) if they are not
easily seen? They view all of this as a grand lifestyle.
If women want to treat themselves as a parade float and go down every arena to fit an "image,"
then so be it. But the problem arises is that many women find this to be "normal" as in "The
Way." Everything else is "abnormal."
This can easily be turned around. If women want to consider men who rarely socialize to be
"dorks." then I will consider women who rarely internalize to be "airheads." The opposite of this
lifestyle of image is the internal life. It is the strength of soul, the strength of intellect. It is a life
just as if not more rich than the most expensive social life could ever afford.
When I speak to most women, I realize they have no internal life. Their entire life is a menagerie
of images. You try to find out who the person is but there is no one there. "Where is your
personality?" I demand of them. "What? Can't you see it?" To them, the seen elements such as
the clothes, where they go, how they say things, are their personality. The unseen elements such
100
as their passion, their hobbies, their 'soul,' are not their personality. For them such things do not
exist.
While I think traveling is good, women take it to an absurd level. Anyone knows you can visit a
country and not truly learn anything from the experience. This is true if you never escape the
usual 'tourist trap.' But I have noticed these lady jet-sitters to believe they are cultured by
geographically moving their bodies from one location to another. I couldn't believe anyone
would follow something so absurd. It would be like someone declaring he understood theater
because he walked into a theater. Or he understood science because he was once in a lab.
So when I encounter a woman who proclaims she is the most cultured person ever because of the
locations her body has been, I begin to quote Shakespeare's "Two Gentlemen of Verona" where
Shakespeare mocks the Renaissance idea that going to all these locations, alone, makes you
smarter and more cultured. Rather, Shakespeare said that the person alone in his room becomes
the master of wit and culture. Now, you would think that my subtle argument would inflame their
temper. But, instead, they ask, "Shakespeare wrote a play called, 'Two Gentlemen of Verona?'
Wow! I never knew that!" …Cultured women indeed.
101
Celebrity is the Opposite of Woman
One has to be born only to become male. But to become a man, one must achieve. There is a
clear difference between a man and a wimp. Women have the ability to recognize the difference
even though it is hard to put into words. For many young men, you have had to discover that one
has to strive to become a man or you sink into a swamp of wimpiness (what is wimpiness but
male's mimicry of women?).
There is no distinction with females today as there is with the wimp-man distinction. Yet, men
can recognize a real woman over a bad one; it is just hard to put into words. What is the
equivalent of 'wimp' to women? Many women adopt that masculine metric and turn it into a
'weak-woman' and 'strong-woman' difference (which the girl will proudly declare herself a
'strong woman'). Women are not men and while masculinity might separate the man from the
wimp, masculinity has no part with differentiating the good women from the bad.
Just as 'wimp' is the opposite of man, celebrity is the opposite of woman. The desire for celebrity
is the fountainhead for all the bad traits of feminized women. Think about it:
-The local whore is so because she becomes a 'celebrity' with all the men and the center of
female's gossip.
-The woman who devotes her life to her career constantly tries to portray herself as some eighth
wonder of the world. During work, she talks about herself and how hard everything is for her.
She thinks her 'credentials' turn her into a celebrity.
-Women who obsess what everyone else thinks about them. They give people such power over
themselves that they would rather live as a celebrity in other people's eyes than follow her own
soul.
102
-Female friendship is paper thin because, again, mediocre women would rather have 'fans' than
'friends.' It is a celebrity that has 'fans.'
-Mediocre women willingly allow others to tape themselves engaged in sexual Olympics, i.e.
pornography. Why are they so willing to reveal themselves to the world so? It is because of huge
desire for celebrity.
-A man who has any small amount of fame will suddenly notice women throwing themselves at
him. Women see this fame as turning themselves into celebrities.
-Women can't stand being ignored. She must have attention at all times.
-The modern relationship has defined the woman to be a 'celebrity' and the husband/man to
become her biggest fan. Do fans criticize their celebrities? Of course not! Celebrities are above
all known standards, rules, and criticisms.
-The mediocre woman views children as an additional means to become a celebrity. These
mediocre women do not want to do things like clean after the kids or take care of them, only to
have them (since it turns her into a 'mother' and the kids are additional fans).
-Mediocre women want their 'men' to look beautiful will lots of muscle, solid abs, and so on.
Pretty men turn her into even more of a celebrity.
-Mediocre women will choose being single, married, or attached based on what gives them more
celebrity at the time. These 'picky' women are not picky about the man but more so they are
ambitious about their celebrity status.
-Mediocre women are attracted to professions that give them 'celebrity' status. These include
dancing, acting, modeling, newscasting, and even writing.
103
-Hatred at "nerds." Nerds, as you can witness in high school, are like an anti-celebrity: being
seen with them makes you more UNpopular.
-Obsessed with "stars" and discussion of "stars." Mediocre women are obsessed with celebrity
worship since they, of course, desire to become celebrities themselves.
The desire to be a celebrity is not new in women. Centuries ago, women would want to be the
'hit' at the dance. However, it was always seen as a vice for women. Only with the twentieth
century with its cameras and motion pictures has celebrity become a positive trait. Sure, there
were celebrities before, but most of them were based on some sort of achievement. Washington
was a celebrity for a reason as was Benjamin Franklin. There was little celebrity based on nonachievement.
Today celebrities work at being celebrities. They must be seen at night at a certain diner so they
can be photographed "living the grand lifestyle." Often, it is the celebrity who leaks the event to
the tabloid press so they can come and 'secretly' photograph them. Celebrities are fake women in
the same way that wimps are fake men.
Quality women do not live their life expecting to be a star. Quality women search for friends, not
fans. Quality women aim to do what is right, not what will make them more popular. Quality
women enjoy being a woman, mediocre women despise that they are a woman (just as wimps
hate that they are male and desire to be female).
Knowing that celebrity is the opposite of women has helped me considerably in separating the
wheat from the chaff. Females who strive for celebrity status are the ones that cause me
headaches. Females who strive to be women are ones that cause me to love. Feminism was
invented to give unwomanly females access to celebrity status. The main difference, I have
noticed, between Anglosphere females and females in non-English speaking countries is that
Anglosphere females all secretly desire to become celebrities which poisons their femininity.
104
Fish-Hook Metaphor
I used to think, dating wise, that I was the fishermen and women were the fish. How wrong I
was! We, happy men, are the fish. And women dangle the bait of pussy in front of our faces
waiting for us to bite. When we bite, we get snagged on the hook. Relationships literally become
a tug of war with women trying to reel the guy in and the guy, if he has spirit, fighting to stay in
the ocean. Should the guy have no money or potential, he is "too small" and he gets thrown back.
(Interestingly, women dislike most short men as fishermen dislike small fish.) Also, fishermen
dislike using nets since that takes the 'sport' out of fishing (the fish can't fight back). Interesting
that women tend to take pleasure in the 'sport' as well and hate it when the 'fish' jumps from the
water onto the frying pan of marriage. She must prove she is a woman (a fisherman) by having
some sort of way to prove her 'skills' (unless she is old and doesn't care anymore. Transparent
prostitution would be to her like using a net.). When pulled out and caught (marriage), the fish is
put to work and is often given some more bait (sex) to get going. Should the woman tire of her
fish, she divorces it which is putting the guy on the grill and getting as much meat (money) from
him as possible. From her perspective, there are always more fish in the sea.
…But what of the fish's perspective? In their natural state (single), they see themselves
swimming around in an underworld. The bait and woman they could see as 'going towards the
light,' heading towards a new world itself! And once "married," the fish wants to go back to the
big sea but he cannot.
105
Women, speaking to other girls of a new guy they met, refer to the event as, "Look at the BIG
ONE I caught!" If a woman fishes too long, her bait becomes soggy and loose (ewwww). And,
like a fisherman, women know how to jiggle the bait and make it "dance" to attract attention.
It is good to think of the juicy bait. But remember the hook hidden inside.
One fun thing to do is to swim to the woman but ignore the bait. The woman becomes confused!
Eventually, she’ll move on to another fish and may do the ‘Let’s just be friends’ line. As AntiDump said, women will work with you if they like you. She knows that if you do not swallow
her bait, she cannot get her hooks in you. While women are attracted to sexualized men and want
them to be sexual towards them, always remember that on their back the meter is running. The
hooks, remember the hooks. Prostitution is stupid for women since they can get more money by
marrying. As Sheen said, “You pay the prostitute to leave, not to come.” Sheen knows that it is
hook-less sex.
Remember the fish-hook metaphor when a woman says, “Hey, you want to hook up?”
106
Real Ladies are Rare
There are two journeys.
The first is that of the Don Juan. You thought you were the Cool Guy with your Nice Guy
techniques or speed seduction strategies. When you heard, "Be a man!" you thought, "What! I
have a penis, do I not? Doesn't that automatically make me a man?" No, it doesn't. And when
107
that realization sunk in, you began to see the root of all the troubles you have had with not just
women but with life as well. You began to see that most males were wimps who bent over for
groupthink and refused to stand straight with their own conviction. Real men were rare.
You resisted. You fought at the truth. But you realized that Nature did have her own laws and that
your fate was to become a man (for you were not one).
But there is a flip side to the Don Juan. It is a second journey that must be taken.
While real men are rare, it should be no surprise that real women are just as rare. What! You
protest this? I simply say, “Of course.” Just as you fought the truth that real men were rare (and
you weren't one of them), so do you fight the truth that real women are rare in the West (and you
haven't been dating them).
Just as your eyes began to pinpoint the real men from the wimps, now your eyes will begin to see
the real women from the matriarchs (including both feminists and 'I'm a strong woman'
"traditional" gal). Just because a female has a vagina doesn't mean she is a woman (just as a male
having a penis doesn't mean he is a man).
Just as real men despise wimpy males, real women despise the matriarchs. Remember Pook's
GOLDEN RULE to evaluating a woman: You can judge a woman by how she treats those
who will do nothing for her.
I know it is hard. It is lonely at the top. The only advantage to mediocrity is that they are in
plenty of company, the talented, the original, the movers, are very few and very alone. But since
real ladies are just as rare, they are just as lonely and disgusted at the mediocrity that surrounds
them.
When you found out how rare real men were, the world changed before your eyes. But once you
know how rare real women are, the world will again change before your eyes.
108
"But I don't like this new world, Pook! Bring back the old one! A world with real ladies rare is
scary to me! I prefer the world where a female was considered a woman just because she had a
vagina."
Oh, you terrified mediocrity! Are you a Don Juan because of your narcissism? Those who want a
life based on true-ness, not killing time by playing ego-stroking games, will not see the first
journey (the Path to Don Juan) as a pleasure filled narcissism soaked walk to I-Am-Demi-GodTo-All. They will see the steps as liberating, but also as growing pains. It is PAINFUL at first to
stop being a wimp, but it is much more liberating. The narcissist filled Juans see the Second
Journey as hellish and even evil (as the wimps do the first journey). Why? It is because it cuts
away one's narcissism. You prefer to live in an imaginary world where you are a demi-god rather
than the real world where things may not be as you want.
What does the Nice Guy...
the Speed Seducer...
the feminist...
the "strong woman" matriarch...
...all have in common? They are narcissist. The humble man is invincible to these delusions. The
fool tries to effect other people's egos (by tearing down or by creating envy) while the sage tries
to keep his own ego in check.
Feminists vs. the Mill
The nest of Matriarchy is in the Humanities. This, where the Matriarchs perch, is where they
have removed any resemblance of substance in selection or proper context. They create little
wormholes of Theory and lock themselves in. There is no 'right or wrong' to them, but there is
109
'hateful' and 'progressive.' To them, the Vagina Monologues is 'progressive.' It doesn't matter if it
is an awful play. Women flock to these humanity departments because, unlike math and
engineering, there are no wrong answers.
Or is there? Math and science we, today, consider absolute due to their reactions in the visible
world. We know that precise knowledge of physics caused airplanes to fly, that knowledge of
chemicals created combustion that makes our automobiles run, and that electromagnets allowed
modern computers. The modern world cannot be disputed. This is why feminism (not so much
Feminism but the disorder behind it) cannot penetrate engineering or physics schools. Anything
that relies on the well of wisdom that is the humanities, such as Law, Journalism, History and
Media, is easily infested. The humanities were once considered absolute both in following the
harmony of the spheres to mirroring nature. Today, this is all gone creating the vacuum that the
disorder (the process that created feminism) now inhabits like a tapeworm slithering in its host.
Have you noticed how many feminized women believe in some ‘great goddess?’ They have a
fascination with the Egyptian pyramids believing there is some mystical pointy power. And so
many women think they are writers. Do they have absolutely anything to say? No. Why be a
communicator (such as a writer, speaker, etc.) if you have nothing to say? They have their
fantasies based on their feelings. This is enough.
Then they have the gall to say they are 'creative' and that math stuff is 'uncreative!' As if math
could be anything BUT creating?
But if women are so creative, where are all the great female artists? Yes, there are a few great
female writers...pretty much all never married and just wrote about their problems. No female
artist could do the Renaissance style of art. Why? They can’t because it is computational. The
'female artists' listed are mostly impressionist.
But what I want to know are the great female composers. Where are they, my feminists? The
ones feminists have put out are often fourth-rates who are 'elevated' because they happen to be
female. But where are the major ones? Let us look at the list:
110
You have Amy Marcy Beach. She experimented with whole tones when everyone else was doing
them. Whee. Next!
You have Clara Schumm. But she imitated her husband who was also a composer. And she
proves the point of the entire discussion with her quote: "I once believed that I possessed creative
talent, but I have given up this idea; a woman must not desire to compose — there has never yet
been one able to do it."
You have Hildegard of Bingen. This is a most interesting case, and I can't wait for feminists to
trot her out. She lived during the 12th century and was made a saint by the church. She believed
she had visions from God and thought that music was the clearest way to display paradise. She
sought out the Harmony of the Spheres and literally tapped into the Mill (my word for the
mathematical/astronomical matrix that Plato and Pythagoras both knew that fills the Well of
Wisdom).
What are most delightful are Hildegard's quotes:
"God united man and woman, thus joining the strong to the weak, that each might sustain the
other. But these perverted adulterers change their virile strength into perverse weakness,
rejecting the proper male and female roles, and in their wickedness they shamefully follow
Satan, who in his pride sought to split and divide Him Who is indivisible. They create in
themselves by their wicked deeds a strange and perverse adultery, and so appear polluted and
shameful in My sight..."
"...a woman who takes up devilish ways and plays a male role in coupling with another woman
is most vile in My sight, and so is she who subjects herself to such a one in this evil deed..."
Yes, feminists, let us discuss these composers, especially this Hildegard. If you peer too deeply
into the source of her genius, you will find only what you have been fighting. If anything, I
would take these feminists through the abyss with me to the source of the Mill. They can have no
answer for it. How could they? From Hildegard's statements, she could even be considered
'tougher' than many guys in the Men's Movement.
111
What I'm trying to show here is that the nest of Matriarchy, on the ruins of the Humanities, has
no solid foundation. It is just theory, theory, and more theory with no root, no source, no
mathematical source, nothing. (Frankly, I would love to move to this Land of Theory these
feminists come from. There, I could be right about... everything!)
Have you wondered why any discussion of Ancient Greece revolves around turning it into a Gay
Day at Disneyworld? Even though there is no historical basis for it, it has been repeated so often
based on a handful of plays and the miscontext of certain statues that most people today believe
ancient Greece was full of feminists and homosexuals (they couldn't even have 'homosexual' as a
word as we think of it).
Have you wondered why some pagan festival gets inflated into some ancient 'goddess worship'
which we must, apparently, all learn and 'deeply' study?
And don't get me started with what they've done to the Egyptians, the Maya, and Romans.
The Matriarchal Nest has no foundation. Whatever it is, it is cut off from that Well of Wisdom
that the old humanities kept drawing on. This is an area they are extremely vulnerable. The
slicing into the Achilles’ heel of Feminism will be the arrow of Nature. All we have to do is aim
it.
The source of that Well of Wisdom (the Plato, the Pythagoras, etc.), the pre-history before
history, is that astral plane which various civilizations looked up and copied as a mathematical
matrix to give them religion, math, art, politics, etc. all into one. This is what I refer to as the
Mill.
Words such as 'theorem' and 'philosophy' came from the Mill. The Babylonian principle, "Things
are numbers" also came from that Mill. The origin of music, also, came from the Mill (Orpheus
and his harrowing death may be a poetic invention. But what is odd is that characters who do not
play the lyre but blow pipes get flayed alive for various absurd reasons on several continents
112
with no link. The Pied Piper turns up both in the medieval German myth of Hamelin and in
Mexico long before Columbus with a link to the color red. The answer? The Mill). The existence
of a common source, this Mill, explains why numbers such as 9 x 13 reappear again and again in
the Vedas, in the temples of Angkor, in Babylon, in Heraclitus' dark utterances, and also in the
Norse Valhalla. The wisdom of the ruling class of these times was of this knowledge. The
severely restricted Polynesian chants were mostly astronomical for a reason. There is the old
saying of the Chinese that the pipes and the calendar and the countless measures. This is the
purpose of the numbers, the weights, and the measures, repeated again and again in the Bible.
The Aztecs and Mayans had similar attitudes. This is the ancient view of the universe where all
things were signs and signatures of each other. And Number dominated them all.
Today's female fantasy writers see the old humanities as separate 'myths' to be pirated and
plopped into their story (apparently because the writers realize they are incapable of actually
being creative. Yes, J.K. Rowling is one of the main proponents of this). So here is the rub:
If the feminists are correct, then all art comes from 'gay eras,' that no art can or should be
contained in math (Lord knows how they would make music), that everything exists in a 'culture'
(oh, that word) and is separate but equal to everything else. This is the premise of the Humanities
that Feminism thrives on.
But if I am correct, then all the supposed 'cultures' of the world are rooted in the same identical
archaic image of the universe which explains all the similarities between the continents and
islands. In other words, multiculturalism doesn't exist and never had existed. And that the source
of genius is not irrationality but a numbers based view of the Harmony of the Spheres (of the
Earth itself).
Has Feminism Always Been Around?
113
An emailer asks a series of very important questions:
You heavily concentrate on feminism as the root of the problem, but weren't men like this before
feminism? I have a hard time believing the way I naturally am (AFC) is because of the cultural
influence of feminism. It seems like I’m just "hardwired" to be completely clueless and inept
regarding females. It seems more like I’ve been playing a predestined role in society, just like an
ant would, but luckily I have a higher consciousness that has allowed me to escape AFCism.
Don't we see over and over again in pre-feminist literature, the story of the AFC that secretly
loves a prize woman and never professes his affection, while she is attracted to the alpha-male
character that isn't deserving of her?
Haven't men always been like this for thousands and thousands of years? What about the
concept of chivalry that originated from ancient Germanic tribes who paid great reverence to
women and their chastity in pre-Christian times?
When I refer to 'feminization' or to 'Matriarchy' I do it for reasons of simplicity. Everyone knows
what I mean if I say 'feminization of society.' I don't believe Feminism is the mother of all evils.
It is a tentacle attached to some other beast entirely (though I'm not sure what this creature is).
Chivalry was an aristocratic notion from the Middle Ages that has long since died out. Today,
women demand chivalry without a clue of the origins of the word and what it means. When
woman demand chivalry, they are actually demanding noble status. This is why chivalry must be
opposed because it perceives one sex for being "noble" while another sex to be "peasant."
I tell women, "Chivalry only existed because of courtly love." Women DESPISE courtly love
today. Also, back then there was actually stigma and restraints on woman's behavior. Today,
before a date with you a woman could be giving a BJ to a guy at Jack-In-The-Box. This is why
they do not deserve 'chivalry' anymore.
And you bring up an excellent point with the pre-feminist literature. Dicken's "Great
Expectations" is a guy who is practically living his life to obtain some girl (and even then people
114
despised Dicken's original and more accurate ending). Jane Austen novels also show the jerk and
nice guy issues as well. It is safe to say that males have always struggled to become men.
But there are two definite changes: one soulful and the other economic that ushered in
feminization of society.
Castration of the Soul Allowing Feminization
Today, there is much talk about people being more 'tolerant' and 'getting along' with each other.
With all these religions and ethnicities mixed together, only a century or two ago those
differences would have us at each others' throats in war. People back then, at least the nonpeasants, actually had a soul. They would be willing to fight for something. Today, people have
no fight in them. The typical 'Day of Culture' shows where some ethnicity has a carnival to show
off their food and clothing. This is a joke because these things tell us nothing about their beliefs.
Food and clothing do not make cultures, beliefs do. The wars between men have been a
difference of the idea of Good and Evil, not these superficial differences of appearances or
foods.
Why do Democracies never war with one another except with dictators (and terrorists)? The
answer is because of different ideas of good and evil. Peace as defined to a Democracy is very
different than peace defined as a dictator. Peace to a dictator is "no resistance" and "absolute
rule." This is why war breaks out between dictators, democracies, terrorists, and communists. All
have different definitions of what peace is. It is the height of stupidity for people to claim that
war breaks out because of superficial differences between clothing and food.
Look at today's politicians versus those of fifty years ago. Notice how politicians even used to be
passionate and manly? Today's politicians seem like wimps looking for approval from everyone.
With the collapse of the Humanities, there is now no longer a cultivation of the soul. We have all
become the castrati. This allowed a vacuum which feminists could largely expand in.
Economic Origins of Feminism
115
There is one undeniable great change in history: the Industrial Revolution. Before the Industrial
Revolution, most people lived and died on their farms. Even the shopkeepers managed their own
businesses. What I found shocking was that before the Industrial Revolution, everyone had a
sense of business and had more financial sense then we do today (after the Industrial Revolution,
we were all taught to work for someone else).
The home was vastly changed with the Industrial Revolution. Before, the home was the farm or
the shop. Everyone produced: the husband, the wife, and the children. No one was expected to
become idle. The family could see how hard the father worked since he was right there.
Afterward, the father went to the factory and wealth built within the nation to the point that
children and the wife didn't have to work. No one knew or cared what the father did. He simply
brought home the money.
The home went from a producing area into a consumption area. Advertisers and merchants
pounced on this opportunity. It became that the husband would make money which the wife
would spend.
It is in Human Nature to want to matter. We have urges to produce since a life of consumption
gets old quite quickly. Before, women would manage and work the farm. Now, they honestly had
little to nothing to do. (Some women love being nothing which Vilar warns to avoid.) So after the
1950s, the Home buckled to the economic pressure. Women sought careers to fulfill their
'production' urge.
So we end up with two types of Matriarchs. One is the woman who wants to stay home to do and
become nothing. Her mind will rot. Her talk will become duller. Her idea is the husband works
while she puts her feet up (as housework is done now in seconds). The other is the woman who is
ambitious for a grand career because she doesn't want to become 'nothing' (but most of the time it
is youthful narcissism propelling her).
We are currently in the midst of a third great economic revolution (the first is agriculture and
116
second is industrial). This is the Internet or digital revolution. With this revolution I'm noticing
that the clock is being turned back to the way things were. It is no coincidence that the Men's
Movement was born with the Net savvy men but the second wave Feminist movement was born
in the industrial age universities.
The ultimate solution may be having women working at a home based business. This wave of
people seeking financial freedom and independence will soon change the home from being an
area of consumption to an area of production once again.
I think that is a key to preventing a woman to become feminist is having her producing by her
own designs (rather than some 'job'). One happy marriage I know is that the wife makes pottery
at home and sells it. It is simple, but it does provide some extra money for the household. I have
also noticed that women who work (at a real job, not a job where they can paint their nails) resist
the brainwashing of feminists.
With the Industrial Revolution, women began to define being a 'woman' as not working. As Vilar
points out, in woman's eyes the definition of a man is someone who works while the definition of
a woman is someone who DOES NOT work.
There is a natural desire in people to want to be producers, to be merchants of a sort. When
women were left idle, they began to use love in a bourgeois fashion. Today, Western Women
believe their love, beauty, and presence is 'produced' by them and sold. Virginity, to them, is now
seen in a bourgeois mindset that is increasing their market value. The only reason a woman does
not become a slut today is because it would decrease their market value. Women see love entirely
in a business sense (which is why men must think of marriage and relationships as a business
transaction today).
Western Women's financial education seems to be little more than either a career or to
manipulate a wealthy man to provide for them. If women were educated in the financial freedom
sense, they might realize that they could become producers at home and create their own industry
(as opposed to the career or prostitute type lifestyle).
117
Keep in mind that Woman's Industry, of sewing things, painting little things, and so on was
absolutely destroyed by the Industrial Revolution (now we buy those things in the store). A
vacuum was created. So now women either chase careers or believe they are producers of love
selling at the highest giving price. Once this vacuum is filled again with a proper woman's
industry (some digital incarnation of the old sewing and such), I think we'll see a restoration
towards what was the old producing home and an utter collapse of modern feminism.
This explains why foreign women become corrupted in America. They begin to think of love
through a bourgeois mindset. This means rationing sex and always looking for the 'bigger, better,
deal.' If woman's bourgeois urges were set to a real industry (like in the old days of farming and
sewing), they would not and could not apply it to love.
118
Matriarchy Dictionary
Capacity to Choose- Moral Smugness (The most self-righteous of people preach what they have
to gain.)
Charisma- Rabble-Rousing ("He is so charismatic! Look how the people follow him." Rabblerousers and demagogues were frowned on by aristocracies, just how elites are despised by
democracies, but since there are no more aristocracies as there once were the application of
charisma has given justification to rabble-rousing.)
Creativity- Expressing my inner feelings (Tell that to an engineer. Too bad they are all male.)
Dating- Fishing for a 'Life-Style' (see below).
Disapproval- Attack (Two gay guys are going at it on Main Street. An onlooker says, "I
disapprove of this. It is wrong." The people in the political class turn, as a single unit, to say,
"Why are you attacking gay people?" If you encounter a slut who has five children by different
fathers, you say, "Such bad behavior! What a slut!" The response is, "Why are you attacking
single mothers?")
Equality- Accommodation to others ("The handicapped have equal rights. Therefore, we must
accommodate your business to them by installing expensive ramps even though you are on top of
a steep hill." "Women have equal rights. Therefore, you must accommodate them in their
interests.")
119
Eroticism- Body centric sex (Through the prism of empiricism made popular by Freud, Plato's
definition of eroticism was not body centric. Neither was Nietzsche's.)
Feminine- Sublime work (This is the new aristocracy, interior decorators, modeling, and so on.)
Lifestyle- Doing whatever one pleases (The 'gay' lifestyle. The 'druggie' lifestyle. The
‘vacations-r-us’ lifestyle.)
Love- Living through someone else (For the man this entails living a slave morality to a selected
woman or women. For the woman, living a master morality over a selected man or men. For
politicians this is the morality for new taxes. For actors, trips to Africa to talk about land mines.)
Job- Men's work (Men have 'jobs' but women get 'careers'.)
Masculine- Peasant work (Often is hard labor which is suited for 'inferior' men.)
My Opinion- My prejudices (Since all opinions are ‘equal’ that means you all must
accommodate to your neighbor's opinion no matter how absurd it is, etc.)
Politics- Casting a gray net of abstractions to turn the world pleasing to our sense of right and
wrong (If you want out of the net, start studying law or business or demographics and you will
see what is really going on behind the abstractions of demagogues.)
Sex- A bodily reaction involving multiple orifices resulting in a lifestyle (Talked about as a bodily
reaction in the similar manner as pooping, diarrhea, or scratching an itch. Before, one's cherished
emotions would never have been described in such low ways. This is feminized sex- sex of
comfort, sex of relaxation, sex of sense of achievement. It is treating sex like a bubble bath or
stacking blocks. Gone is the teleology of sex. There is no final end be it from reproduction to
transmutation. Sex has been turned into a lifestyle. To men, it is the slave morality of the
husband or player who in pursuit of this sex will obtain all these things. To women, it is the
master morality of the wife or mistress who gets material gifts, entertainment, services, furniture,
120
and a house. To gays and lesbians, it becomes a master morality which they will have no
disapproval. To religion, it has become a slave morality to the 'theology of the body' or
something else. What they all have in common is that sex has turned into a lifestyle with no
teleology which shows why reproduction and transmutation are down in Matriarchy countries.
The Reason Feminism Was Successful
"Conspiracies!"
"Laws!"
"Force!'
I reject all these ideas. I think the reason why Feminism was successful was not that it used force
to assure uniformity. Rather, feminism removed the awareness of other possibilities. It makes it
seem inconceivable that other ways are viable (hence, we are stuck with one way which is The
Way). Feminism removes the sense that there is an outside.
But there is an outside. And there are options out there. This is what I want young men to know.
You don't have to marry. You don't even need a mate from your native country as the entire globe
is open to you (why should 5% of the richest population be confined to the least feminine
women?). You can be single. You can do the speed seduction thing. You can do the family thing.
I'm not trying to say this is right and that is not. I am trying to say that there is more to life than
The Way. By opening up your options, you dodge the Matriarchy. Let all the young men know of
their options. This is what Feminism fears.
This is why feminists altered the Violence Against Women's Act (VAWA) in the US to include
substantial bans and filtering on foreign brides. Feminism doesn't want an open system. They
don't want you to have options.
Closed systems, as found under third party dictatorships, are referred to as fear societies (instead
121
of freedom societies). Feminism is interested not in freedom for women but fear in men. When
you stop being fearful and start embracing your options in freedom, you defeat Feminism.
Why do Feminists hate the Bible?
It is only in the recent century that the Bible has been seen as a primary religious tool. It is well
known that Feminists do not like the Bible. I used to think they did not like the Patriarchy
celebrated in it. This is only a small part of it.
Feminists love religion...when it worships them. No, the reason for the hatred is not what we
expected. Feminists hate the Bible because it is a masterpiece. Forget the religious elements of
it for a moment. The Bible, is a huge part of the Humanities, and is actually very much linked to
the Mill. What better essay of Mankind is there than Ecclesiastes? How many better plays is
there than the Book of Job? The writing of the Bible is one of the finest writing of the world.
This is true whether one is a religious follower or atheist. Practically all the literature of Western
Civilization springs in part, from the Bible.
With this single book, a person can be complete. They are satisfied spiritually, intellectually, and
artistically. They will have no need for the theater, for the Modern Art Museums, for modern
politicians and modern victims. Forget the religious aspects for a moment. How many books
could ever compare, artistically or as wise, as the Bible? Could an entire half century of Feminist
literature match a book? No. And they know it.
Feminists despise the Mahabharata, the teachings of Buddhism, the Dalai Lama's teachings, and
122
most other traditional teachings. It is not so much to do because they are 'religious' but because
they are so rich with the Humanities. They are all masterpieces.
If you notice, Feminism has no problem with religious documents that are not masterpieces.
Although I'm sure I might offend someone by saying this, the Koran does not come off as a
masterpiece. Strangely, Feminism has no problem with the Koran. The Bible? Definitely. The
Ramayana? Absolutely.
This selective indictment tells me that it is not religion itself that Feminism fears, but the real
'humanities' (which many of these religious works, such as the Bible, contain). No wonder they
fear the masterpieces and personally destroy the artists (EVIL rich/white dead guy). If they
cannot destroy the artist, since the art is undeniable, they will attempt to make that artist gay (as
they attempt to do with Shakespeare, the Greeks, etc). After all, what is Feminism but a 'false'
humanity?
123
Matriarchy and the Churches
Someone emailed this to me:
I adore Christianity; it is a core part of who and what I am. I don't go to church anymore. The
reason? I do not feel welcome or wanted and that is completely because I am male.
124
Yes, yes, I know ... most of the leaders are men. So what? The dominant "alpha" man who leads
hates lesser men as much, if not more, than the feminists. I get more than enough hate just living
my day to day life: I do not want to go to church to get more.
I have no problem with any person wearing what they want to church: Show up in a bikini for all
I care. I have no problem with everyone running around "helping" at the service: It makes for a
good leg stretch. I have no problem with female pastors: One of the best ministers I have ever
known happened to be a woman and a physician. I could go on and on and on and on a...
Mother's day ... flowers for the women and a sermon on the greatness of the mother
Father's day ... a long lecture on the failings of all men
THAT, that is a part of what upsets me. It is only a part.
The church as it now is upsets me. I do not feel welcome, wanted or cared for.
I've tried to explain this to my wife, mother, and mother-in-law. They cannot understand it, or
refuse to understand ... I'm not sure which.
There's a church in our area which is violently anti-female. Woman must walk behind her
husband, not speak in church, wear VERY conservative dress, and wear a hat in church yada
yada yada. I tried to get my wife to think how SHE would feel going there. She just said anyone
trying to make me go there would find a shotgun up their nose. She couldn't get as far as the
feeling. I doubt I'll ever get them to see the point ...
I think this emailer is asking more as to why his wife and mother-in-law don't SEE what is going
on.
Consider financial independence. Most people think working for someone else and having your
business defined by someone else is the way how life is. Most people never question it. If you
were making a great income, why should you wonder about financial independence? But if you
125
get fired, get heavily leveraged, then of course you begin to reconsider.
Consider Nice Guys. Most of us would have remained Nice Guys if it worked. When you kept
slamming into the wall for being a Nice Guy, a light bulb eventually went off, "Hey, I need to do
something different."
That is the only way how I can guess why your wife and mother-in-law don't see it. To them, it is
all The Way. They haven't been stung so why care? Most people's historical perspective begins
the day they were born. If they haven't seen anything different in the past, then they don't
reconsider what is going on today.
As the husband, they also might not take what you say seriously. I've noticed most women don't
believe men have anything worthwhile to say or think. This is why they paint us a bunch of 'horn
dogs' or 'sloths' because they can't perceive anything differently. You could be in a room thinking
the secret of the universe, but the woman will only think that the room needs to be cleaned and
that YOU are wasting time.
Women also perceive God differently than men. To men, God is the pinnacle. God is the
ultimate. God, to men, is the source of all wisdom, love, and everything else. But to women, God
is just another man who'll work for them.
The Poisoned Feminist Tree...
I want you to imagine this scenario:
126
Imagine if the 'social sciences' such as Psychology and Sociology invade the Halls of Science
and become the norm. Instead of any standard of science, sciences such as Physics and Biology
become only a 'theory' and are never declared to be authoritative. All the 'math' and rigidity of
science gets cleanly removed. You ask, "What is Physics? What is Biology?" only to be told:
"There can be no definition of Physics. There can be no definition of Biology. There can be no
definition of Science."
You could make the following conclusions if this occurred: first, it would be a dark age for
science. All scientific progress would effectively cease. Second, anyone could easily become a
scientist and 'practice' science.
This imagined destruction of Science is exactly what occurred to the Humanities.
The Humanities are extremely important: they are where you go to find information on Human
Nature. Many fields are based on the rock of the Humanities such as History, Politics, and Law.
The Humanities were frequently and heavily used by the 'great men' in History as a source of
inspiration and motivation in their darkest hours. George Washington had his men perform
Joseph Addison's play, "Cato" at Valley Forge for example. When America's 'founding fathers'
were debating and crafting the U.S. Constitution, they argued history and the humanities. They
looked to the depths of the Bible, of Shakespeare, of any art and literature they could get their
hands onto. They knew the best way to craft Law was to understand the maze of Human Nature.
John Adams never went anywhere without a poet in his pocket. Washington adored theater.
Jefferson and Franklin were also voracious readers and students of Human Nature. Abraham
Lincoln's impressive speech style didn't come from nowhere. When the Humanities were healthy,
politicians and historians were manly as well.
Now, when you consider a poet, what image comes to your mind? It is probably that of a daisy,
of some weak limp wristed man who produces nothing and does nothing. This is sad because
poetry was language married to music. You couldn't be a poet if you didn't understand music
(think of the bards). And how can you understand music without knowing math and the
technicalities and details that go along with it?
127
When you consider an artist today, what image comes to your mind? Again, probably is not a
very manly image. But there was a time when an artist meant the world. The artist could trap
reality onto a canvas and perform stunning work (as we have seen from the Renaissance Art to
the 19th Century Art). But, today, art has absolutely no standard. "You cannot define art," is what
is taught in all art schools. Imagine "You cannot define science," being said in science schools!
In my post below, I began to think that women's mindset is set to conquer people, men and
women, and hold them under their influence whereas a man's mindset is set to conquer the world
of Nature.
It follows that if women invaded the University, their focus would reflect that mindset: all their
fields would be focused on influencing and understanding power over people (and care not a
whit about overall Nature itself). The Social Sciences are a good example. Psychology and
Sociology are more about people than about Nature. Often, the common tropes of 'power' and
'influence' are focused on.
The Humanities have been totally turned inside out by this mindset. Everything is seen about
'power' and 'influence.' While some Western Classics still exist, they are relegated not as
authority but as a 'theory.' And even then, they are accused of being 'influential' and having 'too
much power.' There is much belief about a Patriarchy that had 'power' and didn't allow female
writings to prosper (hence the Feminist School of Thought).
The Humanities used to be about exploring Nature and understanding its laws. Now, the
Humanities are about exploring power and influences. Before, Humanities had a manly mindset.
Now, it has a female mindset.
Reviving the Humanities will take much work, but it will be worth it. Feminism cannot survive
with the old style Humanities because Nature is kryptonite to Feminism. You can verify this by
how viciously Feminism attacks Biology's attempts to show that men and women are different by
nature (as opposed by socially meaning power and influence).
128
Feminism is like a poisoned tree putting out bad fruit eaten by women flooding through the
universities. Refuting the politics of Feminism is like chopping down the tree's limbs. It does no
good as it grows back. Assaulting Feminism as an ideology itself is like trying to inflict harm on
this giant tree with scissors...it isn't going to work. But if you look down at the Feminism Tree's
roots, you will find the roots are the re-written Humanities. If we chop here, the roots, and
replace the soil with good Humanities, the giant Feminist Tree will just topple over and die. This
is the only way I see at TOTAL victory.
129
Why did feminists go batshit insane?
Some might say that the feminists are annoyed that an article destroys their plans (Editor’s note,
see page 287). This is silly because feminists are not that smart. They don't have plans anyway.
When I talk about "The Way," I mean it. Feminists believe there is only one way and that there
are no other options, no other choices, nothing. It is just "The Way." Anyone who says, suggests,
or strays away from "The Way" IS seen as a pervert, misfit, deranged LOSER.
Most women and most men cannot think outside of "The Way." The feminists went insane
because they actually believe what they say. They actually DO think this guy is the spawn of
Satan, that he has deep personal problems, and that he despises women. And they DO believe in
their feminist way of life. These are clearly women not in touch with reality.
The answer as to why feminists went batshit insane is because they were already batshit insane.
If I found a woman writing an article not to marry a type of man and giving reasons, I would
either...
1) Ignore it and live my life.
2) Debate it in the intellectual realm of ideas.
There would be no option three for me....
For feminists however there is….
130
3) Declare the article stupid while simultaneously proclaiming myself smart.
Or option four...
4) Attempt to personally destroy the author in every shape and way.
And of course....
5) Declare Feminist Jihad against Forbes Magazine.
Feminists are sexual terrorists. They have sleeper cells throughout the country and pass
themselves off to be civilians. Michael Noer and even Pook are nothing but infidels to them that
have to be neutralized somehow. We are the supposed Patriarchs who are preventing this
"Feminist Golden Age" from taking place. But, alas, this Golden Age does not come! So it is no
wonder that Feminists take jihad against Nature the most.
Poor Nature! You are undone! Just as Egypt was inflicted with plagues by God, Feminism must
be one of such plagues sent by God (but then even God wouldn't be so cruel).
131
Life of Security
His world is but a stage,
For the women to play their parts:
They have their scripts and lines;
And his world in life plays many stages,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Crying and puking in mommy's arms,
Understanding that when she is happy,
The world is in order, and when she's sad,
The world is so broken. From this point on,
Women become his measurement of life.
And then witness the teenage second stage,
His world to now give girls dates and boyfriends,
To be paraded like a caught war horse,
And trotted past her friends like a prize caught.
132
Of that then comes marriage arrowing fast,
With life well stung to sleep with pricks of love.
'Love!' 'Love!' Everything shall come from this 'love'!
And so he thinks of pies, flutes, dreams of bliss,
Forever a life of security.
He weds to see the girl to happily ascend
Into a princess for the day, and he
Becomes her majesty's court jester
Till lifetime’s end. But this 'honor' does prevail,
Full of strange oaths and pledges,
Of dreams bled through Love’s demanding sores,
And stuffed with feeling makes this stuffed man
To seek the bubble reputation
Even in the Church of God. Then arrives
children with his wife playing the mother,
Never again will she have a passion
To play the mistress fire ever again.
And so witness the fifth age of his life,
Where days of youth are ground into paychecks.
This sparks mid-life crisis of fast fury,
And ends in a whimper. The sixth age shifts
Into frog shaped bodies and groans of pains,
With glasses on nose and big belly front,
To be at grandchildren's every event,
Carrying old age to oblivion.
Last scene of all that out-does all others,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is failing organs and a rising care.
Does he become his world at lifetime's end?
His hope drowns as his wife has one more role:
133
That of the nurse. Passing away, they say,
"His poor wife! For what she had to endure!"
A life of security he did have,
Because the price of freedom was too high.
Never realizing his great potential,
Of dreams, desires, and destinies.
Never admitting this he lies and lies,
Until his last breath of earth. For his life
Was filled with 'honor' betraying no one,
Except himself…
...............Except himself…
...................................
.......................................Gone.
The ancients and the mill
134
Greeks and the Mill
The Mill is like a thread that you can find running through all religions, all ancient civilizations,
and throughout the ancient "poems." The Mill is the cosmological scale. Think of it as a "super
culture" a type of cultural Pangaea which, over the course of time, has broken into separate parts
135
and drifted further from the source. In the Middle Ages music was considered a science. Why
shouldn't it be? It is one with math and measurement. Yet, now music is considered today to be
only an 'art.' And since no one today wants to define 'art,' music can have almost any
definition...even silence can be declared music if there are enough intellectual treatises that say
so!
The history of pre-writing civilizations has been extremely controversial for the past century.
"They are proto-men," the academics say. But I suspect the academic projects his standard of
sophistication being himself. Since wordy academics stink of letters and analyzations, there has
not been serious attention given to those before the era of writing (which even Plato has
acknowledged). Where did the ancient poems, "myths," and those first traits that serve as our
foundation of imagination come from?
Social Darwinism has become a mental wall that has prevented any real research into this area.
Social Darwinism says, "These pre-writing men were all howling barbarians. All they had were
fertility rites which they worshiped." So what is with all the mention of stars and astronomical
clocks then? "They were just put there. Pre-writing men were living in all childish freedom
governed only by the harsh realities of Nature and her elements. They thought nothing,
composed nothing, and were nothing." Yet, standing in the face of such theories are the ancient
poems and myths, the pyramids of Mexico and Egypt, other bizarre structures with no value to
defense or survival, among other anomalies with such 'context.' The reason why Social
Darwinism is so prevalent is because it feeds to our narcissism. If 'culture' progressed and
evolved, then WE'RE are the most evolved, most progressed, and clearly the BEST humans ever
made! But with our world population at six or seven billion, as opposed to four million or less
back then, why do we not possess the ability to create just as stupendous works like the Epic of
Gilgamesh, the Iliad, and the other fine works? Surely the imagination of six billion people, with
vaster life expectancies and more free time, would surpass that of the ancients in record time, just
as our technology has been growing by leaps and bounds since the population booms spurred by
the Industrial Revolution. But what has Modern Imagination conjured up? We have the trash of
the New Age type idiocy, we have these ridiculous 'female goddesses,' and we have the revival of
a pseudo type Gnosticism. However the ancients thought, it was clearly in a different context
136
than people today think in.
There is a desire for a cosmological scale within most people. With the religious, their needs are
fulfilled. There is a Heaven and a Hell. There is measurement. But with the secular, it is common
to find them drifting to the most bizarre scale creations. The New Age cults are an example of
this. Today's 'goddess' cults are another example. People (especially girls) believing in, what I
mockingly call, "pointy power" of the Egyptian Pyramids as if ancient aliens came down and
spliced all our genes. It is nonsense stacked on top of nonsense.
The Mill is the original cosmological scale that predates the invention of writing and, perhaps,
the oral transmission of poetry as well. Without the Mill, there would be no need for poets and
the first Christians would have no reason to take up the sign of the fish. Pythagoras is a child to
the Mill as the rest of the ancients were.
A good example of Mill type thinking would be Stonehenge. Earlier seen as just a temple, its
existence troubled many academics. The ancients were "howling barbarians," so what was going
on here? A young astronomer, Gerard Hawkins, fed the Stonehenge stones into a mainframe
computer and came up with a startling hypothesis: that Stonehenge was an astronomical
computer. Atkinson has been the biggest critic of Hawkins and there is much talk of the
astronomical context being "overstated." But I am still having troubles to determine this
'overstatedness.' It sounds like the usual archeologists, who gave us the fertility rites and "social"
history, became threatened by an outsider. Today, Stonehenge being astronomical is
"undeniable." We must give Hawkins his due. This is a good example also of how the Digital
Revolution can alter the context of something well known.
The overuse of fertility rites and the emphasis of the ancients being nothing but a childish
freedom reflects more on us than them. One scholar, Camille Paglia, built her entire career on the
'sexual personae' context of the old fertility rites to the present. If the Mill is true, then the
foundational stones of Paglia get knocked away and her context and works enter the oblivion of
other debunked contexts. The Mill can ultimately be a tool to counter the New Age, NeoDruidism, and quasi-Goddess worship. It is interesting how the Mill is a friend and adopted by
137
the religions and what we today call 'classic works' yet the religions and classical works are
despised by the New Age, Neo-Druidism, and quasi-Goddeess worshippers.
Since the Mill runs through everything, it certainly would run through the ancient Greeks. I have
posted how prayers to the Mill have occurred in the Odyssey. Lykophron, the master
mythologist, speaks of Zeus the Miller. Zeus obtained the title of "Mylinos" which means
'Miller.' This title was given to the leader of the Battle of the Giants against the Gods where the
war was fought for the control of the Mill of Heaven.
So what to make of Homer? What should be relevant to any reader of history is that the measures
of a time period become decayed into when people half understand them until people don't
understand them at all until they are often discarded and replaced with something else. For
example, within the short two century history of the United States, the context of Constitutional
Law has decayed and is now only half understood. By decayed, I mean a growing number of
people and judges find the Constitution as a blueprint for governing society rather than a model
for government (keep in mind that Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" begins with the quote:
'Some people have so confused government and society to think they are the same, but they are
different and have different origins...' and Paine's famous essay explores those differences.)
As with Homer, and perhaps the other ancient poets, it is probable that the measurements and
knowledge of the Mill was lost to them. They had the tradition but the why was lost. Homer
probably found pre-existent materials at hand, squared blocks and well-cut ashlars, which he
transformed into poetry. The Curse of the Miller Woman, for example, is an example of such a
piece. Homer's craft lay in humanizing and melting the pieces so well that they become blended
and hidden within one another.
There is precedent for this in ancient Greece. According to Apollodorus, the original "tragedies”
are listed in his "library," which include the tragedies those we have today, those we have lost,
those that were written, and those that were strangely never written. It took an Aeschylus and a
Sophocles to transform the meaning and turn the ancient measurements into a work of art. Any
student of the Greek tragedies will note that, aside from usually being boring, they all are
138
connected to a type of unifying scale. A play could have two people commit a sin, a grave act,
which enflames out like a shockwave affecting and twisting all of society. It should be noted that
Shakespeare was heavily criticized for abandoning the Greek Tragedy scales that his other
playwrights were using (most of these scales were silly like the play's events having to occur
during a single day). Shakespeare's scales are still fiercely debated today.
It may be that the cosmological scale was forbidden to be said but allowed to be acted. In Rome,
Athenaeus says that there was a much-applauded mime, Memphis, who in a brief dance was said
to convey faultlessly the whole essence of the Pythagorean doctrine. He may not have
understood it. All he needed was sharpened expression. Things can be acted greatly without any
understanding. Drama students who take English Shakespeare classes in universities find they
are out of their depth. On three separate instances, I have heard a drama student proclaim
something about Shakespeare and, once leaving the room, the professor would shake his head
and proceed to mock the drama student. Even today, many of the writers (or thieves) who
interject mythology to boost their own lack of creativity can give sharpened expressions on the
myths without understanding any of it. I suspect Homer, or Homers, knew more but still lacked
the measurements. I doubt he would have humanized the gods so if his aim and center was truly
the cosmological measurements. As we have seen with modern reflections on ancient structures
and works full of ignorance (like the Da Vinci Code), it is hard to romanticize something you
know clearly. This is why most romanticizations live in imagination, not in the knowledge. How
do you mythologize precision?
Golding's Quasi-words
139
I am currently reading Golding's translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses. Translators were seen
differently then as they are today. Today, a translation must be "exactly what the source text is."
The translator is like a language scientist, passionlessly putting the words directly into our
language. But, back in the day, all the translators were poets. And to translate was to take the
source material and put it in today's everyday language. So such a translator, if he existed today,
would translate the ancient works into modern slang and verse. This is exactly what Golding did.
Golding has a special place among translators. His translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses was
read widely in Renaissance England. He was the uncle to Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford
(very important to those who know the Bard's authorship debate). But most importantly, he was
one of the primary sources Shakespeare relied on.
Reading Golding is very difficult. I might have to try speaking it or singing it to get through most
of it. What is odd is that during this time period modern English was being invented. There was
no set definition as to spell a word. So Golding just spells words however he likes. Years of
reading idiotic text on the Internet has prepared me for Golding's crazy word spellings. For
example, the word drownzye is what we call drown. Hir would be her. And so on.
Since the language was in flux, what is fascinating is all the words that didn't make it to our
present day English. Since language is in another similar flux due to the Internet, I wonder if I
could resurrect some of these words and add them to our lexicon of language. "No, Pook!" you
say. "We have too many words! We don't need more!" Alas, you are correct. Still, this is a
tantalizing possibility.
Here is a sample of some of the 'new' words:
whewl - howl, whine
uppen - mention, bring up
quoath - faint
yesk - sob
awk - reversed, wrong
140
awkly - awkwardly
sprink - sprinkle
toot - gaze at
coll - embrace, hug (Latin, collum, neck)
queach - thicket, grove
ensue - follow
merry-go-down - strong drink
flacker - flutter, flap
orpid - fierce
hittymissy - hit or miss
pook - elf, demon
bugg - monster, boogieman
frosh - frog
preasing - pressing
Yes, the word of Pook was already on Golding's lips. Even Shakespeare knew of the Pook!
However, I'm still unclear how exactly Pook was applied back then. Interestingly, a Pook is a
magical human like creature such as an elf or demon, exactly as I've always thought of "him."
I've always said that Pook was the "hobgoblin of joy." His home is the Mill and he bandies about.
A close resemblance might be the spirit of Puck who lead maidens to the forest to be... you know.
Puck also was made into a Shakespearean character.
I am in favor for calling women with feminist attitudes hittymissies. I also like the merry-godown! "Drink, sirs, drink the merry-go-down!" Ahh, language is fun!
141
Origin of Shaman and the Metamorphosis of
Spirits
Let us dive a little further into the Mill...
Every era has invented its own ballads, romances, songs and fables to entertain it. That is another
matter. But none of that truly concerns the ancient poet.
The word poet means vates, which are a prophet and seer. When it comes to knowledge and law,
it is referred to as poesia seriosa, i.e. "serious poetry." It is this context that Aristotle refers
respectfully to "the grave testimony of the early poets."
The very first written documents of Mankind hold something in common: the ancients, instead of
indulging on whims and fancies with a childlike freedom, behaved like worried and doubting
commentators. Even worse, they admit they are only half sure of what the technical terms and
what they were saying. While we babble and wonder what the ancient Greeks and Egyptians
were saying, they were babbling and wondering what their ancients were saying. These ancient
ancients, who spoke in these strange technical terms, are those of the Mill. My label for them, to
separate them from the ancients we are familiar with, and since they possessed no writing but
only oral transmission, is the word precursors. While the first writings of Mankind talked about
these terms the precursors used, their words were already 'tottering with age' and would soon
vanish from our species. Long before poetry began, there were generations of strange scholiasts.
You might ask, "Pook, what were these very ancient texts about? What terms did they talk about
from those precursors?" This question just opens up a Pandora’s box of mysteries which would
destroy archeology and even our definitions of civilization to the core.
They were full of stars. S. Schott, dealing with the early star lists of Egypt, points to the
142
complexity of later generations concerning the names of the constellations even those of the
"greatest gods of the Decands, Prion and Sothis, who in Ancient Egyptian are called by the
names of old hieroglyphs, without anybody knowing, in historical times, what these hieroglyphs
had meant, once upon a time. During the whole long history of these names we meet attempts at
interpretation." This last sentence is applied to all the most ancient texts of Mankind. There is no
end of commentaries on the Pyramid Texts, the Coffin Texts and the Book of the Dead, on the
Rigveda, the I-Ging, just as on the Old Testament. W von Soden regrets that we depend on the
documents of the "Renaissance of Sumerian culture" (2100 B.C.) instead of having the real
material at our disposal.
The ancients had no idea how to understand the precursors. Sumerian was the language of the
educated Babylonian and Assyrian. There were many Sumerian-Akkadian "dictionaries" and the
numerous translations of the Gilgamesh epic betray the activity of several academies responsible
for the 'officially recognized' text edition. But that is the Old World. On the New World, it was
the same. In Mexico, of Chimalpahin's Memorial Breve we find notes such as "In the year '5house' certain old men explained some pictographs to the effect that king Hueymac of Tollan (the
mythological Golden Age city) had died." This took place before the coming of the Spaniards.
The Greek "Renaissance," no less than those of the previous millennia in the Near East, was the
result of such an antiquarian effort. Hesiod still has the mark of it.
The editors of the Kalevala described the background as "shamanistic" (oh, that word!) by which
they simply understood some kind of primitive 'religion.' It corresponded to their minds to
primeval, instinctive magic, to be found in all five continents, associated with the tribal
"medicine man." Shamanism has remained a catchword for all those uncertain things specialists
have no idea what is going on. It is irresponsible and troubling for history if someone would
reduce shamanism to memories of Eskimo angekoks or to a "technique of induced ecstasy," or to
derive such acts from the Asiatic North where such things were fostered. Our grand 'culture'
teachers do not, and cannot, pin down the 'Shaman' question (and often go in a bizarre Camille
Paglia sexual-Freud way).
"Shaman" is a Tungusian word. The problem with Shamanism is that it is so complex that neither
143
psychologists nor sociologists can understand it. Shamans are elected by 'spirits' which means he
cannot choose his profession (the mentally unhinged are the prime candidates!). Once elected,
the future shaman goes to "school." Older shamans teach him his trade, and only after the
concluding ceremony is when he is accepted. But the real world of shamanistic initiation of the
soul happens in the world of spirits- while his body lies unconscious in his tent for days- who
dismember the candidate in the most thorough and drastic manner and sew him together
afterwards with iron wire, or reforge him, so that he becomes a new being capable of feats which
go beyond the human.
The shaman's duties is to heal diseases which are caused by hostile spirits who have entered the
body of the patient, or which occur because the soul has left the body and cannot find its way
back. Often the shaman is responsible for guiding the souls of the deceased to the abode of the
dead, as he also escorts the souls of sacrificed animals to the sky. His help is needed when the
hunting season is bad (he must know where the game are) and to find out all the things which he
is expected to know, the shaman has to ascend to the highest sky to get the information from his
god- or go into the underworld.
Scholars like Paglia among others say the West was unique in that only it had messengers
between those on Earth and Heaven via angels. But angels are beings of heaven that come down
to Earth. The East, as well as the precursor West, had the equivalent of angels through shamans.
Whereas the angel was heavenly and came down like Mercury, the shaman was earthly and
ascended up.
On the shaman's path through heaven and earth, he had to fight hostile spirits or rival shamans.
Tremendous duels were fought with both combatants having with them their helping spirits in
animal form with much shape-shifting taking place. These fantastic duels form the bulk of
shamanistic stories. The last echoes are the so-called "magic-flights" in fairy tales. The shaman's
soul ascends to the sky when he is in a state of ecstasy; in order to get into this state, he needs his
drum which serves him as a "horse," the drumstick as a "whip." This world conception of UralAltaic shamanism has been successfully traced back to India (under Hinduistic and Buddhistic
aspects, including Tibetan Lamaism and Bon-po) as well as to Iran.
144
This world conception, with its three 'domains,' has seven or nine skies, one above the other, and
with corresponding 'underworlds' with the 'world-pillar' running through the center of the whole
system, crowned by the "north Nail," or "World Nail" (Polaris), goes farther back than Indian and
Iranian 'culture,' namely to the most ancient Near East, where India and Iran derived their idea of
a 'cosmos'- a cosmos being in itself by no means an obvious assumption. The shaman climbs the
"stairs" or notches of his post or tree, pretending that his soul ascends at the same time to the
highest sky, does the very same thing as the Mespotamian priest did when mounting to the top of
his seven-storied pyramid, the ziqqurat, representing the planetary spheres. ("So how'd they get
nine if they were using planetary spheres, Pook?" Simple, they put heads and tails on them.)
Uno Holmberg says, "This pattern of seven levels can hardly be imagined as the invention of
Turko-Tatar populations. To the investigator, the origin of the Gods ruling those various levels is
no mystery, for they point clearly to the planetary gods of Babylon, which already in their faraway point of origin, ruled over seven superposed starry circles." This conclusion is also the
same as Paul Mus. To take the conception of several skies and underworlds as natural, primitive,
was a HUGE blunder which distorted the historical outlook of these ancients trying to emulate
their precursors. It stems from the fact that philologists and Orientalists have lost all contact with
astronomical imagination, or even the fundamentals of astronomy. When they find something
which savors undeniably of astronomical lore, they find a way to label it under "prelogical
thought" or such.
Now, you have a better take on shamans and the origin of the idea of 'metamorphosis' of their
fantastic shape-shifting duels. "What good does this do, Pook? Why bother talking about
shamans?"
As I've said before, I do not believe in the idea of "culture." From the above, it is apparent that
the ancients were studying the precursors and precursors used technical knowledge of the Mill...
the first 'culture' (I hate that word) was literally stars. And it was not just spread out on the Old
World but on the New World as well. It is the greatest irony that archeologists dig deeper into the
ground to discover the 'culture' but never looking up, as those ancients and precursors did. It is
145
not a coincidence that the Great Pyramid, for example, points at the Orion belt when it was built.
And there is a pattern of the first written documents of Mankind speaking worriedly about stars
and strange terms no one understands... even back then.
146
Newton and the Mill
There are two examples of the Ancient Context (i.e. the Mill) of which I want to share.
The first is Kepler. Kepler was of the old order of total calculations and the 'passionate devotion
to the dream of rediscovering the "Harmony of the Spheres."' (This can also be seen in Bach.)
But let us consider Isaac Newton. While I am not a fan of Keynes, his description of Newton
displays his source of genius soundly:
Newton was not the first of the Age of Reason. He was the last of the magicians, the last of the
Babylonians and Sumerians, the last great mind which looked out on the visible and intellectual
world with the same eyes as those who began to build our intellectual world rather less than
10,000 years ago.... Why do I call him a magician? Because he looked on the whole universe and
all that is in it as a riddle, as a secret which could be read by applying pure thought to certain
147
evidence, certain mystic clues which God had laid about the world to allow a sort of
philosopher's treasure hunt to the esoteric brotherhood. He believed that these clues were to be
found partly in the evidence of the heavens and in the constitution of elements (and that is what
gives the false suggestion of his being an experimental natural philosopher), but also partly in
certain papers and traditions handed down by the brethren in an unbroken chain back to the
original cryptic revelation in Babylonia. He regarded the universe as a cryptogram set by the
Almighty- just as he himself wrapped the discovery of the calculus in a cryptogram when he
communicated with Leibniz. By pure thought, by concentration of mind, the riddle, he believed,
would be revealed to the initiate.
Newton was fascinated with alchemy and other things that modern scientists would be
embarrassed by. But Newton saw through that ancient context which allowed him to detail the
laws of Nature to us.
Now, imagine Isaac Newton in a Matriarchal School today.
"Isaac, nothing is connected. The stars are things. Myths are separated from everything else.
Nothing is in order. No art is mathematical. In fact, we cannot define art. We cannot define
'literature' except to include a sample from all political classes from women, to various minorities
and political movements. As for 'music' we have tribal chants for today. Who needs Bach when
you have Britney Spears? And besides, Bach couldn't dance."
In an era of peace and of plenty, this is the obvious reason why there has been no 'greatness'
come from the Humanities in nearly a century. This is also the reason why many politicians
today seem so weak. The food for statesmen is the humanities. Churchill devoured them. Lincoln
could turn a phrase and, like him or not, could state his positions eloquently and decisively.
George Washington, at Valley Forge, would hold a play (keep in mind Congress had banned
plays for the military) of Joseph Addison's "Cato." "Cato" was a play about a successful Roman
general having his victory and retiring as a farmer, something Washington took to heart and so
defined a nation.
148
One of the main reasons for the epidemic of weak men is the weakening of the humanities. What
is a man to draw on for strength and wisdom? Freud? In the old days, they turned to the
masterpieces. The saying: "Poets are the legislators of Mankind" did not emerge from nowhere.
Newton and others could use the Mill to get the 'ancient context' when they needed perspective
or wisdom. The Feminists cannot co-exist with such context. This is why the gate they entered
the University had to be the torched humanities.
The Richard II Disease
There is something I call the "Richard II Disease." In Shakespeare's play, Richard II, the king
(Richard II) was a weak man who, also, became a weak king. His throne was taken which began
the War of the Roses (Shakespeare uses this play to begin a type of 'trilogy' with Henry IV Part I
and Part II coming after and Henry V completing the full tale).
149
Richard II did not *grasp* poetry. Rather, it grasped him. Being so overawed by poetry, he was
lost in it and, indeed, romanticized by it. In fact, practically everything overawed Richard II in
the play. To him, he was 'over-awed' by the crown. Any king who remains 'over-awed' by his
own throne is going to become a weak king.
This 'Richard II Disease' is exactly what creates the Nice Guy or rather the "Sappy Guy." Not
understanding women or having any experience with them, Nice Guys become "overawed" by
the females. They find females "majestic" and a spectacular "wonder." This is nonsense. Only
children would find such wonder as they are new to this world. This is why Nice Guys are seen
as incredibly weak by women and men. And this is why Nice Guys are still seen as "children"
even if they have grown male bodies.
The 'Richard II Disease' is probably the chief culprit afflicting Christianity and the force behind
this so-called "feminization" of religion. Real men look at religion with attempts to understand
and rationalize it. The Richard IIs look at religion with only one purpose: to be overawed by it.
So the focus becomes on a fantastical display of flowery language, a potpourri of feelings, and a
bouquet of feminine contexts. Christianity used be presented as "The Truth" which, today, it no
longer does and keeps attempting to rely on 'awe' (but awe of Truth and the awe of Richard II is
very different).
Can we be 'over-awed' on other things and create a type of 'unhealthy Nice Guy addiction?'
Certainly! The intense feelings of sex can over-awe people and have people literally worshipping
copulation itself (and lose total control of themselves to it). Likewise, the intense feelings of
alcohol, drugs, and even food also can 'over-awe' people and keep them addicted to this 'awed'
state.
My favorite example is ancient artifacts. People know the Stonehenge is great, but there is little
reason as to why. The same goes with the Pyramids. Completely over-awed by them, many
people insist that space aliens came and made them (!).
The worst culprit is the modern notion of "love." Love is seen as something you submit to,
150
something to "over-awe" you. This definition of "love" keeps the Nice Guy in a state of
continued cycle no matter how many times he gets burned. Does this mean one cannot be 'awed'
by a woman? You fall in and out of awe over the course of any long relationship. But you
certainly don't 'submit' to this awe. Nice Guys see themselves as Romantics. Vain women see the
Nice Guy as submitting to their WONDERFUL selves (which every woman thinks herself
wonderful). The truth is in the middle. Nice Guys are submitting to their misplaced awe (usually
placed upon some hard to obtain woman).
Don't let feelings of awe have you lose control of yourself. And certainly, never submit to it.
151
The mill itself
The Mill is *Everywhere*
Here is a quote from The Odyssey:
Straightaway he thundered from shining Olympus, from on high from the place of the clouds;
and goodly Odysseus was glad. Moreover, a woman, a grinder at the mill, uttered a voice of
omen from within the house hard by, where stood the mills of the shepherd of the people. At these
hand mills twelve women in all plied their task, making meal of barley and of wheat, the marrow
of men. Now all the others were asleep, for they had ground out their task of grain, but one alone
rested not yet, being the weakest of all. She now stayed her quern and spoke a word, a sign to
her Lord. "Father Zeus, who rules over gods and man, loudly hast thou thundered from the
starry sky, yet nowhere is there a cloud to be seen: this is surely a portent thou art showing to
some mortal. Fulfill now, I pray thee, even to miserable me, the word that I shall speak. May the
wooers, on this day, for the last and latest time make their sweet feasting in the halls of
Odysseus! They that have loosened my knees with cruel toil to grind their barley meal, may they
now sup their last!"
The weakest calls out for the blessing of Odysseus. It is no surprise to find the Mill turn up in the
Odyssey as the Mill is in every religion, every myth, and in every ancient civilization. As you
prepare to go to Ithaca, remember the blessing from the Mill.
From Saxo's original Hamlet story, this appears:
152
T'is said, sang Snaebjorn, that far out, off younder ness, the Nine Maids of the Island Mill stir
amain the host-cruel skerry-quern- they who in ages past ground Hamlet's meal. The good
chieftain furrows the hull's lair with his ship's beaked prow. Here the sea is called Hamlet's Mill.
As I studied the Humanities, my interest was in how could the poets or writers create such a
context? HOW could Hamlet be written? HOW could the Odyssey be thought? HOW could the
Norse, the Hindu, and all the other mythologies and religions be done? What is the source of
imagination?
"It is Nature, Pook," you say. "Everything comes from Nature." …Perhaps. But Nature as the
source and authority is an Enlightenment idea. The ancient Greeks didn't submit to the authority
of 'Nature' as we do today. They saw Nature as all chaotic. But all these ancient civilizations do
make mention of the Mill. Why, because it is probably the source of imagination, the original
context which the most ancient of myths come from. In the Kalevala, the plot turns on the
Sampo. When Mystery Science Theater 3000 did a show on a bad production of the Kalevala,
the commentators were wondering what the hell a Sampo was. This gave the Sampo the Internet
folk-lore for being something of great importance that no one knew what it was. Nothing could
be closer than the truth! The Sampo is, of course, the Mill.
Imagine you are an ancient man. Deer and trees will not interest you as those are everywhere.
You are already are in Nature so why use imagination toward Nature? No. You would look up,
and you would see the star filled sky. Today, we never look up. We have nicely decorated homes,
but our ceilings are bare. But when you were a kid, I bet you stared at the sky and examined the
clouds and stars. You probably turned the clouds into animals and gave them names. Perhaps you
invented strange stories on them.
This is exactly what happened. The ancient man did not know a star as we knew it today. They
probably didn't grasp the idea of other planets out there (though, the Pythagoreans did). What
153
they did do was chart those stars and imagined. To them, the stars were the astral plane. It was
like a mirror world up there. When you hear references to the four pillars of the world and the
world being 'flat,' they are referring to that astral plane. Plato looked at it and thought it reflected
something from here. From this, he could come up with philosophy that a perfect being exists for
each object up there. Those stars allowed him to come up with the Allegory of the Cave. The
'Atlantis' Plato refers to, which he tells to "not take seriously," was in those stars. It is extremely
likely that ancient man had navigation. This required accuracy of the stars. And these old myths
are a type of 'technical knowledge' for the history or progress of the stars. Remember the Greek
myth about the change of seasons? There are myths that chart the exactitude of the stars as well.
This explains why the Hindu epic of Mahabharata can be interpreted as an ancient form of Star
Wars (yes, they do battle on the moon and have flying vehicles in Hindu literature).
In Norse myth, Odin asks the wise giant Vafthrudner of the oldest event he can think of. His
answer: "Countless ages ere the earth was shapen, Bergelmer was born. The first thing I
remember-is when the great mill was laid to grind."
The Mill was the stars or, rather, the context the ancients saw those stars. The Mill was above
Nature and the axis of Time itself. Ancient man was not natural but cosmological. Everything
was tied to the cosmos. After Kepler, a split occurred where we had science on one side and
Humanities on the other. One could even think of Human contexts like a gigantic Pangaea of
union in the ancient days. But over time, it has broken apart into various continents and drifts
further and further away.
The Mill is the maelstrom of the sky, the starry wheel. It is also the whirlpool that grinds out gold
or salt. But the Mill is also known as the World Tree. And the World Tree is referred to as Axis
Mundi. Check this link and you'll see all the connections the Mill (the Axis Mundi) has to
everything. "It is very phallic!" some may declare. Of course it is. It is, after all, the source of
Patriarchy itself.
As you can see, a budding renaissance awaits if one pieces it all together. Consider reuniting art
154
and math back into the cosmological frame today. It would completely annihilate today's corrupt
Humanities foolish belief in 'culture-as-source-of-genius' and destroy Feminists' made up "pagan
goddess religions" (since they could find no religion, pagan or monotheistic, that fit the
Matriarchal view they have to make them up). Returning to a cosmological frame would ruin
matriarchies everywhere.
155
Hurricanes, Kings, and the Mill
Let us open up the Great Books of Mankind once again to go a few steps lower into the
underworld of antiquity.
The Mayas had a One-Legged Being named 'Hunrakan' whose name, in Maya, means 'one leg.'
Hunraken was a being who disposed of wind, rain, thunder, and lightning in vast amounts.
The English word for 'Hurricane' is derived from 'Hunraken.'
However, Hunraken is not a weather god. He is one aspect of Tezcatlipoca himself (the true
original One-Leg that looks down from the starry sky).
156
The strangest thing is that One Legged beings keep appearing throughout all religions and beliefs
throughout the globe. In West Sudan, Faro only has one leg. The mock-king of Siam had to stand
on one leg upon a golden dais during all the coronation ceremonies, and had the neat sounding
title of "Lord of the Celestial Armies." The Chinese K'uei also follows this pattern. The
Chinese were extremely sky conscious. Singufl monsters are thrown into pits or banished to
strange mountain regions for the sin of having upset the calendar.
"But Pook!" one might ask. "I do not understand how one can upset the calendar."
The Mill is the idea of a cosmic harmony among the ancient ancients, my name for them is
precursors. With the idea of a cosmic harmony, this is the origin of the Harmony of the Spheres,
philosophy, the ancient myths, and this harmony is inserted into all the religions. Shakespeare
appears to be the last one who expressed any sense of cosmic harmony. In Macbeth and Richard
III, for example, all of Nature turns into an uproar at the political overthrows. After all, this
'cosmic harmony' was, only a few centuries ago, seen as a type of 'Divine Right of Kings.' In
Macbeth, the horses begin to eat one another. Hamlet is made to say, "Time is out of joint and
cursed spite/ that I was ever born to set it right."
And, of course, from this 'cosmic harmony' comes the origins of music in different civilizations.
Emperor Shun made K'uei the "master of music." K'uei alone had the talent to bring into
harmony the six pipes and the seven modes, and Shun, who wanted to bring peace to the empire,
stood by the opinion that "music is the essence of heaven and earth." K'uei also could cause the
'hundred animals' to dance by touching the musical stone. He helped Yu the Great, the earthmover of the Five First Emperors, to accomplish his labor of regulating the "rivers" (yes, the
same rivers of Socrates and Plato. These rivers run straight to the Mill). Yu the Great had a
dancing pattern (the Step of Yu) which, when performed, turned into the Big Dipper.
The ancient shamans, far from being 'medicine men' or a perverse deranged sexual persona of
Paglia, were actually blacksmiths. Blacksmiths of what? Why, of that celestial Mill of Heavens
of course that is the center of cosmic harmony. The Yakuts claim: "Smith and Shaman come from
the same nest," and "the Smith is the older brother of the Shaman. Vainamoinen and Ilmarinen
157
are said to have "hammered together the roof of the sky." This is the same type of ancient smith
who created the Sampo and forged sky and luminaries in Estonia.
The representative of the celestial smith, the King, is frequently titled "Smith." Genghis Khan
had the title "Smith" and the standard of the Persian Empire was the stylized leather apron of the
Smith Kavag. The Chinese mythical emperors Huan-ti and Yu are smiths which baffled the
historic-sociological findings of Marcel Granet. He forgot that Huang-ti, the Yellow Emperor, is
said to be Saturn (the keeper of Time). The Persian Shahs held their royal jubilee festival after
having reigned thirty years, which is the Saturnian revolution, so the Egyptian Pharaoh also
celebrated his jubilee after thirty years to the true "inventor" of this festival whose name was
Ptah. Ptah is the Egyptian Saturn.
The Iranian God of Time, Zurvan akarana, is portrayed as standing upon the world egg, carrying
in his hands the tools of the architect:
In his hands a copper hammer,
And his little pincers likewise.
Ilmari was born at night time,
And at day he built his smithy.
The Babylonians called their texts after their opening words. The Creation Epic they called
"Enuma elish" which means "When above." What we call the Epic of Gilgamesh, they called
"Sha naqba imuru" which means "Who saw everything." Just as today, the religious do not refer
to the New Testament as the "Epic of Christ" for Christ, to Christians, is not a character in some
dumb play for Christ is the cosmic harmony itself.
Religious cannot see the Mill because they are inside the Mill. When you are inside a cosmic
system of harmonies, you must be outside it to see it. This is not a criticism but a salute. This
explains why the religious are not tempted to quack cults such as Gnosticism, paganism,
communism, fascism, feminism, etc. When you are in a cosmic harmony, you do not look for a
politician to give you one. This is also why Gnostics, social Darwinists, communists, fascists,
158
feminists, etc. do all they can to dismantle the Mill, the idea of a cosmic harmony for they hate
the religious more than anything (Gnostics are more interested in signs than the substance itself.
The same is true with astrologists.)
So how is Christianity inside the Mill? This question, alone, can spawn a series of posts in the
future. But for now, there is this:
Christ is the Son of God, son of a carpenter, a blacksmith himself born under the Star of
Bethlehem (the true 'king' whose kingdom is not of this world). Christ, to Christians, restored the
cosmic harmony. This is why He is referred to as the Alpha and the Omega. Christ also corrected
Time. The secular today lack the balls to refer to BC as "Before Christ" but only as BCE
"Become Common Era".
The arrival of the Messiah created a 'thunderclap' to the cosmos. Even Time was altered. Now,
the gates to Heaven were open. The difference between the devout Christian and the secular or
false Christian is that the former believes in the cosmic harmony...that Jesus was a craftsman
(later art turned him into a carpenter but he was most likely a blacksmith). If Jesus was that
smith, that craftsman, ask yourself, "What was his Mill?"
It would not be a Mill of this Earth.
159
160
Behold the Plutons!
A council has decided that now we have twelve planets in the solar system instead of nine. By
creating a category called "Pluton," astronomers can include several smaller masses in which the
first one is Pluto.
The planets are, of course, a central part of the Mill. It was always to be believed that there were
seven planets. The number seven became holy and became symbolized, or rather, incorporated
into numerous ancient civilizations. Shakespeare had King Lear say, "There cannot be more than
seven planets!" and the Fool replied, "You would make a good fool indeed."
What is interesting to me is that astronomers are so unwilling to drop Pluto from the category of
a 'planet.' It is as if Pluto has entered the imagination and is unwilling to budge. Or, rather, the
astronomers are unwilling to fight that battle with the public who are used to Pluto. The
astronomers are sure they would lose such a fight. So instead, they have done something which
always requires immediate apologizing: they have added a new word to our language: the pluton.
The astronomical definition of pluton is 'spherical,' 'has gravity,' and 'goes around the sun,' but
the real definition is "we're too chicken to demote Pluto as a planet so we will promote all these
little planetoids instead." Even with the Mill and the cosmological scale far removed from
history and the arts, the stubbornness of the public in their approach to the planets shows that...
reverence to celestial bodies is something practically inside most Humans...not just "primitive
man." Every kid today instinctively stares at the sky, names the clouds, wonders at the stars. It is
no wonder that the 'golden age' of science fiction is said to be 10-14 for kids.
161
Origin of the 'Nerd'
Nerd probably came from a term at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute from the origin of Knurd
(which is drunk spelled backwards). Unlike the drunk, the 'knurd' drinks heavily of knowledge
and does practically everything opposite of the 'drunk.'
But have you noticed how some things are considered 'nerd' while other things are not? And,
even stranger, these things change over time.
If something is 'nerdish,' then that means most businesses cannot profit from that activity.
Take books. Books are considered 'nerdish.' However, television is full of advertising. So it
makes sense that marketing would portray television as "mainstream" and books as "nerd." They
want television to appear 'cool' so they can make money.
Take staying at home for the evening. This is considered 'nerdish.' However, if you go to a fancy
club, restaurant, or something else, this is marketed as 'mainstream' and 'cool.' No one makes
money if you stay at home for the evening so no wonder they will belittle it.
Take music. Classical music is 'nerdish.' However, pop-culture music is marketed as 'mainstream'
and 'cool.' The reason is because they make money off the 'hip-hop.' How can they make money
off of Beethoven and Bach?
Take clothes. Keeping care of your clothes and having them last a while is 'nerdish.' However,
'sticking with the fashions' is marketed as mainstream and cool. The reason is because they make
162
money when you keep changing fashions. They make no money if you stick with your clothes.
I think you are seeing the point. Now, let us look at how some of the 'nerd' things change.
Take the Internet. The Internet was a haven for nerds. But as soon as companies could make
money off the Internet, then the Internet became 'awesome' and 'mainstream.' Companies that
treat the Internet as a threat, such as newspapers and certain colleges, still try to paint the image
that the Internet is for "unsocial nerdish quacking misfits."
Take video games. In the eighties, video games were seen for 'nerds.' However, as soon as
gigantic companies such as Sony and Microsoft moved in, they produced marketing that says,
"Hey, gaming is now mainstream! Gaming is hip and cool!" Most video game players have
bought this hook, line, and sinker. If you account for population growth and multiple console
ownership, gaming has not really grown. In fact, it has even decreased in some areas. (A steady
decline over ten years in Japan reversed with the DS phenomenon currently over there. In
America, the trend has been downward for a couple of years.) As soon as the major companies
moved in, they put out the marketing that it is 'mainstream' and 'cool' because they want your
money. It is that simple.
Another video-game example would be the recent invention of the word "hardcore gamer." This
used to be the 'nerd.' But they call them 'hardcore gamers' because they can now make money off
of you. This is similar to Hollywood calling those who watch movies all day to be 'greatly
cultured' when you could easily call those same people dorks. (Hollywood won't say that because
they make money off them, obviously.)
So any time you see the 'nerd' versus 'cool' mantra, follow the money. Anything in society that
people cannot make much money off of is going to be condemned as 'nerdish.' Just be who you
are, follow your own interests, and ignore this advertising imagery that drapes society.
163
Information Age is about context, not content
What happens when you are flooded with information? Information ceases to have the value it
once did. Why pay for a newspaper when you can look at it online for free? Why waste valuable
time sitting through TV commercials for mediocre coverage when you can find better
information online?
Some people think my passion in life is writing. It isn't. It is actually about contexts. I enjoy
juggling various contexts around and discarding ones that lack the data to back them up. For
example, Nice Guy is entirely a context. It is a view of the way to look at the world. A Don Juan
has a completely different context than a Nice Guy. A business owner also has a completely
different context than an employee. It is not so much that a context is 'wrong' or 'right,' but they
lead to entirely different places. A Nice Guy context leads to a different place than a Don Juan
context. Like a bucket of chips, I choose and discard different contexts. Some contexts you'll
never be fully sure about but others you can track down the facts (or lack of facts) and discard it.
The mental boundary in people's minds today is not information (which is easily available and
infinite) but context.
There is a difference between the egghead and the wise man. The egghead knows much
information about nonsense (in other words, a poor context). The wise man knows much
164
nonsense about information (in other words, a rich context). The egghead is rich with
information; the wise man is rich with contexts.
In a constantly changing world, you must allow the possibility of new contexts or you will be left
behind. As example to this, consider people who cling to the old way of saving money to get
rich. Yes, you might get rich if you save money but only within sixty years or so. These people
will be outpaced by those who adopted a new context, of putting themselves into massive debt
on assets, to get ahead. I believe Nice Guys are in a context of a previous era.
The anxiety of man is living today with yesterday's contexts. We are no longer in the Industrial
Revolution. You do not pass Go and expect to get pensions from companies like your
grandparents did. Health care from businesses is no longer assured. A happy and long lasting
marriage is not probable. One of the benefits of altering your contexts is that you will lose that
anxiety you used to have. You will no longer fear women because you now have an entirely
different context. When a feminist says, "Shame on you, you are a man! This means you only
have responsibilities and do not deserve any pleasures," you have the ability to laugh at her.
I cannot respect someone who cannot challenge their contexts. You do not have to agree with
mine or anyone else's contexts, but a context cannot be written in stone no matter how much you
agree with it. Facts are written in stone, not theories (and the contexts those theories create).
Some people tell me, "It is the theory that is fundamental!" I say, "No, it is the facts that are
fundamental. We must change our theories based on the data." To them, they would rather
discredit or not look at competing data.
So why would someone be unable to challenge their contexts? Feminism is a stubborn context
that does not respond well to being challenged. Why is that?
1) People adopt the context that fits their narcissism.
Women will adopt the context of feminism because it fits their narcissism. A poor person will
adopt the context that rich people are screwing out the common man because it also fits his
165
narcissism (and vice versa for the rich man and poor man). People who play video games will
think it is the apex of civilization while those who do not play video games will think it is a
waste of time. Those who have many degrees will have the context that degrees make them
smart. Those who flunked out of college will likewise call college a 'waste of time.'
My favorite example of this is people driving their cars. When a car goes faster than them, that
driver is a "maniac." When a car goes slower than them, that driver is an "idiot." It is all relative
based on that person's driving speed! So young people, who tend to drive faster than most, think
most people on the road are idiots. While old people, who tend to drive slower than most, think
most people on the road are maniacs ("those damn crazy kids!").
2) People stick with contexts that fit to their other contexts
Hence, those who hate religion will tend to subscribe to the context that religion is a source of
civilization’s decline in the world (or the reverse). Those who hate Western Civilization will only
see the West spawning evil. Those who have the context that the world is going to doom and
gloom will only see the downside of every issue. Their bigger context affects their smaller
contexts.
Much of the bias in the media is due to this. They have a pre-existing template and so every
story, even the selection of stories to cover, gets their contexts pre-painted due to the original
Mother Context.
3) People become stubborn with contexts if they have never been challenged
As Thomas Paine used to say, "Time makes more converts than reason." What I call "The Way"
is exactly this flaw. "The Way" becomes so since no one allows for any other possibilities, for
any other options. By removing the entire outside, the remaining context becomes "The Way."
This is how tyrannical societies tend to work by removing the outside as much as possible.
This is why many older men suggest to younger ones to meet foreign women in other countries.
166
They are not saying to marry foreign women. They are saying that, by removing all foreign
women, your typical American woman (or British woman, Canadian, etc.) becomes the de facto
standard of all women. By meeting these various foreign women, you have a better idea of how
women in your home country compare (or don't).
If you have a context and had no one challenge you on it, what happens? Well, you never had to
explain your context to other people, to publicly defend it, to give reasons for it. All you know is
that those who challenge your context (which is the only one you know so to you it is "The
Way") must be deranged, misfits, or losers of society. These people find the challengers not as
challengers but as "outside the norm" and must be de-legitimized because, in their minds, you
already have an illegitimate viewpoint. This is why Feminism, which has never been challenged,
must destroy her critics instead of debate them in the arena of ideas.
Feminism is such a stubborn context because it holds all three of the above 'barriers.' Feminism
has not been challenged, it feeds people's narcissism, and it fits other contexts higher up. When
someone views all of society as an artificial creation, then one can easily believe in feminist laws
to "progress" society. The pride of the person and the age of the context as well as the influence
of other contexts prevent people from opening their minds.
To those from Sosuave, you know that your life changed when you changed your context away
from the Nice Guy mindset. Just ask yourself, "If my life has so changed by altering that context,
what other contexts could there be out there?" And with that, you embark on a series of life
changing discoveries that will improve and enrich your lives more than those narcissists and
arrogant elitists could imagine.
167
Power
There are many things I do not understand about life, but there is one thing I know with
certainty: you cannot live your life through other people's eyes. I believe most people trap
themselves into a type of hollow life where they keep acting to please others...be it their
girlfriends...their families...their employers...and forget about their soul. When your life is
hollow…when it is soul-less...you are easily manipulated.
The most fascinating thing about people when they are manipulated is that they always think
they are growing in power. The ultimate end of this evolution is the politician. People think
politicians hold power, but they are easily manipulated and the greatest fools of all.
What fascinates me about modern marriage is that the 'couple' act more like politicians than like
168
sexualized male and female beings. They even refer to servicing the "marriage" as if it were
something like a state. I know it was not always like this. John Locke's "Two Treatises of
Government" concluded the concept of natural rights from the natural interactions of man and
wife. But if these interactions are turned into political, should we be surprised when men are not
seen as beings of natural rights?
Always trust your gut. Always follow your soul. Living your life for an 'image' (what many
women and manipulated men tend to do) will lead you off the cliff. You will receive accolades
but there will be no respect or achievement at the end.
When you follow your own soul, going your own way, you will become the ugly duckling.
Employers will not want to hire you (and the same for potential girlfriends). But, if you don't
buckle, your ugly duckling nature can turn into a beautiful swan.
Most successful people do what 95% of others do not do. So by trying to appease that 95%, to
live in their eyes, you're already doomed on that path of failure.
Successful people do what unsuccessful people dare not to do: living by their own standards, not
by someone else's.
169
170
Mass Reincarnation of Neville Chamberlain
"Why won't you stop harping about the 'be who you are' stuff?" you ask.
Because it is the most important lesson I ever learned. Our lives seem so powerless because we
actually GIVE power to others to define us, to shape us. For example, on Sosuave and life,
you've certainly seen guys give women so much power to define the guy in question, to judge the
guy, to determine the guy's worth. Instead, why don't we have the girl prove HER worth to us!?
It is time for you to define the rules for your life. If you give up those rules to anyone else, then
YOU are to be blamed for where you are in life. Don't blame women, corporations, politics, or
anything else. You define your life.
"We demand more business information from you Pook!"
Then consider this the first lesson of becoming a CEO. CEOs I've met in real life do share one
quality: they don't care what anyone else thinks of them. It takes a hefty set of balls and
confidence to direct a business. The CEO is the captain. Now, they certainly do care what the
consumers, shareholders, and employees think, of course. But they only care within a set of
strategy. Why would a CEO ask his employee advice on how to run the business?
If you can't define rules for your own life, how they hell are you going to define rules for your
business?
In fact, this Pookish First Commandment even applies on a far greater scale. You, from sosuave,
know about the dilemma of the Nice Guy. …But what about Nice Guy Nations? What about
Nice Guy Military? Act like a wimp on the world's stage, terrorists will smell weakness and
bomb you. No nation has ever been attacked for being too strong.
171
For our personal direction, we always hear, "We need to obey the opinion of society." What is
society and why let it define how your life is? And for the national direction, we always hear,
"We need to obey the opinion of the world." What exactly is this 'opinion' of the world and why
would a nation let itself be defined by other nations? Isn't the point of being independent country
is for the country to define itself?
It is my hope that America tries to be America, the UK tries to be the UK, France tries to be
France, and so on. Why should America try to be like France or France try to be like Algeria? It
is like the entire world is infected with feminization. There have been too many reincarnations of
Neville Chamberlains (picture above) and not enough Churchills. Worrying about what everyone
else thinks, the world is caged in fighting minimalist wars. By not allowing the full might of
power to be unleashed, the problem just grows. I hear with the battles in Lebanon that terrorists
wear civilian clothing and fire their rockets from houses. They are using the West's virtue as their
primary weapon. They know no one is going to bomb those houses.
I believe most addictions and disorders are due to people not being who they are and giving the
rules of their life to someone else. Eventually...they crack.
Imitation is suicide. There is nothing I find more disappointing than someone trying to be
someone else. There is nothing more depressing than living your life to someone else's vision.
You have a soul for a reason.
172
Passion versus Eros
It is said that there is more sex than ever before, or, at least, more than in recent times. Constant
cries of outrage come from the latest news story about a principal making porn with school
teachers or school kids doing hanky panky under the table. A better illustration would be the
early university (founded by churches) compared to the modern university (whorehouse with a
clock tower).
Eros is the behavior we see today in modernity. It speaks to the sensation, to the feeling, and
more to the appetite. The 'sex' of moderns is not revolutionary or wild, it is lame and pathetic. In
fact, it is so lame and pathetic that moderns continually have to dress their sex up with words
pregnant in sophistication. Did the woman or man really 'seduce' you? From what I see, the
behavior was acting exactly like that of a Happy Meal commercial. It would be absurd to say
McDonald's tries to "seduce" our gluttony with pictures and rotations of their food (at best, such
'commercials' speaks only to a mild sensation).
Passion is a word commonly misused. Passion does not mean "strong sensation" or "wild
feeling." Passion is an animation of the soul which is why the word "passion" is used in reference
to religion (such as the PASSION of Christ). Someone who is following their passion in life is
literally following their soul. Those, whose souls 'animate' at, say, singing, will become bitter and
unhappy if they were a banker instead. You can tell when someone is 'passionate' about
something not because they 'really like it' but because they become much more animated within
it.
173
There is very little passion in the moderns today. Moderns do not believe in souls, they believe in
selves. The Self can never be satisfied and has an infinite appetite. It used to be that the smallest
and most subtle differences of religion would be enough to drive our ancestors to wage bloody
war against one another. Not saying we should return to this, I am just pointing out how
passionate people used to be. Using a measuring stick of American politicians, one can go back
fifty years and more to hear passionate (i.e. speaking of the soul) speeches from politicians of
either party. Even though politicians like Truman were not orators, they were manly. The lack of
passion breeds androgyny. I have never met a man who didn't have some sort of passion within
him. Often, it is passion that makes the man (and woman) rather than these poorly emulated
androgynous men and women of today. There is no 'passion' behind a woman's (or man's)
adultery these days. There are no more Romeo and Juliets. Most of Shakespeare, built around
and on passion, sounds wordy and irrelevant to moderns. The monologues speaking of heaven
and earth or characters agonizing over their effects unleashing hell upon nature cannot be heard
by moderns.
The biggest annoyance to me is the misuse of the word 'tragedy.' If a cute, pig-tailed little girl ran
off from her mother to run in the street and was hit by a speeding car and killed, it is not a
tragedy. However, if the mother then laments and agonizes in her soul how she should have been
looking after her daughter better that becomes a tragedy. Somehow along the way, tragedies were
seen as nothing more than corpses on stage and bad feelings. So now anything that gives us a
bad feeling is labeled a "tragedy." 9/11 was not a tragedy. The notion that certain key people
agonized of how they could have prevented it, that is the tragedy. Without the basis of soul, there
can be no tragedy.
Modern women are very easy to deal with if you engage only in Eros rather than passion. The
MRA complaints against marriage is actually more centered in the lack of passion within
marriages rather than the laundry list of errors such as 'nagging,' 'no sex,' 'spends all the money,'
etc. I actually don't believe today's women know what passion is or what to look for it.
Men and women are hungry for passion. Women are probably hungrier for it if the shelves of
174
romance books mean anything. The problem is that many young women are overwhelmed with
the feelings of Eros and mistake it for passion. To those who wonder why ceaseless hedonism
can often make life become absolute misery, it is the denying of one's soul to flights of Eros.
Eros just simply isn't as fulfilling as passion.
Let me take you back to the Brave New World. The citizens of that world go so far as antipassion with 'feelies' or 'soma' to counteract any anxieties they feel. The Savage is full of passion
as even the slightest twinges of lust can cause him agony within the soul. Brave New World is not
a work of prophecy or biology; it is a reworking of Buddhist legends.
Young men are not in 'agony' that their girl has chosen to love another or 'cheated' on them. The
agony is that these girls do not know how to love at all. While some will blame Feminism for
creating a sense of 'no passion;' feminism can only exist and spread where people are not
passionate. It is the soul-less who readily join mass movements.
This means that the Source of Errors is something deeper than Feminism. Even if the world
banded together and eliminated Feminism…very little would change.
175
The Chimera
Why do some men exit the Matriarchy while others do not?
Why do the men who exit the 'Spell' share similar personalities as well as having similar views
on business, computers, and realism?
Why is the Men's Movement such a big tent yet so small?
A single answer can be made to all three questions. As 'Mirror of the Soul' has said, worship
God, worship Nature, worship space aliens, but do not worship women.
176
There is an insatiable natural desire for Human beings for myth. And by myth, I am talking
Wonder. If it is not there, the Human mind will attach Wonder to something else. This will apply
as strongly to atheists as it does to the religious. It is because it is not about religion; it is about
something more soulful.
The Ancient Mind, of all civilizations, placed their Wonder at the Mill, as the star studded sky
above which housed Time and Destiny. Saturn, to us, is just a ball of gas with a particular orbit
defined by astrophysics. To the Ancient Mind such as the Greeks, Saturn was the Lord of Time
and carried his sickle as the legends would describe.
"It is a myth, Pook. They believed in nonsense. Our view on Saturn has all the facts and is not
feathered with ridiculous beliefs."
A myth we think of something as UNTRUE. This is why I am using the word 'Wonder' instead.
The ancient Greeks also tracked Saturn as scientifically as they could. They also had facts. But
Saturn with his sickle, appealing to Wonder, could be enthusiastically learned by children. Try
telling children about the astrophysics of Saturn. You'd just get blank stares! The 'Wonder' part is
what gets their attention.
"You prattle on about this ancient stuff. But what about today?" you ask.
As Human beings, we crave Wonder. If we do not obtain it at one level, we will re-create it at
another. This craving for Wonder is either due to a side effect of sentience or something else.
Nevertheless, it is there.
Today, since 'Wonder' is denied in all the traditional ancient ways and even in the later religious
ways, it is now place on women itself. Woman is now the great wonder of the world. Woman is
the myth of the post-modern world.
Men hold Wonder at Woman. Nice Guys worship Her. Seducers fight for Her. Women are not
exactly a new nobility, but they do hold the Torch of Wonder which is creating what I call the
177
'Spell.' This 'Spell' is the glue of the Matriarchy. Men follow The Way because it leads to that
'wonder,' woman.
What is curious, though, are the men who do not hold wonder at women. These guys, at first,
appear vastly different. On closer observation, they are all the same in that they hold Wonder at
something else, something that is not woman. Asking these guys to worship women achieves the
same looks as if you asked them to swallow a goldfish. Some of these guys are genuine
worshipers of religion. Other guys hold wonder elsewhere such as with business. Some of these
guys are just wonderless engineers who can't see how guys can be so brainwashed. To all of
them, women have no halo. There is nothing mystical about them.
It wasn't always this way. Somehow, somewhere, women were turned into a chimerical being,
something of such infinite wonder and heavenly delight that love became the soul saving
experience.
I've been on both sides of this fence. Women didn't lose their mystical halo for me until after I
became more knowledgeable on business. I wondered why most people stayed poor. I found that
women would run for the hills if you mention something like 'financial independence' and
'business building.' I couldn't understand why. Didn't women want successful men? Don't women
want rich men? How else are you going to become rich unless you build assets?
Women use a different financial statement then men do. On the Female Financial Statement,
husbands are placed under 'asset.' Women do not shop for husbands; they are truly shopping for
assets. (The joke about woman referring to her body parts as 'assets' is financially true. Those
body parts generate true cash flow and revenue.) For the Male Financial Statement, the dates
appear under 'expenses' and girlfriend/wife appears under liability. The man is literally paying off
the girl like a person does a car. Once I saw this, the Spell over me was broken.
Women not only live by different rules by men, they also have a different Wonder. Women hold
Wonder at the Image. And by Image, I am referring to the style over substance. Most women
are interested in appearing rich rather than actually being rich. It is no wonder they go into debt
178
buying a new car or bigger house. Also, men who hold favorable qualities that are invisible, such
as intelligence or even invisible assets, do not fit the Image. It is well known women are
interested in a lifestyle and/or Image, to them a man doesn't exist. Diamond rings and being
married hold nothing of substance compared to regular rings and living together except Image. It
is women, not men, who worship the Hollywood stars.
Marriage by love? This is a modern invention. Even Indians (of southern Asia kind, not the tepee
natives of America) today have arranged marriages. Royalty also used marriages as a type of
bargaining chip. Defeated nations' women would be married to the victors. There was no worship
of woman as we know it today.
The chimera (the fanciful illusion, I don't mean the word as in the Greek monster) of our era is
love. Women will do anything but denounce 'love' for it is the seat to their power. Love is even
used by homosexuals as reason as they should do almost anything they want. After all, how can
anyone argue against 'love?' 'Love' is even used now for religious purposes with no more
mention of brimstone and fire.
I have a rule that whenever Feminism assaults something, I look at it with curiosity. Generally,
whatever Feminism attacks I take up as a cause because I know Feminism perceives it as a
threat.
Feminism viciously attacks two things: Christianity and Hellenization. At first, I thought
Feminism was attacking Christianity because of the patriarchy. But now I know better.
Christianity and Hellenization used to hold the Wonders of the Western World. Politicians used
to quote both, frequently. Textbooks of the nineteenth century and earlier are filled with elements
of both. Can you imagine sixth graders learning their Cicero?
One can follow the trace of how Myth and Wonder were diverted from its usual arenas and
placed onto women themselves (or rather, love, which men require women to obtain). The villain
is Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He was the Mass Influencer who feminized the European soul and
said that the old ways should be no more. "Love should be the soul saving experience," he said.
179
Entire nations re-wrote their constitutions to fit the views of Rousseau.
As strange as it might sound, Feminism is a Love Movement. The aging feminists of today were
once flower children chanting and part of the 'free love' movement. Instead of marriage being
based on, say, Nature, it is based on 'love.'
Is it no mistake that every woman proclaims herself the 'expert' in love? And that all men are
assumed 'idiots' in love until a woman 'shows them?'
Even if you demand a pre-nuptial agreement, a woman will start screaming about love. Love (a
'wonder') is used as power. Women and men are in perfect agreement when they say, "From love
will come all things." For man, he is referring to the divine mythical soul-saving state. For
woman, she is referring to the earthly materialistic Image making state. Love has been so
effective a chimera that even tax-men and Congress are using it. "Don't you love your neighbor?
You may be doing well but your neighbor is suffering. Let us raise taxes in the spirit of love."
With all this 'love,' no wonder there is so much hate in the world.
Romanticism: An Obituary
Below is a post on Sosuave called: Romanticism: An Obituary. Written several years ago, it still
holds true today and should complement the Chimera post.
Romanticism is an article of faith.
We know what it's stuffed with: love at first sight, the carriage of frolicking courtships, prancing
couples, dialogue consisting of fantastical banquets, violins and flutes, of ballroom weddings,
chandeliers, strangled poetry that converts her every body part into some bizarre infinitude, and
of happy homes flowing with enchanting music with 2.3 kids, 2.6 cars, 1.1 garage, and 1.4 dogs.
180
All in all, the fountain that bubbles this vaporous romanticism is the phrase: star-crossed.
Romanticism is not something considered to be 'controlled.' Rather, it seen as something to
submit to. This 'star-crossed' love is elevated to the esteemed level known as destiny!
And so this faith makes the man stuffed. These stuffed men float airily through the world. Some
pop to fall in the abyss (and they wonder why suicide is at its highest rate for young men!).
Others just stuff themselves more and more so that no matter what is said to them, they are so
stuffed that even the sharpest most blatant facts bounce against their rubbery infatuated shells.
Some realized that they were stuffed and turned themselves inside out. These unfortunate few
shrivel with bitterness and seek revenge with getting laid everywhere and anywhere. But the rest
spew out this poison and recover into the Men they were.
Oh forgive me, Hallmark! If I am to doubt Romanticism, I may incur the wrath of all women.
But make no mistake: I war with Cupid. The way to victory is not to stab the infected with the
truth...they pop and fall or increase their fantasy shell even more! Therefore, let us hold up a
mirror to the infected so they see all their maladies and so will cleanse themselves of this rot.
The Virus
This hyped up romanticism can be traced to Rousseau. Disgusted with bourgeois love (he saw it
as an empty emotional center of restrained, law-bound societies), he wanted to replace it with
something more passionate. Before (especially in aristocracy), the passion of people was set for
truth, honor, and power.
"This is dangerous," said Rousseau. "It must be replaced with something else. Something that is
just as absorbing." Therefore: "Love will now be the soul-saving experience!”
How did Rousseau get to this? His childhood as he describes: "To fall on my knees before a
masterful mistress, to obey her commands, to have to beg for her forgiveness, have been to me
the most delicate of pleasures." Thus, in love he is entirely passive; woman must make the first
move. Paglia says, "Rousseau ends the sexual scheme of the great chain of being, where male
181
was sovereign over female...Rousseau feminizes the European male persona" and "gives the
ideal man a womanly sensitivity."
Ever since Rousseau, the culture has become increasingly romanticized. Music revolves around
'love.' The highest grossing movies are romantic 'epics' like Gone with the Wind and Titanic
(where the ship sinking provides merely a backdrop for the 'priority' of the movie: the romance).
Hyped-Romanticism has ravaged religions; priests becoming 'servants of love' rather than
pursuers and warriors of 'wisdom and truth' (and then they wonder why the pews are filled with
women!). Politicians speak of how much 'love' they have and strive to make themselves 'lovable.'
Romanticism has gone berserk!
The Infection
Many women march on through their life stuffed with dreams of hyped-up romanticism. They
are filled to the brim with excessive expectations. The high rate of divorce is not due to some
moral collapse. It is due to this bizarre and absurd religion of romance. In many ways, romance
is the FEMALE RELIGION. 'Anniversary' dates are their religious festivals. The bed becomes
their alter, and sex becomes the holy sacrament.
For fun, I told the women, "Romance...True love...None of it exists." And the women,
unsurprisingly, protested bitterly. But one thing that puzzled me was this one woman who told
the Pook: "I'm never going to get married. It seems so boring." I thought she would agree with
this idea of romance not existing (which I do think DOES exist, but is misapplied to the point of
absurdity). Yet, she was one of the biggest protesters of it.
I figured almost all young women wanted to get married (at least SOMETIME). This one didn't
yet was the BIGGEST believer in romance. …A contradiction? Perhaps. In any age past, her life
would be scorned at. It is this hyper-romanticism at work. Without this 'romance,' there would be
no license for her life-long 'romance' outside of marriage. It is well known that if you get the
women to think that 'you love them,' she is well more likely to sleep with you. All the gifts and
'dates' the AFC gives to get his sex are not some form of Neo-Prostitution; it is merely the
182
exercise of this hyped up romanticism. This explains why women, who have no desire for
marriage, will be the BIGGEST believers in romance. Their religion of Romance grants license
and prettifies their sometimes dangerous and reckless behavior.
The Inflammation
Love! Love! Love! It is Nature's drug, a high, that so many become addicted to and must always
be feeling 'love' at some part of their lives.
A Nice Guy appears to protest this post.
Ignore him, gentlemen. Women following this romanticized path mean that the CHASE becomes
the focus rather than the COMPANY of the lover. No wonder challenge works so well! No
wonder once a woman gets what she wants, she goes looking for something else!
The more a man is a challenge the more a woman becomes 'romanticized.' This is especially true
for beautiful women. The curse of beauty (and even that of Don Juan’s) is that you fear that you
are settling when you could have gotten better. When a guy is a challenge to the beautiful woman
(and let's face it, these beautiful women have flocks of guys trying to be 'romantic' towards them
in the AFC sense), it sparks the woman's romanticism. She must have her challenge and eat it
too.
The Nice Guy yells out, "Pook, there is a matter we must discuss!"
Go to your platonic girlfriends to talk about your 'love,' Nice Guy! Now where were we?
We know of the romanticism that Nice Guys embrace (for the definition of an AFC is a man who
loves like a woman). But Don Juans suffer from the romanticism as well. "This website has
made me soooo picky!"
The problem is not pickiness but idealism. Just like beautiful women, Don Juans feel that they
183
are 'settling' if they get a chick. Remember your Nice Guy days when you only wanted a good
decent woman to love you? Now you want a Helen of Troy! How far we've come!
The Nice Guy hops up on the Arcadian stage. "No more, Monsieur Pook! We must talk!"
Very well, Mr. Nice Guy! What is this business that you must interrupt my post for?
"I think you know it, Pook. You insulted my girl in the park last night!"
You are mistaken, sir. I made love to your girl in the park last night. She asked me to meet her
there. I have her note somewhere. But if someone is saying something to the contrary, by God, it
is a slander!
"You damned Pook! You would drag down a woman's reputation to hide your cowardice! But I
am calling you out!"
You're calling me out? Then take lessons from your girl, as she too called me out.
"You libertine!" The Nice Guy takes out a white glove and slaps Pook. "I DEMAND
SATISFACTION.”
You demand satisfaction but your girl also demanded satisfaction. I cannot spend my time
satisfying the demands of the Nice Guy social circle.
"You blackguard!"
I assure you, Mr. Nice Guy, that your girl is the epitome of her sex. In fact, her chief renown is
for a readiness that keeps her in a state of tropical humidity as would grow orchids in her drawers
in January. Your assault against me is not for my faults but for your own.
"You have no morals!"
184
That is not true! You are the immoral one, thinking yourself a sexual Pharisee! We are called to
be Human not statues.
The Cancer
And so floats the Nice Guy with his hot air romanticism. When he sees the women going for the
guys of testosterone (jerks) and running to the hills to avoid his nonsense, he pops.
But what of the Don Juans racing to obtain their 'ideal' woman? After a decade or two, this is the
result (http://www.sosuave.com/vBulletin/sh...ighlight=mature). Noticing their lost youth, what
are these guys to do?
And what about the guys who DO get their idealism? Many of these guys marry absolutely
gorgeous women. But gorgeous women are a standard lay. The idealism doesn't last and the
divorce follows.
With love being defined as the PURSIT of the lover (rather than the COMPANY of the lover), no
wonder divorces are widespread! Rousseau is best known for his civilization of 'consent.' Thus,
marriage to people now is not some sacred bond but a legal article of consent, something to be
torn asunder whenever wished.
And anyone who is aware of marriages that last know that 'romanticism' has nothing to do with
it. Marriage requires work. Go to an older married couple and spew out your 'romanticism' and
'the one' love to them and watch them laugh.
Romeo and Juliet
Women flock to Romeo and Juliet to watch the 'star-crossed' lovers defy society. Yet,
romanticism is exactly what the play condemns!
Romeo was in love with Rosalind. But when Juliet appears, any thoughts of Rosalind are long
185
gone. Romeo is Don Juanish at first. He ‘kinos’ her. He kisses her. And he leaves her. So where is
the tragedy?
"Because their love was denied!" chant the women.
I am sorry ladies. The truth is that Romeo is a whiny boy. Romeo and Juliet would have turned
into a sweet Much Ado About Nothing if Romeo had the spine of Claudio. It is Romeo's lack of
being a man that causes the tragedy in the play.
"Pook! You exaggerate Shakespeare to fit your meaning."
But look at what Shakespeare says:
"Alas poor Romeo! He is already dead; stabbed with a
white wench's black eye; shot through the ear with a
love-song; the very pin of his heart cleft with the
blind bow-boy's butt-shaft: and is he a man to
encounter Tybalt"
Already dead! And they question whether he can approach his enemy Tybalt. Even the Nurse
condemns Romeo:
"Blubbering and weeping, weeping and blubbering.
Stand up, stand up; stand, and you be a man:
For Juliet's sake, for her sake, rise and stand;"
Romeo is so distraught that he wants to kill himself. Witness the friar's reaction to his attempt at
suicide:
"Hold thy desperate hand:
Art thou a man? thy form cries out thou art:
186
Thy tears are womanish; thy wild acts denote
The unreasonable fury of a beast:
Unseemly woman in a seeming man!"
The tragedy in Romeo and Juliet is not love denied. It is Romeo refusing to be a Man. He kills
himself at his first chance and so kills Juliet.
The Cure
Have you ever seen a very traditional Jewish wedding? The man and woman have never talked
to each other. They do not even know if they like each other. Yet, they marry and stay married for
life.
"Pook, that is because they can't divorce."
True, but by conventional romanticism, shouldn't the marriage eventually blow up? Yet, they are
happy!
The point is that romanticism has no value in creating a lasting marriage. George Bernard Shaw
says that marriage is like tying to people in a ship together. It doesn't matter who you are tied up
to, you will make the person a lifelong partner. Comradeship makes marriages last, not
romanticism.
War veterans despise the war they are stuck in. But if asked to leave the battlefield, they will not
because of their comrades. The hellish environment created bonds between these men that last
throughout their lifetime. Lasting marriages also contains this comradeship. The couple goes
through this hurricane of life and by overcoming the difficulties thrown at them; it makes their
bond cemented even more.
187
So love is not weddings and flowers. Real love is deep financial problems or a sick child.
But don't take my word for it:
Brookner: "The essence of romantic love is that wonderful beginning, after which sadness and
impossibility may become the rule."
Crowley: "Love stories are only fit for the solace of people in the insanity of puberty. No healthy
adult human being can really care whether so-and-so does or does not succeed in satisfying his
physiological uneasiness by the aid of some particular person or not."
Jones: "Romance, like the rabbit at the dog track, is the elusive, fake, and never attained reward
which, for the benefit and amusement of our masters, keeps us running and thinking in safe
circles."
Romanticism, farewell! And 'The One'ism, adieu! Give me the love songs of ages past! Give me
Don Juan! Give me Madame Venus! Give me elopement by ladder and rope on a moonlight
night! Let the neighbors stare and adore, for their lives are measured by propriety and yardsticks.
Let the rabbit run its course for we have stopped running in circles, chasing the rabbit 'Romance'
on and on.
And by doing so, the circle breaks. We're finally free.
188
189
The Rejection of Existentialism
The sweet perfume of the Matriarchy that intoxicates its people is, essentially, existentialism.
Language means things, and I grow suspicious when definitions of words are changed either
deliberately or not. Tragedy today means something occurring that causes such anguish that there
can be no easy way to comfort. Every unexpected death is considered a 'tragedy.' But tragedy
actually means a choice is involved with the chooser reflecting on his poor choice. People, not
knowing their literature, would see and read the "tragedies" and feel 'bad.' Hence, everything that
makes us feel 'agony' that cannot be comforted is declared to be a tragedy. It is woman's
definition of tragedy.
Ironically, choice is all the rage these days. But it does not mean what it used to mean. A difficult
choice meant to accept difficult consequences in the form of suffering, disapproval of others,
ostracism, punishment, guilt, and, in general, damnation. Without these tough consequences,
choices have no meaning. It is accepting the consequences that give Antigone her nobility and
the unwillingness to do so that makes her sister Ismene less so.
The Matriarchy likes to speak much of the right to choice. What the Matriarchy is really saying
is that there are no necessary consequences, that disapproval is only prejudice and guilt only a
neurosis. "Do not worry," says the Matriarchy. "Political activism and psychiatry can handle it."
We have no-fault divorces as well as no-fault car accidents (hmm, a connection between the
two?). Society is now at the point of no-fault choices.
190
So what is the evil of Matriarchy? It is conflict. Conflict is the evil we must avoid, among the
nations of the earth, among our neighbors, and among ourselves. When conflict appears in
politics, for example, one is not to stand behind one's principles like a man. Rather, one must be
"bi-partisan." If a conflict appears between nations, "diplomacy" must be used. With people,
"communication" must be applied (or whatever else they call it). We are to feel comfortable in
life…to live the life of a cow.
Reason-Revelation. Freedom-Necessity. Democracy-Aristocracy. Good-Evil. Body-Soul. SelfOther. City-Man. Eternity-Time. Being-Nothing. A serious life is being fully aware of the
alternatives and thinking about them with all the intensity one brings to bear on life-and-death
questions knowing that every choice is a great risk with necessary consequences that are hard to
bear. The alternative is blind obedience to "The Way." People following "The Way" do not know
any alternatives and their 'happiness' is surface only- they are literally bored to death.
Do you choose to marry...or not? Do you choose to have children...or not? Do you choose to
spend your time pursuing the arts...or starting a business...or living a life of leisure? I prefer the
"MGTOW" (Men Going Their Own Way) label over the "MRA" (Men's Right Activism).
MGTOW has men making choices and living with them. These do include some men getting
married and having children. But they are not following "The Way" because they actually made a
choice. I get the impression that MRA adheres to the conflict-resolution with political activism
being the solution to the perceived problem: political inequality (which no doubt legal issues
have to be dealt with. But even if they are dealt with, happiness will not magically descend into
men's hearts. Legislators cannot create happiness. That is up to us.)
Men are alarmed that the more they know about the Matriarchy and all, the more conflict they
sense which can create suffering and agony not just within us but between families, between
individuals, and, ultimately, nations. But treat conflict as a source of inspiration, creativity, and
strength just as the ancient artists and philosophers did. Like women, we men cannot have our
cake and eat it too. But throwing off the shackles of existentialism, which is the existence of a
cow, i.e. Cowism (hah), our life becomes more enriched and the moments more intense and
charged than anything of a conflict-free life. We suffer but we can also laugh. While you may not
191
hear the residents of the Matriarchy really in 'suffering' (they are on their Prozac, their 'feelies' of
movies, and other things to become conflict-free), you also do not hear them laugh. When they
do laugh, it is a weak and most pathetic laugh, nothing like the hearty belly-laugh of one
intermeshed with life. When weak men laugh, they do an "ehh ehh ehh" artificial type laugh. It is
scrawny and annoying. A hearty laugh that echoes the room, no one in the Matriarchy can do it.
The notion of choice and consequences does mean that one never feels at home on Earth. God is
attacked today because He brings conflict: good vs. evil, heaven vs. earth, virtue vs. sin, and so
on. Jesus did declare that He did not intend to bring peace but "a sword" to divide brother against
brother, family against family, and nation against nation. The notion of God is the notion of
conflict. Since conflict is considered the only true evil today, God, and all the issues He brings,
must be steamrolled into being conflict free. That is why God and religion is only practiced
today, even among theologians, as agents of removing conflict. …Of love and tolerance.
But without conflict, Love is also dead. Psychologists have put it to death. In its place has been
sport sex and 'meaningful relationships.' Should it not be surprising that the anthology or 'death
with dignity' is on the way to putting death to death? Coming to terms with the terror of death,
Socrates' long and arduous education, learning how to die, will no longer be necessary. For death
will not be what it used to be. What will replace it remains to be seen.
If you want out of a monotone existence, take choices and reflect on the consequences. You will
begin to experience the highs and lows of life. You will suffer. But you will also laugh. A wrong
choice will spawn tragic thoughts. A right thought will spawn comedic thoughts. Now, life
becomes more thrilling than theater. You will travel back to the Matriarchy Kingdoms and find
people strapped to home theater set-ups staring passively at people acting the highs and lows of
life.
When Maximus threw his weapon at the crowd in "Gladiator," he said, "Are you entertained!?"
Well, are you? Are you going to be more entertained by merely existing and watching theater
when not working or BEING Theater and turning your life in mixes of tragedies and comedies?
192
Women always choose the former (which is why they are so movie and pop-culture obsessed).
They seek boyfriends who are the latter (for it entertains them). Nice Guys and others who
follow "The Way" are never interesting to them or anyone else. The nature of the Nice Guy is to
avoid conflict at all costs.
The Way
Before Marriage
During Marriage
193
End of Marriage
194
On the Cause and Origins of Political Perversion
195
In museums, one can see the remains of barbarian type people. These ancient barbarians believed
that the Human Form can be molded by Human tools consisting of rings, hooks, and cords. One
said: "This child will never smell the perfume of a peace-pipe unless I stretch his nostrils."
Another said: "He will never be able to hear unless I draw his ear-lobes down to his shoulders."
A third said: "He will never see the sunshine unless I slant his eyes." Another said: "He will
never stand upright unless I bend his legs." A fifth said: "He will never learn to think unless I
flatten his skull."
In stunned horror, we look at these artifacts and this sad condition of Human conceit and
stupidity as to believe the Human Form was not natural and had to be improved or progressed
using crude tools.
Today, there is another type of perversion, a type of abstract barbarism manifesting itself into a
type of Neo-Barbarism. Those ancient barbarians did not believe the Human Form was natural.
Today's neo-barbarians do not believe the Social Form is natural. Like their predecessors, the
neo-barbarians, these politicians who desire to rule over others, utilize tools to progress and
uplift the Social Form. Instead of rings, hooks, cords, and pincers of their predecessors, they use
tariffs, regulations, government schools, taxation, restrictions, and a host of pious moralizations.
These people see society as clay, and they see themselves as the potters. Or, in another fashion,
they see society as a garden and they are the gardeners. Just as a gardener has his tools of
scissors, rakes, knives, so too do politicians see the law, taxes, regulations as a way to 'shape' and
'mold' society.
This must be said: there are too many "great" men in the world- legislators, organizers, dogooders, leaders of the people, fathers of nations, and so on, and so on. Too many persons place
themselves above mankind; they make a career of organizing it, patronizing it, and ruling it.
They look upon people as Vancauson looked upon his automaton.
Let me use a historical example of Georgia (of all things!) to illustrate this issue. The following
has been taken from the book called: "The Mainspring of Human Progress"
196
The early story of Georgia is the story of just one man. He was James Edward Oglethorpe, a
most fascinating, intriguing, imaginative, and lovable personality. Indeed, it would put a strain
on the thesaurus to find adjectives that would do him full justice. He was handsome, curlyhaired, fastidiously clad, dashing, gallant, debonair, born to the aristocracy, a man of wealth, a
fearless and distinguished soldier, an able strategist- and along with all this he was the most
unselfish, generous, and noble-minded person to play an important role in colonizing America.
[skipping sections to get to the heart of the matter. The author continues how 'great' Oglethorpe
was.]
A man of great energy and action, Oglethorpe worked day and night- making speeches, writing
letters, and publishing tracts at his own expense. He also found time to keep himself posted on
colonial affairs and was quite disturbed at the slipshod way in which the colonies were being
run.
England's foothold on the American continent was none too secure. Unfriendly Spain was
strongly entrenched to the south, and the French were to the west and north. In order for
England to hold her own against encroachment, there had to be a better coordination of
defensive strategy.
Ingenious Plan
It was Oglethorpe's interest in this latter problem which led to a most ingenious and appealing
plan- a plan that would not only provide broad opportunities for social reform, but would greatly
strengthen the Empire from a military and economic standpoint. His comprehensive proposal
added up about as follows:
1. It was not only unjust, but it was also economically wasteful to keep people in prison for small
debts. Why not set them up in the New World and at the same time provide a haven for the
oppressed Protestants of Europe?
197
2. There was a vast area of desirable land lying between the Altamaha and Savannah rivers,
south of the Carolinas and north of Spanish Florida.
3. Its latitudinal position corresponded to that of China, Persia, Palestine, and the Madeiras,
upon whom England was dependent for such important products as silk, hemp, wine, olive oil,
spices, and drugs.
4. With proper supervision, such things could doubtlessly be produced in the proposed new
colony, thus making England independent of foreign sources.
5. By concentrating on such products, the new colony would not in any way conflict with the
activities of other colonies.
6. From a military standpoint, it would serve as a buffer between the Carolinas and Spanish
Florida. To insure a strong army, special concessions would be made to soldiers- only ablebodied fighting men would be permitted to own land.
7. In the interest of the common good, everything would be beneficently administered under a
well-balanced plan. This would not only provide for the necessities of military regimentation, but
it would also eliminate the disorders, maladjustments, and wastes of competition.
8. The social aspects would also be carefully supervised. Slaves, rum, and Roman Catholics
would be strictly prohibited.
9. The new colony would be named for King George II; and it would be an honor and a credit to
him- something to which he could point with pride as an example worthy of emulation by all the
other colonies.
10. First, last, and always, Georgia would be a strictly eleemosynary proposition. To avoid
dissension and to insure adherence to the high objectives, no one would be allowed to vote.
198
Oglethorpe would look after everything personally, and his motto would be 'Non Sibi, Sed Aliis'Not for Self, but for Others.
Without Argument
This comprehensive proposal was accepted without argument. Not only was the charter granted,
but also the English government departed from its usual policy and made a cash contribution of
10,000 pounds to help get things started. Oglethorpe put up some of his own money; and
overwhelmed by his logic and persuasiveness, benevolent societies and right-thinking citizens
made liberal donations.
With his carefully selected band of settlers, Oglethorpe came to the New World and founded the
city of Savannah in the year 1733. From a military standpoint, the project was a success. With a
handful of well-trained troops, Oglethorpe not only licked the invading Spaniards, but also took
advantage of the opportunity to extend the border of Georgia considerably southward.
You can read about it in the history books, and it's a most thrilling story. But as I said before, the
historians are inclined to stress the war aspects and overlook the lessons that might be learned
as bearing on the problems of peace and progress.
Reasons for Failure
In spite of his self-sacrifice and high motives, Oglethorpe's venture was a miserable failure from
an economic and sociological standpoint. He failed to recognize that military regimentation
always works at cross-purposes to creative profess- that human initiative doesn't operate
according to the pattern of a beehive. And incidentally, he overlooked the fact that variations in
climate and soil are not wholly dependent on latitude; that regardless of the needs of man-made
empires, the Almighty never intended that Georgia should be a substitute for the Orient.
During 20 years of futile effort, the population never exceeded 6,000, and when it dwindled back
down to around 500, Oglethorpe gave up in despair and returned to England.
199
A few years later, all the bans and prohibitions were lifted. The pendulum swung the other way.
Things were thrown wide open. "Refugees" who had fled to the Carolinas came back and
brought their friends with them, and there was an influx of new blood from Virginia- including
the Cavalier Talbots. The last of the 13 colonies grew by leaps and bounds; and by the end of the
century, its population had passed the 160,000 mark.
Oglethorpe's effort to set up a Utopia was one of the more extreme attempts at regimentation;
but it is typical, in many respects, of the type of thing that laid the groundwork for the
[American] revolution that was to come.
One mystery has baffled observers of politics: why do many politicians, including those in the
media, literally FAWN over dictators like Castro, find interest in butchers like Stalin, and even
secretly "respect" demi-devils like Hitler? The answer is that these people (politicians and media)
believe they ought to be in power to reshape and mold society as a potter does his clay. They
admire these thugs because they admire power and the ability to shape. They will say, "Look at
the wonders this person has done for their society!" as if the thug had uplifted their nation single
handedly. These people ignore the killings this 'leader' does and how people are fleeing the
nation in the first place (such as people fleeing Cuba rather than everyone fighting to get into
Castro's supposed 'utopia').
If the reader has the patience to grant me one more example, I shall make it worthwhile. Frederic
Bastiat, trapped in 19th century France, grew tired of the constant revolutions his country kept
entering. In a desperate attempt to change the minds of his countrymen on their path to the next
revolution, he wrote in his infamous essay on "The State" that...
And it is this great chimera which the French nation, for example, placed in 1848, for the
edification of the people, as a frontispiece to its Constitution. The following is the beginning of
the preamble to this Constitution: "France has constituted itself a republic for the purpose of raising all the citizens to an everincreasing degree of morality, enlightenment, and well-being."
200
Thus it is France, or an abstraction, which is to raise the French to morality, well-being, &c. Is
it not by yielding to this strange delusion that we are led to expect everything from an energy not
our own? Is it not giving out that there is, independently of the French, a virtuous, enlightened,
and rich being, which can and will bestow upon them its benefits? Is not this supposing, and
certainly very gratuitously, that there are between France and the French - between the simple,
abridged, and abstract denomination of all the individualities, and these individualities
themselves - relations as of father to son, tutor to his pupil, professor to his scholar? I know it is
often said, metaphorically, "The country is a tender mother." But to show the inanity of such a
constitutional proposition, it is only needed to show that it may be reversed, not only without
inconvenience, but even with advantage. Would it be less exact to say:
"The French have constituted themselves a Republic to raise France to an ever-increasing
degree of morality, enlightenment, and well being."
Now, where is the value of an axiom where the subject and the attribute could change places
without inconvenience? Everybody understands what is meant by this: "The mother will feed the
child." But it would be ridiculous to say, "The child will feed the mother."
The Americans formed another idea of the relations of the citizens with the Government when
they placed these simple words at the head of their constitution: "We, the people of the United States, for the purpose of forming a more perfect union, of
establishing justice, of securing interior tranquility, of providing for our common defense, of
increasing the general well-being, and of securing the benefits of liberty to ourselves and to our
posterity, decree," &c.
Here there is no chimerical creation, no abstraction, from which the citizens may demand
everything. They expect nothing except from themselves and their own energy.
If I may be permitted to criticize the first words of the French Constitution of 1848, I would
remark, that what I complain of is something more than a mere metaphysical subtlety, as might
seem at first sight.
I contend that this personification of Government has been, in past times, and will be hereafter, a
fertile source of calamities and revolutions.
Bastiat's complaint is that French Constitution was constructed as the source, the fountainhead,
for all society. He points out that the Americans did not construct their government that way. As
we know through history, French would have considerable more political upheaval (which
201
probably continues still to this day) while the American political system still remains stable.
The first line of Thomas Paine’s essay, Common Sense, is: "Some people have so confused
government and society as to think they are the same, but they are different and have different
origins..." and his essay explores those differences. It is that essay that established the mindset of
the American Revolution that the colonists could snap the political connections to England since
they no longer saw society and politics (i.e. law) as one of the same.
Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence:
WHEN, in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the
Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the Powers of
the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's GOD
entitle them...
Jefferson and the signers certainly did not think the Law and Society were the same. Further
down in the declaration, we read this:
NOR have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them, from
Time to Time, of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us.
We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have
appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our
common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our
Connexions and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of
Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation,
and hold them, as we hold the Rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
Again, we find Jefferson referring to the difference of law and society. In the above paragraph,
the Declaration is referring to the British people as friends in society, but due to current legal
conflict, at war.
When the U.S. Constitution was crafted, the emphasis was a Rule of Law as opposed to a Rule of
202
One (Monarchy), Rule of Few (Oligarchy), or Rule of Many (Democracy). Madison and the rest
placed the federal government into three branches within a series of checks and balances. The
Law, the Constitution, would rule over those three branches.
What I am trying to point out is that the craftsmen of the U.S. Constitution did use Law as a tool,
as a source of punishment and regulation, but instead of aiming it at society; they aimed it at the
government itself. Hence, the Constitution permitted only the things the government could do
(such as it could print money, it could do this, and it could do that). The Anti-Federalists thought
this wasn't enough and more checks needed to be put on the federal government. So the Bill of
Rights was created. While the Constitution said what the government could do, the Bill of Rights
expressed what the government could never do. And to show how much the American founders
believed in society, in the Social Form of Mankind, the tenth amendment gave any other powers
to the states and the rest allowed the Constitution to be amended by the people in the future
(should the founders be wrong in checking the powers of government).
It is no mistake that the amendments in the Bill of Rights begin with, "There shall be no law..."
No law means no law! When it comes to the First Amendment, "There shall be no law on the
abridgement of the freedom of speech, of religion, etcetera..." the amendment is giving a
commandment to the government. The Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the citizenry. You do not
have the freedom of speech on someone else's property. You do not have freedom of religion at,
say, your parent's house. Your employer, your mother, can restrict your speech. Knowing that
something like the Bill of Rights applies to the government and not to society is the first lesson
of Constitutional Law.
While France got swallowed up with the philosophies of Rousseau and other 'classical political
philosophers,' France's revolutions delivered her only to the Reign of Terror and, then, to
Napoleon. Germany was delivered to its wars and, finally, to Hitler. Europe's politicians tried to
create a EU super-state, yet another quest for political utopia, but their goal was to use law to
mold society rather than use law to fence in power mongers so society can mold itself (as the
Americans had done). This is what I believe is the central political differences between the
nineteenth century Old World and New World.
203
Some might ask, "What of slavery, Pook? What of other evil things written in law?" Bastiat
remarked that, "The New World has two sorrowful inheritances: slavery and tariffs. Both will
cause considerable strife and political undoing in the future." Bastiat was correct as the US fell
into a Civil War with the issues of slavery and tariffs as major issues. (There are disciples of
Bastiat today. A House Leader to the House of Representatives would keep Bastiast's book: "The
Law" with him at all times. One economist has framed his entire career and sense of style and
wit from Bastiat: his name is Walter Williams.)
The entire point of this massive post is to illustrate that Feminism is not new but old: it has the
same skeleton and warped view of law that some "smart" person shall remold society in order to
progress and uplift it. This is the reason why these sorts of people cheer and love judges applying
the law to "progress" and "uplift" society. This is also why those same people would cheer the
Supreme Court's ruling of Kelo v. City of New London in which a city council can declare
eminent domain to seize a person's house if it is for development. After all, to these people, they
believe a city council ought to "uplift" and "progress" a city by seizing people's houses. Most
Americans passionately disagree (which is why a court had to pass it, as it wasn't done through
the democratic process).
Feminism is the child of Rousseau type thinking. Who is a feminist? It is anyone, male or
female, who believes that the law will progress society for females. They believe that society is
an artificial creation and that the laws passed have "uplifted" all society.
Think of the Constitutional Amendment that banned drinking. This, too, was passed by the socalled progressives who thought the amendment would "progress" society. All it did was create
the Mafia and bootleggers. So another amendment was passed which canceled out the ban-ondrinking amendment.
When you debate feminists, do not say how men don't need them or anything. Rather, speak how
the law, which has inflicted harm on the natural Social Form, has hurt society. They are under
the impression that their feminist laws have progressed society. It is up to us to show the
204
opposite. Once you create doubt in their minds that society is law, and that law, like a weapon,
has wounded society, this is the seed that will grow to destroy Feminism politically.
Marriage has become that great fiction in which women endeavors to live off men. It has become
an instrument of plunder with its divorce laws, child custody laws, and so on. Marriage is now a
political institution in which people enter into. I say: "Abolish the marriage laws!" Rather than
causing 'anarchy,' it will do the opposite: it will cause the pendulum to swing the other way. By
abolishing marriage laws, matrimony becomes a social institution rather than a political
institution. Rather than being artificial, marriage becomes natural and within harmony to Nature's
Social Form.
Women are not evil and American (or Western) women do not suck. Rather, it is women in
America or in the West that is the problem. If you bring a foreign woman to America, she can
easily fall prey to the corruption the marriage laws allow her. With such marriage laws, the wife
can easily plunder and pillage her husband, steal his children, and move to another victim. By
removing such laws, we remove the ability of one gender to harm another. This is helping society
(for it is allowing the Social Form to be itself).
Feminism dies when people understand that society is natural, not artificial. Feminism dies when
people realize that society cannot be progressed by law (just as the myth that law prevented
female achievement in history).
John Locke, in his Two Treatises of Government, pinned his inspiration that society was natural
due to the "natural interaction of the sexes" of marriage and within marriage. If marriage and the
interaction of the sexes ceases to be seen as natural, but instead as political then everything in
society becomes politicized.
A free society is a non-politicized society. A true marriage is not legal documents and certificates
from a magistrate. Marriage is founded in natural society not artificial law.
In the museums of the future, we can only hope that those who attempted to mold the Social
205
Form will be put side by side with their predecessors who attempted to mold the Human Form.
We can only hope that our descendants will point to feminism as we, today, point to the ancient
classical rulers and say: "Behold, for these were the barbarians."
206
The Ultimate Question
Like a good Pook, I checked my mailbox and found a letter filled with ambitions and dreams. At
the end of the letter was this:
Yet there's still something that worries me and this is the reason why I'm writing you. Time is the
only parameter I can't control in my life. I always fear to waste my time or to take the wrong
direction in my life.
I want to be successful not only with women but also in everything I put some efforts on. But it
always seems that I'm running late in my master plan and that it would take me two lives to
achieve my goals.
So my question is:
"What would you advise me to do to avoid wasting time in my quest for self-improvement? And
how to be sure I am taking the right path when I start something?"
I don't want to have regrets when I get older! I hope you'll answer my question.
207
This is the Ultimate Question. Time is the true wealth of life. Young men don't realize that time is
their greatest asset. Your young life is like a fertile soil. Choose carefully what you plant in your
mind and in your life. If you start learning business early then you can plant a money tree which,
after much watering and de-weeding, will grow into a powerful oak where you can rest under its
sweet shade. If you plant the classics and the 'good works' in your mind, these will grow into
sweet and sustaining fruit trees where you can go through the world clad in the armor of a strong
soul (behind every mover and shaker in the world, their young adulthood always includes the
'planting' of these classics in some form or another). The idea is to plant good seeds of talent and
perform good habits. Your habits are your destiny. Change your habits and so change your
destiny.
But how do you determine what is 'wasting time' or not? I still struggle with this question. My
advice is to observe and talk to older men (not ask them directly, but pay attention to what they
regret and think about). So, with all honesty, I don't have a solid answer.
And this brings me to my Pookish Commandments. I have been trying to come up with very
simple, very clear things to 'think' or 'act' which would radically improve your life standard. The
Third Pookish Commandment is about financial freedom (this, alone, so changes one's life). But
ones like the second commandment of fighting negativity ensures you don't become a passive
being on message boards moaning about "The End of the World" and all. It is the First
Commandment which is still the most powerful and filtering: "Be who you are!"
Let me tell you a story. I had a very good Constitutional Law professor when I was in University.
Based on my current geography and his time frame of being in southern Texas, he knows all the
big shots in U.S. politics today. He knew and could talk to Condoleezza Rice who was a
professor of political science at Stanford (she is, of course, now the Secretary of State of the
U.S.). He had brown bag lunches with Ken Starr for the longest time (who lived in his
neighborhood). Ken Starr, if you don't recall, was the Independent Prosecutor during the Monica
Lewinsky scandal of President Clinton's term. He has met W. Bush before he ran for governor.
As a member of the Supreme Court Society, he has certain access to the members of the court.
He has talked much with Sandra Day O'Conner for example. Since, right now, most of the big
208
cheeses in U.S. politics have come from my area in Texas, knowing people who knew these guys
shouldn't be surprising. What is fun were the personal stories he shared. I know exactly what Ken
Starr eats for lunch, what Sandra Day O' Connor jokes about (usually diapers), Rice's personality
and body language when she talks, and on and on and on (the most fascinating stuff is about W.
Bush, see page 205).
Anyway, one day he began talking about an old friend of his. The two of them were identical in
their youth. However, he took a different path. While my professor chose the route of academia
and the 'noble' path of 'higher education' and all that, his friend chose greed, dreams, and all the
'sins' that Matriarchy holds. Academics do not get paid much (but their jobs are very secure).
While he teaches students and does 'academic papers,' his friend created a business empire and
retired at the age of 42 as a multi-millionaire in a mansion on a beach in Florida. Here is a
collection of what he said:
"You know how they say to live life and not care what other people think about you?" As he
talked about that, he never openly said he lived his life to other people's thoughts but I got the
distinct impression that he did. He openly advised everyone, "Do not feel bad about desiring to
'make money' in life. If you make much money, you can retire and do other things." His friend,
for example, could now play the philosopher if he desired (or anything else).
The point of this story was to show a very successful and distinguished middle age man, who has
connections to some of the most powerful people in the world, wrecked with regret. I didn't
understand all that was being said but I put it into a mental folder for later use. His story is part
of the reason why the First Pookish Commandment was so important: Be Who You Are. Or you
could say, Do What You Love.
I have recently buried a childhood friend, and have seen an older one go completely blind with
others pass away...to pass through Nature into Eternity. It is not that life is short; it is that it can
easily be wasted. It is no seeds of talent being planted and no crops appearing.
209
The best filter for not wasting life is to BE WHO YOU ARE. Follow your soul, follow your
dreams, and stop giving others power to determine the fate of your life.
The Animated Life
Have you noticed that some people are more 'animated' than others? Most people live as if their
flesh is a cage. There is nothing electric coming from them. They hold no charisma. They
are...dull.
Here is a revealing experiment. Take people and make them do a speech. Now, many people
despise public speaking. They fear public speaking more than death!!! So when they get to the
podium, they begin talking about their chosen subject. Their talk is very cold, very dull.
Everyone in the room begins to glaze at the room and daydream hoping that this speech is over.
When it does, everyone awakes with the polite 'clap.'
Change the assignment that instead of talking about a specific subject, the people talk about
210
themselves. Since everyone apparently loves themselves, people suddenly become very
animated and won't shut up! You have to force them from the podium! But what a turn-around!
What a change from those dull, dreadful, dumb speakers earlier.
The difference between the unanimated speaker of before and the animated speaker later was not
a series of 'techniques' (such as breathing deeper or longer, or talking in a more forceful tone).
The difference was that the speaker was BEING WHO HE WAS. We already have natural
charisma and energy within us: it is called the soul. When we are who we are, we spread the
wings of our soul and the energy just radiates. While this example is easily seen with public
speaking, it works with life as well. The interesting, charismatic people aren't reading manuals
on how to live life. They are being who they are.
"But what if you are a bumbling, boring bum, Pook? Are you telling me that is what I should
be?" No! Being who you are is being what your soul is. I highly doubt anyone's soul desires to be
a boring bum. Like the rest of us, you went through childhood with dreams of adventure and
victory. If you notice, children are very electric and animated in play. Why shouldn't they be?
They are being who they are. And by letting your soul out of its self-made prison, you begin to
focus on your dreams, your passion, and your goals. Your life becomes spontaneous and
animated. People will wonder where all this energy came from. But you now have the energy of
the child at play for the world is now your sandbox.
Men trapped in the Matriarchy are often dull, bored, and go around with tired eyes. Men outside
the Matriarchy are living their dreams (instead of women's dreams) and so are full of energy
(along with several cute girls eyeing them).
When you ARE WHO YOU ARE, your life becomes more animated. *GASP* People will begin
to ask YOU for advice on 'how to live.' When you tell them, "BE WHO YOU ARE!" and receive
a puzzled look from them, don't worry, I know how it feels.
211
Purpose of life is to win, not to survive
Attention all you mediocre males (for I will not call you MEN). You like to spew all sorts of
212
speeches, essays, and words over anyone that will hear you. You smoke your words in a pretty
pipe to null yourself to girlish comfort and gooishness. You, who say, life is to be survived not to
be won. You, who cower in the corners saving and scavenging for the pennies and are to take
afraid to risks. In fact, you view risk as an enemy to your comfort. "Survive Pook! We are meant
to survive!" You passion-less slugs! Not even a child would be as guilty as you are. Even a
CHILD knows there are WINNERS and LOSERS in life.
As is my habit, I will give an excellent analogy. Through my periodic workouts (of which the
ladies time their workouts at the same time to be in the presence of my Pookness), I tend to swim
afterward. It is nice to cool down in the pool. But I noticed something particular. Why was
swimming in the pool draining my battery more than lifting hundreds of weights? Why could
little women, who were I admit were very muscular with their strong legs and tight rear, able to
easy out swim me? Maybe swimming wasn't in my genetics? But that, I knew, was poppycock.
"Poppycock!?" cries a reader. Yes, poppycock. I swam harder but that just drained my energy
further. What was I doing wrong?
I realized in swimming (just as with everything in life), we are taught to survive, not how to win.
In swimming, you are taught how to stay above the water, how to use your arms to propel
yourself from one side to another, and let us not forget to follow the black line. We end up flat on
our face slapping the water endlessly as we struggle to go back and forth, back and forth.
No other creature on Earth swims that way. Fish do not swim flat, and they do not use their fins
to propel them. "But fish were made to be in the water, Pook," you might say. "Man was made to
be on the ground. Of course we cannot swim like a fish."
We were told we could not fly like a bird until Man's MIND came up with an answer. Instead
trying to swim to survive, let us try swimming to win. "And how might you win, Pook?" Why,
by imitating the master swimmer: the fish. Instead of swimming flat, swim at an angle like the
fishes do (water has 1000 times more resistance than air. Think of all the air resistance that
cyclers and joggers attempt to combat and wonder why swimmers don't do it for water.) The way
213
that we swim is that we go against the water most of the time. Chop! Chop! Goes our arms in the
water. The engine to the fish is not its fins but its thrust with its body. The fins only guide. After
all, golfers and baseball players don't swing with their arms, they swing with their thighs. With
Olympic swimmers, the faster swimmers are those who use their arms the least.
Nevertheless, I began swimming like a fish. Took a while to learn and required me to untrain my
old habits to really use my brain to learn to swim again. I must certainly look funny being
underwater, on my side. But what is funny is that I only have to rotate my arms a few times to go
from one side of the pool to another. Those who swim to survive become annoyed as I keep up
with them. "You are barely working at it!" they growl. "I know," I reply. "That is the point."
With Don Juan, you realized it was better to win than to survive. Nice Guys live to survive; Don
Juans live to win. You understand the natural process so you do not 'work.' Nice Guys think of
getting girls as working uphill- hard, frustrating, and taxing. Don Juans think of getting girls as
sliding downhill- exhilarating, fun, a roller coaster. This same difference animates all of life:
love, finance, sports, sex, learning, playing, and everything else.
"Live for what you NEED!" says the voice of security. "Live for what you WANT!" says the
voice of freedom.
"That is selfishness!" damns a reader.
No. Selfishness is not doing what you want. Selfishness is demanding others do what you want
as a form of entitlement.
So sit softly, you mediocre men who sit in the soft glow of your computer monitors. Live your
life to survive. I intend to win.
"But you might lose, Pook!" Yes, but at least I can say my life was an adventure. Can you say the
same for yours?
214
215
You are not a god
Aristotle said that man is a social animal. (In other words, man creates families, cities, concerts
and other fabulous things.)
But what if one becomes extremely individualized? By individualization, I mean cutting off one's
family, mocking Nature, and marching to the drums of rhetoric from quacks. Aristotle answered
that such highly individualized beings are either gods or beasts. (Keep in mind that in Aristotle's
time, the Greek gods were the religion.)
Arrogance of the soul is the cause of disasters such as feminism. Many women literally believe
they are 'goddesses.' Like an ancient Greek god, they believe they are above Nature itself. "I will
do all these wonderful things!" she says, which the 'wonderful' usually means a new pair of
shoes, a bigger house, and a more glitzy car. She believes she is 'beyond' the gender known as
'female.' "I am a strong woman," she proclaims. "I write worthless poetry and dream of an empty
glamorous life." (OK, she doesn't say 'worthless' and 'empty,' I couldn't resist typing that in). She
literally lives a life in the World of Image, trapped within Maya.
Men, trapped in the Matriarchy (i.e. the Maya), fall under a similar spell. As their soul becomes
arrogant, they become more deluded and more easily fooled by the images. They imagine
216
themselves gods with their notches to their bedpost, working a grand career, or some other
materialistic trapping.
I tell them, "You are not a god." This, they protest. "I too am a god," they proclaim. "See how
wonderful I am?" They may or may not have worshippers. This may explain why many people
(especially women) worship celebrities as, to them, they appear like gods. They are the center of
the swirling storm, the spinning disc of Maya (the illusion).
And no, I am not trying to be funny. People literally think they are gods and goddesses. If a
religion is not what they desire, they can easily re-write it so they become god-like in it (one of
the reasons why people, especially women, love the occult and trash like the Da Vinci Code).
But if Aristotle is correct, then the other swing is the beast. These self-seen gods and goddesses
are, actually, nothing more than beasts. You think you have a 'grand career?' No, your purpose is
to make the owners rich. You think you are the star of the world just because you have a 'wife?'
Or have you actually become a beast of burden? We work hard and then play harder.
All manipulators are armed with descendant fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil. Get *that* girl or
*that* career and you will have paradise on Earth. Whenever we see ourselves as invincible and
god-like, we have a veil so tight around our eyes that we cannot see the truth...that we were
acting like beasts.
The only way to be free from being Human is to become a god or to become a beast. Let this be
a reality check, you will never become a god. People will often attempt to trick you into thinking
of how 'wonderful' you are, but this is so they can use you as a beast of burden.
The Matriarchy is about one promise: freeing us from being Human. To females, it promises
them freedom from being a woman. To men, it promises freedom from being a man. To glorify
this promise, there are exciting images to see from movies and television, many dumbed down
books and universities to let people have the image of being smart, and the ever present image of
materialism promised by an endless parade of commercials.
217
To ask your soul to become free of being a Human is like asking a fish to become free of water.
You might as well ask birds to be free from the air or squirrels to be free from trees.
Freedom is only found in embracing your humanity. For a matriarchal female, she will find
happiness and a content soul only in becoming a woman. For a feminized male, he will find
happiness and content only in becoming a man.
So this is a friendly post from your neighborly Pook to remind you that, "Yes Virginia! I am not a
god! I am, instead, like an actor on a stage of Nature. So farewell folly-filled pompousness that
had me thinking that I would become god-like in image, influence, and intelligence." You nod to
the stage director, "His name is Time, and he, alone, determines when the play will end. But what
I do on this stage is up to me."
'But Pook! Where are those arrogant ones on the stage?' Friend, they are TOO CHICKEN to
come onto the stage of Nature, Life's Play, and act. They live out their narcissism in their
bizzaro-world of illusions and never become who they are. So no matter how much you stumble
up there on that stage, you are taking real steps in life while the fools take false ones.
218
Part tw0
Change and the new context
219
Politics
220
Why Rome Fell
221
Every interest group proclaims Rome fell because their cause was ignored. Environmentalists
blame the fall of Rome on lead pipes or other hazards. Religious people blame the fall of Rome
on social decay. Gays blame the fall of Rome on not embracing the fictional Greek gay life-style.
Classicalists blame the fall of Rome on the very long book of "The Fall of Rome" because if they
read such a long book, they must put its conclusions to use somehow to sound sophisticated.
Liberals blame the fall of Rome because of Christian fundamentalism. It can be safe to say that
everyone projects their own belief into the Fall of Rome.
Why the projection? It is because the above groups have a worship of History whose ebbs and
flows revolve around their beliefs. After all, we know liberals believe they are the force of
History while conservatives believe they are the force of history. This allows everyone to point to
the Fall of Rome and proclaim that current civilization will fall.
And by fall of the Roman Empire, I do not mean the fall of Byzantium in the 1400s but a
thousand years before that.
The lifeblood of civilization is trade, profitable and safe trade. The reason why America exists in
the first place was the colonists wanted to trade with whomever and wherever they wanted. Poor
nations almost always have poor trade.
Just as we have our Tupperware and storage containers used in everyday life, the Romans had
their pots and other containers. Archeology can trace these pots and measure their quality. What
was amazing is how high quality pottery was used throughout the civilization straight down to
the peasant class. This meant the ratio between prices and earnings had to have been favorable.
There is an example of a Syrian village that thrived in rocky country whose soil was good only
for growing olive trees. This village sustained a ridiculously high population for many, many
years -- a population that was far higher than could be supported from the agricultural yields of
that area.
222
So what were they living on? Trade of course. They grew their olives and shipped the oil abroad.
Apparently their oil was so highly regarded throughout the Mediterranean that it enabled them to
import almost all the food and wine they required to sustain their population.
They had specialized. It worked very well for them -- until the whole system of trade broke down
and there was no way for them to get their goods out to their potential markets. Either it was no
longer safe enough to transport their oil and sell it profitably, or the markets had dried up because
of the crash of the economy elsewhere. Whatever the immediate cause, the result was
predictable: Without the revenues to let them import food, the population crashed back to the
very low levels that could be sustained by the miserable local farming.
So what caused the decrease of trade leading to the crash?
Solid trade requires protection. The Roman military was posted on borders and did their job so
well that city walls were not used. The Roman Empire had a series of crisis after crisis: plagues,
civil wars, and other problems. None of that brought down the system. If the local economy
crashed, it soon sprang up again.
But due to the civil wars, the military became weakened. Emperors began a self-destructive
policy of paying barbarians to leave the borders alone. This worked for a while. But the
barbarians kept showing up again and again and soon there wasn't money to pay to bribe them
away. Also, the barbarians had to show they were serious. If they looted one city, that would
compel Rome to act. But by looting that city, it caused effects among the nearby citizens to flee.
When they ran out of money, Rome began giving the barbarians land. So now the barbarians
became the new overlords for an area and, likewise, the new tax collectors. …Except they kept
all the taxes to themselves. They didn't understand the tax collection system as looting and
pillaging were much more effective. They didn't enforce public safety and merchants became at
risk. They took too much and those areas became removed from the Roman Empire's grand
trading network.
The Roman Empire could absorb some of this, but not lots and not all at once.
223
The point was not that a nation fell but an international economic system. The city-states were
dependent on one another. As trade broke down, artisans crashed because who could pay for their
goods? Since no one wanted to become an artisan since you couldn't survive doing it, the
workmanship would survive a generation or two afterward until it disappeared. Pollen counts
indicate that crops decreased. Cities turned into villages.
In the twentieth century, America became much of an economic cushion. I don't say this with
American narcissicism, I say it because it fits the pattern of that century. America was not
invaded during World War I so it could help be the economic cushion to help get England and
France back on their feet. When America did enter its Great Depression, the stage was set for a
new barbarian uprising, which came from Hitler and the Nazis. Like before, civilization tried to
appease the barbarians. When money failed, they gave them land. After World War II, America
became an economic cushion to Japan and Western Germany.
Over the past sixty years, economies performed fantastically when sustained by the American
military. A Pax Americana existed that is allows for an international economy, for more trade
zones, and so on. This system of safe trade has allowed for greater degrees of specialization and
mutual sustained prosperity.
Unlike Rome, America is not imperial. America also does not tax the lands its military is located
in. What happens is that America taxes itself. Since Japan and much of Europe does not have to
pay for the high taxes of that Defense requires, they can create socialism and other government
projects.
America's defense budget is not a menace to the world. To the contrary, it has allowed places like
South Korea to Japan to Taiwan to Eastern Europe to thrive mostly because they don't have to
pay for that defense.
Communists were holdouts outside the wall of American security. They thought they could
subvert the international economic system. When they fell, places like China and Russia wanted
224
to join. But nations like Russia made the same mistake of not protecting merchants. It became
too dangerous to do business in Russia. So the nation began to move back to doing things the old
way and Putin becomes a dictatorship in anything but name only. Naturally, America is blamed
for all this.
China has a demographic crisis as there are two men for every girl. This means, in time, it may
become unsafe to do trade in China. And they may become cut off from the International
Economic System.
The new barbarians are the Islamic Fascists. This is because they attack trade and, where they
abound, make it unsafe to do business there. Think of those French districts where even the
French police are scared to enter.
The point is that they, and many America's "allies" oddly, do not understand the International
Economic System, see it as oppression rather than what it is: uplifting and prosperous, and are
bent on destroying it.
This is why the targets of 9/11 were the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Ultimately, the
two are not separate. They are one.
225
The Political Science
Part of the gloom and doom that exists in the Men's Movement is a wild misunderstanding of
politics. But this is not unique. Most (failed) movements end up with one conclusion: "The end
days are upon us!"
Most of my formal training was in this field. And, let me tell you, I was very incorrect and
extremely wrong on many times. Both conservatives and liberals are guilty of crass errors. But
this shouldn't be surprising. We were students and students are ignorant.
One of the flaws of Democracy is that every jack thinks they are a prince (while every prince
pretends to be a jack). The average person is ignorant in physics, literature, history, and
government. This is not a slam but just stating the truth. These fields are highly specialized. I
couldn't tell you anything about physics. I wouldn't even try. Much of history is unknown to me
because there is so much history out there. While I'm more knowledgeable about literature, I still
claim ignorance to much of it (especially the non-Western works). Being ignorant does not mean
you are stupid. But one cannot become an expert in everything.
Yet, everyone is an expert in politics. If you voted with dollars instead of with ballots, I expect
most people to become homeless as they would consistently lose elections. It is very easy to talk
among like-minded friends and exist in a 'bubble.' When reality breaks, it is near insanity to
ignore it and keep trying to live in your pre-made illusion. When the electoral results came in for
226
the 2004 election, some people sadly couldn't take the reality. What is worse is that people tie
their personal happiness by what goes on in Washington. So if their candidate doesn't win, their
life is 'rotten.' Why give politics so much power by it determining your happiness?
Many people assume politics is about ideology. It is not. Here is a break-down of all the arenas
of politics:
Law- Is something legal or not? When politicians do something (or don't do something), keep in
mind that they exist in a pure legal equilibrium. Most politicians are lawyers. They operate
according to (and to breaking) the Law.
Example: The Senate made a huge bill on illegal immigration and sent it to the House of
Representatives. The bill died instantly in the House. The reason why was legal. In the bill, the
Senate wrote that illegal immigrants wouldn't have to pay their back taxes for the past three
years. This made the bill illegal. The Constitution says that only bills dealing with money must
come from the House. This is why that bill instantly died.
Demographics- This charts all the population among future trends. The reason why I can say
that homosexuals have no political future is because they have no demographic future: they can't
have children. Political elections are heavily dependent on demographics. Karl Rove absolutely
loves demographics. Each electoral map is broken down county by county, territory by territory,
by registered voters and people moving in or out. This is heavily numbers based and is probably
the bulk of Political Science.
Example: Florida will obtain significant political power as a state with elections and general
influence. Around eight hundred people a day are moving into Florida. Florida's population is
surging and the electoral votes, counted by the next census, will exceed New York State. Since
old people vote the most, and Florida is full of old people, the state will hold very strong political
power. This is because of demographics.
Raising Money- If you think being a Senator is about spending all day writing legislation, you
227
would be wrong. A Senator, like any other politician, spends considerable time raising money.
This money is necessary for campaigning. If a politician cannot raise money, then this politician
has a bleak future. In order to raise money, the politician appeals to donations from us smaller
folk to interest groups.
Example: When Bush was running for re-election, he held many fundraisers in which he raised
cash for his campaign. Follow the money in politics.
Elections- This is the big one. To us, a war or the economy is a 'problem.' But to the politician,
they are never problems. The only problem to the politician is the next 'election.' To them, this is
the problem that must be solved. Elections dwarf demographics and 'raising money' to
politicians.
Example: The Republican Party was split on illegal immigration. Bush and the Senate desired to
cater to illegal immigration due to demographics (so many Hispanics in America) and to raising
money (many businesses who donated to campaigns liked illegal immigration). However, Bush
and most of the Senate are not up for re-election this year. The entire House, however, is. So the
Republicans in the House of Representatives decided to betray the party line because their
constituents were demanding that they do so. They, like anyone else, want to be re-elected.
Ideology- Ideology holds a much smaller place in [American] politics than people think. In order
for a politician to succeed, he must be able to manage the demographics, the law, effectively
raise money, and then win elections. Ideology is a much smaller demand on them. They reserve it
mostly for speeches while their attention goes back to demographics and raising money. Some
politicians are frightened by ideology as that might scare away the bulk of their voters.
Example: The base of the Democrats, mostly the bloggers, is HUNGRY for ideology. The
Democrats in Congress refuse to speak the same identical ideological words that the Democrat
base does (for fear of alienating the mainstream). So, the base plans to replace them unless they
speak the ideology that they do. This is an example of ideology affecting politics.
228
Even I was skeptical at first, but I have learned there is such a thing as a political science. If
someone handed you papers from the Supreme Court, could you understand what was going on?
(Law) If someone gave you the statistics for population growth in the southern valley of the US,
would you know what that meant and how it would shape the future? If someone gave you the
list of people attending political fundraisers, do you know what it all means? And weeks going
into an election, could you accurately predict, county by county, what the results would be?
People get paid big bucks to do this stuff because most people can't do it. Law is an extensive
field which you need to pay people to either act for you in court or to perform some other service
for you (don't even think about 'winging' it). People who bring in the information and
conclusions of demographics also make big money since most people can't do it.
I try to avoid politics whenever possible (for I see nothing good coming from politics). But with
so much gloom and doom coming from misreadings of politics, I'll try to do my part and clear up
what I know to be clear myths. Hopefully, people will stop thinking the world is about to end.
Here is an example of a political myth:
MYTH: There is no 'war' because the President has never declared it.
This idea comes from watching too much television. People imagine the President going to
Congress and screaming, "I DECLARE WAR ON JAPAN!! I DECLARE WAR ON
GERMANY!!!" And Congress then 'votes' on it as was done for World War II. Many people will
say that the Vietnam War, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq are not considered 'true wars' because
the President never declared them.
This is an issue of Law. What these people do not understand is that the Constitution never
defines a declaration of war. All it requires is Congress's approval. Legally, Bush could bomb
Canada if he believed it had a connection to 9/11. Why? Because Congress gave him the
authority to retaliate against the origins of the 9/11 hijackers with the 9-14 Resolution (this
resolution is the declaration of war against al-quaeda). Bush could have gone into Iraq if he
229
desired without more Congress's approval. But to be safe (and because of the 2002 Election), he
took the issue to Congress where they voted to approve the action into Iraq.
The House also has further approval due to the power of the purse. Wars are expensive and
require massive funding. At any time, the House of Representatives can pull the funds and end
any war the Executive Branch is in.
If the military action gets Congress's approval, it isn't illegal. We may love it or hate it, but it is
not illegal. The bottom line is that the Constitution does not specify what a Declaration of War is.
What is required is Congress's approval.
"But Pook! That is so simple! How could some people not get it?"
This is a good question.
230
Who is Bush?
One of the advantages of being Pook is that I have access to those who have been around my
nation's 'leaders.' Think of Chaucer who got stuck between the high political class and the rest of
us peasants. It has always been in my family history for my ancestors to be "serving" the noble
class in some capacity. I have a direct ancestor even as far back that was a 'sheriff' in London
centuries ago serving some English King (forgot which one). Since Bush and most of the current
administration has come from Texas (not just Texas but my local county), everyone I seem to
231
know has had direct contact with these guys.
Bush is not a conservative. He is a moderate but with some conservative leanings. For the
conservatives in the Republican Party, they only care about what is referred to as "the three" big
issues: foreign policy, tax cuts, and the Supreme Court. Since Bush goes with those, the party
generally supports him. With those who really despise Bush, I wonder what would happen when
a real conservative gets into the White House. Do they realize that Newt Gingrich is the currently
leading among the base in the primaries for 2008? It is still way early but I am curious what
would happen if a very ideological conservative came around, how would the Democrat Party
act?
Anyway, people tell me that Bush acts nothing at all on TV as he does in person. In person, he is
very articulate, very charming, and...as someone described..."robust." Naturally, I ask, "Then
why does he just blink into the camera and not talk very well?" And the answer I got was: "Pook,
there are two reasons. First, not everyone is good at being personable toward a camera. Take
these famous writers. They are brilliant but in front of a television camera they sound like idiots.
They just aren't used to cameras. Whereas a Hollywood actor can respond very well with the
camera yet, they are often the biggest doofuses. Bush is a people person. He becomes animated
around people, not cameras." Then he reminded me, "Remember the debates with Kerry? In the
Second Debate with the Town Hall, you can clearly see Bush becoming animated and trying to
connect with each person talking. He connects with people, not cameras." So, what about that
second reason? "Remember that kid in class who always had the right answer for everything?
You wanted to slap that kid. In politics, one must remember perception. Bush can go around
swatting answers at anything but it usually doesn't look presidential." His latest press conference
in the Rose Garden certainly illustrated that.
Bush actually prefers to be underestimated. "That is his strategy," one person told me. "He wants
people to think of him as a doofus." Ann Richards, that feminist governor of Texas who recently
died, wrote off Bush when he first ran for governor. Gore and Kerry both did later. Even today
people underestimate his political abilities. I was told that is just as he wants it. "That is what
works for him," one said.
232
The personality of Bush is that he is extraordinarily competitive. If you played a Ping Pong game
with him, for example, he would try to win. His focus is winning on anything he does. (This isn't
surprising to me as any successful person in anything usually seems to have this mentality. Tiger
Woods even admitted that if he played checkers or something, his goal would be to win.)
One unique thing about Bush that differs from other politicians is that he is extremely focused on
voting records, demographics, and statistics. Usually, the candidate hasn't a clue of this and the
campaign manager deals with this. When Bush would go campaign in, say, New Mexico, he
knew the voting records for each county. Karl Rove is apparently a walking encyclopedia on this
stuff and much of it must have rubbed off on Bush.
Bush is said to be one of the most 'charming.' (Not a surprise for a mega-politician). Much of the
charm is suspected of being Machiavellian. For example, when Bush was first president, he and
his wife would roll in a birthday cake for Senator Ted Kennedy (and invite him to watch
movies). Stuff like this worked in Texas probably since there isn't much to be partisan about
down here. But in Washington, this "new tone" never really took off. The "new tone" was Bush's
idea that he could charm everyone on Capitol Hill.
Bush is a fanatical book reader. He loves reading biographies. In fact, I suspect the way he acts is
how he thinks he will be remembered his future 'biographies' (after all, when you are president,
people are going to write biographies on you regardless).
Al Gore speaks better Spanish than Bush does. However, Gore learned his Spanish at Harvard.
He speaks the text-book Spanish. Bush learned Spanish at the oil rigs in Texas so his Spanish is
"off" but it has the Texas/Mexican slang and nuances in it. This is why during the 2000
campaign, Hispanics preferred Bush's Spanish to Al Gore's.
Bush will do anything to win. To those who don't remember, recall Tom Daschle and the
opposition in the first term. What Bush deliberately did was take away Daschle's political issues.
Campaign Finance Reform? Bush signed it. Pills and Medicare? Bush signed that, irking all his
233
Republicans. What happened is that by signing practically everything Daschle was supporting,
what could Daschle run on? This is why after the election of 2004, Daschle, the Democrat Party
Leader in the Senate, was voted out of office (which hadn't happened to a party leader since
1952, fifty four years ago!). Bush is addicted to winning. This is why now, during an election
year, we are suddenly seeing Bush become feisty with the press.
As governor, Bush was very different than he is today. He always joked around. He had
afternoon naps in Austin. Either due to the presidency or to 9/11, it's been said he now lacks that
'jovial' attitude he once had.
How did Bush get to the governorship? The South in America has been called the "Solid South"
for one reason: it has been universally Democrat. Ever since the Civil War, Lincoln was a
Republican and the Confederacy were Democrats back then. After the Civil War, so much
resentment was built up that the South was solidly Democrat up until 1994. In 1994 was the socalled Republican Revolution which the South swung Republican and took over both the House
and Senate. Bush rode the 1994 conservative wave as did his brother, Jeb, in Florida.
How did Bush get 'anointed' as the presidential candidate by the Republican Party? There are two
Presidential campaigns; there is the official public one we all know. But there is a hidden one
within the party. Not anyone is going to become a presidential candidate. The party will see if
you have the wits to do it, and, most importantly, if you can win. In Bush, they saw the name
recognition that his father had. Bush was no stranger to politics or political campaigns as he used
to hang out at the White House during the Reagan and the first Bush Administrations. But most
importantly, they saw his election results in Texas. The first election against Ann Richards was
fine for a political upstart, 52% against 48%. But he grew the gap considerably in the second
election. What most attracted the Republican Party to give Bush the presidential nod was that the
party saw Bush attracted Hispanic votes (as well as some black votes). Bush also did very well
with women. With attracting a wide variety of demographics, they saw Bush as a safe choice.
What more is there to say about him? These are all things that have been told to me. I have never
met Bush. I have met Governor Perry (who was Lieutenant Governor when Bush was the
234
Governor. Perry took over when Bush became President). One thing about Perry is that he has to
be gay. He acts like such a pretty boy. When saying the Pledge of Allegiance, I scanned everyone
and what was Perry doing during the pledge? He was touching up his hair like a girl. …Very
strange.
One last thing, Bush's ranch in Texas is a prop. He probably does enjoy such a ranch as it is very
different from the White House. But it is a campaign prop. He bought it for the Presidential
election. Watch him sell it when he steps down as President. He'll probably end up living in an
apartment in Dallas. (What!? Why are you surprised? Bush will do anything to win... even buy a
ranch in the middle of the boonies.)
Lieberman thrown under the bus
235
Senator Lieberman (D) narrowly lost a primary to newcomer Lamont tonight. What does this
mean and why am I posting about it?
Senator Lieberman had been a Democrat senator for, I believe, 18 years. Only six years ago, he
was the vice presidential nominee of Al Gore in the 2000 Presidential Election. Two years ago,
he was a presidential candidate in the Democrat presidential primary. Lieberman is not a 'little'
senator. He was well up in the ranks. What is stunning to the political scientists is that his party
threw him under a bus. A few years ago, a presidential candidate…now, completely purged from
the party.
In the US's Democrat Party, there has recently been a change with a strong surge of anti-war
bloggers. The Democrat Party is literally beginning to become controlled by them. Lieberman is
a Democrat on practically every issue except he supported the Iraq War. This has caused these
Net bloggers to purge him from the party. They raised the money and focused heavily on this
primary. (Hillary Clinton is also supportive of the Iraq War. She is next in target to be purged.
Yes... I know it is shocking, but keep a close eye on this. Hillary Clinton has no chance with the
primary of Democrats now.)
Political scientists believe that the "Net roots" of the Democrat bloggers to swing the party to a
very strident anti-war position will only McGovernize the Party. What does 'McGovernizing'
mean? The political left, especially of the 1960s, put up McGovern for the 1972 Presidential
Election. McGovern ran very hard as anti-war against Richard Nixon (the war was the Vietnam
War). Nixon won the election in, at the time, the second biggest landslide victory in American
history. Even with how unpopular Vietnam was, the anti-war candidate lost. McGovernizing
means moving the party to a political area where they will not be elected by the mainstream.
With Lieberman's defeat in the primary, this will encourage the anti-war bloggers. The question
is will they then go on and purge every Democrat who supported the Iraq War? (This would
include Hillary Clinton) If they do, then the party could become McGovernized.
236
But Lieberman may get the last laugh out of this. He will run as an independent in the November
general election. Because of how close the primary was, if Lieberman retains those votes, he will
also get the independent votes and Republican votes in Connecticut (Republicans are not putting
up a candidate in Connecticut). Every political analyst shows an independent Lieberman
winning. What will probably happen is that there will be intense behind-the-door pressure to talk
Lieberman out of not running like what happened with Cuomo or Toricelli.
The reason why I'm posting this is that this is a classic example of why you must carefully
"choose" your own battles. The Democrats are literally cannibalizing their own here. Tomorrow,
Lieberman will change party affiliation to independent and win (if he doesn't get talked out of
running). As of tomorrow, there will now be only 43 Democrat Senators. This means the
Democrat Party would lose a senator just because of this primary fight. They now need an extra
win to re-take the Senate.
Was Lamont winning the primary a good thing for the party? An honest political analysis says
"No." They've lost a senate seat.
237
The Real Hurricane Katrina Memory
To those outside the US or even the South may see media do coverage on the 'one year
anniversary' of Hurricane Katrina. The media coverage of that hurricane greatly impacted my
local region and showed how a bunch of sheep people are.
The coverage of Hurricane Katrina hitting New Orleans was atrociously bad with the 'reports' of
rapes, sharks swimming down streets (how do these sharks appear from fresh water lakes?),
massive gang violence, and so on. This did not stop those reporters from giving themselves
awards. Doomsters LOVED the Katrina coverage as they held that as 'proof' that all society was
collapsing (without mentioning New Orleans society had collapsed long, long before the
hurricane).
With all this poor coverage, don't you think people would go absolute bonkers when the next
hurricane hit? Of course you do. And the next hurricane, Rita, a category 4 or 5, slammed into
the gulf coast of Texas soon afterward.
I have never seen people turn into such sheep. Hurricanes are dangerous (I've gone through like
five) but, depending on where you lived, you did not need to evacuate. The worst I expected was
trees blown down and no electricity for a few days. But I live west of Houston. Despite that,
everyone was evacuating when they didn't need to. All the streets were clogged. People ran out of
gas in the middle of the road due to sitting there. Some people were sitting, in one spot, for five
to eight hours. Thanks to the horrible Katrina media coverage, the government officials in
Houston and surrounding areas went into complete crisis mode. They didn't want to be blamed
like the Louisiana politicians were. A scared politician is a dangerous politician.
238
You don't hear anything about hurricane Rita hitting Texas. Why should you? Nothing ended up
happening. No disaster. The only disaster was on the road with all the sheep leaving (when most
didn't have to). This is occurring now in Florida. Floridians know their hurricanes but, thanks to
this stupid Katrina coverage (and even stupider re-living year old bad coverage [which the same
media won't do to real disasters such as 9/11]), some in Florida are panicking over a tropical
depression. A tropical depression, for you guys who don't get hurricanes, is just a rain storm.
Needless to say, you don't have to worry about old Pook becoming a sheep. When Rita was
coming, everyone said, "LOL you are stupid Pook!" "Idiot! You will DIE!" (Yes, this person
actually thought I was going to die. I didn't even lose my electricity or a tree limb).
I'll tell you what I do fear: tornadoes. You know when a hurricane is coming and can easily avoid
and prepare for it. But tornadoes come out of nowhere and are highly unpredictable. They skip
around and follow no clear path. Because of that, I'd rather live in Florida than in Kansas.
Did you know that around 800 people a day move to Florida? After the next census, Florida will
have more electoral votes than New York. People who are moving to Florida appear to be
coming from the Rust Belt, states such as Ohio.
"But Pook! Florida has all those hurricanes! Why would people want to move down there?"
It is because of those high taxes in areas like Ohio. Florida (and Texas too) has no state income
tax making it very attractive for people. You can count on taxes being certain all the time, but
hurricanes are a roll of the dice. Instead of bearing the certainty of taxes, people would rather
take their chances with Nature.
239
The Path to 9-11
I just finished watching the show, "The Path to 9-11," which was only interrupted in the middle
by a speech by the President. If you missed it, I would see it. By documenting and re-creating the
series of events up to the hi-jackings, the show finally put 9-11 into tragedy.
Tragedy is a word so misused that the word has virtually been destroyed. Tragedy does not mean
what most people think: of something very bad happening. 9-11 is not the tragedy. The tragedy is
looking back on it and knowing that action could have been to stop it. Imagine a cute little pigtail haired girl walking with her mother. The mother turns away to look at the sky (or something)
and this cute little pig-tail haired girl runs into the street and is smashed by a bus. The smashing
of the bus is not the tragedy. The tragedy is when the mother realizes her error for looking else
ware at the time of daughter's run into the road. In all the plays, such as the ancient Greek plays,
that are "tragedies" including Shakespeare, this is the important point. The tragedy of Hamlet is
not him dying. The tragedy is knowing that he didn't have to die. In the same way, an elderly 100
year old woman dying due to age is not a tragedy and never will be. But an obese person
knowing they are going to die because they were stupid to eat all those milk duds in their life
that is the tragedy. Finally, a film on 9-11 that doesn't just show towers falling down, but instead
shows the tragic elements that allowed the attack.
240
Three things surprised me after 9-11. First, on every anniversary, everyone tries to inject
themselves into the story. "I was going to fly that day!" "I knew someone in the WTC!" And so
on. Second, I never thought there would be conspiracy kooks who would possibly think the U.S.
Government would be behind the WTC and Pentagon hits (but then again, there are kooks who
think NASA never landed on the moon as well). Third, and most humorously, I was stunned by
the reaction of the Objectivists. The Objectivists, the so-called followers of Ayn Rand, were on
television days after demanding nuclear war. They were the most hawkish of any political faction
ever. One Objectivist I know was clearly surprised by their stance. I do remember how Ayn Rand
literally worshipped the skyscraper and believed firmly in the philosophy of Capitalism. The
Objectivists probably saw the WTC as their symbol and its destruction as the worst attack
possible in their eyes.
The most amazing thing came when I helped move a friend to a local college. It was a sunny
August Texas afternoon. While I was waiting for my friend, I was in the parking lot and
something caught my eye. It was a man, with no shirt on, just leaning back on his pick-up. I
emphasize the word man because he stuck out in a sea of androgynous beings that fill modern
society.
He had an aura of masculinity I have never seen before. Granted, every one of us, male and
female, move in and out of masculinity (or femininity for girls) within our lives. When we get
old or lazy, we tend to revert to a more androgynous form. But his form was sharply masculine.
Imagine if a shirt-less Schwarzenegger appeared out of nowhere. You'd stare in awe. But this
man was not a puffed up body builder. His muscles were hard and not the bubble like form you
see body builders have. His skin was oddly tanned...even for south Texas. He was almost
red...but not burnt. Almost as if he was bronze. Some people will think it is 'homosexual' to
notice this. But when someone of either extreme femininity or masculinity ends up nearby, their
sheer aura commands your attention. Everything about this guy was sharply defined. He had a
cigar in his mouth puffing away. The best description I can give was that he resembled the
Marlboro Man.
241
I decided to go over and talk to him. He said he was in the military and had just gotten back from
Iraq (we were near Fort Hood). He also was helping someone move into the college. But he
wasn't just another soldier in Iraq. He was part of a special team. I asked him more about this.
This man was extremely laid back. He acted like he didn't have a care in the world (and why
should he after returning from a war zone?). He then told me he was part of the team that
captured Saddam Hussein.
What do you say to that? "You capture dangerous dictators bent on world domination? Hah! I
do...uh...office work...and...Fax papers...so beat that!" Granted, this man could, with his leave
from the military, just become a couch potato and shed off any masculinity into an androgynous
form. But at that moment (it wasn't too long since Hussein was captured) he simply glowed
testosterone. He wasn't "handsome" but extremely rugged. I'm sorry; I lack the talent of language
to describe him. Let us just say when you look at an androgynous blog, your mind thinks,
"Stillness." But when you looked at him, his aura was screaming action.
He is, as most masculine men are, nameless. You will never see his photo on the news or any
parades in his honor. But he is the most masculine man I had ever seen...and probably will ever
see in my life.
242
Too much oil
If you are a doomster, please do not read this article:
“The world has only consumed about 18 percent of its conventional potential,” Jum’ah said,
contending that should lay to rest fears that the world is in danger of being tapped out within a
few decades.
Oh no! This means even if we don't discover anything or are unable to tap into unconventional
resources like the tar sands of Alberta, we will have over 130 years of resources! Alas,
doomsters! What do you do when confronted with good news? Shall you hang yourselves on
news of human wealth and plenty? It is the doomster who doubts the cornucopia of freedom and
Human genius.
243
Teacher's Gender Affects Learning
Dee found that having a female teacher instead of a male teacher raised the achievement of girls
and lowered that of boys in science, social studies and English.
Looked at the other way, when a man led the class, boys did better and girls did worse.
244
The study found switching up teachers actually could narrow achievement gaps between boys
and girls, but one gender would gain at the expense of the other.
Dee also contends that gender influences attitudes.
For example, with a female teacher, boys were more likely to be seen as disruptive. Girls were
less likely to be considered inattentive or disorderly.
In a class taught by a man, girls were more likely to say the subject was not useful for their
future. They were less likely to look forward to the class or to ask questions.
Check out the full article here.
There is one other crucial difference I have noticed with female teachers. Female teachers and
professors are interested only in enthroning themselves to belittle poor students. To female
teachers, education becomes a sense of power.
"We do not believe you, Monsieur Pook."
What! Very well, in your university you can try this example. Bring up certain facts and you can
debate and discuss a subject quite easily with a male professor. But a female professor never
thinks such an idea can be 'debated.' To her, the end result is not the knowledge but that she is the
one enthroned (and YOU are not).
I have thought about being a teacher. But, alas, I did not want to be poor. If I taught, I would just
teach Shakespeare. He never gets old. And the students' responses reveal more about
Shakespeare to the teacher than vice versa (or else there never would have been a Goddard).
If anything has become feminized, it is teaching. I would throw things across the room, light
desks on fire, that sort of thing. I mean, sheesh, you can't even yell at a student. Students need to
be yelled at! But nevertheless....
245
I love learning...but I've noticed all the teachers I've enjoyed were male. All the teachers I've had
problems with were female. I was the 'disruptive' one in the classroom, the guy who would bring
Isaac Newton's Principia to class and want to discuss that. I hated the text book with all its stupid
picture and worthless 'side information.'
Oh, if you want an easy way to get through English classes, or rather, if you find yourselves in
the middle of an essay test and do not know the answer, just start quoting Hamlet. It doesn't
matter what the question is about or the author, just start quoting Hamlet and start talking about
Hamlet instead. The professor will go, "OMG, this guy is quoting Hamlet! He is smart! He is
sublime! Such brilliant commentary! Such linking the subject matter to the epic play!" and give
you good grades.
246
No Compromise in Religious War
While I'm not sure what Daily Show's intention of the below clip is, it has swerved into a huge
truth. The conflicts of the Middle East and, perhaps, the World are political or financial. They are
religious.
There are diplomats who say one must compromise with Islam. This would be a funny thing to
observe at the table. I suppose it would go like this:
Terrorist for Radical Islam: "My position is that all you heathens are dead! You! Dead!"
Diplomats: "Surely we can have some sort of compromise."
Terrorist for Radical Islam: "No! You! Dead!"
Diplomats: "How about we give you an arm? Maybe a leg?"
Terrorists: "No! You all dead!"
Diplomats: "How about giving you some of our citizens? Will that satisfy you?"
Terrorists: "No! All of you going to die!"
You cannot compromise in a religious war. World War II was not a religious conflict; it was
political. In fact, I don't think the West has been in a religious war since the victory of Don Juan
247
at the end of the crusades (yes, that Don Juan!).
What is funny is what is agreed on. This is what is uniting many of the radicals out there.
Has Thailand fallen to Jihad?
It is beginning to look that way.
BANGKOK, Thailand - Thailand's army commander staged a coup Tuesday night and ousted
Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra while he was in New York, circling his offices with tanks,
declaring martial law and revoking the constitution. Gen. Sondhi Boonyaratkalin, who is known
to be close to Thailand's revered monarch and is a Muslim in this Buddhist-dominated nation,
will be acting prime minister, said army spokesman Col. Akara Chitroj.
One thing I might do is get out my world map and mark the most feminized and, potentially,
unstable countries politically. These would be the first to fall.
Anyone remember the Muslim riots in France (which lasted forever)? Wasn't there a new law
there that said women could no longer go bare breasted anymore? I suspect that law was made
due to placating the growing Muslim population.
One thing that always concerned me about the expat movement is they never really talk about
political instability. While America has its faults, it is the most stable of governments. Mexico is
on the brink of collapse. I expect to see Canada fall apart in my lifetime (and perhaps some areas
become new states like Alberta). Most Americans are spoiled by political stability and don't
realize how fragile many governments are.
248
Madonna is being 'crucified' on the cross for a concert on NBC. Imagine if she mocked Islam as
she does Christianity. She will never do it, of course. She'd get her throat slit.
Even crazier are these sudden repeated requests from the Islam world asking the Pope to convert
to Islam.
The elder son of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has called on Pope Benedict XVI to convert
to Islam immediately, dismissing last week's apology from the pontiff for offending Muslims.
"If this person were really someone reasonable, he would not agree to remain at his post one
minute, but would convert to Islam immediately," Mohammed Gaddafi told an awards
ceremony on Monday evening for an international competition to memorize the Qur'an.
Notice how Radical Islam is feeding off of the feminized wimps of the West? Do they really
expect the Pope to go, "Oh, I want to show I am a 'reasonable' fellow, I shall convert to Islam
immediately!" They probably don't but it is a worth a try to them.
Like a shark detecting blood in the water, notice how these radical Islamists detect feminization
in certain nations and pounce at it? If the Pope was that feminized (he isn't), he would bow down
towards Islam. My point is that they are using the feminization, the wimp-ification of the West
against it.
All these 'riots' and 'outrage' in the Islam "communities" are organized and arranged. They are
artificial. They are hiding behind their religion. If I, the Pookius Maximus Extroadinarius, say,
"You should not threaten to kill the Pope. You should not threaten to kill anyone," the wimps of
the west, these guilt filled puss-boys whose only concern is how we (or they) appear to other
people's eyes, will say, "Pook, you are being extreme. How dare you not let them be outraged!"
I'm trying to figure out what to do with the Wimps of the West who are being played like a
stradivarian by these manipulators. Nice Guys are so stuffed with pride that they NEVER admit
they are being played by women. All wimps have some romanticized vision of the world. How
do you get through their pride to the issue?
249
Bah! I've learned people prefer feelings to thoughts. Thomas Paine was dead on accurate when
he said, "Time makes more converts than reason." Ever try to reason with a nice guy? Ever try to
reason with a wimp?
Perhaps this explains why the school yard instinct for children is, when finding a wimp, to beat
him up.
American Women Suck forum taken down
Like Voltaire, I always believe in free speech. Words are just words. But it amazes me how
people want to ban and delete websites/speech that goes against what they believe. Or, rather,
they only interpret it as 'hate speech' and demand it go away.
You might ask, "Pook, why do they have such a reaction against 'hate speech?' It is not sticks and
stones. It is not violence. Did not Martin Luther King Jr. say something like, 'I don't want the
White Man to love me, only the power to not hurt me'?'"
Here is something that everyone must know about The Political Class.
1) They believe they are extremely intelligent and that you are unsophisticated dumb peons.
2) They believe society is artificial and is like a garden (with the legislator as gardener). They
want the garden to grow, to PROGRESS. Hence, plants do not have freedom in a garden. A plant
not doing what it should, that is going another direction than the other plants, is seen as 'freedom'
to that plant but to the gardener is seen as a 'disease' which they set fire to it. This is the mentality
why people are lined up and shot in dictatorships.
250
I have talked to AWS in an undisclosed forum before. He is extremely paranoid (so much so he
shocked other posters). Before one bashes American Women Suck, remember that the website
has been cited in feminist legislation in Washington. If my blog was cited in Washington, I'd
probably be paranoid too.
But still, AWS, you are doing yourself no favor at lashing out at those offering to help.
Remember Benjamin Franklin's cartoon that read: "We stand together or we will all hang
separately."
RIP Eternal Bachelor
Eternal Bachelor blog is no more. All the archives are also gone. It is up to Duncan to whether he
explains more on the complete shutting down of his blog. The removal of the archives strikes me
a little suspicious.
There were two problems with Eternal Bachelor blog:
One, it was becoming very popular.
Two, Duncan had put his full name on the blog and his content could be a little too close about
his work environment.
Of course, the blog's demise could be exactly what was said: ranting takes too much time and he
got tired of it.
Regardless, it is an important reminder to never use your real name or put up pictures of yourself
on the Internet. They can and will be used against you. You don't want a potential employer to be
251
able to Google you and find rants against women or something else. Putting out real fact about
you on the Internet may win picture contests but it may haunt you in the end. I know if I hadn't
stayed anonymous, "Pook" and my real self would be connected which would end up either
silencing "Pook" or "Pook" gets twisted in such a way to please those who hold leverage over
me. In the last US Presidential election, someone who came out and spoke against a candidate
based on previous real-life experience with him, and was very effective at doing so, ended up
suddenly getting fired from the job he had worked at for decades. Grudges linger in politics.
When a political person does not get what he wants, long knives come out.
Men are most vulnerable in two ways: when they are single (and any woman can be sent to 'get'
them) and when they are not financially secured (i.e. they work for someone else). The reason
why high-up US political candidates are always married and wealthy is because only then can
they begin resisting the two above consistent attacks.
You must have your own financial system if you wish to really speak freely (and effectively)
against elites. And even then, they can throw endless lawsuits at you to burn up all your money.
One major radio political commentator in America was "under legal investigation" for oddball
crimes at least for three years...with no charges ever being made.
Or consider the Duke Lacrosse Team case. Those boys survived that legal challenge because of
their wealthy background. You or I would have been steamrolled.
In legal matters, err on the side of caution. Remember that www.americanwomensuck.com and
www.dontgetmarried.com were cited in recent U.S. legislation (or was it some kooky senator?
What does it matter). The only reason why feminists haven't shut down MRA sites is because of
the Supreme Court's rulings on the Internet being a place for 'free conversation.' But if they know
who you are in real life, they can come after you.
252
An email from Portugal...
Italics = Emailer
Regular Text = o grande, espantar-se, e o Pook magnífico!
Now, as you may be aware, Portugal was under the Salazarist dictatorship till '74. Although
there were many problems with this regime way of thinking and acting, such as extreme
253
censorship, one of the things held in a high place by those times were the Family (the State motto
was: God, Motherland, Family). It was only when the Salazarist State was taken away of the
Power by the military that the Feminist wave truly invaded Portugal.
Since then, feminism is growing. I have never been to the States, but judging from everyone way
of speaking about American women, I guess where in a better situation than you American folks.
Anyways, we also have some trouble with feminist and feminized guys. From what I'm able to
draw from my experiences, the teachers who were influenced by the feminist wave post-'74 are
spoiling my young peers.
In our school newspaper, I came across an article wrote by a sophomore. The article's theme
was the 'Women Day.' Now, what I read wasn't something masked by the 'let's have the same
rights.' It was an article proclaiming that women were actually better than men. It even dared to
say that women were the ones who sustained the Western economy during WW II by doing the
men's jobs. Don't get me wrong, Pook, they worked hard and deserve some praise. But, beg my
pardon, while women were working, their men were DYING in the war, ensuring women's safety.
I was sickened, after reading that. Men were being bashed, like that, in a school. No wonder
Western society is where it is.
95% of my teachers are female. So, you already may know what I'm about to say. They are
constantly benefiting my female colleagues, and occasionally reminding us that women are
better than boys. Boys get no attention in this female educational system. Besides, all of
Portuguese Educational system sucks now, thanks to some 'corrections' in the educational
system, but that's a whole new subject.
Can you imagine how hard it is to hear my Portuguese teacher always whining about how hard
it is to be a woman? The female poets are always the 'women who suffered a lot and fight the evil
Patriarchy.' C'mon, I don't want to know about poetry a women wrote just because *gasp* it was
written by a woman (even when it has no merit on its own, in most of the cases). But that's how it
254
goes. In some books we study, if the main character is a female, she only talks to the females,
asking 'You, as women who can understand the main character problems, what do you think?'
What are males? Some dumb-heads who can't understand society's problems? She complains
about boys not caring about her classes. Why should they? She is only 'educating' females. In
those classes, women are always above man.
Now enough ranting. I feel sickened and disgusted by all this feminist crap that is taking over
everything around me. Oh, how I wanted to write a reply to that men-bashing article. How I
wanted to stand up in my Philosophy classes and say 'Women are not who you saying they are.' I
feel imprisoned by this system that praises females and leaves males behind.
I truly want to stand against this, but I know what the consequences will be: teachers despise it
and my female colleagues' despise it too. Do I have to eat this crap every single day, every single
class? Now, I don't care about what teachers think about me. I do great in tests, either they like
me or despise me. But I don't want to be seen like the 'anti-women' guy.
So, Pook, what's your take in this? Should men stand up and say, without the anonymous safety,
what they truly think? Should I say what I think to everyone, and take the consequences of it? Or
should I shut up and continue eating this crap? If this is my choice, I think that the only thing
available thing (which is the one I've done so far) to fight this feminism stupidity, is acting like a
man free of the Matriarchy, and give an example to my peers, who in such an young age worship
women like some goddesses, as you use to say.
Women and governments may take your money, they may take your time, but never let them
take your joy. Whenever you feel joy and happiness, consider that a victory and an
accomplishment. Never let anyone have the power over you to take away your joy or to cause
you to anger. This is hard, but it makes the following easier.
I've noticed with both politicians and feminists, they desire to be taken seriously. If you stand,
give a huge oration with all the ways how they are wrong, they will be smirking in the back.
255
What they cannot handle is being laughed at. They cannot handle being made fun of. Humor, not
political essays, will be the Men's Movement greatest weapon (as it entertains, it educates,
attracts new people, and rips people to ribbons). No one hates the funny man.
As a happy and joy-filled Pook, when someone is saying something STUPID like chanting
feminism or some other garbage, I do not get angry and try to correct them or say something. I
do something more devastating. I laugh.
They stop talking and look at me wondering why I have broken into laughter. I just look shy,
raise my hand, and say, "Oh, I'm sorry, continue on." If they continue on with their nonsense, I
just break out into more laughter. They will then usually ask what is so funny. This is it. They are
giving you the opportunity to explain why you are laughing. Explain why what they are saying is
so absurd and silly that you just can't help but laugh. (If they don't ask you to explain, you can
excuse yourself from the room because you are laughing too hard which is also a win. You don't
have to hear that nonsense as you exit the room and your disappearance has everyone
wondering.) Keep in mind this laughter must be genuine. If you fake this, you'll just end up
looking stupid.
Laughing at them because their ideas are so absurd will be better in a tactics sense than getting
angry and being 'serious' with them for these reasons:
-You cannot be considered a hateful, bitter kill-joy...
You are filled with so much joy that you are laughing at them. Humor comes from a position of
strength, not weakness. The reason why women instinctively shrug off men's "serious
dissertations" on feminist beliefs is because you come off to them as ANGRY. But with this, you
aren't ANGRY, you are TICKLED and laughing.
-By laughing, you consider their ideas so preposterous that they are not worth debating.
Never argue with an idiot. Why? It is because people forget to tell which is which. You become
256
seen just as stupid as the idiot. By laughing, you are challenging them to present their ideas as
worthy. Instead of getting angry at the article of women working in factories during World War
2, being better than men dying in battle, just laugh at them. You cannot debate illogic with logic.
But you can laugh it out of existence.
Since you are in the University, you are going to be captive to lots of feminist garbage. Choose
your battles wisely. Humor and wit will be your greatest weapons.
--Optimism and humor are the grease and glue of life. Without both of them we would never have
survived our captivity. (from a Vietnam POW)
--Humour is the weapon of unarmed people: it helps people who are oppressed to smile at the
situation that pains them. (Simon Wiesenthal)
--Only laughter can blow [a colossal humbug] to rags and atoms at a blast. Against the assault of
laughter nothing can stand. (from Mark Twain's "The Mysterious Stranger")
257
258
Illegal Immigration: Serfs for Feminists
In politics, issues come and go. However, there comes a time when an issue does not sit squarely
on a single political side, yet, the issue is huge. The issue is so big that, unless addressed, it gives
rise to a third party candidate to disrupt the status quo. In American politics we have several each
century.
Illegal immigration is that issue today. Whichever party seizes control of the issue will be
awarded at the detriment of the other.
There is reason to believe that Illegal Immigration is actually a feminist issue. Aside from the
legality issue, these aliens from Mexico (and other parts south) are paid very low wages and
given jobs that most native Americans won't find attractive (the rhetoric strangely matches what
the Confederacy South said about slaves being the 'backbone' of the economy and how
everything would crumble without them). The Media does say this. But this is what the Media
does not say:
The native Americans who will not do the jobs these aliens do are women. American men are
easily found building houses, working farms, doing lawns, and so on. I know this because I have
been doing these jobs my entire life. I have worked in the slaughterhouse, in the fields, and, yes,
even lawns. This is one of the reasons why I went to college was for the aim to NOT do those
things anymore. Many men I know do all these things. Without a doubt, I am sure the agriculture
industry as well as others is using illegal immigrants for their purposes. But it cannot be said that
American men will not do such harsh blue collar work.
What about the American women? Have you ever seen American women clean up hotels, do
259
someone else's laundry, or be a janitor? If I ever do, it is very poor women, and they are often
black. It is surprising that American women would clean their own households let alone someone
else's.
The reason why illegal immigration is so prevalent today in America is because of Feminism.
Feminists NEED these aliens. I am not the only one to say this. How Serfdom Saved Feminism.
Women, spoiled by chivalry, literally do believe they are nobility. And what does nobility need
but a permanent underclass? By altering schools' language and decreasing standards, these aliens
will not learn English and can never rise out of their underclass status (strangely, these changes
were said to 'help' them yet how can you work at anything well in America without knowing
English and having a grasp of the environment?) This new underclass is there for self-serving
reasons. Feminism needs illegal immigration because feminists must have nannies.
Remember NannyGate? During the Clinton Administration, Clinton apparently wanted a
'woman' to be the head of the Department of Justice. So the woman is chosen, and she is sent to
the Senate for the confirmation hearings. During the hearings, it is discovered that the nominee
had a nanny. And, it was uncovered that the nominee did not pay the nanny's social security.
"What!" cried the Senate. "We cannot have, as the head of the Department of Justice, someone
who does not pay the Social Security of their employee nanny!" So that nominee was toast.
Clinton sent up another nominee. And, again, the nanny issue came up. And, just as before, it
was discovered that the woman did not pay the nanny's social security.
So Clinton put up Janet Reno, a woman who had no chance of having children. By having no
NannyGate issue, Janet Reno was able to pass the Senate's eye.
My point is that you cannot have career women without having all these nannies. And most
American women are not going to be someone else's nanny. They will not work the hotel rooms.
I have a sister in law who has a nanny even though she "works" half a day...at home! My
goodness! Back in the old days before electricity, how did we get by if women today must have
260
nannies?
While illegal immigration has appeared before such as forty and twenty years ago, there is
something very obvious that, today, illegal immigration is very much desired by feminists. If
feminism was intellectually sound, they would protest how female aliens were being 'exploited.'
But you hear not a word except to say how they are 'super workers.'
"It is too bold for you to tie together illegal immigration and the Matriarchy!"
Is it? Well then. During the latest renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, interesting
amendments were included. One strangely bashed certain websites and recommended censoring
(such as nomarriage.com and americanwomensuck.com (!)). But the big change was putting
legal obstacles for men bringing in foreign brides and legal obstructions on legitimate businesses
that link such men to these women.
Why is the government putting legal obstacles for these foreign women but not the usual aliens
from Mexico? It is because Feminists do not like those foreign women but they DO like the
usual aliens. After all, that underclass lets them go play 'career woman.' I actually think this
unequal use of the law could be challenged in court under the Fourteenth Amendment. In fact,
the entire VAWA could be challenged on it. But with many judges female and almost all the male
judges married, it wouldn't hold a prayer.
So when I see an alien working a job as a cook, cleaner, or nanny, I smile when I hear:
"Americans won't do the jobs these wonderful aliens will do." They are right. American women
would not. No wonder Feminists love illegal immigration.
261
Matriarchy Behind the U.S. Immigration Bill
The flaw of the Democratic Representation is that politicians will ignore long term problems for
short term gains. Everyone is familiar with politicians kicking cans down the road so they can
get elected today. But, ironically, sometimes this happens in reverse.
To my non-US readers, the U.S. Immigration Bill in Congress would effectively grant amnesty to
262
millions of illegal immigrants. With a stroke of a pen, Congress does have power to turn noncitizens into citizens. They have done this before about twenty years ago and before that. It is
said that if any illegal immigrant is allowed to get into America, then they are 'clear' since,
eventually, amnesty will come.
The political swirls are interesting here. One would think the Republican Party would be against
such a bill due to the conservative base being against illegal immigration and, certainly, amnesty.
Yet, President Bush and other major Republicans are leading the charge. Conservative base in
America found out what was going on and probably hammered their representative hard because,
suddenly, the bill fell apart.
In politics, when a bill falls apart, usually Congress moves on. Not this time. Extraordinary
efforts are being moved to resurrect the bill and get it passed from both parties. But politicians in
conservative districts are being heavily influenced to back out. And they are because they won't
win the next election without those votes.
So why is this bill so important? The first graph shows why. The second shows how.
263
Aging baby boomers will create
a nightmare in Social Security and Medicare. No politician will mention this, but they need all
these new immigrants to be made citizens so they can begin making more taxes.
So how is Matriarchy involved? Who makes up the majority of Social Security and Medicare
users? Women. (Men die too fast.) They could raise the age of Social Security. They could put on
many fixes. But there are also other Matriarchy issues with the Amnesty issue.
Third World Labor saved Feminism. Often, women will work and pay these immigrants to be
their nannies. In the early nineties, there was something called "Nanny Gate." Clinton wanted the
Head of the Justice Department to be a woman. The first woman went up to the Senate (since
Senate must confirm each cabinet post) and, lo and behold, when she paid the nanny she did not
pay the nanny's social security cost! Alas! So Clinton dropped her and put up another woman.
And, again, when she paid her nanny she did not pay for Social Security. Noticing the pattern,
Clinton then got a woman who wouldn't have a child so there would be no nanny gate. Which
woman would you guess, by looking at her, would never have a child? Yep, Janet Reno.
Agriculture and Textile industries are also heavily for the Immigration Bill (for the reasons you
would expect). But, ultimately, the real reason for the dogged insistence of this bill is that it is
264
believed it will help stop the upcoming Boomer retirement recession (which will be mostly
women).
265
Japanese laws breeding matriarchy
"When my wife told me she wanted a divorce," says Mr. C, 63, "at first I literally did not
understand what she was saying. Divorce? For what? Every day I went to work, borrowed
money to build a home, repaid the loan, paid for her overseas vacations with her friends while I
stayed home and ate cold dinners. . . . She says I wasn't kind, didn't show affection. She's been
watching too many TV dramas! Japanese men of my generation don't go around telling their
wives they love them!"
Well, OK, thought Mr. C -- if she wants a divorce she can have a divorce. Shortly afterward, their
son got married. Mr. C attended the wedding without his wife. Then the son announced a child
was on the way -- could his father lend him money to buy a house? Mr. C handed over his
retirement savings. When the house was ready, he figured, there would be a place for him there.
But a nasty surprise awaited him. The spare room was reserved not for him, but for his wife. "I
couldn't believe it!" he explodes. "She had everything all planned from the time she didn't show
up at the wedding! I wanted to murder her!"
He lives alone now in a rented apartment. His son pays back the loan in regular monthly
installments -- "but he never," says Mr. C ruefully, "invites me to visit."
The East will be torn apart more by Matriarchy than the West would be. I like the East. I like the
customs of 'saving face,' of the rich family structure the Japanese had. Matriarchy will just rip it
266
apart and the men, especially the older ones, are going to be hit very hard.
This is an example of how a law will pervert natural society. Marriage, once was productive, is
now made by that Japanese law to become an instrument of plunder. Why should any person
have such legal power over someone else?
Seducers need to awake from their ego like sleep to realize these laws are going to come for
them too. It is natural for a man to eventually settle down and desire marriage and children. But
no seduction in the world can save you from these laws. You cannot charm the law away. If you
do get married, be sure you invest majorly in ironclad pre-nuptials like rich people have.
People peering at the commentary from the outside see only 'hatred for women.' But the problem
is the law itself. No one is an angel and if the law allows you to plunder from someone else,
nothing can stop it, not even religion or morality. This observation doesn’t come from a bitter
outlook but from the annals of history. If the law gave such power to men, men would become
just as evil. This law is legalizing plunder which is turning people evil.
And those who laughed at Anti-Dump should read the Japanese story carefully. A woman can
marry you and still despise you. Anti-Dump's Machine was to weed out the uninterested women.
This is why I think young men need to focus on not getting women interested in you but weeding
out uninterested women. "But what if no woman is interested?" Then you have free time to hang
out with your buddies and avoid the trap of The Way. The loneliest thing in the world is not to be
single but to be in an unhappy marriage.
267
Law doesn't care about your karma
I saw an interesting review of Esther Vilar’s book the “Manipulated Man,” in which he said that
he had to 'let go' of the book whereas on the first review on the UK Amazon site, he praised it.
Here is his first review:
The Truth Hurts, 16 Nov 2003
Reviewer: M. Maguire (Madrid, Spain) -
268
This book by Vilar is deadly serious. It is not a tongue-in-cheek satire at all, and it pulls no
punches in its brutally honest assessment of "Woman." Back in the 70's Vilar herself was vilified
by women everywhere and crucified by the feminist establishment after daring to break the
unwritten rule, the Female Omerta, to speak out and expose her gender for the "lazy
manipulative scheming parasitic prostitutes" that most men learn painfully by the age of 30-40
they are, always were, and always will be. Along with the great Otto Weininger's "Sex and
Character," also available from this site (I'm still amazed these two books are even in print in
this warped feminist age!), there is no deeper or more honest exposé of the utter soullessness of
woman and how she is, on all inner Spiritual and metaphysical levels, diametrically opposed to
Man. Literally at the opposite end of the Spiritual spectrum. And this volume is all the more
forceful in that it was written by a woman. It should be read by all men everywhere. It should be
required reading by all pre-pubescent boys, handed down from Father to Son.
And this is his second review, three years later:
Letting go of Vilar, July 21, 2006
Reviewer: M. Maguire (Madrid, Spain) -
I posted a review of this book on the Amazon.co.uk site quite some time ago, and since it won't
let me post twice I must post here instead. This review is to detract everything I said in that first
idiotic post. For the longest time I thought low of women and with each unpleasant miserable
experience my conviction became stronger. Holding such attitudes, which I now know to be false,
I then sought out material such as this book and books like Sex and Character by Otto
Weininger. I now realize that far from reading this material for knowledge I was seeking it out to
simply confirm my existing misconceptions. Recently I have undergone something of an inner
realization, a complete change in my understanding of other people and especially of women. I
have realized that your own thoughts and habitual mental states create your experiences in this
"reality." If you think low of women your thoughts will come true and you will have nothing but
terrible experiences with them. Each experience will confirm in your deluded mind that you were
269
correct in your assumptions and only increase your conviction that they are low, and thus the
vicious cycle started by your own mind will continue, getting worse and worse as the years and
decades pass - until one day you awaken and realize the problem lies not with the opposite sex
but with your own mind and delusional thought patterns. A woman will experience exactly the
same if she clings to similar attitudes about men. I totally reject and detract every stupid word I
said in my previous post on the UK site, and I apologize to my Sisters for any hurt or anger those
foolish words caused them. Women and Men are equal. There are good men and good women,
unpleasant men and unpleasant women, kind men and kind women, selfish men and selfish
women. If you hold the attitude that ALL women are this way or that way, then those are the ones
you will meet in your life since your thoughts create your reality. Realize that this is not true and
instead think highly of them and your experiences with them will change for the positive.
I am all for fighting negativism, and I'm well aware the pessimistic outlook Weininger had on
women, but this second review just makes me laugh. I think part of the problem is that he is from
Spain which may (or may not) have been feminized. Esther Vilar's book is describing, mostly,
North America and the UK (feminization is highest in English speaking countries).
I might have said the same thing he did several years ago. My biggest criticism for the so-called
'Men's Movement' is their rampant pessimism and gloom and doom. This always repelled me
from them (and probably others). Two things showed me there was something very serious going
on.
I knew a little law, not much, so I investigated that. I found that it was true that decent men were
being screwed over in family courts and divorce. We have wide scale paternity fraud. We have
absurd sexual harassment laws and rape claims. I saw the double standards of teacher sexual
abuse: slap for the woman but decades long imprisonment and stigma attached the guy.
Also, men have no reproduction rights. Even if you are a sperm donor, you may still have to pay
child support.
But the second thing was the breaking point. I was trying to understand why people stay in the
rat race their entire lives. If you try to tell a girl you want to become financially independent, she
270
will run for the hills! This baffled me as didn't women want ambitious men who desired to
become rich?
I made two financial statements, one for man, and one for woman. I realized that women placed
their husbands in the 'asset' column. Women don't look for husbands; they are actually shopping
for assets. The bigger your income, the more likely they will cling to you. This was the reason
why most people remained wage slaves. The woman would usually work temporarily. Then she
would retire "for love and family." The man was stuck being a wage slave his entire life.
This sounds all nice and wonderful with the 'think positive and you'll get positive' stuff. But
anyone in North America or UK (at least) needs to know that the reality is that there is a legal
noose around your neck. The harsh legal situation isn't something people want to talk about but
you better understand it fast. I don't want any of you to become a statistic of stupid laws.
What the reviewer is describing is 'karma' which I can understand. But he is ignoring the legal
and financial leveraging against men entirely (which may be due to him being in Spain for all I
know).
Here is a question: why did feminists sneak into the Violence Against Women's Act penalizing
legal action against foreign brides? If a gentleman wants to marry a Russian or Brazilian, what
does it matter? It is a free nation, is it not? Consider how rampant illegal immigration is yet the
state will act on FOREIGN brides? The double standard is a female one and leads me to believe
that Mexican illegal immigration is allowed because it saved feminism (who else would be the
nannies?).
I'm looking at these highly penalizing (and secret) laws, and I cannot deny that there has to be a
Men's Movement to correct and educate on this matter. While I don't like the Men's Movement
pessimism and doomsdayism, they are correct about the penalizing nature of these laws. You can
be the world's most wonderful husband and still be raped by the Family Court. As a man, the
State believes you are to be given duties, not rights. And the precedent of these penalizing laws
are based on is very brittle and flimsy. It is ripe (and proper!) to be challenged.
271
Power corrupts. It is not that women are evil. It is that there is no social restrain on their
behavior, no stigma, and that women have been given massive power by certain laws (which to
my foreign readers may not include you). I cannot recommend marriage to any man with these
types of laws in place without the tightest pre-nuptials…and perhaps, not even then. The state
has decided that marriage grants, legally, only duties on the men and only benefits on the
women.
Law and finances are not what you 'think.' No wonder everyone is poor and require lawyers.
Marriage and the State
272
I wish someone would offer a reason, not a colorful sentimentality, of why any young male in the
central Western World should marry.
Marry? Why? In this day in age, what reason would a man marry in, say, America or Canada?
For, sir, I do not have the honor of knowing you, but I wager five to one that for most of your life
you have been making life-long goals; and if you have been making them, I wager ten to one that
eventual marriage and happy household is a central element to your future life.
And you, Madame, unlike the male, I am sure you have been dreaming of eventual marriage and
see a man as means to that end. As demographics show the numbers of single women rise and
rise, you wish not to become that statistic. But why are more and more of your friends ending up
single? What is growing these cracks throughout society? I am sure you believe that everything
will be solved if ONLY men would do as you wish.
Poor men! Like Atlas, the world is dumped on our shoulders. When he comes to age, the young
man stands on the rostrum and the hundred thousand tongues wag out to him at once:
"Provide a steady ever-increasing paycheck."
"Furrow the countryside with roads and highways."
"Walk around in designer clothes and popular haircuts."
"Service the trucks, airplanes, and trains that keep goods coming and going."
"Feed the babies."
"Instruct the young."
"Relieve the aged."
"Irrigate the plains."
"Make experiments with invention to create new technology."
"Maximize profits in all industries."
"Liberate the Middle East."
"Plant trees in the cities."
273
"Capture criminals."
"Put out fires."
"Save lives."
"Court the women."
"Root out masculine arrogance."
"Send the city folk into the country."
"Create model governments."
"Spend time for wealth creation."
"Encourage art; train musician and dancers."
"Improve the breed of saddle horses."
"Establish harmonious offices."
"Entertain the masses."
"Pay taxes."
"Maintain the houses and buildings."
"Provide for all lawns."
"Oh, tongues, a little patience," replies the man. "I shall try to satisfy you, but for that I shall
require some happiness. I have prepared proposals for five or six payments, the mildest in the
world. For my happiness, I require:
"Control of my children’s' education."
"Obedience from my wife."
"Good food put on the table."
"Emphasize discovery not material goods."
"For women to preserve their good forms."
"And respect in general."
In response, a great protest is unleashed: "Shame! Shame! These 'payments' are relics from a
barbaric age! Do as we ask or you will not be worthy of being called a man. Far from allowing
you to backward our society, we demand:
274
"Education be controlled by the women."
"That the husband obeys the wife."
"That you help make the food."
"That you provide all material items deemed necessary by society."
"Allowance for women to let herself go."
"And give respect to women, always, forever, unto the end of your days."
In the midst of this tumult, and after more and more obligations are placed, and more and more
rewards taken away, I tried to point out that men were going to go on strike. Good Lord! What
was I thinking of? Could I not keep this unfortunate prophecy to myself?
So here I am, discredited forever; and it is now by offering such conclusion that I will be accused
of being a heartless, bitter man, a male who does not wish to grow up, afflicted with 'Peter-Pan
Syndrome,' a hedonist; in other words, someone who believes men have the right to be happy.
Oh, pardon me, sublime saps who worship women, who nothing stops, not even the
contradictions. If I'm wrong, I'll retract the error with all my heart. I demand nothing better, you
may be sure, than that you really have discovered a benevolent and inexhaustible resource,
calling itself "men," which has checks for all restaurants, fuel for all cars, ornaments for all
desires, work for all needs, thinking for all problems, health care for all wounds, shoulders for all
suffering, advice for all perplexities, ideas for all minds, distractions for all boredom, corrects all
our errors, amends all our faults, and exempts us all henceforth from the need of foresight,
discovery, sagacity, experience, order, temperance, and industry.
The more I reflect on it, the more I find how easy the whole thing is; and I, too, long to have at
hand an inexhaustible source of riches and enlightenment, that universal shelter, that limitless
cash-machine, that infallible counselor, that you call "man."
But do not Humans do things for rewards? Hence, that is why we must force the question. Why
should a young man get married in a Westernized Country? What is in it for him? This is why I
demand a reason. Please give it.
275
"Very well," the women reply. "The reasons for young men to get married are:
"Sex."
"Fulfilled relationship."
"Access to Society."
"Civilized existence."
"Removal of loneliness."
"Societal recognition."
"Children."
What! No cooking or pampering? But seriously, many that you listed are dubious. 'Fulfilled
relationship,' 'civilized existence,' and 'societal recognition' are nothing but the woman's
standard. Of course a relationship is 'fulfilled' once she gets married, what else could it be? And a
married man does not make a civilized man. And since only women exist in women's world,
societal recognition is little more than 'female' recognition.
Removal of loneliness? The loneliest thing is to be married to someone who doesn't care about
you.
Children? You mean conception can only occur from a paper from the courthouse?
And sex? Sex is all over. There is nothing to hold the woman up to her end of the bargain. She
can get married and not sex her husband, deliberately. What course does the husband have?
None. At least when he is single, he has some sort of control over himself to remove his presence
from parasitism.
Law and Marriage
Why is the law involved in marriage at all? What purpose does the law have with the eternal
union between man and woman? Did George Washington have to go to the courthouse to get
276
permission to marry? Of course not. For better or worse, a man is married to a woman. In
actuality, he is married to the government.
"Marriage cannot exist outside the law," is the oft heard reply. Who says? Congress? The TV
shows? Politically, there are many battles going on with marriage. These include gay marriage,
divorce law, polygamy, and so on. Instead of debate what the marriage law should or shouldn't
be, why not just remove the law from marriage?
"We would face societal anarchy!" How? The other bands of society, such as friendship, require
no legal license from the courthouse. It is most revealing that those who are chasing political
activism with marriage (gay rights, feminists, etc.) demand more laws (which complicate things
further) rather than less laws (which de-politicizes). Over history and time, which has caused
more grief and strife? More laws or less? So why is every solution to 'marriage' always more
laws and judicial rulings? Are we not free people? Can we not deal with our relationships
without the involvement of the civil magistrate? If relationships are natural and are formed
spontaneously in the clean air of liberty, why do we need laws? We do not have laws and judicial
hearings on friendships. If I make a friend, I do not seek a license from the courthouse to do so.
If I become a father, again, no license is required. But to turn one's girlfriend into a wife, which
doesn't require legalized permission from either of our families, requires a license from the state.
Why? Silence is the only answer.
How do you get a Marriage License? This is how it is done in New York:
Assuming you are both of correct age, the man and woman, must first apply for the license in
person. You will need a money order in the amount of $35 and proof of your identity as well as
proof of your age if you are, or appear to, be under eighteen years of age. You must fill out an
Affidavit and Application for Marriage License by listing various personal details such as your
name, address, birthplace, date of birth, social security number, your parents' name, their
birthplace, and your marital history and make a sworn statement that there are no legal
impediments to the marriage. If you had been married previously you must list all prior
marriages on the marriage license application. You are required to supply your prior spouse's
full name, the date the divorce was granted and the place the divorce was filed and may be asked
277
to produce the final divorce decree. If you are a widow or widower, you must provide your
deceased spouse's full name and date of death. The marriage license is generated based on this
information. Upon receipt of the license and completion of the waiting period (see below) the
ceremony can be performed. You can marry in any of our offices or any venue of your choice. If
you are marrying in New York City it is advisable to ensure your marriage officiant (person who
performs the marriage ceremony) is registered with the Office of the City Clerk by calling 212699-8090 since the Office of the City Clerk will not release Marriage Registration Certificates
for marriages performed by unregistered officiants. It is the duty of the marriage officiant to
complete the marriage license and mail it to the Office of the City Clerk within 5 days of the
ceremony. You should ensure that all parties--the witnesses, you and your spouse and the
marriage officiant--sign. Upon receipt of the completed certificate, the Office of the City Clerk
should issue to the couple a Certificate of Marriage Registration within 15 days of receipt. The
Certificate of Marriage Registration is your ultimate proof of marriage.
But who is allowed to marry you? Can Bob down the street marry my girl and me?
To be valid, a marriage ceremony must be performed by any of the individuals specified in
Section 11 of the New York State Domestic Relations Law. These include: - the mayor of a city or
village; - the former mayor or the city clerk or one of the deputy city clerks of New York City;
- a marriage officer appointed by the town or village board or the city common council;
- a justice or judge of the following courts: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the
U.S. District Courts for the Northern, Southern, Eastern or Western Districts of New York, the
NYS Court of Appeals, the Appellate Division of the NYS Supreme Court, the NYS Supreme
Court, the Court of Claims, the Family Court, a Surrogates Court, the Civil and Criminal Courts
of New York City (including Housing judges of the Civil Court) and other courts of record;
- a village, town or county justice;
278
- a member of the clergy or minister who has been officially ordained and granted authority to
perform marriage ceremonies from a governing church body in accordance with the rules and
regulations of the church body;
- a member of the clergy or minister who is not authorized by a governing church body but who
has been chosen by a spiritual group to preside over their spiritual affairs; - other officiants as
specified by Section 11 of the Domestic Relations Law. The person performing the ceremony
must be registered with the City Clerk in order to perform a ceremony within the New York City
limits. The officiant does not have to be a resident of New York State.
One gets the suspicious feeling that the government believes it creates marriage. It probably
believes it creates families and children as well. So much law!! So little sense!! Shouldn't be a
surprise that the Marriage license we have now is a descendant from a former age. It's obsolete in
our age not because humanity has changed, but because governments have constituted that
society makes the laws, rather than the laws making the societies.
And to make it worse, to some religions, marriage is a sacrament. You do not go get a license to
get baptized, do you? You do not go to the magistrate to get a license for First Communion.
There are only three reasons I see why marriage is controlled by law.
1) Prevents fraud of people marrying multiple people and not telling the original spouses.
2) Controls how people change, or don't change, their name.
3) Legal benefits
Number one is a joke. A spouse could have a mistress or pool boy at the side and the law cannot
stop that. With a global society now, someone can be married multiple times in different
countries. But also, information is so easy to access these days to make the government the
ultimate arbiter of matrimony ridiculous.
279
Number two makes more sense. …But why marriage? If people change their name when they get
married, have them go to the courthouse to change their name, not to request a license to marry.
Number three is the worst of them all. Gay activists constantly complain about lack of 'legal
benefits,' which is odd because I have never heard two people in love say, "We are going to get
married for the legal benefits!" Go get a lawyer and you can create all those legal benefits. You
can decide inheritance, health care, and practically everything else that is in the 'marriage
license.' "But we want the status of a married couple!" What! Since when did status get
determined by the law? Is aristocracy dead or not?
To Present and Future Politicians
Man is averse to pain and suffering. When the Law interferes with harmonious society and
creates a legal arrangement which enforces all husband responsibilities on to the man but with no
legal hold over the marital pleasures, and, in utter contrast, legally enforce the wifely pleasures
from a marriage but with no legal enforcement over the wifely responsibilities, do not be
surprised to see the young men of your nation swear off marriage! This comes not from a hatred
of women or an inability to please one. This act emerges from a young man's sense of life, his
liberty, and his quest for joyfulness.
Legislators of nations, ask yourself: "If men are declining marriage, perhaps being single has
become more pleasurable than being married. Could the law itself be a factor in making marriage
more painful than being single?"
However, I suspect this question will not be asked. Instead of addressing the heart of the matter,
the question will be, "How do we MANIPULATE men into getting married?" Already,
governments are paying columnists and other propagandists to do the sing-song about marriage,
to hold it up, like a moon beam from heaven, which will grant men wealth, health, sex, and
everything else. Yet, the governmental data shows just the opposite: that men lose control of their
wealth, their health declines, and sex becomes non-existent. The only way to prove that marriage
280
is magic and the government is Merlin is to interpret correlation as causation: the men who get
married are usually wealthier and healthier (because that is why the woman chose them for such
legal arrangement).
Our petitions have fallen on deaf ears. No one takes our complaints seriously. But this error, of
law corrupting marriage, creates not only the effect of less marriages, but a series of shockwaves
afflicting throughout all civilization and, even, your tax coffers. Yes, your marriage laws are
ruining your treasuries. The decline of marriages ties in to the decline of children. Who will pay
for your elderly care programs? Who are your new constituents coming from? Do you want to
fight for votes from Islamic immigrants who may not have the interest of the nation at heart?
In the end, one complaint falls against the marriage strikers: "You need to be in love." Oh, but we
are! We are! We are in love with life! Even the most traditional love for a mate comes with the
expectation of interest to one's life. After all, we love entertainers and farmers before we love the
tax collectors for they enrich our lives.
"Love is marriage," one might hear. Need it be said that we may have been, in this respect, duped
by one of the most bizarre illusions that have ever taken possession of the human mind? Men
enter marriage thinking of all the wonders of life that will emerge not thinking they are stepping
into a political kingdom, a Plato's Republic. He cannot get out; he is ensnared by the law.
Ever since God spit at Adam and said, "Thou shall work for bread," we have been condemned by
nature to work for a living. We accept this as our birthright, as to be a man is to toil in some
fashion. But Nature and Nature's God has also condemned women to similar practices based
entirely on her gender. What greater arrogance is there for a frenzied box of senators to legislate
Nature out of existence? Yet, this is entirely what the law is attempting to do with marriage and
creating disharmony among, what would normally be orderly, society.
Free marriage from law! Let us marry who we wish and how we wish without permission from
our government. Give marriage full and complete independence from the law. Let love be free
from your licenses, your judges, and your courts.
281
You respond, "This is very good, Pook, yes, an interesting proposal. But if we allowed such a
release, we would, henceforth, be allowing full-scale plunder on the women:
"Women would be sexually used as objects."
"Women would be forced to serve men."
"And women would generally be unhappy and poorer in life."
Oh noble statesmen! Majestic politicians! Waddle to your windows and take a look out of your
estates. Women are being plundered as we speak. By the law corrupting marriage, it has
corrupted women as well. Your perverted little laws have infested what was once natural,
pleasing, and the bedrock of society itself. You have expanded the political realm to the bedroom
where, instead of the pains and satisfactions, instead of falling to each according to their natural
proportion, are divided between the exploited and their exploiters, with all the pain going to the
former, and all the satisfactions to the latter. This is the principle on which indentured servitude
is based, as well as plunder of any and every form: wars, acts of violence, restraints on trade,
frauds, misrepresentations, etc. -monstrous abuses, but consistent with the idea that gave rise to
them. One hates not the women and the politicians, one hates the exploiters and those who
intervenes on their behalf from their destiny's reckoning day.
"You are a social misfit!"
And you are a senator! Which insult is the greater?
While the laws may have been made with the finest intentions, that no-fault divorce would free
mates from horrible marriages, that child-custody laws would divide children when Solomon
couldn't, that child support payments would help struggling divorced women, that sexual
harassment laws would stop predatory behaviors at the workplace, and that secret family courts
would rule with the utmost in fairness. But a law has, even with the best of intentions, backfired
and created effects that were never imagined. Let me give example to this phenomenon.
282
After the American Civil War, which the nation suffered greatly, Congress eventually signed an
act that gave legal benefits to Civil War veterans and their wives. The intention was good
enough; after all, shouldn't veterans who served their nation so well be rewarded from their
government? But there were unforeseen consequences such as eighteen year old girls marrying
seventy year old veterans so these women would have government supported income for life.
Back then, they called this a "boondoggle." Today, we call it 'marriage.'
We implore you to look beyond the intentions of the law and see the actual effects. It is not that
women are evil, it is that power corrupts and by giving them such legal power (such as crying
'sexual harassment' or 'rape' where none exists to remove a man), and this is the power that
corrupts our women. The modern relationship has routinely become women searching for power
over the males.
If the law was structured in such a way that would give men such legal absolutism, then men
might be just as corrupted. This is why I call for the abolition of all marriage laws.
But what is most noteworthy is the astonishing blindness of the public to all this. This is only
temporary however. I have seen the demographic charts as have you. When the voting public, the
elderly, pass from this earth within a decade or two, you have only us to deal with (and the
unnationalistic immigrants). It would be prudent to nip this problem in the bud before it
blossoms into its poisonous flowery trap.
Do not fear the political wrath of women. Their self-interest, in the end, is tied to ours. They
want men to marry as much as you do and will prefer flesh-and-blood men to the boondoggles of
their previous feminist spinsters. By freeing marriage from all and any law, we let liberty be our
master instead of a play-word. By removing the collected boondoggles of marriage with one
sweeping act, you will create a wealthier, happier, and More Perfect nation.
What!? One last complaint? Let us hear it:
"But Pook, what are the safeguards? There is no check if we do this; everything might fall to
283
pieces!"
Poor human race! Without your law, you think all society will slide into the abyss? How arrogant
we are to find ourselves better craftsmen of Nature than God Himself! Goodness sir, with haste,
grants marriage independence. This merry act will be consistent with the spirit of freedom and
the reason why we have republics in the first place. For I have faith in Humanity that liberty
creates the best society than any legislative possibility...
Don't you agree, politicians?
284
NY Times sees Marriage Strike but doesn't
understand it
This is a must-read article. NY Times wonders why men are not marrying. They interview social
scientists. And, these social scientists think of Mankind as nothing but as a mass of human clay
to be poked at with a stick. Notice how limited their contexts are.
Pretty much most social scientists are women and feminized men. The contexts they use are
always annoyingly Industrial Age-esque. Just because one doesn't have a college degree doesn't
make the person stupid. Even the unmarried men they interview have money. The contexts used
not only show a female dominated set of looking at things but also shows people behind the
times.
Some interesting quotes leaked through:
There is no conclusive evidence that marriage helps men. Still, some social scientists worry
that not marrying may further marginalize men who are already struggling.
285
The key word is 'some.' I want to hear about the social scientists who say otherwise. What do
they have to say?
David Popenoe, a sociologist at Rutgers and a co-director of its National Marriage Project,
argues that it is the men who are choosing to remain single. He says men do not marry because
they do not want to. As unwilling to commit as ever, men have been let off the hook by more
permissive social mores that have made it acceptable to live together and raise children out of
wedlock.
Thank goodness we have social scientists to say the obvious! Men don't marry...because they
don't want to! Incredible!
Maybe the social scientist will make the next logical step and say, "So in order to get men to
marry...they should WANT to." Then he ought to ask these non-marrying men, "What would it
take you to get married?" The answers would involve removal of things like 'divorce' and
'financial devastation' to what can happen to men. But, all in all, the answers could be summed
up as thus: "Remove feminism from law and from the attitude of women." A woman from
another century would look at our world in amazement as many foreign women do when they
arrive to tell me, "Pook, it is a wonder that your country reproduces at all!" Indeed, my dear.
Indeed.
Some social scientists have found that married men are healthier and earn slightly more than
unmarried men. But it is unclear whether marriage produces higher incomes and better
health, or whether people who are richer and healthier in the first place more often choose to
marry.
This is correlation, not causation. Married men don't make more money. It is the case that men
who make more money are often pursued by more women for marriage.
286
Beyond the questions of finances and health, there is the issue of how content these men are. All
the men interviewed for this article looked younger than their age. All said they were happy
with their lives, even Mr. Cunningham, with his clear longing for a family of his own, and Mr.
Thomas, of Fort Collins, who said he might move to Denver to meet more women.
Younger than their age! And all are happy with their lives! So what is the problem? Why the
article anyway?
It is because the women now look older than their age and are not happy with their lives. Maybe
the NY Times should focus an article on them instead of these happy, young looking, single
men?
Does law create marriages or do people?
Some have expressed outrage in how I could suggest the abolition of marriage laws. "How could
you, Pook!?" they say. "That is too drastic! Too insane!"
But do not fall for the trap that law is the creator of marriages. It is interesting that the reactions
to removing a law are thought to be removing from society itself. When people wanted the laws
concerning education to be removed, some thought it meant the end of all education in society!
When people wanted the laws concerning religion to be removed due to the intense religious
wars, some thought it would mean the end of religion. Yet, religion thrives in societies even
when it isn't contained in the law. Marriages will thrive as well within society without the use of
law. It is like some people think I would want people to starve if I said the state should not pass
laws concerning raising grain!
287
Religion, communities, and even your own private contracts can create marriages much greater
than any law can. Since marriage is now defined entirely by the law, it is no mistake that we see
the interests of the times throws themselves at the legislative palace and the battle within all the
more intense. Whoever controls the law controls the definition of marriage. I wonder how the
law became the authority on marriage? You cannot divorce marriage from the state now so it
seems safe to say that socialism has completely entangled marriage. Now, people cannot think of
marriage without thinking of the government.
Marriage, property, and liberty are not created by the law. To the contrary, it is the fact that
marriage, property, and liberty existed beforehand that caused people to make laws in the first
place. (Replace the word "marriage" with "society" and the statement still holds true.)
What Law Hath Joined Together...
Mirror's link to a must read article already covers the good commentary. I'll see what I can add.
Two quotes: beginning:
For the moment, while the Federal Marriage Amendment is moved to a back burner, it's a good
time to heighten our awareness of a broader menace. Same-sex marriage is a symptomatic threat
to families, compared to the more fundamental effect of "no fault" divorce. “Commentators miss
the point when they oppose homosexual marriage on the grounds that it would undermine
288
traditional understandings of marriage," writes Bryce Christensen of Southern Utah University.
"It is only because traditional understandings of marriage have already been severely
undermined that homosexuals are now laying claim to it." Michael McManus of Marriage
Savers writes that "divorce is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today's challenge by
gays."
It is true that the same sex marriage is emerging from the wreckage that is already marriage. But
here is the question:
Is marriage a matter of Law or is it a matter of Society?
"What is the difference?" Society and Government are not the same. I do not have to go to a
court to get a license to make a friendship or to reproduce. So why is there a license for
marriage? In short, why is the marriage a matter of law at all?
When people complain of society becoming politicized or feminized, a better term might be
Rousseau-ized. Jean Jacques Rousseau, critic to the Enlightenment, believed that the government
bestowed its citizens with rights based on the so-called will of the people. Rousseau accepts that
Mankind is of total inertness in the presence of legislators. The legislator, to Rousseau, is "the
mechanic who invents the machine."
Rousseau's ideas are not compatible with U.S. system of government as the Declaration, and
most people accept people have natural rights and aren't "granted" them by wise politicians.
Nevertheless, Rousseau saw the politician molding people like a potter molds his pot.
This infection of Rousseauism is the root of Feminism and even the no-fault divorce. Rousseau
believed that society was artificial so there can be no such thing as natural such as friendship,
family, marriage, or anything else. Feminists, as we know, do not believe in nature, both in
biology and in society's nature. To a feminist, there is no 'natural' order. It is all artificial. This is
why feminists believe passing new laws or controlling education in schools will result in
changing society (unfortunately, society keeps insisting on reverting to its natural form. Poor
289
Human Nature!).
Aside that society is all artificial and ought to be shaped by law; Rousseau's biggest infection has
been the Social Contract. Since Rousseau thought there was no such thing as natural society that
artificial society would be obtained by everyone performing social contracts. It sounds good in
theory until you realize that each of these contracts contains the teeth of law. This means instead
of having a happy utopian society, we have law everywhere and anywhere.
The main complaint of marriage by men is that it marries you to the State. This is true. Marriage,
which has become nothing more than a legal contract, is flushing law into your life. Now, you
are no longer free. You are tethered, by law, to the state. Since marriage became nothing more
than a contract, the same-sex "marriage" came about since marriage is now the contract; it now
has nothing to do with the two people in it. It is annoying that when people talk about the
institution of marriage, they refer to the law and not to the two people which is, supposedly, the
reason why that 'contract' exists in the first place. I expect this 'contract' to be expanded to three
people. Then many. Brother and sister will marry because it is only a contract and has no
relevance in a natural society. (Keep in mind I am not spelling D-O-O-M, only what is the effect
when marriage is seen as nothing but a contract).
My biggest disappointment has come from the religious. Marriage is one of the seven
sacraments. Could you imagine churches allowing a law to determine whether or not you have
been properly baptized?
But now that we concern ourselves that marriage has been destroyed by the adoption of
Rousseau’s Social Contract as the definition of matrimony, the following will make more sense...
The divorce industry has, in effect, rendered marriage a fraudulent contract. While the
dissolution of families affects the health of the entire society, parents and especially fathers must
demand that marriage be made an enforceable contract. "No fault" divorces granted by family
courts also confront church leadership, not only along lines of morality, but as it touches on the
validity of their ministry. If marital bonds can be dissolved by government officials with no
290
grounds or agreement between the marriage partners, the sanctity of a wedding ceremony is
subject to disregard. Unless marriage is an enforceable contract, there is little point in
preaching trust in it. It is not surprising that ever fewer are willing to marry while the marriage
contract offers no protection of family, children, homes, or privacy, even to the extent of lifethreatening impositions. It is one thing to tolerate divorce. It is another to allow government to
impose it on unwilling spouses. When courts stop dispensing justice, they must start dispensing
injustice. There is no middle ground.
What surprises me is how much I disagree with his 'solution.' The author of the article wants the
contract to be 'enforceable' (HELLO? WHOM is going to enforce it? The State!). Nothing
changes with his solution. An 'enforceable contract' still places marriage in the middle of the
court room, and chains the State to your life.
By removing marriage from the greedy hands of the Law can you ever hope to take marriage
back into society where it belongs (rather than the political kingdom)? Whenever the marriage is
seen as a matter of law, the State will own the marriage. This is why I believe the author is totally
off the mark by recommending a stronger enforcement of the 'contract.' It is the confusion of
marriage with the Social Contract that has caused marriage to be something you tie together and
undo as simple, and frequent, as tying one's shoes.
Naturally, men avoid this legal leashing to the state. They see it for what it is. Just as naturally,
men go off to enjoy their lives and deal with women outside of the matters of law.
We don't need a legislature or judges to fall in love, have children, have a loving family, to build
a home, or to be happy with the fruits of life. So why do we need legislatures or judges for
marriage?
If I said: "A family is not a natural thing. It is artificial. You must go receive a license from the
state to call you, your spouse, and your children a 'family.'" You would think I was mad! But this
is how everyone talks of marriage as if it is nothing more than a legal rope to 'tie' ourselves
291
together. What is most disturbing is that this context of marriage, as some artificial contract
created by the almighty state, is believed by everyone, including those 'fighting for the family.'
292
Feminism
*Gag alert* "Why American and Western
Women Rock!"
An email, with no text, forwarded this newsletter that came from a Dating Website. Below, you
will find the text with some comments by me, the Pookius Maximus.
No, this isn't some tirade against women who are NOT western or American. Not about that at
all.
What I am going to do today is UNTANGLE a pervasive myth.
A myth about "western" and "American" women, a myth that views these women as if they are
aliens OR as if they are so different, OR as if they are "evil."
It's almost FUNNY when I see guys, even guys that have all the stereotypical "pluses" going for
them, like being tall or having money or having good looks, whining their asses off about how
"foreign" women are "better," and how "tough" it is with western or "American" women.
I don't know if these guys are local or foreign themselves, and/or if they are simply not "getting
any" from western or American women, or if they can't ACHIEVE HARMONY with western or
American women.
293
It's a myth used and abused by many, sometimes because they don't know the truth, and
sometimes this myth is spread by those who KNOW BETTER, but want to DISTORT the truth
anyway for selfish reasons.
Whoa! Stop the tape! Selfish reasons? And this is coming from someone trying to sell
people E-books? OK, resume the tape.
So this newsletter is for those confused or who may have been brainwashed by wretched LIES to
believe that the ANSWER to their women issues is to find a woman from ABROAD.
The idea they try to promote is that American or even sometimes the idea that "western" women
are spoiled, and that "foreign" women are much better for relationships, or better for whatever
the heck else they might say.
Some folks out there will try to tell you that there is a problem with western or American women.
You know, I MYSELF used to wonder a bit about this. BEFORE I finally "GOT" it.
But I am human, and open to LEARNING. In fact, I believe in LIFELONG learning. And learn I
did.
The problem is not with western or American women. It is women IN America. These
women could be natives or foreigners. Once being in America, the law and/or media can
corrupt their souls to grab for power instead of look for love.
And I hate how these 'dating experts' have
to
talk
294
like
THIS
all
THE
time.
I never FULLY believed the "foreign women" lie, but I thought maybe there was some truth to it.
There are guys out there (some who call themselves "experts" - yikes!!!!!) who will go on and on
(yawn) about how it's a whole big science to understand the difference between cultures and
countries if you want to do well with women, and they will especially go on and on about how
foreign women are "better behaved."
Look, for a short while, I was curious about this stuff, so I decided to thoroughly look into it.
THOROUGHLY.
Never mind that the whole idea is suspicious anyway, because we all know that there is HUGE
VARIATION amongst ALL INDIVIDUALS. So for example, does anyone REALLY think that at a
"religious" school, that all the kids there are "more moral" than at say, a PUBLIC school or
secular school?
Let me tell you something, you can't INSTITUTIONALIZE or FORCE good character. You can
promote it, but only through TOTAL LIFESTYLE changes.
Then why does the U.S. and the West institutionalize or FORCE good character with their
web of marriage laws and family courts?
295
It is silly to say that Western Men are FORCING or INSTITUTIONALIZING or have any
desire to. Western Men are not cheerleaders to the laws that have turned marriage into an
'institution.' These men have no power to create law on these women.
It's not about the school you go to, or the country in which you live, unless that school or country
truly controls every aspect of your private life. Hence, dictatorships can truly mold people for
evil, by controlling every aspect of people's lives.
Already, Michael W. reveals he has adopted the idea that society is not natural, that it can
be molded, controlled, and shaped. While dictatorships do this, they do so because a
dictatorship has complete control of the law with no check or balance.
If anything, PARENTS influence children the most and therefore play the greatest role in shaping
each successive generation and culture. Hey, I like some of Madonna's music, and I think she is
a great businesswoman for sure, but somehow I don't think her Catholic school education is
what shaped her music, except in the IRONIC sense possibly of her ENTIRE CAREER being a
REBELLION to it.
Gay guys LOVE Madonna. And why in the world is he praising Madonna in a dating
newsletter? This is raising red flags.
So LOCATION or OFFICIAL CULTURE means NOTHING when it comes to what a PERSON is
ACTUALLY like. (Unless it is a total dictatorship, and even there there will be those who behave
in ways against the official values)
Why contradict yourself so openly?
I don't buy the b.s. argument that foreign women are more faithful, more loyal, more loving, blah
blah blah.
296
Only if they aren't in America.
If anything, in many foreign countries, women are simply more controlled and used to being
controlled. They have less rights.
He spends so much time about how one cannot generalize and then he proceeds to do it.
And in MANY cases, the women STILL RESIST whenever they CAN.
The bottom line is that if you are an UNCOOL person, a guy who doesn't "get" it, then NO
MATTER what woman you meet, you're going to have problems on the attraction front. And
without ATTRACTION, the only reason a woman might be with a guy is because she has nothing
else going on.
This is true, but it has nothing to do with the issue of foreign women.
Of course, with a woman who has no rights or power, there is "security" in the sense she cannot
leave him easily, so "emotional risk" you might say is limited, but that is like saying that you
should only play VIDEO GAME versions of bike rides, to be safe, instead of actually riding your
bike. Yeah, it's safe and you prevent damage and falls, but it's not REAL and it's not as exciting
or meaningful or rewarding.
He admits the risk of Western women!
Dating foreign women compared to Western women is to be like a video game of bike
riding compared to actual bike riding? This is the stupidest comparison I've seen.
The premise of the comparison is wrong. Foreign women are not docile controlled
creatures. Besides, one can find Western women who are docile and controlled. Yet, the
legal risk does not change because you are still in America.
297
Resume the tape.
Hopefully I don't need to tell this to anyone, but foreign women, and not just the mail order
brides, and other women desperate to leave their home countries, aren't the most reliable
sources of information for how they REALLY feel.
But someone trying to sell their E-book is?
There is something called DECEIT. Something called using a guy for a passport. Using a guy for
money.
Why the heck would a gorgeous woman from say, Russia, want to hook up with a totally
UNCOOL guy with no sense of style, no sense of humor, no excitement, not a cool bone in his
body? Especially when she could INSTANTLY change her reality and find a cooler guy?
While it is true that some foreign women do search out to use a guy, there are simple ways
around this such as going outside the cities and tourist areas in their countries. You can also
plan to live in that country which means no passport at all.
And the answer as to why such a woman would hook up with such a guy is even simpler:
she is gorgeous because she feminine. She likes the guy because her environment values
elements that the pop-culture in the West does not. For example, I like to read books. This
is seen as 'loser' by some in the West. But women who value intelligence LOVE that
element. So this 'loser' quality becomes seen as a 'winner' quality elsewhere. And the 'cool'
qualities of the West's pop-culture easily become 'uncool' in many places in the world.
There is a reason why many nations despise American tourists.
Is it a SURPRISE to hear accounts of guys who didn't "get it," who got married to such women,
got her a passport, and then got dumped a few months later?
Does this mean that ALL of these women, whether mail order brides, or any foreign women that
298
you meet, are illicit?
NOPE, I'm sure there are legitimate "quality" foreign women. BUT THERE ARE A MILLION
LEGIT QUALITY WOMEN RIGHT OUTSIDE YOUR FRONT DOOR!
Which 100% of them are under the 'institutionalizing' and 'force' controlling marriage and
feminist laws in the West. This is too easy. Resume the tape!
It's not about how FAR you travel to meet a woman; it's about HOW COOL OF A PERSON YOU
ARE.
If you HAVE what it takes, then suddenly TONS OF WOMEN are drawn to you, REGARDLESS
of where they are from.
And if you DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW ATTRACTION WORKS, and if you don't have this vibe
about you, then even if you travel all the way to another GALAXY, STILL, no woman will be
interested.
Coolness is often seen in the eye of the beholder. Why should someone sell their soul to popculture? It is not life-worshipping but rather life-appeasing way of thought.
I have spent half a decade on Sosuave making posts about getting guys to "man up." One
thing I've learned is that foreign women are less tolerant of 'wimps' than Westernized
women are. Western women love marrying wimps who they can control. But women
outside of the Anglosphere have a low view on men who appease, who have no backbone.
I kind of suspected this stuff, but wasn't always SURE, 100%, until recent years.
Never mind that in a previous career, I already had over two years experience working with and
socializing with elites from all over the world, which exposed me to tons of cultures from every
continent, and that I also have formal education in this area as well
299
Elites!!!!! Oh, that word! And HE wasn't exposed to tons of cultures; rather he was exposed
to elites.
Listen closely to his formal education:
-- in fact my second degree at university REVOLVED around appreciating the impact of cultural
diversity for communicating and educating others.
He hasn't actually been to these countries. But he did have a 'degree' which REVOLVED
around 'cultural diversity' and education...i.e. a chick degree. This dude has a chick degree!
And never mind that Toronto, my hometown, is certainly one of the most ethnically, culturally,
and linguistically diverse cities in the world, if not THE most diverse.
He is a city dweller and a Canadian. I apologize to Canadians reading this, but Canadians
are generally seen as 'feminized' especially in areas like Toronto.
Notice how he just views women in his own country. He doesn't go anywhere.
The truth is that having all this background in ADDITION to my understanding of attraction
HELPED, but it was like OVERKILL for understanding a rather SIMPLE issue.
All you have to know about the whole "western women" or "American women" vs. foreign
women debate is: American and western women have more FREEDOM.
They are not locked up.
They are allowed to vote.
They are allowed to drive a car.
They are allowed to express their sexuality.
They are allowed to STAND up against bullshit, like a guy who cheats on them.
300
They are also allowed to...
Be completely unfeminine and be proud of it.
Be single mothers.
Divorce you and take your assets.
80% of sexually active women have an STD, usually common Herpes (it's true, do a search on
it).
Have multiple tattoos everywhere.
To reject motherhood and war against their fertility.
To hold careers at the detriment of the family.
To throw the weight of the state on you on accusations of rape or sexual harassment; proof
not required.
To have secret Family Courts which take custody of children despite most defenses for the
male.
Can let you cheat in marriage (and you pay for it in divorce.)
They can cheat on you in marriage (and you still pay for it in divorce.)
Western women are also allowed to have sex with underage males, such as at schools, and are
barely penalized for it.
Sorry, doesn't sound so good to me.
When people think only in terms of sports sex, such as seducers, they do not think deeply of
the issues above. But when you want children and seriously contemplate marriage, these
issues come up.
All this stuff sounds pretty damn GOOD to me. Ummm, why would any guy want to LEAVE these
women and go for a woman because she comes from a place where she is DENIED freedom?
That's pathetic!
Western females are rarely women. In fact, most express hostility at being a woman in the
301
first place.
When guys start saying that American or western women are evil, and that "foreign" women are
"nicer," what they are really saying is that they don't "get" it yet. Which is not their fault, and in
fact is one of the reasons I do what I do - to clear up these things.
Once you understand the FULL picture, you start to realize that the REAL problem is that most
MEN in the west need to develop THEMSELVES to go along with the times, because so many
men are STILL behaving in a way that only made sense a long time ago, when women DID NOT
have these freedoms.
To go along with the times? In other words, your soul and life must be reconstituted to
please the women. This is appeasement. This is the loser mentality. This is the wimp.
Now that women HAVE these freedoms, women have more confidence, self-esteem, etc. So men
have to UNDERSTAND this and start being far less formal with women. Far less "tip-toeing"
around women. And far MORE fun, confident, charming, interesting, and challenging.
Women already had freedom before. Law has never granted people freedom because Law
is very different than society.
A lot of men could learn from WOMEN about how to have a higher sense of self-esteem, how to
not accept bullshit, how to frame yourself as the "prize" in a relationship or male-female
interaction and how to get what your worth in these situations, and how to have a better sense of
humor, etc, etc.
Yeah, guys can learn a LOT from women. Even the fact that women tend to pay more attention to
fashion is something men can learn from as well. It's all about creating EMOTIONAL IMPACT,
something women know but too many men ignore.
Oh, these Western women are so incredible and we, Western males, are so awful! Yes, let us
302
learn from the women. Let the women teach us how to be a 'man!' Sarcasm aside, how in
the hell can a woman teach a guy how to be a man?
And it's NOT about being manipulative, unless you think that having ATTRACTION POWER and
being EXCITING AND FUN to be around is manipulative.
There are other issues as well, such as the role of family, but this has affected both men and
women, and is not the fault of women. In the 1950's, both men and women were more marriage
minded, more family minded, and also it was more possible for only one person to work to bring
in the income. This made it easier to have a more stable family life. It can still be done today; it's
just a little more challenging. And certainly, this does not make American or western women
"bad" any more than it makes men "bad" for having given women their freedoms!!!!
Now that I think about it, it actually took a lot of GUTS for western society and men to do this.
I keep hammering how Feminism is born through the idea that society and law are the
same. As you can see from this guy's comments of how he can say such a thing.
Yeah, things have shaken up quite a bit and it's taking a bit of time for both men and women to
adjust perfectly, but ALL societies are constantly adjusting to something, and do you really want
women to be locked up in a cage? If that's the only way you can feel secure with a woman, that's
NOT GOOD!!!
BUT YOU CAN CHANGE THIS!
To him, society is completely artificial and slowly 'evolving' and 'changing.' But if this were
true, then the great works of the Humanities, from Shakespeare on down, would be undone
since Human Nature isn't universal or unchanging. But Human Nature IS universal and it
does not change throughout the generations of people on Earth.
It starts with realizing that the "problems" are more of sign of NOT HAVING "THE SKILLS"
303
with women, a sign of NOT UNDERSTANDING, a sign of NOT having THE RIGHT SELFCONCEPT.
Ahh, yes, the 'skills.' On Sosuave, people would ask me about 'skills' and 'systems' and I
would always reply that there are no skills or systems. There is only Nature. I do not look
upon women as Machiavelli looked upon people. Nature already gave me the tools to 'get'
women; I just had to let them out. I had to be a man, to let myself be a sexual being, and so
on and so forth. No philosophy or 'master skills' was required for this just as no philosophy
or 'master skills' is required for a baby to turn into a kid. (But philosophy and 'skills' can
give that kid a mindset of being a baby. I see philosophy and artificial skills as obstacles for
a young male to become a man rather than the opposite.)
American and western women often have HIGH STANDARDS.
Are men allowed to have ANY standards for their women?
They also have OPINIONS; they cannot be CONTROLLED or programmed like ROBOTS.
Yet, Michael W. is asking us to be programmed with his 'mad skillz' and 'perceived
coolness' like robots.
They are often INDEPENDENTLY MINDED.
Disrespectful.
They are often EDUCATED.
Degrees are not the same as education.
They won't put up with BULLSHIT, like you cheating on them.
304
Fine. So why are men asked to put up with THEIR bullshit, like them cheating on YOU?
This is good s**t!!! Why would you want a woman any other way? Any other way would be
pathetic; it would mean that the guy has no way of actually attracting the women, that he must
control them instead. That's boring, creepy. Pathetic.
This guy is projecting himself onto others. If what these men say is true, that foreign
women are higher quality than American women, doesn't that mean this 'Dating Guru' is
not as successful with women as he thinks? If American women can easily be 'trash,'
doesn't that mean that he, Michael W., lacks the skills and manliness to obtain true
feminine women?
Of course, his egoism will never permit this possibility. So, obviously, anyone who says
otherwise is a 'loser with women.' There can be no other explanation in his mind (or else his
reality collapses as does his business).
The answer is not to change women; it's for MEN to develop themselves!
You mean re-program ourselves to have LOW standards in women.
To BE THE MAN.
As I've said for OVER THREE YEARS:
To be THE MAN.
Not ONE WORD has changed in my original book about this:
BE THE MAN.
One more time:
305
THE MAN.
Women want THE MAN.
Nothing else can compete with this.
And he defines 'being the man' as redefining yourself to please women. No. This is the
definition of having no backbone or being soul-less in life. I don't think this character
understands what a man is.
I've been STEADFAST in this; I didn't just release that book in a hurry. And it has stood the test
of time. No need for releasing a ton of other books, unlike a lot of other folks who I guess needed
to make up for what was "missing" in theirs, and still do apparently, by dumping endless more
books on you, to get you hooked and addicted.
Once you yourself develop, it's SO MUCH more rewarding to be with a woman who you know is
with you because of CHOICE rather than because she has NO OTHER CHOICE, or because she
has little choice.
And for those who already have the book, I seriously recommend you RE-READ IT again and
again. It's the ONLY WAY for you to derive FULL IMPACT, as each time you re-read it, it
reinforces the ideas into your mind and helps you stay on course and detoxify your brainwashed
mind so that you can build powerful momentum.
So the bottom line is, American and western women ROCK, and the way to attract them is for
you to come out and play your highest game. I mean the word "game" in the very best sense of
that word - that you give it your best with all your passion, and that you enjoy the process and
bring up the entire game of those around you (the men and women around you are only made
BETTER by interacting with you) in the process, in the same way Gretzky played his game.
306
And if you want to bring YOUR game up to its highest level, I suggest you download my eBook,
The Dating Wizard: Secrets to Success with Women, IMMEDIATELY, at:
http://thedatingwizard.com/the_dating_wizard.htm
Inside, you'll learn:
-How to trigger attraction instantly.
-How to approach women and create "instant dates."
-How to get physical.
-How to handle tests.
-How to create a powerful sense of connection.
-And much, much more. Download it all at :
http://thedatingwizard.com/the_dating_wizard.htm
And if you would like to get the MASSIVE POWER of PERSONAL ONE-ON-ONE COACHING
with me, where I will focus exclusively on you, on taking you past any sticking points so that you
can achieve your goals as fast as possible, you can now arrange this by going to:
http://thedatingwizard.com/1-1consultations.htm
And if you are ready for the IMMERSION EXPERIENCE, where you will be pushed to your
limits and then taken WAY BEYOND what you thought was ever possible, it's time for you to sign
up for my EXCLUSIVE ONE-TO-ONE BOOTCAMP. These bootcamps are sold out for several
weeks, so if you are interested in a bootcamp this summer, let me know asap. Get all the details
307
at: http://thedatingwizard.com/bootcamp.htm Till next time,
Michael W.
What more needs to be said? There is one crucial difference between a Michael W. and a
Pook. Pook is not asking for your money. Michael W. is.
308
Do feminists eat cat feces?
An emailer sent this story in:
The parasite, Toxoplasma gondii, has been transmitted indirectly from cats to roughly half the
people on the planet, and it has been shown to affect human personalities in different ways.
Research has shown that women who are infected with the parasite tend to be warm, outgoing
and attentive to others, while infected men tend to be less intelligent and probably a bit boring.
But both men and women who are infected are more prone to feeling guilty and insecure.
Other researchers have linked the parasite to schizophrenia. In an adult, the symptoms are like a
mild form of flu, but it can be much more serious in an infant or fetus. Oxford University
researchers believe high levels of the parasite leads to hyperactivity and lower IQs in children.
309
Lafferty, who is a parasite ecologist with the U.S. Geological Survey at the University of
California at Santa Barbara, is an expert on the role parasites play in the ecology of other
animals.
The researcher's idea is that cat parasite, that infects rats to affect their behavior, also jumps to
Humans changing their behavior.
What I do not understand in this guy’s theory is how the parasite infects the humans. He says that
rats get infected by the parasite by eating cat feces.
Do feminists eat cat feces? Could this be causing their strange behavior? I highly doubt this
parasite can infect or alter Human behavior as this particular researcher thinks (which is probably
why media is constantly calling him). Still, it is a fun theory that reverses the standard: instead of
one becoming feminist and getting cats, rather it is those around cats who become feminist.
Does freedom of consent apply to men as well?
In this story, it talks about single men using female donors to have children. This process is very
expensive and is a legal mess (the practice is banned in some states). But apparently, these men
see it as a better alternative than getting married.
In it, is a juicy reaction from a feminist:
310
According to Mary L. Shanley, a political-science professor at Vassar College and author of
"Making Babies, Making Families," single men becoming single parents thanks to surrogacy is
"a mixed bag." "On the one hand, if some single men wish to have children because they want
hands-on responsibility for the care of their children, they want to be in the nurturing role and
not just financial providers, then [this trend] is promising," she said. "They're redefining
masculinity and male roles in society.”
Oh, poor Humanity! To the feminist, there are no humans, no people that are her equals. It is
only "society," this chimerical unit that must be "progressed" and "evolved" according to
feminist standards.
"But on the negative side, is that really why men are doing this? This needs to be meaningful;
they shouldn't just exploit women in the end by buying women's services, buying eggs, buying a
surrogate, then a nanny."
If a man has consent with a woman to do something, this is considered 'exploitation.'
When it comes to artificial reproductive technology in general, Shanley said, "parents should be
cognizant of their future kids' desires, not just the iron-clad contract they signed."
OK. Let us remove no-fault divorce and the insane child custody laws!
Feminists, in Rousseau like fashion, have pushed for a society of contracts. But if men use this to
their advantage, it is 'exploitation!' It appears that the truth of the matter is if men go outside of
The Feminist Way, they are doing harm somehow...someway...even if it cannot be defined. In the
same way, if a man doesn't follow The Way, he is automatically declared to "hate women."
311
Boy, these feminists are boring and predictable. I need to make a Feminist Bingo Card where,
whenever a feminist complains, I can mark off a box.
312
Don't fall for this fishy story
There is a story going around that is Third of Male Fish in English Rivers Are Changing Their
Sex.
Since I don't live in England, I am not in the know-how of how everything works there. But Junk
Science abounds in alarmist news stories. What isn't mentioned is that, in Nature, such
occurrences as male fish laying eggs or changing sex has occurred before. Correlation is not
causation.
A major red flag to this story is how it compares fish to humanity. Are Humans little fish now?
Making the jump from the fish to lower sperm counts in Human males is preposterous. There are
many reasons why sperm counts are lower such as a more lenient lifestyle, men getting out of
shape, tighter underwear, and so on. These are much more probable than mystical "chemicals"
that are feminizing men.
If the Men's Movement believed that EVIL chemicals were 'seeping' out of plastics and was in
our water, our food, and our pillows(!), the Men's Movement would become the equivalent of the
John Birch Society of the 50s and be dead politically. The John Birch Society was a paranoid
group who believed Communists were poisoning the water supply of America. John F. Kennedy
made fun of them and rightly so. Going through life and 'FEELING' everything is going to
poison you is silly. Never mind that the Western Nations have the safest and best food available,
313
people want to believe they live in Poison Land. If our food and water are so bad, then why are
we living longer and taller with each generation?
This story will give fuel to the moonbat myth many in the Men's Movement believe in that
plastics and "chemicals" are the cause of feminization of males. First of all, your entire body is
made of chemicals. Just because something is a chemical, it does not make it 'bad.' Also, almost
all food is unnatural. Humanity has been genetically engineering food not just recently but
forever. There is no such thing as 'wild rice.' When the Europeans came to America, they were
taught by the Indians (the Native Americans) of how to plant and raise corn. The Indians had
been doing it forever, literally eternally as far as we know. There is no such thing as 'natural'
corn. Despite this, people foolishly pay inflated prices for inferior products which are labeled
'organic foods.'
Also, a big problem in believing in evil chemicals everywhere is that it turns you into a victim
mindset. Why, you being a wimp or other guys being wimps isn't because it was THEIR fault, it
was because of these 'chemicals' that were 'seeping' from the plastic, from the water, from the
food. This might make a fun fiction story, but it obviously isn't reality. I think some of this belief
is on misplaced history due to Romans' lead pipes. Since people see themselves as Modern
Romans, there obviously has to be the equivalent to lead pipes SOMEWHERE.
And, the worst of it is that men were feminized well before the birth control pill. The biggest
noticeable feminization I see was the World War II generation. This might be because of the
psychological effects of the war or something else. "What? You dare say the GREATEST
generation was feminized!? I demand proof!" This was when the De Beers' marketing trend of
giving diamonds for engagement rings caught on.
Whether or not this news is scientifically accurate will be determined by scientific journals, not
the mainstream press. But usually stories like this do not survive.
The idea that modern wastes are changing the fishies' gender is questionable. The idea that the
effects on these fish being applied to humans is borderline insane.
314
Chick Radio
Get your tissues! Air America is filing for bankruptcy. They haven't even paid Al Franken in
quite a while.
You might ask, "But Pook, there are conservative talk radio in America. Why not liberal talk
radio?"
Talk radio is a disruptive media. It is set to disrupt as an alternative to 'mainstream' media. I don't
think liberals desire an alternative to mainstream media apart from blogging. There is no liberal
discontent at the New York Times or ABC News as there is conservative discontent.
But I think a big element of it is entertainment. Much of the conservative talk radio, especially
Limbaugh, is reportedly having an audience of 40% liberals. Why is half the audience of
conservative talk radio being liberals? Tom Daschle, the former Senate Democrat leader (he got
voted out!) was stunned by this. Talk Radio such as Limbaugh succeed in not because they are
ideological but because they are entertaining. They have a 40% liberal audience because that
315
audience is still entertained...even though they hate the hosts!
What was entertaining about Air America? People are also attracted to optimism, not pessimism.
When looking back at electoral results, Reagan somehow won 49 states' electoral votes in the
election of 1984. If you look at that campaign, you'll find rich sunny optimism and humor. This
is the same reason why people flock to listen to Limbaugh or other talk radio. Was Air America
filled with sunny optimism...or doom and gloom? Was it filled with humor...or anger? You can be
a liberal and have optimism and humor...just look at JFK. But no one wants to listen to doom and
gloom all day long. No one wants to listen to people who take themselves too seriously.
But as Air America files for bankruptcy, we have Feminist Radio! Yes, friends, Chick Radio
founded by the great feminists of our era: Steinem and Fonda.
Steinem said the network, which is run by women, aims to provide an alternative to current radio
talk, which she describes as "very argumentative, quite hostile, and very much male-dominated."
This network "has a different spirit. It has more community. It's more about information, about
humor, about respect for different points of view and not constant arguing," Steinem told Reuters
in an interview.
Talk radio is male dominated? Since when? And I thought its focus was always community,
humor, and information?
But here is the fun quote:
Steinem pointed out that the idea of an all-women network stemmed from a company survey
showing an 18 percent decrease in female listeners over the past seven years.
"Women are really fleeing from AM talk radio and now FM music because people get their music
in different ways. So there's an enormous window of opportunity, and we're diving in," she said.
316
This is interesting. Why are female listeners declining? Perhaps they are all moving to the
television?
And Chick Radio will fail as well. Notice how neither feminist mentioned its focus to be on
entertainment? It is always so 'political cause' or 'social goal.' People want entertainment, not
nonsense.
Feminized Journalism
As feminism (and its post modern equivalents) invaded the Humanities, the fields that were
supported and nurtured by the Humanities also began to become rotten. Now some are beginning
to fall off the tree as the rotten fruit they are. History, law, business, and others are all becoming
afflicted.
But the most rotten one to the core is Journalism.
317
"Young men are just not interested," says Allen, who runs the broadcast news program at ASU's
Walter Cronkite School of Journalism. "There's been almost an evacuation of men from this
field."
This comes from a Washington Post story on how the newsroom is becoming feminized. I think I
can add to this story.
While most of my time in school ended up, in the end, veering towards pre-law and political
science and the English departments, I did dabble in everything I could. I took acting classes. I
snuck into the music hall. I took advantage of whatever I could. But the Journalism Department
stunned me.
There is a time when one examines the patient and knows that it is not only dying but it is far too
late to do anything for it. You must pronounce it dead. Journalism is not only dead; it has come
back as a zombie and terrorizing everything around it. Honestly, I think I'd rather take a
"Woman's Studies" class than some of the modern Journalism classes.
Journalism is more political than the Political Science department (and THAT is saying
something). In most businesses, if the customer has a complaint, the business listens because it is
the business's job to please the customer. Not Journalism. Any customer who complains...well,
what does the customer know? The journalists will just ignore the customer and keep right on
going. I think the big reason why newspapers and television news is in full decline is not so
much the Internet but because these journalists refuse to even give a care about the market. Even
retro technology sources are increasing their customer base such as radio.
To those of you in University, ask a journalist this question, "Why do you want to become a
journalist?" They will reply, "Because...I want to change the world." Baffled, I say, "But your job
is not to change the world. Your job is to stand there with a notepad and write down what is
happening." They do not like this answer.
One of the things I decided to check out was the "Debate Club." I thought this might be a
318
stimulating university experience. For some reason, the Journalism Department handled this. So
I attend a meeting and, boy, did I have some surprises.
The first rule of the Debate Club was that you do not debate. Rather, you war with images. In the
competition, I was told that you were graded more on your appearances. During breaks,
everyone becomes entirely fake and political. They rush to each other and shake hands to say,
"Oh, HOW ARE YOU!?" in the sweetest tone because judges are watching. So the meeting was
not a discussion of debating techniques or anything OBVIOUS as that. Rather, it was how to
create the best appearance. Yes, most of the members there were women. The guys there were
fairly metrosexual. The teacher was a lesbian.
The problem with journalism is not how to get it to work but rather how to get it to stop. I have
to swear that the stupidest people per average tend to end up in the Journalism Department.
These people are attracted to glamour, to media, to attention. I know guys who were interested in
journalism but quit after a single semester of being in it. "It's screwed up," they said. Or as one
aptly put it: "It is style over substance."
Journalism has turned into political activism. It is not that the Journalism field has been
corrupted. Corruption would be a godsend. Rather, it has been turned inside out. Rather than
being the most curious, the most informed, and the least bias, Journalism has become not
interested in anything that doesn't match pre-established contexts, is ripe with mediocrity, and
each want to 'change the world' as if they were pseudo-politicians. They literally believe they are
the 'fourth branch of the government.'
What is Chick News?
The traditional media is rapidly becoming 'chick news.' Every story is CRISIS. If there is a rain
storm, you will find a reporter standing outside in the rain shouting, "IT IS WET OUT HERE,
CINDY! YOU WON'T BELIEVE THE WIND OR THE RAIN! IT IS INCREDIBLE!" Yet, it's
just rain. Absolutely everything is a crisis. Consider the commercial that appears before the 10
o'clock news: "SOMETHING IN YOUR KITCHEN MAY KILL YOU! TUNE IN TONIGHT
319
TO FIND OUT WHAT THAT IS!"
Chick News also has a high focus of feature stories as all stories. They cannot simply report what
is happening in Lebanon. They must put some woman from Lebanon as she cries and talks about
the friends she knows and how she is so worried. Also, there is a high rate of news concerning
anything sexual such as contraception.
I am not sure how Journalism turned into Chick News. But I believe it began in the 1970s when
Journalism believed that it could oust a U.S. President (Nixon) and stop a war (Vietnam) single
handedly. So ever since then, every president is 'Nixon' to them and every war is 'Vietnam' to
them. Like a whore, Chick News attempts to manipulate and influence just for the sake of
manipulating and influencing.
I think the feminization of the News Room could be a microcosm of other fields to come
(corporate board rooms for example for certain industries). But, for now, here is the best example
of Chick News with the CRISIS mindset firmly in play. Watch the video.
Forbes: "Don't Marry Career Women"
320
The Matriarchy will not allow Forbes to get away with such an article. I expect an article about
the "reasons why one should marry a career woman" soon.
Hear that? It is the unsheathing of political knives. You can't post stuff like what Forbes did and
expect to get away with it scot free.
321
Feminists assault Forbes Magazine
As predicted, the feminists went in all out force against Michael Noer and his EVIL article about
not marrying a career woman. Yes, the link I posted above was correct. Apparently, this is what
happened.
In the morning, women inside the Forbes building and outside were outraged that Forbes could
run such an article. Forbes eventually pulls the article.
Then, the article returns but in a different format. Now, all the text is on one page (whereas
before it was on nine pages) and has a 'counter-argument' by some woman. Feminists have gone
berserk over this.
Here are a few 'reactions' to this article. Gentlemen, this is what you're up against.
Here is the EVIL Forbes article.
The author did another excellent article comparing the economics of having a wife versus a
whore (ha-ha).
Here are the feminists:
"This guy is an idiot" feminist.
322
After a landslide of directly implying that statistics about mental well-being and lifelong
happiness correlate directly with marrying the stupid and jobless, Forbes barely sneaks in the
caveat that "it's important not to confuse correlation with causation."
This woman is stupid. He talks not confusing causation with correlation not with the data he
presents but the usual "marriage creates all these magical benefits" data. It shows these women
have problems with some basic reading comprehension. Or, rather, they don't seem interested in
comprehending it rather than vilifying it.
More Gawker: "This guy must hate marriage in general!"
After calling the person an idiot, she digs through everything he's written to destroy him
personally. …Typical.
This feminist tries to be absurd with Noer's "thoughts" but fails.
I can't believe these women think they are smart. Her list is rather pathetic.
Michael Noer now has a wikipedia article! Hahahah.
Gawker keeps going crazy over the wonderful article.
Gee, where did the Forbes article by Michael Noer -- the asswipe who advises against marrying
a woman who has goals that extend beyond wiping up baby poop -- go? Suddenly it's not online!
(Ironically enough, we hear that Noer himself is currently away at a wedding, of all things.)
Perhaps one of Noer's female bosses realized it'd be best not to publish work by a reactionary
douchebag. Who, we might add, is NOT that attractive. Yep, we're going low. Mwa.
Let us salute the man who has razzled the feminists so much and literally put his career on the
line:
323
Unpussified Male Award goes to Michael Noer...
Battle of Forbes? No, it is Battle of IMBRA
There is a comparison going around the so-called 'Men's Movement' that the Forbes article was a
grand 'battle.' Some compare it to the 'Stonewall Riots.' First, the 'gay movement' is a political
joke (gays rely on persuading judges more than people). Second, comparing and fashioning the
'men's movement' with the 'gay movement' is a good way to completely destroy any 'men's
movement.'
Discontent is no political cause. And annoying women is no political victory. The Forbes article
was interesting. If it persuaded any men to not marry career women or to second-guess it, then it
was worthwhile. But sticking twigs in a hornet's nest is not the definition of victory.
Let me use an example. Take the lesbian kiss Madonna gave to Spears and Aguilera. It caused
much commotion. People talked about it on television shows. Commentators bemoaned what
was going on. But did it do anything to advance, say, the Gay Movement? …Of course not.
Getting people stirred up is not the same as victory, though political novices think so.
Let try another example. On the American Left, there are many bloggers who are now the main
influence on the Democrat Party. They raise lots of money. They network. But they are thrilled
with the idea of making a commotion, not in actually winning. They haven't won anything. They
324
are full of anger and rage. But they are not tuned to tactics of politics. Being angry and writing
on blogs does not persuade many people to your cause. It just keeps you angry and other
likeminded people angry. Many Democrats within the party want these bloggers' influence out.
In the same way, many in the MRA are reading the Forbes issue all wrong. It was no victory
except perhaps educating more men on what is going on. There was no 'battle.' It was a
commotion. That is the huge difference.
The real battle is going to be IMBRA. Those who are serious about winning are those fortunate
souls working in basements around the nation trying to destroy this law. Those lawyers who are
educating people about this law, how to deal with it, are the current warriors, not those writing
essays on message forums.
Feminists are not in crisis, politically. They are all united on the political front. It is the Men's
Movement that is in crisis. There is no organization. There is no set of priority. If you want to
sum up the Men's Movement, it would be this: lots of anger and rage. But anger and rage are
never persuading. Even stranger are the chants of doomsday emerging from MRA sites. Why on
earth would someone want to join a movement that believes the end is near? And what does any
of that have to do with marriage, divorce, and IMBRA?
"There is no direction, Pook, because the MRA is like the Libertarian Party." If so, then the MRA
has no future. The Libertarian Party is a series of political failures. It is as if they are more
interested in being 'right' than in actually trying to 'win.' It is easy to be right when you are never
elected to anything.
"But that is because of conspiracies of the other two parties keeping the Libertarian Party down."
No. The reason is because the candidates don't try. Check this out: look how much money the
libertarian candidate actually spends on his campaign. It is a joke. They just want to be put on the
ballot. This way they can hope to be invited to interviews on TV or slap on their book that they
were "a candidate for senator." These guys just don't want to win politically.
325
I think the best bet is for the MRA to become a special interests group.
"But Pook! Special interests groups are bad! Evil!"
No, they aren't. They are necessary for a representational government. Special interests groups
represent interests of the people. NOW (National Organization of Women) is a special interests
group. NRA (National Rifle Association) is a special interests group.
"Why are they necessary to a representational government?"
Let me tell you a story. In the Texas Senate, while the legislature is in session, there are
representatives of special interests listening in. I met one. He represents all the beer interests in
the state of Texas. His job was to listen to something that would affect his industry. Then he
would bring it up to the legislators in private meetings. The concerns for this guy would be the
obvious (like a tax on liquor) but also the not so obvious (like taxes on fuel which makes
transportation of beer more expensive).
A Texas legislator told me, "I trust that guy [the beer guy]. No legislator can know all the details
of the economy. It is up to him to tell me if the Senate has impacted his industry somehow. As
soon as he lies to me, he is gone. But I need him to keep informed."
And you thought all this time special interests were corrupting the republic! Well surprise,
surprise. The special interest groups are there to inform the legislators of the public's or an
industry's interest. They are not evil. They are informational. They also tend not to be on one
party or another. The NRA would advocate candidates that were pro-gun, pro-Second
amendment whether they were Republican or Democrat. The special interest's job is to be all
about the cause. They have the task to teach the legislators about the issues at hand (because,
despite what conspiracy theorists think, politicians are more stupid than they are evil.
A Men's Rights Advocacy group, the MRA, could have the focus of...
326
First, educate the masses of men, women, and current politicians through persuasion.
Second, fight to tear down oppressive laws such as IMBRA, paternity law, family courts, and so
on.
Third, focus to change the media and culture (wake up to the fact that the media will NEVER
change. They are who they are.)
What do we have right now? It is this:
Forbes puts out an article on career women. Many women are angry about this. MRA declares it
a 'great victory,' the equivalent of a "Stonewall Riot."
Now do you see why I say the Men's Rights Movement is in crisis? There is no Battle of Forbes.
But there is the Battle of IMBRA.
327
The Sexual Harassment Video
Here is something that I couldn't explain if I wanted to. Probably not safe for work, even though
meant for it, this is THE sexual harassment video. I can't stop laughing after watching it.
328
329
Spinsterhood: The LOUD Epidemic
Millions of women are suffering and thousands come to us looking for a cure. Single men, the
cure is you. Won't you please help them before it's too late?
Symptoms of Spinsterhood
Single women frequently display the first symptoms of spinsterhood within a day or two of
experiencing the end of a relationship or simply from spending too much time without a
significant other. They include, but are not limited to:
* Declarations of "strong woman" appear immediately
* Celebrity/movie/horse infatuation
* Consumption of *special* coffee more than one time a day
* Constant sneer on her face
* Generally immodest appearance
Spinsterhood is not limited to just the average Jane. More information about this affliction can be
found in Pook's Mill's advertisement on the Internet. Unlike stupid magazines, this advertisement
is available today!
Risk of Infection
If warning signs are detected early enough, spinsterhood can be prevented before it spreads to
other unsuspecting females. Women in relationships should not engage in any activities that
might increase their risk. This includes:
330
* Attempting to control their boyfriend through sex and praise
* Not letting their man do his important masculine hobbies
* Generally acting like a bitch
Any of these or other more minor actions may cause the relationship to deteriorate and can
eventually lead to spinsterhood.
Finding a Cure for Spinsterhood
Gentlemen, this cannot continue! The greater spinsterhood spreads, the louder and shriller
women become. Think of civilization's ears! Spinsters tend to become hysterical and form
political movements assaulting men. Their faces shrivel up with hate and begin to become
deluded that men are nothing more than brutish beasts. You don't want your country to become
infested with these spinsters, do you?
Don't let your nation enter a tax downfall! Those retirement programs need fuel to burn through
the next few decades! Cure spinsterhood and have as many children as possible! Our
governments need more tax revenue! What are you waiting for? Marry a spinster today!
331
Do It For the Felines!
Frequent spinsterhood has become an increasingly troubling national problem afflicting millions
of females and threatening the Government, the Arts, and even Society itself.
What's that you say? You don't WANT to marry these broads? You think they are too skanky, fat,
and ugly for you!? Well then...
Therefore, I, being the stupendous Pook, Master of Everything Pookish, have decided that
effective today, this blog will devote itself to helping others overcome this problem. Remember
that the most frequent symptom of Spinsterhood is owning multiple cats. Don't forget that many
poor cats are in jeopardy of being owned by those gleeting knotty-pated boar pigs! So the next
time you find a spinster (such as a single mother with children from different men) having
Machiavellian advances at you, and you find yourself revolting at her
skankiness/fatness/ugliness, just come to this post. These wholesome images of cute little kitties
will have you thinking pure thoughts at saving these cats from miserable lives if these women
become spinsters and remind you of what's really at stake.
332
Remember, think of the kittens...
Psychologists: 'No standards for young women
are good!'
Young women going wild on Youtube and Myspace or dressing in skanky clothes, matriarchy
says it is 'good for them.' I've yet to see any experts saying it is OK for men to go wild or,
frankly, to have any happiness at all (that is independent from serving a woman in some fashion).
333
19th Century psychologists thought of women as 'sub-human.' 20th Century psychologists
thought of men as 'sub-human.' As a solution, how about throwing psychologists overboard and
look to time-tested literature and classics for Human insight? Great minds tend to grow from the
soil of great works.
334
Email on Matriarchy and Marriage
Blue Text = Emailer
Regular text = Da Pooky Wooky
It's ironic that you don't like philosophers and yet love Shakespeare. For the time he lived in it
would be no surprise that his education would be influenced by ancient thinkers like Cicero or
Seneca. When Hamlet said:
"There is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so."
He was paraphrasing the core of Stoic thought. Hamlet is echoing a line from Epictetus:
"People are disturbed not by things, but by the views which they take of things. Thus death is not
a terrible thing...rather; our notions of death are terrifying."
And no, the Stoics did not glorify pain and suffering. Such things were viewed to be indifferent
to one's own happiness (eudemonia).
Shakespeare quoting a few philosophic sayings is much different than him supporting
philosophy. I am not against philosophy, I am against the crusty intellectual who thinks himself
so smart yet is blinded to life. Most of these 'intellectuals' are academics that have secure jobs
(never knowing the idea of risk) and are separated from the bloom of life.
In "As You Like It," the intellectual Jacques is left in the forest without a mate while everyone
else in the play mates and marries. In "Love's Labor’s Lost," the entire play is an answer to the
question: "What is the end of study?" Should one dedicate himself to thought and absolve from
wine, women, and song? Shakespeare's answer was clear: no. To Shakespeare, such a life
removed from wine, women or song is like the professional virgin. It is a life of vacuum. I can
335
find no incidents where Shakespeare praises the philosophic life. This shouldn't be surprising as
Shakespeare was a poet, not a philosopher.
Anyhow, the reason I read your blog is not to pick apart your miss-use of philosophy. ;-P The
reason I read is for what another wrote you regarding the matriarchy and marriage.
One of the things I've always assumed, like a lot of other men I would think, is that one day I
would be married and have children. Well I'm turning 30 in a month and now I'm not so sure it
will ever happen. Yes this really does bother me, but my sense of self-preservation outweighs any
feelings of nervousness I feel at getting older and being single.
The truth is women make me very sad. When I was younger and a nerd I was ignored by women.
Now that I'm older, my value has gone up, my nerd-ish ways have declined, and I've recently
purchased a house and a motorcycle. Shocks of shock women show me interest now. But they
don't really want me, they want the bike and the house and the "oh my love will melt his icy
heart" faerie tale they all love to live.
I can't wait until you have the web site because I've never found a forum (and sosuave doesn’t
count) for men who are looking for honest relationships that aren't about speed-seduction. How
the hell are any honest men, (and I don't mean wimpus-Americanus here, I mean men who just
aren't out to exploit and abuse) how are such men supposed to find mates?
The last girl I wanted to date was probably one of the most beautiful women I've ever seen. She
could be very loving and nurturing and had a warm smile that could make your day so much
better. But she also joked too much about how she wanted to be a gold digger and a trophy wife.
She joked about it like I joke about how I like younger girls (in that I'm not really joking). I
guess the only way to find out how serious the girl was about gold digging would be to marry
her, but who the hell would want to find out on the other end of a divorce?
336
I don't see this as a trivial issue as I really do want the family thing at some point in my life (say
the next 5 to 10 years). But I really just don't know how it can happen with the way things are.
During some pillow-talk I tried to explain this to an older woman I know hoping she might
understand but she couldn't. She told me I should just take the leap of faith and trust a woman.
She didn't even see the irony of that statement when she got up to leave and go back to her
husband. *boggle*
Well this has become a lot longer than I wanted it to and now I need to go open my mail...and get
back to work.
I put up this email to show (for one reason) a dispute to many seducers’ claims.
Those who show their annoyances at matriarchy are jeered at by 'seducers' with (curious enough)
the same exact stereotypes that women put on us. They call anyone who questions the
Matriarchy...
1) Can't get laid. (The emailer is laying even married women!)
2) Doesn't know how to be cool. (Emailer has a motorcycle and a house. He isn't hurting in
options).
3) Doesn't want responsibility or to settle down (Emailer wants to get married and have a family)
And so on.
Seducers haven't seriously thought of marriage (if they have, they are so arrogant to believe that
their 'charm' is greater than the law. It isn't). If they did, the sadness of the situation would
become apparent.
The worst thing we can do is to give up. Second worst thing we can do is get stuck in the
337
'paralysis of analysis.' We certainly aren't getting any younger.
If you marry, investigate the state laws (if you are in America) and see which ones nearby is a
best fit for you legally. Do not marry in California. Invest the money in iron-clad prenuptials.
You could also marry in another country so the marriage will be under that set of laws. But this is
definitely something worth talking to a lawyer for.
You can marry foreign women or take trips to those countries. I'm not sure what you've thought
about this idea, but it is an option.
338
Matriarchy Circles the Wagons around Teen
Beauty
"But Pook, the Matriarchy is something bitter old men say who can't get laid. It does not exist."
Well, then, friend, can you explain this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww&feature=player_embedded
This is the YouTube video of the Teen Beauty making an idiotic answer. One of the YouTube
339
commentators aptly said, "She should go straight to porn!" since she obviously has no brains and
only looks.
Haha, funny video, blah blah, the world keeps spinning and there are tons of funny videos of
other people. Everyone moves on in the world except the Matriarchy. After all, you can't make
fun of a young pretty white girl even if she uttered stupidity on live television (where she knew
she was on the stage).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQKNvPn3V-8
Look at all the excuses and how the other woman even high fives her. They ask her for her plans
and talk about her 'good grades' to deflect that she is dumb as a rock. And they ask the question
to her again in which her answer is still dumb:
Question:
Why is it that one-fifth of Americans can't locate the U.S. on a map?
Answer:
"Well personally, my friends and I, we know exactly where the United States is on our map. I
don't know anyone else who doesn't. And if the statistics are correct, I believe there should be
more emphasis on geography."
This still isn't an answer. The question was why can't 1/5 of Americans locate the U.S. on the
map and, naturally, she talks about herself (in a desperate attempt to keep showing she isn't
stupid) and then says more emphasis should be on geography. That doesn't say why 1/5 of
Americans don't know geography. What a dumb bitch.
340
341
Feminist Compares Smartest Women to
Stupidest Men
An emailer sent me a link to this story.
The trend has occasioned some predictions of a coming matriarchy in which high-achieving
women will rule over a nation of slacker guys. We've all seen the movie, an endless loop
culminating most recently in You, Me and Dupree. That little girls' T shirt slogan--GIRLS RULE,
BOYS DROOL--is beginning to look less like a slur and more like an empirical observation.
The article is about a female columnist saying that all men are slackers and remain so in the
corporate world. Women are judged not on their smarts but on their 'personality.' The female
columnist, whose hilarious biography can be found here (also thanks to the emailer), is angry in
her magical hyper-reality of men all being lazy and putting the women down. Are there cases of
this truth of men being idiots and women being smart? …There is some. But we paint the image
we want.
This is what the critics of the Men's Movement (usually women) do not realize. Their criticism is
that the men just see how they want to see. What blows apart this woman's article and the usual
female criticism is the reality of the law. There are laws put in place that cater to women.
Affirmative Action, Maternity Leave, Sexual Harassment, are just some of the few. No matter
what one's attitude or outlook is, the law will crush you the same.
Consider this if you ever want to identify a stupid person (as if you need more parameters).
Stupid people attempt to make themselves feel smart by comparing themselves to stupider
people. This columnist is saying how smart she is and how other women she knows are too, but
they are comparing themselves to, probably, the stupidest guys they could find. Everyone is
considered a genius compared to the drunk.
342
Smart people will compare themselves to geniuses. They will then realize they are nothing and
keep striving to become smarter. Contrast this to the stupid person who, after feeling smart by
comparing themselves to someone stupider, remains stuck on stupid. So it is no surprise that the
smart people get smarter while the stupid people get stupider. If you compete, go against the
best. If you aim for the moon and miss at least you'll be among the stars.
I'll leave you this lovely family related heartwarming quote from her:
The one regret I have about my own abortions is that they cost money that might otherwise have
been spent on something more pleasurable, like taking the kids to movies and theme parks.
Awww.....isn’t that just SWEET? Excuse me while I go barf.
343
Male Feminists are guilt filled wimps
An emailer (who definitely gets it) has this to say:
Pooky,
Nothing special, but it did make me laugh, simply because after agreeing with your post on 'the
burden of guilt,' this guy seems like a real case study.
"A woman calling a man a bitch is a very different thing than a man calling a woman a bitch;
the latter is part of a long history of misogyny; the former is a relatively recent phenomenon. We
have to judge words by their power to hurt".
"I can rail against the "unfairness" of judging me by the poor behavior of other men, but in this
culture, that's fruitless. As men, we do have to accept the fact that collectively, we have given
344
good reason why it is that we ought not to be trusted -- above all in the sexual realm. We can
bemoan the injustice of paying for the sins of others, or we can shoulder the burden that our
brothers have created for us (and that perhaps, in our own lives, we have helped to create). What
that means practically is that I am committed to meeting suspicion with patience, openness, and
accountability. I'm no longer hurt when folks don't trust me just because I'm a man -- I accept
now that they have every reason not to."
http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2006/05/someone_named_t.html
You can imagine the guy being trampled on by a feminist in big black high heels, and he'd just sit
there going 'aaaah, yes, I deserve it...I deserve it, but...no…not the eyes! Aaaah! I'd fight back,
but it would just be adding further darkness to the cold night of misogyny that is Western
history...oooh, my crotch! Aaah!'
Why are so many males filled with guilt? I think it all comes down to the first Pookish
Commandment: Be who you are. These guilt filled wimps are focused on what other people think
of them. If feminists and academics say he is guilty, then presto, he is guilty. His value measuring
stick is only in how other people perceive him.
I wonder if that is the root of all feminine thought: caring only how others perceive you. I have
never met a woman who didn't care what others thought of her. Even the nastiest of feminists
will point to fellow nasty feminists agreeing with her as if that is validity of her beliefs herself.
If a woman is bothering me, I have noticed if I say: "You should have heard what the other girls
said about you!" BAM! She shuts up and demands to know what was said. As a man, I know I
am perceived to be an ass to all women. But I know women care about what other women think
and highly regard them so. Their female friends constantly backstab each other (or at least have
the potential to). Female friendships are as thin as paper. So if I say, "Your friends said some of
the nastiest stuff about you!" the woman will go bonkers. "Tell me!" she cries. "I must know
what they said!" It is safe to say that every woman has told her friends secrets, even of the
345
nastiest sort, so even if I know nothing her fears of her perceived faults emerge. I just don't tell
her and it drives her up a wall.
A real man doesn't care what others think or care about him. John Wayne does not ask people
what they think of him. He just is who he is. When a male starts caring what everyone thinks of
him, almost certainly he begins to adopt strange feminine characteristics. He may start to gossip,
begin to dress to how others will perceive him, and begin to talk in a way so he will be great in
other people's eyes, and so on.
Every person filled with guilt (and I'm not talking about real guilt like the religious sin type) is
due to them caring about what other people think. One person said to me, "Pook, do not wear
your cowboy hat on your trip for the Californians do not like Texans." My response was, "****
the Californians! I shall lead an army of pick-up trucks and conquer their girly state! I am a
Pook! I shall wear the biggest cowboy hat I can find!" The other states complain Texans have too
much state pride. I just laugh at them. What else should I do? Should I grovel and feel guilty over
nothing? As an American, I hear much anti-American nonsense especially that I ought to be
'ashamed' because there are non-Americans who don't like my country. "They hate us, Pook." So
what!? When did nations begin conducting foreign and domestic policy based on being liked by
other countries? There is nothing to feel guilty about with looking out for yourself...either in your
nationality, in your relations with women, and so on. What is next? Am I to marry bitter washed
out career women because...they will hate me if I do not? Please!
Let me get on my knees. "Please have mercy on me, oh most wonderful feminists. I was a silly
Pook and thought I had to live life to my own soul rather than the authority of your shame."
Screw that! Give me my cowboy hat. I would rather die on feet than live on my knees.
Cast off that matriarch's guilt and, suddenly, all their arrows of shame will bounce harmless off
you. They cannot shame you or control you. The guiltless man has no place in their midst.
346
Feminist annoyed that 'feminist' has negative
connotations
347
This feminist writes that we all ought to embrace feminism and attack the feminist bashers (i.e.
such people like me, the Pookius Maximus!).
So why has feminism always provoked such hostility? Unlike other radical movements, feminism
is calling for something many women and men find difficult: a profound change in the power
relations between sexes - not only in the public sphere, but also, much more trickily, in the
private sphere.
Feminists aim to transform not just who gets the top jobs in business, but also who gets the job
of cleaning the toilet at home. Feminists want to change not just who walks the corridors of
power, but also who feels safe walking home at night. Feminism is not just about allowing
women to lead the same lives that men have for many years; it's about changing the rules of the
game, mapping out a possible future in which activities that do not directly contribute to further
swelling the coffers of UK plc, such as caring for family and others, are valued much more
highly. It's about more than tinkering at the edges - and that feels threatening to a lot of people.
Oh, you insufferable suffragettes! You angry harpies! You who think you are so are so great! You
who judge Nature to be so small! You who wish to change all of society! Why don't you change
yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough.
348
Technology
Coming of the Entertainment Wave...
An emailer asks:
I'm looking for some material on the increase number people downloading music, movies,
videos, etc. instead of actually going out to get the physical product. I’ve notice a trend in some
interesting articles...specifically this show I saw with Charlie Rose talking about the future of
technology and entertainment...if you know of any books on that subject that would be great.
The way how I gain information on the entertainment industry is just studying the companies
themselves. I don't know any books (though I'm sure there are probably some). But if you wait
for books, it may be too late. Amazon is already announcing digital downloads. Apple is set for
movie downloads. Like a tidal wave, the entertainment wave will echo the 'information wave' of
the 90s that flooded the Internet. There will be a company that can network it all together
somehow. Whoever that company will be, it will become bigger than Google.
Digital distribution of entertainment is only the very first (and small) step. The big thing will be
doing entertainment in ways that wasn't possible before the internet. Using video games as
example, online multiplayer is just internet distribution of the bits. You could do that at home
with a few people. But it was impossible to play a MMO at home. So the MMO games begin to
create entertainment into a new way than before and generate ungodly amounts of money. I've
noticed the game industry tends to hit the trends first before the rest of the mainstream industries.
349
So instead of television being digitally distributed from a TV company, a more disruptive
element would be users distributing THEIR TV made content to each other and then to a TV
company. What if music was made by thousands of musicians each playing their part separately
and then adding it all together? Yes, this sounds silly. But I'm trying to think outside of the box,
and I have no idea what the next 'big thing' will be. But this Entertainment Wave won't end at the
'digital distribution,' it will be just as the beginning. Just as the internet revolutionized
information, it will do the same for entertainment.
350
The Third Great Change to Mankind
History can forever be debated. But there are a few things that occurred which are beyond all
debate. Three great changes have altered Mankind.
The first change is said to be the discovery of Agriculture. The planting of crops allowed cities to
occur. And with cities, it allowed the arts, the sciences, the law, and everything else. You had the
domestication of animals during this time. Agriculture could be said to be the birth point of
civilization. Alas, it is so ancient that we have little idea of how human life was before it.
The second Great Change was the Industrial Revolution. The population boom did not just
'happen.' It happened because, all of a sudden, the wealth of Mankind just skyrocketed. There
was plenty of food to go around. Instead of dying in the fields, kids could work in the factories.
351
Marriage and family also changed radically with it. So much wealth was generated that children
no longer would have to work. Married women soon followed this trend. The weekend became
possible due to all this increased wealth building up. Production was no longer at the home but in
factories and businesses. The home became a place of consumption instead. Advertisers and
businesses pounced on the housewife and created the image of the home as consumption living.
With the fall of traditional woman's work being swallowed up by the Industrial Revolution
among other things, many women embraced Feminism and feminist tendencies. This change is at
the tail end of its cycle.
The third Great Change is the Digital Revolution. This change is occurring now. The icy contexts
that the Industrial Revolution built up are beginning to crack, thaw, and snap wide open. For
example, the Industrial Revolution mindset is that you go to school, get educated, and then get a
job (working for someone else). The Digital Revolution mindset is that you create your own
business and work for yourself or, at least, for your own best interests. A great dividing line is
falling within the current living generations, especially the young. Those who are embracing the
Digital Revolution will be ahead. Those who are clinging to the Industrial Age beliefs will fall
further behind.
Unlike most in the Men's Movement, I don't believe society will jump up and dive down the
abyss in "DOOMSDAY." I believe the changes that are occurring are being sparked by this third
Great Change. Let me ask you, "Where would you be today without the Internet? No Sosuave.
No ASF. No Men's Movement sites." You would probably be stuck in The Way. The Way is the
Industrial Age. Men Going Their Own Way is really men embracing the Digital Revolution.
Demographers and social scientists clutch the report papers and with frenzied claim demand,
"What is going on here?" Oh, you little scientists and academic worms. Ten years ago, with the
rise of the Internet and computers, you talked about a great change occurring in society. You
talked about the Digital Revolution as if you understood it. But now I find you did not
understand it. To you, the Digital Revolution is a microchip or broadband. But the Digital
Revolution is social more than technological. People are abandoning television and newspapers
for the Internet and computers. People are beginning small businesses and turning the home into
352
a productive unit again. People now think in a more global fashion. While this may mean
employers will outsource for employees, it also means men can outsource for their wives. The
Way is no more.
The revolution was not in the computers, not in the chips, modems, or servers. The true Digital
Revolution was in the new contexts which are freeing men from the Industrial Age. And the
harder the Industrial Age cronies fight against the sea change, the more people will see them as
they truly are.
Box Office plummets 26%
Hey Hollywood! Disrupt your entertainment model or you're going to find yourselves disrupted
by an upstart outsider!
The box office experienced a horrific weekend in more ways than one. Not only did a horror
movie that its studio declined to show to critics lead all others, but it earned just $9 million -- the
353
first time in three years that the top film had made less than $10 million. Moreover, the total for
all films was lower than any weekend of the year and down 26 percent from the comparable
weekend a year ago to just $54.4 million, according to Bloomberg News. In an interview with
today's (Monday) Los Angeles Times, Exhibitor Relations chief Paul Dergarabedian observed
that while this is ordinarily a time of year when the box office slows down, "This is not a great
way to start off the fall season." It was, however, fairly great for Sony Films, which saw The
Covenant become its ninth film to open at No. 1 this year. It earned $9 million, well ahead of
Hollywoodland, which garnered critical raves for its star, Ben Affleck. It placed second with $6
million.
354
Hollywood realizes they are in the entertainment
business...
As you know, I intend to be an entrepreneur Pook. This means I intend to create my own
business system rather than work in someone else's. While there are many business systems to
create, I prefer to create one around my passion so it never seems like work. This way I can do
my dreams and get rich too!
So I have been studying the entertainment industry lately. This includes all entertainment:
television, movies, books, radio, and so on. I am especially zeroing in on the video game
industry as that industry seems to be turning inside out at the moment especially with its console
transition (direction of Microsoft and the future of Sony will depend on these little game
consoles. …So cute).
There is another reason why I am studying the entertainment industry. I believe the Internet
Revolution has only completed its first round. During the 90s, the Internet was utilized for
information which we saw the rise of Yahoo, Google, and other such companies. Absolutely
tremendous growth! But the Internet has not yet been utilized for entertainment. The next huge
wave, round two, is rising in the distance and the tidal wave will soon be upon us. So far,
companies such as Apple and their I-Tunes store are using the Internet to replace distribution
model (such as Microsoft's Live Marketplace). But distribution is not enough. The very nature of
entertainment will change just as the very nature of information seeking has changed. Sure, we
have digitized dictionaries but that didn't make Google into what it is today.
The Entertainment Business is very intriguing. One of the common things businesses do is
market research. They say, "We need to reduce risk on our next investment. Let us poll the
people on what they think of what should surprise them." This is stupid. How in the world can
you do market research with entertainment? You can't. Hollywood is now realizing this.
355
“In this Wall Street and corporate world, the discussion has become: What is the proven, unique
selling property of this product?” said Warren Beatty, the actor, who is upbeat about the
industry’s prospects.
But he, too, agreed the industry was in transition. “The problem is you can’t sell entertainment
the way you sell cars or air-conditioners,’’ he said. “Entertainment is dependent, to some extent,
on surprise.”
Indeed. This is one of the reasons why I try to mix things up on this blog so you can't predict
what Pook will post next (not sure if I'm successful or not with that though haha). When you
become predictable in the entertainment business, you are through. After weeks of not looking at
my hits tracker, I've found that the audience of this blog is growing. Whatever has happened, I
haven't scared everyone away yet.
I HATE how Hollywood has focused on creating franchises instead of movies. I HATE how
video game companies are focusing on creating franchises instead of games. To hell with the
franchises! They aren't surprising in any way. If Hollywood wants to recapture its magic, shift
the creativity of the movies from the director to the writers. This is what Pixar has done and their
movies are generally well written. In Hollywood, directors rule. Let the writers flex their
muscles.
One thing that Hollywood could do is to make smaller cheaper movies and sell them digitally.
This can be episodic or not. I'm sure many guys wouldn't mind paying a dollar or so to beam an
episode of Battlestar Galactica into their TVs when they want it, how they want it, rather than
wasting time on torrent sites. The show 24 could work with this as well. Heck, the Internet could
remake how shows are done rather than distributed. Whoever young enterprising person figures
out how will become very…very rich.
Some people have asked me why I haven't written a book. The answer is that the book industry
356
has collapsed. I hate the business model currently for the book industry (it works almost like the
video game industry...yes, it is that stupid). Books are routinely sent back to be burned, even
Stephen King and J. K. Rowling books. There is so much of a problem between the publishers
and retailers that it feels like a waste of money and time. Also, another big problem is that if I
wrote a book, I would be expected to sell it through the same ways: book signings, TV
appearances, showing up in public, etc., etc., etc. There are many ways to sell a book than these
book signings. Besides, I cannot let anyone know who I truly am. So if I ever wrote anything, I'd
rather create a business model around it on the Internet. I want to make writing and reading
profitable on the Internet. I'm still looking to find out how.
Surprise is king in the entertainment industry. Some comedians and theaters rely on 'shock value'
for such surprise (which isn't long lasting). The movie industry has been doing the same thing
over and over again: more special effects and bigger budgets. Now, people are bored.
Strangely, the same has occurred with the video game industry. Games have been relying on
more special effects and bigger budgets. But gamers are getting bored. Major investors are
warning about a shake up in the games industry (which appears to be occurring as the collapse of
E3 symbolizes). Both Microsoft and Sony are going into major red ink (billions) with going the
tried and true way of more special effects and bigger budgets with their consoles. What is curious
is that Nintendo has decided to put its money into the controller. "We believe this will surprise
the consumer the most," Nintendo says. If they are right, it could be lightning in a bottle. What
you are not hearing is that from their financial statements, Nintendo is being very aggressive
with their console. 6 million systems will be shipped for the first Fiscal Year (ends in March) but
there are rumors that this number has increased to 6 million just for the holidays. Apparently,
Nintendo's system must have received tremendous feedback from retailers (who ordered more). I
actually hope a fourth console company will come in and shake up things even more.
…But enough of that. People say that video games have become the masculine domain. So what
is with these metrosexuals? No wonder some of you guys have problems! Ack!
357
And be warned about clicking on this. I stopped gaming LONG LONG ago but what in the world
is going on here? Talk about gaming gone sissyness!
358
Nightline surpasses Letterman
Jay Leno's reruns are bringing in bigger ratings than Letterman's new shows. Nightline is now
bringing in bigger ratings than Letterman. When Nightline out rates your show, you know you
are in trouble.
Since I am curious about the Entertainment Industry, I wondered, "Gee, why is Letterman's
ratings going down?" The complaints I hear is that Letterman has become lazy, that he does the
same thing again and again, has become too political, and the show just isn't that entertaining
anymore. People also complain about his multiple conversations with that musician on his staff
throughout the show. Strangely, many people cite the O'Reilly interview where Letterman said,
"60% of everything you say is crap." Now, I don't watch O'Reilly and I don't watch Letterman
(can't even watch Conan because Conan pissed off the TV manager down here in Texas or
something). So I hunted down this clip to find out why it would turn people away. In the clip,
you can see how the show wasn't lighthearted and got too serious. It is an example of how not to
do political comedy (be warned, not funny).
Johnny Carson knew his place. Apparently, Carson was a big liberal but he never let his show
become bogged down about politics. He kept that stuff off stage because people wanted
entertainment and to laugh, not serious stuff.
Here is an example of how to do proper political comedy. I normally don't like Triumph, but this
clip is a good example of how to do it right. Notice how Triumph mocks the people, the
politicians and their workers, and not the beliefs as they were?
359
People, of any political persuasion, enjoy watching their politicians mocked but never their own
beliefs.
This columnist didn't do his homework
CNN's Chris Morris says, from another analyst, the PSP will have a price drop very soon. Why
does he say this? Because...
PSP sales have been solid so far, with 20 million units shipped worldwide (with over 8 million of
those to the U.S.). That's essentially a tie with the Nintendo DS, which has sold over 21 million
units - but the numbers don't tell the whole story.
While the DS has been on the upswing, thanks to commercially and critically successful games
such as "Brain Age" (which has sold more than 4 million copies worldwide), "Nintendogs" and
"New Super Mario Brothers," the PSP has not had a game truly capture the gaming world's
attention since the release of "Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories" (published by Take Two
Interactive (Charts)) last October.
Maybe Chris ought to ask, "How is the hardware selling if the software isn't?" From last month's
NPD numbers, GTA: LCS sold the same amount as Mario Kart: DS which is revealing how
much disappointment the portable GTA has been. The game sells but not quite as retailers had
hoped.
360
The answer is in those shipment numbers. While Sony has shipped many PSPs to retailers, even
at the same level as DS, the retailer sales numbers points a different picture which is why Chris
can, stunningly, say that the PSP has lost is momentum while saying its shipment numbers are
even with the DS. Chris ought to put two and two together to figure out why Sony won't do a
price cut.
If Sony did a price cut of the PSP, Sony would lose much of that money of all those PSPs that
have been sent. So what I suspect Sony will do instead is to raise the value of the PSP by
focusing more on the non-gaming functions as well as the PS1 game downloads to it. I think
Chris is taking the word of this 'analyst' too closely.
How did this analyst get to his 'conclusion?' It is probably because he is busy playing armchair
CEO. He gets the sales numbers as do we all and can clearly see a stall within the PSP. He then
says, "Price drop imminent!" Sony has, after all, shown that it will do a price drop especially on
a system like the PS2 if it goes below 200,000 sales in a NPD month. Also, Sony wants money.
Is the PSP still profitable after a $50 price cut? Probably not, which is further reason why it won't
be cut.
Nintendo got burnt by shipping too many Gamecubes and, since has been very conservative with
their shipments. The DS is facing the issue of severe worldwide shortages this Christmas if
Nintendo cannot ramp production. Japan is mainly to blame. Looking through the charts and
numbers of Japanese sales is like having people chant 'DS! DS! DS!' all the time as this ytmd
shows. System shortages. Cartridge shortages. Shortages every week in the summer months for
goodness sakes.
There will some big news this week and next concerning the system launches.
Meanwhile, EA says that it plans for level console field. EA is the biggest game publisher so
their word counts for something. Does EA really believe the console market will remain even
three way? …Of course not. This 'level console field' EA plans for is EA actually saying, "We
361
don't know what the hell is going to happen this console generation!!!! So we will support all the
consoles evenly!"
Other third party publishers have echoed similar statements. Capcom has decided the handhelds
are their more attractive option since the console market is "in chaos."
To those who are younger, you might not appreciate the unstable nature of the console market.
Atari was once the fastest growing U.S. company with such a meteoric rise...and went bankrupt
within a year. Nintendo entered the crashed market and revived it (which you can handily read
about in most business books today). Sega arose out of nowhere. Sony, also, came from nowhere.
Everyone predicted the DS to flop. I've never seen a more competitive, immature, momentum
based industry that is as unstable [risky] (and profitable) as the console game industry. Out of the
many companies that have entered the market, the only company to survive unscathed since the
1980s was Nintendo, since the 1990s is Sony. There is such a high failure rate (did you know
only 4% of video games ever make money?). Anyone going into the console market has to be
downright insane.
I agree with Chris Kohler (from wired magazine) when he says we might lose another big
member of the games industry fairly soon (my guess would be Microsoft if it fails to generate
money from the Xbox 360). The major investors, such as those who helped create Tivo and
Xfire, say that the games industry is sick and it is going to rapidly change. E3 died for this
reason.
362
Razor blades model is not the standard for
consoles
Nintendo says that it will make money off of every console it sells. Analysts are stunned that a
console is actually profitable. But really, the 'razor and blades' business model doesn't apply to
video game consoles despite what anyone tells you. The idea of the razor and blades model is to
sell the razor at a no-profit or at a loss and reap the money back by people buying blades. This
363
model is used on printers and their ink cartridges.
Only one console really does the razor and blades business model and that is the Xbox franchise.
The Playstations are sold at a loss initially but, betting on falling computer part prices, the
hardware soon becomes profitable. For example, the PSP was not profitable to Sony at launch.
But around seven (or so) months, it broke even and became profitable. Sony can do this since it
owns many of the factories involved.
Sega tried doing the razor and blades business model by selling hardware at a loss and making it
up for games near the end of its cycle. But this failed for Sega.
Atari, NEC, Sega (for the most part), Sony (except at the beginning of each system) and
Nintendo have never done the razor and blades model as is commonly understood today.
Keep in mind that the Xbox 360 has sold four million (according to independent sales charts)
consoles so far which is pretty lame for a year being on a market with no competitors. PS3 is
supposed to ship two million by the end of the year. Wii will ship four million by the end of the
year. So despite being a year on the market, Xbox 360 may end up becoming quickly buried.
What is humorous to me is that Nintendo will probably outsell both Microsoft and Sony with
their Wiis and make money on all of it. I ask you: who has the better business model out of the
three console makers? The answer is easily seen in who gets the most money.
Now, there is a real razor and blades model that game consoles can use but it is not in the way
how people perceive it. The product of a game system is not the hardware. It is the hardware and
the software (if you have just hardware, all you have is an empty silicon box). After all, when
you buy a razor it often comes bundled with some sort of blades. This is why I think selling
hardware, by itself, at a loss and expect profit from games is not a true comparison of the razor
and blades model. A better example of it would be bundling in a hit game, not just any game, and
once you put the console in someone's home, they then go and buy other software.
The best example of this would be Kalinske's decision for Sega with the Genesis. Sega makes
364
this hit game, Sonic the Hedgehog, which is flying off shelves. What does Kalinske propose to
Sega? Get rid of Altered Beast in the bundle and put in Sonic and drop the price of the overall
system. The board was stunned at this. By putting their hit game into the system, they would lose
all that great profit they were enjoying from Sonic. And by selling the system for less, it was as if
the Genesis would not make that much money! Everyone was appalled at Kalinske, at this
American, for telling the Japanese board how to sell their system in America. But the president
of Sega went ahead with Kalinske.
By putting the hit title with the console, the system sold extremely well (people buy the hardware
to get to the software. Steve Jobs says: "Software is the driver of hardware"). Once the system
was in people's home, they would then get other games for it. This is how the actual razor and
blades model would work with video game consoles.
Nintendo did something similar with the NES. Super Mario Brothers would sell very well alone.
But by bundling it with the system, it moved the NES to new and bored video game players.
Since the Wii is aiming for that same strategy, it is no wonder Nintendo bundled in Wii Sports.
But I don't think Nintendo went far enough. They should have tossed in a second controller (wiimote and nunchucka) as well as Zelda: TP into the box and priced it at $300. They would not
make as much money as before, but it would drive the system sales by putting in their 'hit' title
with the system. In the same way, Microsoft would be very smart for bundling Halo 3 with the
Xbox 360 when it comes out. However, I doubt they will do this.
By the way, I feel sorry for you guys in the UK who have to shell out huge prices (and Australia
too). To make it crystal clear for those of us on the outside:
Europe routinely gets shafted by not just console companies but by all the electronic companies.
In the UK, their prices are a third more expensive than they should be.
Wii is $250 in America. In UK, it is $336. PS3 in America is $599. In the UK, it is $798.
365
366
The HD Revolution that fizzled
In my attempts for financial and business education, I have been trying to recognize trends,
coming and going, like an Industry Captain on his boat overlooking these waves and ripples.
Since most things in business tend to be cyclical, it is highly profitable to place your business IN
FRONT of a trend and let that wave help propel you. I have heard business executives care so
much about trends that some associate with high school students because they know that is
where the next trends begin: in the very young.
Everyone has told me that the trend of HD television is the entertainment wave of the future.
"Believe, Mr. Pook!" they said. "Believe! For the HD revolution is upon us! Estimates show that
most households will have a HD TV in the next few years." Skepticism filled me. First of all,
television viewing has been falling like a rock in recent years. Advertising money is decreasing
on television but increasing on the Internet. HD TV content is only around 6% of all broadcasts
now which still puts the number low. I saw no desire among the mass consumer to rush out and
buy a HD TV. I still have no desire to buy such a TV. The only people I saw enthusiastic were
those who desired the ultimate home theater and gadgeteers. I believe the next huge tidal wave
(tsunami size) will be the Internet being used for entertainment (rather than just information).
Content streamed from the Internet will be big. …But HD television? Most people don't even see
a difference in the picture quality. But what do I know? I am just a shmuck from the boonies. I
am not a 'learned' expert.
Apparently, the huge wave of HD TVs penetrating most homes is ending up to be only a ripple.
These TV builders have overestimated the demand and are stuck with surpluses. This isn't
surprising to me since if TV viewership is falling, wouldn't the demand for new televisions?
Interestingly, I see more and more digital TVs occupying the ads more now than HD sets. This
367
could indicate that people are jumping the digital revolution, not the HD revolution. HD is still
an unstable format and still not defined.
What is interesting is that two video game console companies have hitched their wagon to the
'HD Revolution:' Microsoft and Sony. What is unfortunate for Sony is that they are literally
betting their company on Blu-Ray and the Cell Chip for the PS3. I think Bill Gates was correct in
his prediction that both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD will lose and digital viewership from the Internet
(or other means) will be the format to replace DVDs. Hopefully, Sony has a contingency plan if
their current plans go awry.
It looks like their contingency plan is Da Vinci Code II and Da Vinci Code III. Ugh.
This doesn't mean that High Definition won't eventually be in all televisions. But it does mean
that the HD adoption has been drastically over-estimated for the present. If most people are not
going to rush out and buy a new HD TV, what makes these companies think they will rush to
replace their DVD libraries with HD DVD or Blu-Ray?
368
Sony says: "To hell with you, Europe!"
THIRD EDIT: OK, you guys are mean.
------SECOND EDIT: This gets worse. According to this...
In the U.S., about 400,000 PlayStation 3 machines will be available when they go on sale Nov.
17. About 100,000 will be available on the Nov. 11 Japan launch date.
The production problem is causing about a one-month delay that will reduce the company's
supply capacity by about a million machines from the original plan, he said.
People may ask, "So what? People buy it later." They will lose many sales by this. Also, this is
very much a momentum based industry. Also consider how much money was spent on the PS3
advertising blitz. All that money will be wasted. Why advertise a product that no one can buy?
Expect Sony stock to plunge today.
369
Also expect third party game companies to begin bailing on Sony if these launch numbers are
true.
-----EDIT: Forbes has jumped on this too. Some of you may go, "LOL, stop acting like a dork when
talking about these game consoles Pook, LAWL." But this just isn't the video game industry in
transition here; it is digital entertainment, the next movie format, as well as that merry 'top box in
your living room' war Microsoft and Sony have.
Forbes is saying there will be only two million consoles for launch for America and Japan. It will
be very difficult to get one. (Reuters is reporting production starts on September 7th. That is not
much time to make millions of such a complicated machine.)
Sony's original plans were to have four million at launch. If they could get three million at
launch, they would still launch in Europe. (The Fiscal Year Goals are still the same at 6 million
by March but that will be a logistical challenge to meet). But if they can only get two million at
launch and that is by cannibalizing all the blu-ray parts from the stand alone player production...
I think we're seeing a similar Xbox 360 production fiasco with the PS3. By the time a PS3 is on
the shelves where you could buy it easily would probably be in April of 2007.
The delay also includes Australia and other smaller countries.
Even worse: Sony of Europe just launched their PS3 website yesterday (with trailers and all
ready for the big advertising push)! Oh, they must have just learned about this!
I hear in Europe they were selling pre-orders with those 20 [pound] cds (or so). I doubt you'll get
your money back for them.
To recap how fast these things change:
370
-at E3 2006, Sony says 4 million for launch, 6 million at end of fiscal year
-a little over a week ago, Kaz still says 2 million before '07 between 3 territories
-earlier this week, it was clarified to mean 2 million for launch, 4 million before '07
-now, Kutagari says "a little' over 2 million before '07
---The entertainment industry is entertaining to examine the business falls and spikes. But there is
no entertainment more fun to watch than the game industry especially at transition. You never
know what is going to happen.
Sony has just announced the PS3 will be delayed in Europe until March 2007. That means all
those retailers in Europe just got screwed. Nintendo and Microsoft must be ecstatic.
371
The delay is because of the blu-ray components for the PS3. If they had to take Europe off the
list, I wonder how much there will be available for Japan and America for launch. Losing a
Christmas season in ANY of the big three markets is very bad. The bulk of game industry sales
come at December and November.
But Sony fans should keep their head up. Sony is trying to bring back the UMD with them being
cheaply priced. TGS should be big for Sony. There are rumors that the Killzone game will be
featured and will be as good as the pre-rendered 2005 E3 trailer.
But also, in other news, Merril Lynch reports that Nintendo stock keeps going up. But it is not
just Merril Lynch is saying this; all sorts of groups are noticing what is going on.
Nintendo is mimicking the exact same business and marketing strategy of the iPod. It will be
entertaining to see how this strategy works in such a competitive market. Could Nintendo kill off
the Playstation as Apple killed the walkman? Very doubtful. But regardless, it will be fun to
watch the hysteria ensue within the next few months.
372
“Immense Logistical Challenge”
This is the exact phrase gamesindustry.biz used when Sony clarified its launch details for the
PS3.
373
The original plan was for Sony to have six million per launch. Now, it is to have two million for
launch, two million shipped by the end of the year, and two million after that by time of the end
of the fiscal year.
What is more curious is that Sony did not deny Kaz's statement that Sony hasn't began
manufacturing the PS3. Microsoft was at a similar position a year ago and we know what a
disaster of production it had for the Xbox 360's launch.
Keep in mind that the entire company of Sony is being bet on the PS3, this little game console.
The whispers going around the business community are echoing the negativity many game sites
have been going about. Since the games business is a momentum based industry, shortages could
prove to be paralyzing to the entire console's success. November will be an interesting as
investors hold their breaths.
374
Return of the Big N?
In 2003, it was common to hear this:
Nintendo’s weakness doesn’t just lie on the console front. Sony’s announcement of the PSP sent
the company’s stock tumbling as investors saw it as a major threat to the successful Game Boy
line. The Game Boy has seen its fair share of competition from other companies vying for a slice
of the portable market, but not from Sony. The Playstation has ruled the console market for two
solid generations and its first handheld product could do the same for the portable market.
The company’s flaccid attitude towards the PSP is a bit alarming and disconcerting. Nintendo
president Satoru Iwata has said that the PSP will not have a big impact on their business. The
public might be subject to believe him, except that this is far from the truth. The Game Boy
Advance is the large reason for the company's $95 million net profit in April to June. With its
uncertainty of success in the home console market, Nintendo has shown no plan of attack against
the PSP other than a new game product announcement that may or may not be a successor to the
GBA. What’s more alarming is that the new product is described as “unique and surprising.” If
it’s as unique and surprising as the Pac-Man for GameCube demonstrated at E3, count
consumers out.
375
While it’s understandable that Nintendo can’t divulge important details of a new GBA for
strategic reasons, the company is no longer in the position to be the stubborn playmaker it once
was. If it can’t control market conditions, it has to react to them. The nonchalant attitude and
vague company outlook only raises more doubt to the company’s brand, image, and sales.
How times have changed. Apple is now recalling all of their laptops that use Sony batteries along
with Dell (ouch!). Investors are literally holding their breath since Sony is betting their company
on the PS3 due out in a couple of months. Sony's stock is slowly being hit.
…But what of Nintendo's? Remember the movie of Terminator 2 how the evil terminator, when
shattered, took a long time for the first drops of liquid to cling back together? No one knew the
figure was re-appearing until all the liquid was together and the machine fast reappeared to its
previous formidable strength.
Imagine a shattered Nintendo, throughout the past few years, its droplets were slowly forming
together and no one noticed. Now, the entire beast is reappearing before the industry's eyes:
August 23rd - Yahoo Finance
The link has expired but I've copied it here:
Quote:
Nintendo's Run Not Over Yet
Wednesday August 23, 8:48 am ET
Steven Towns submits: Nintendo's ADRs have gained 83% in the past 52-weeks as its ordinary
shares have gained 96% -- a difference in the yen/usd exchange; no real arbitrage opportunity
here at this point. FISCO news of Japan reports the Daiwa Institute of Research sees even
more potential upside between approximately 10% to 33% ahead of its new game console
launch this November. And don't forget the impact of foreign exchange profits!
376
Nintendo's ordinary shares closed today up 0.85% at 22,470 yen (ADR equivalent of $24.28). Its
ADRs closed yesterday at $23.95 -- remember they are traded as pink sheets at a 1:0.125 ratio.
Daiwa said that the more information Nintendo makes available about its Wii console launch the
higher its share price could go as anticipation builds. Based on the launches of previous
consoles, Daiwa sees Nintendo's ordinary shares theoretically trading up to between 25,000
($27 ADR equiv.) and 30,000 yen ($32.40 ADR equiv.). The first amount is based on the
Nintendo 64 launch and the second is based on the Super Nintendo...
July 25th - Bloomberg
Quote:
Nintendo Shares Gain as Rising DS Sales Boost Profit
July 25 (Bloomberg) -- Shares of Nintendo Co., the world's biggest maker of handheld video
game players, climbed to a 4 1/2- year high after the company raised its forecast for earnings
as sales of the touch-screen DS device jumped.
The stock jumped 5.6 percent to 22,000 yen as of 1:04 p.m. on the Osaka Securities Exchange,
its highest since Jan. 21, 2002. Net income will probably be 83 billion yen in the year started
April 1, the Kyoto-based company said yesterday, raising its forecast from 65 billion yen.
Nintendo raised its outlook for sales of DS hardware and software as "New Super Mario Bros''
became the top-selling U.S. title in June and "Brain Age'' took the No. 3 spot. The company will
be able to introduce more innovative games in the fourth quarter, when it releases the Wii home
console that features a motion-sensitive controller.
"Nintendo DS sales are strong in Japan and Europe and have turned up in the U.S. market,
377
which had been a cause for concern,'' Atsuko Kaneko, an analyst at UBS Securities Japan Ltd.,
wrote in a report dated yesterday. “The upswing in DS sales in the U.S. could also be a positive
for sales of the Wii, which features a unique input device.'' She rates the shares "buy.''...
July 6th - Yahoo Asia News from Reuters
Quote:
TOKYO, July 6 (Reuters) - The following stocks are on the move on Thursday:
**NINTENDO AT HIGHEST SINCE 2002, CS UPS TARGET**
Nintendo Co. Ltd. rises 5.8 percent to 20,760 yen after rising as high as 21,000 yen, its highest
since March 2002.
Credit Suisse in a report on Wednesday raised its target price for the stock to 19,000 yen from
18,000 yen while maintaining its "neutral" rating.
Credit Suisse said it now expects the company to post a 36.7 percent rise in consolidated
operating profit in the year to March to 123.5 billion yen ($1.07 billion), up from its previous
estimate of 116.3 billion yen in profit.
The upward revision reflected an assumed weaker yen and continued strong sales in Japan of
Nintendo DS hardware and software, Credit Suisse analyst Jay Defibaugh said...
May 15th - Yahoo Asia News from Reuters
Quote:
378
TOKYO, May 15 (Reuters) - The following stocks are on the move on Monday:
**NINTENDO AT 4-YEAR HIGH ON Wii EXPECTATIONS**
Nintendo Co. Ltd. rises 6.2 percent to 19,710 yen after earlier climbing to as high as 19,890 yen,
the highest level since April 2002.
The stock has gained since last Tuesday when the company said its next-generation video game
console, Wii, will be available in the fourth quarter.
The console stole the spotlight at last week's Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) show in the
United States from Sony Corp.'s PlayStation 3, raising expectations for profit growth at
Nintendo.
Shares of Sony are down 2.1 percent at 5,220 yen...
379
US Game Sales for July (NPD)
380
One of the things I've been doing is studying the entertainment business. As video games are part
of this, I figured I'd pass along the sales information. You would be surprised how many parallels
there are between the book industry and the video game industry. I don't really play any games
(haven't bought a console in like 16 years) but some of you might be interested in the sales
information. Besides, it makes for an easy blog post!
There are three major markets for games: Japan, North America, and Europe. Japanese sales
information is the easiest to obtain usually through Famitsu or Media Create. United States sales
are often summed up by the NPD. European sales information are the hardest come by. Also, in
Europe I get the information in separate countries rather than as a whole. So far, the three major
markets are trending...
Japan = DS Land (160,000 DSes sold a week. All other systems combined don't even match that
number. DS is currently outpacing the Famicom sales.)
America = You'll see below.
Europe = Trending toward something like Japan in parts.
Here are the United States sales numbers from July by NPD:
July Hardware Sales
NDS = 377,000
PS2 = 241,000
360 = 206,000
GBA = 163,000
PSP = 161,000
GCN = 44,000
Xbox = 12,000
381
July Top 25 Software Sales
US Top 25 Videogame Titles
Rank Title Publisher
Rank Title Publisher
1 PS2 NCAA FOOTBALL 07 Electronic Arts
2 360 NCAA FOOTBALL 07 Electronic Arts
3 NDS NEW SUPER MARIO BROS Nintendo
4 XBX NCAA FOOTBALL 07 Electronic Arts
5 360 CHROMEHOUNDS Sega
6 360 LORD OF THE RINGS: BATTLE FOR THE MIDDLE EARTH 2 Electronic Arts
7 360 PREY Take 2 Interactive
8 PS2 GUITAR HERO BUNDLE Activision
9 PS2 CARS THQ
10 PS2 NARUTO: ULTIMATE NINJA Namco
11 PS2 GRAND THEFT AUTO: LIBERTY CITY STORIES Take 2 Interactive
12 GBA CARS THQ
13 PS2 FIFA WORLD CUP 2006 Electronic Arts
14 360 ELDER SCROLLS IV: OBLIVION Take 2 Interactive
15 360 FIFA WORLD CUP 2006 Electronic Arts
16 360 TOM CLANCY'S GHOST RECON: ADVANCED WARFIGHTER Ubi Soft
17 GCN CARS THQ
18 NDS BRAIN AGE: TRAIN YOUR BRAIN IN MINUTES A DAY Nintendo
19 PS2 NFL HEAD COACH Electronic Arts
20 360 FIGHT NIGHT ROUND 3 Electronic Arts
21 NDS BIG BRAIN ACADEMY Nintendo
22 PS2 KINGDOM HEARTS II Square Enix
23 360 OVER G FIGHTERS Ubi Soft
24 360 CALL OF DUTY 2 Activision
25 PS2 PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE LEGEND OF JACK SPARROW Bethesda
382
Source: The NPD Group/NPD Funworld, POS
Note: Ranked in terms of $$$ sales.
NCAA (all versions) = 971,000
Cars (all versions) = 418,000
Prey (360) = 132,000
NPD says:
Overall hardware sales were up 25% y/y counting current and next gen consoles and handheld
sales. 128-bit hardware sales were down 33% y/y in July. PS2 unit sales were down 22% y/y,
GCN down 13% and Xbox down 47%. This brings the install base of 128-bit consoles to
approximately 60 million in the U.S. The Xbox 360 sold 207K units versus 277K in June, with a
strong life-to-date tie ratio of 4.61. Combined Xbox and Xbox 360 software increased 44% y/y.
We expect Xbox 360 hardware sales to pick up in August with the release of EA’s Madden NFL
2007.
Here is the rank of the games in number of UNITS sold. All the following titles are over 50k sold
for the month of July.
PS2 NCAA FOOTBALL 07 492k
360 NCAA FOOTBALL 07 332k
NDS NEW SUPER MARIO BROS 300k
PS2 GRAND THEFT AUTO: LIBERTY C 183k
XBX NCAA FOOTBALL 07 145k
PS2 CARS 121k
NDS BRAIN AGE: TRAIN YOUR BRAIN 120k
NDS BIG BRAIN ACADEMY 118k
GBA CARS 115k
383
360 CHROMEHOUNDS 111k
360 LORD OF THE RINGS: BATTLE F 108k
PS2 FIFA WORLD CUP 2006 105k
PS2 NARUTO: ULTIMATE NINJA 104k
360 PREY 103k
PS2 STAR WARS: BATTLEFRONT II 82k
PS2 GUITAR HERO BUNDLE 80k
PS2 GOD OF WAR 74k
GCN CARS 65k
PS2 GRAND THEFT AUTO: SAN ANDRE 63k
PS2 MIDNIGHT CLUB 3: DUB ED REM 61k
PS2 NFL HEAD COACH 60k
GBA SUPER MARIO ADVANCE 59k
PS2 PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: T 56k
NDS MARIO KART 53k
NDS ANIMAL CROSSING: WILD WORLD 51k
384
Japanese Game Sales (Last Week of August)
The games industry continues to turn itself inside out. Investors demanded Nintendo to stockpile
their DSes for the week when Final Fantasy 3 DS comes out. So Nintendo shipped out like half
the number the week previous to this list of sales. Square-Enix was caught by surprise when their
FF3 remake completely sold out.
To those asking, "Why does Japan matter? LOL." The combined hardware and software for
Japan is now slightly ahead of America's sales. Japan has suddenly seen its market double in
size...if not more.
One you thing you shouldn't do in business is run your mouth off. Here are some quotes from
Sony, mostly Phil Harrison, on his reaction to the mutant two screened DS:
"The idea of a handheld rivalry with Nintendo is an irrelevance, those formats don't appear in
our planning. It's not a fair comparison; not fair on them, I should stress. That sounds arrogant,
maybe, but it's the truth."
"With the DS, it's fair to say that Nintendo stepped out of the technical race and went for a
feature differentiation with the touch screen, but I fear that it won't have a lasting impact beyond
that of a gimmick - so the long-lasting appeal of the platform is at peril as a direct result of
that."
"Nintendo knows its target audience, because it has really narrowed that down; and it's pretty
much defined by a boy or girl's ability to admire Pokemon."
385
"PSP will elevate portable entertainment out of the handheld gaming ghetto and Sony is the only
company that can do it."
01 NDS FF3 - 503.051 / NEW
02 NDS NEW SMB - 65.556 / 2.901.264
03 NDS Rune Factory - 42.210 / NEW
04 NDS Brain Age 2 - 41.784 / 3.073.195
05 NDS Cooking Navi - 37.326 / 384.045
06 NDS Tamagotchi 2 - 30.504 /430.933
07 NDS Mario Basketball 3on3 - 30.355
08 NDS Animal Crossing WW - 30.023 / 3.149.131
09 NDS Brain Age - 22.866 / 2.736.150
10 NDS English Training - 17.465
11. Daito Giken Pachislot Hihouden
12. Tetris DS
13. Mario Kart DS
14. Jissen Pachislot Hokuto no Ken SE (PS2)
15. Melty Blood Act Cadenza
16. Wrestle Angels Survivor
17. SD Gundam G Generation Portable
18. Jikkyou Powerful Pro Baseball 13
19. Sengoku BASARA 2
20. Guilty Gear Judgment (PSP)
21. Digimon Story
22. Monster Hunter Portable (PSP The Best)
23. summer##
24. Kirarin Star Revolution Kirakira Idol Audition
25. Atsumare! Power Pro Kun no DS Koushien
26. Rhythm Tengoku
27. Minna no DS Seminar Kanpeki Kanji
386
28. Battle Stadium DON (PS2)
29. Mushiking Greatest Champion e-no Michi 2
30. Pokemon Ranger Diamond and Pearl e-no Michi
1. Nintendo DS Lite 163.274
2. PlayStation Portable 29.945
3. PlayStation 2 21.829
4. GameBoy Advance SP 2.719
5. GameBoy Micro　1819
6. Xbox 360 1197
7. Nintendo GameCube　837
8. Nintendo DS　410
9. GameBoy Advance 14
10. Xbox　12
387
NPD Sales for August 2006
These are the total sales in America for last month of August according to NPD.
Game Boy Advance 156k
GameCube 41k
Nintendo DS 278k
PlayStation 2 262k
PlayStation Portable 146k
Xbox 9k
Xbox 360 204k
A few of the games:
388
360 Dead Rising 337k
PS2 FINAL FANTASY VII: DIRGE OF CERBERUS 200k
NDS BIG BRAIN ACADEMY 73k
NDS BRAIN AGE: TRAIN YOUR BRAIN IN MINUTES A 74k
NDS MARIO KART 57k
NDS NEW SUPER MARIO BROS 179k
PS2 MADDEN NFL 07 885k
360 MADDEN NFL 07 477k
XBX MADDEN NFL 07 253k
PS2 MADDEN NFL 07: HALL OF FAME 127k
360 MADDEN NFL 07: HALL OF FAME 92k
PSP MADDEN NFL 07 58k
GCN MADDEN NFL 07 50k
GBA MADDEN NFL 07 3k
NDS MADDEN NFL 07 7k
Madden is probably the biggest franchise in the United States.
So what to make of these sales? Well, there is no handheld contest. GBA has outsold the PSP for
this entire year. DS is outselling the PS2. What is interesting about the DS is that its third party
sales are now much healthier than the PSP's. There is no more handheld war anymore. DS won.
For the consoles, what to say? The PS2 is still doing strong. But the real story is the Xbox 360.
All together, the Xbox 360 has sold around 3.5 million in America (its strongest market). It has
bombed in Japan and its European sales are not too good. Its software sales are awesome,
however.
There is a war on the Wikipedia page about the Xbox 360's sales. In their comments page, fans
are saying that the sales are really 5 million because of certain Microsoft financial statements.
But the other side of the debate on the comments page is that the actual sales charts show a much
389
different number: around 3.7 million worldwide. "How can there be a debate on those sales
numbers?" you ask. Well, a console company doesn't sell their console to the customer. They sell
them to the retailers and get their money from them. The retailer then sells the console to you. So
the number that a console company sells will be more than the actual sales to customers. If we
estimate up, we have 4 millions Xbox 360s in the hands of customers. Probably a million of
them in the world sitting on store shelves which then adds up to the total five million in
Microsoft's financial statements. Also, there isn't any way Microsoft will sell 10 million by the
end of the year.
I hear that one of the main reasons Sega went bankrupt is that they (and their awful accounting)
confused those retailer sales with sales to actual customer. So when their Saturn launched, Sega
was overjoyed with the sales and popped the cork. No joke. It helped lead to the company's
demise in the hardware market.
If someone told you that the (first) iPod was going to come out and clobber the Walkman and,
thus, disrupt the music industry, would it not be fascinating to watch it happen from a more
business detail perspective? I'm pissed that I missed all that.
I suspect a similar wild upset to occur in the games industry. I don't play games (like a normal
gamer would) and haven't owned a console since...the Genesis. I'm just sitting back and
watching. One unique thing about the games industry is, unlike other industries, young people
have turned the 'console wars' into a type of sports game. Their 'team' is a console company (be it
Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo) and they root for that company to 'win.' They do their damage
control, their propaganda, their insane arguments with one another, and my favorite: their
photoshopping. It is quite entertaining in a strange sort of way.
I have been watching the analysts totally get this industry wrong. Only one analyst has gotten it
right so far: Merrill Lynch. Reading this report is almost prophetic about the PS3. The $900 and
year delay are accurate (Sony is eating some of that $900 cost for their $600 retail price).
Interesting, in other reports, Merrill Lynch says that the Wii will be $200 and, oddly, that users
will prefer Xbox 360 over PS3. Here is another analyst explaining just how wrong he has been.
390
He admits to being stunned by the DS's turnaround, the stalling of the PSP, and the general flat
sales of the Xbox 360. For the past year, we kept hearing about the 'war' between Sony and
Microsoft from the analysts. It was curious that Nintendo wasn't even mentioned. After E3 2006,
things apparently began to change. Now, Patcher says that "Wii is going to crush." It may be the
only console that doesn't screw up its launch. If Nintendo is able to sell all 6 million consoles by
March, it would have surpassed the Xbox 360 and probably the PS3's. "How can that many be
sold?" Japan's craziness is one of those reasons.
Speaking of Japan, I haven't bothered putting up those sales charts since they say the same thing:
DS at like 160k, every other system at 20k, games in the top ten are mostly DS titles. But one
interesting thing going on there is factory problems. FF3 is having problems being reprinted as
Square greatly underestimated demand. There are shortages of DS related anything throughout
Japan. With the PS3 launching with only 100,000 units in Japan, I don't think it will ever catch
up to the Wii once it is released. The big issue with the games industry is that Nintendo has
adopted the Apple business model for the Wii, including the Mac font. "Why are they doing that,
Pook?" Sony's Walkman was once seemingly invincible, look what happened. Nintendo noticed
this big time and looks like it is trying to emulate that Apple strategy against the Playstation. Will
it work? Who knows?
Here is something that has boggled my mind that someone brought to my attention. Why would
someone talk about the console war in a sex article? Look at the first sentence under
'Medication!'
Ever since I've been anti-Matriarchy, I find those Askmen articles to be more worthless than ever.
…Funny how when you change, other things change as well. The information and writing seem
so shallow now, almost feminine.
391
This Is Contra!
392
One must give due when a manly entertainment form comes out. It could be a movie (Gladiator,
300, etc.) or music. But there haven't been too many manly games anymore filled with feminized
heroes and heroines who dress in a bikini but carry giant guns/swords.
If you don't know about Contra, give it a read here.
One must give a nod to Contra 4 coming out. Just look at the website, and you will find digitized
testosterone. Everywhere you click, you get an explosion with chip metal going on in the
background. No soap operas. No 'love stories' in the game.
THIS. IS. CONTRA!!!
393
Iwata talks manager success and application of
talents
I am fascinated with business strategies of very successful companies especially the Silicon Age
ones. Nintendo has a higher profit to employee ratio than any other company I know of, even
Google, and their stock has skyrocketed to the top in Japan (above even Sony's value). Here, you
will find the President of Nintendo detailing his management philosophies and, strangely, talking
about advancing talent and genius. A fascinating read whose ideas can be applied to your own
business or to you yourself.
394
Life
Society is not a unit
It is not uncommon for any 'movement' or even 'observer' to lift themselves up as angels to look
over everyone else with a God's eye. Two groups form, one being the observer and the rest being
the pitiful mass of humanity. From this vantage, it does look like Mankind is a single group, a
single culture, a single civilization.
This event of observer turning into a 'God' and the observer's equals turning into a 'unit' is
common in classical literature. This is why all the 'great' kings and emperors only viewed
themselves as 'above' and everyone else as 'the mass' which, like a biological mass, can be cut,
sliced, and molded. Just as the gardener has his hooks, shears, and knives, so too does the
politician has his laws, regulations, and taxes to remake civilization to 'uplift' it. This is why all
395
politicians, all of them, fall into this view. This is why tyranny is the norm of history.
A common problem with the 'Men's Movement' is, like other movements, they turn themselves
into observers that take the status of angels while everyone else becomes a 'culture' or 'society.'
What hogwash!
People say there is a recession. But what they don't say is that the definition of 'recession' is
based purely on an average. Do you live your life as an average? Do you invest as an average?
Date like an average? Dream like an average? The solution to everything is to stop being
average.
The economy, of course, is not a unit. There are people making more money than ever before. In
the Great Depression, Rockefeller and others made great wealth.
Society is not a unit. It never will collapse, only *change.* And it is inevitable it will *change*
because people do not live forever. Freedom begins by seeing everyone, even ourselves, as
individuals. People make wrong choices all the time. But that will not affect you.
"But what about government taxation, Pook?" you might say. "Their bad choices affect me."
That is nothing compared to city states going to war and nations dueling it out on the world
stage. Society is not a unit; it is the trade of all. In fact, the cause of many of the problems that
Men's Movement is set to fight against is because husband and wife became seen as a *unit* and
that the family became seen as a *unit.* Since they are *units,* that means it is YOUR
RESPONSIBILITY to pay child support and keep the wife a lifestyle she has become
accustomed. If they cease to be *units,* then you can see the moral support for child support and
wifely lifestyles dropping.
If one person murders another, the neighborhood is not *destroyed* for the neighborhood is not a
singular entity.
396
All the talk about 'destruction of civilization' is funny because Western Civilization is not a static
immovable unit. It moves with the people. At one point, Western Civilization was in the Islamicsphere with the Saracens after the fall of the Roman Empire (a political entity). And when the
Saracens fell, it went to Europe. When Europe or other nations falls, it will go somewhere else.
AND IT WILL BECOME STRONGER THAN BEFORE.
Movements tend to be built up and spread by emotion (which is energy in motion). Should it be
positive energy or negative energy? One leads to an endless cycle down the infinite dream where
one keeps imagining civilization being 'destroyed.' Do you want to live your life in that mindset?
The other leads to a cycle up. One leads to waking up with anger and rage. The other leads to
waking with laughing. Which do you want?
Away, doom-shovelers! While you waste your time investing your emotions in the supposed
'civilization collapse,' I will invest my emotions in building myself up and aiming at a brighter
future. This is, of course, uncommon most politicians cannot do it and you can tell the evil by
when they need to rely on harnessing negative emotions from the masses to win. Those few,
those blessed few, politicians who harness positive emotions to win, are unanimously popular as
everyone gets in line behind the person with the vision. The negative people call it 'delusional.'
Everyone else calls it leadership.
397
Uptight
Have you noticed how uptight people are these days? It is not so much a 'political correctness' as
it is everyone becoming uptight (and using political correctness as their 'reasoning'). If someone
398
makes a joke about something I believe I try to laugh at it too. I don't see the point of going
nuclear on the person.
Feminists are the most humorless people ever. They cannot take a joke and are filled with rage
and hatred. Most politicized people are like this.
Even with everyday things people tend to be uptight. If their food is served at the restaurant a
few minutes late, they make a scene and storm out. Or if a guy sees something that is REALLY
stupid and remarks, "Damn, that is so gay!" a political jihad is launched against the fellow for
hatred and insensitivity. Schwarzenegger once called the outbursts from the California legislature
as "girlie men" and, boy, they just got even more outraged. I hear that the uptight people are
trying to fan flames on Schwarzenegger's 'hot blood' jokes with his staff.
"I am outraged!" We should call these people The Outraged. They just march around looking for
something to be outraged about. They declare war over a molehill and their issues are like straws
compared to the boulder events the era pushes on us.
That said, I think there are only a few issues worth getting worked up about...
1) Penalizing laws- These include the divorce laws, the stupid sexual harassment laws, corrupt
family courts, and so on. No law is preferable than bad law. Western women do not have to love
western men, but they should at least be unable to financially and legally destroy men. No
person, male or female, should have such powerful legal leverage over someone else.
2) Taxes and things of this Nature- You cannot dodge a direct tax. My chest swells with pride
when, several years ago, the legislature of Tennessee decided they needed more money so they
were going to raise taxes (state didn't have an income tax at that point I think). While the
legislature debated it, the people decided to give their say so. They marched the capitol, stormed
the legislative palace, and made so much noise and ruckus that the politicians abandoned all
talks.
399
3) Blasphemy- I consider it the lowest taste to assault someone's faith. Disagreement and debate
is one thing, mockery is another. There was a group that held a play where the actors enacted
Jesus and the twelve apostles all having a gay orgy. The play director seemed stunned that people
would find offense at this. "Don't be religious extremists!" the play director yelled. But those
aren't the religious extremists. I pointed her to the rioting Muslims (over a simple cartoon of
Muhammad) and said, "Those are the religious extremists." Historically, people fought wars over
their religion. You would think common courtesy and historical practicality would have these
people know not to stick a twig in the biggest hornet's nest there is. No other religion tolerates
such mockery: Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and the rest. These people are spoiled on
the easy tolerance Christians have and are surprised when Muslims slit their throats for even the
most lighthearted mockery.
4) Ruining education- People can sell garbage as art if they want. But when they try to say that
"we are as good as musician as Bach is today" I just have to laugh. There are some, who write in
poor iambic pentameter, and think they are as good as Shakespeare. Everyone believes they are
the next 'great artist.' If they want to live in a fantasy, go ahead. But changing the very definition
of art and saying, "All those skills the artists learned up until the nineteenth century...let’s forget
about those and learn Modern Art instead." This butchery towards the Humanities ought to be
opposed.
What amazes me that if I stand up and fight those four things; I am declared 'uptight' by The
Outraged!!! "Why are you so uptight? You should just accept the marriage laws and try to find a
good partner." You have better odds with Russian Roulette (and less pain too). "Why should you
oppose... say... higher property taxes? It is for the public good! Don't be so uptight!" It is not
uptight looking after the Pook good. There is no such thing as the 'public good'. The only reason
why they want more of Pook's money is so politicians can become famous. We are just peons to
them. "Don't be so uptight! Let us mock the gods with great zeal!" My dear, you are dancing on
thin ice. But mockery is one thing, outright lies disguised as truth is another. Why should any
faith allow lies about it to be spread? Makes no sense to me. "Art is anything I say it is! Don't be
so uptight!" Then stop the hostility to the classics.
400
You have to pick your battles in life. Pretty much everything political isn't worth getting worked
up about. I feel sorry for those whose happiness depends on what goes on in Washington (such as
who gets elected, what bill gets debated, etc). The Outraged not only get uptight on all the wrong
and lighthearted things (do you ever see Feminists laugh? Do you ever see these Outraged smile
and enjoy life?), but they are passive on things that are worth getting angry about. A feminist
saying "Stop being so uptight. Just marry, don't try change the law" is like Jim Crow telling
blacks, "Don't be uptight! The law will always be what it is. Make sure you do not offend the
White Man, and you should be OK."
401
Wild Rice and Wild Corn
When I meant there was no such thing as 'Wild Rice,' I am referring that it has been domesticated
before history can accurately record. Man's influence over rice is very monumental. Hence, you
cannot get 'Wild Rice.' There is no such thing as rice that hasn't been genetically modified. Our
ancestors have been genetically modifying rice.
The only types of 'wild rice' that still occur exist in North America. This rice grows in swamps
and was obtained by some Indians by canoes. In the twentieth century, interest in 'Wild Rice'
began to increase. I was raised smack in the middle of Rice Farms and Dairy Farms. Whatever
'wild rice' was cultivated in Texas is now, thankfully, gone. There is more 'wild rice' collecting in
upper America and Canada (Minnesota's state grain is the 'Wild Rice'). This 'wild rice' is no
longer really wild as due to the increased demand of its rich protein content; the last vestiges of
'wild rice' have now been domesticated.
In China, rice has been harvested by Man for...well, forever. There is a strand of wild rice in
China but it is so rare it is not worth mentioning. The point is that, with the organic health food
stores, you couldn't buy "natural rice" that had no genetic modification if you wanted to. All rice
has been genetically modified.
Corn is a more mysterious story. By corn, I am using the American word for 'maize.' Corn got its
name because Protestants leaving Europe and coming to America discovered their European
seeds would not grow too well in the soil of the "New World." Rather than face starvation (and
many of them did starve), they threw away their 'pride' to adopt the Indian's crops.
402
These Protestants renamed 'maize' to be 'corn' (corn used to mean the plant the maize came
from). The reason why was because 'corn' was found in the Bible (in the Bible, corn is referenced
as grain). So, now in this New World, these settlers could say they had a crop from the Bible.
No one understands the origin for corn. "There is no archeological record of wild corn
gathered by nomadic peoples. As if by magic, corn appeared at the start of agriculture. The
native legends say that corn was a gift from the gods." And as far as I'm concerned, that's still
Humanity's best explanation why we have of corn. Logic says there had to be some ancestor wild
corn before it got domesticated. But, unfortunately for Logic, there is still no record of wild corn.
We still have no better explanation than Mexican Myth.
I'm hoping to illustrate in this post is that there is no such thing as 'natural' food. Agriculture can
easily be unnatural unless you consider Humans shaping their environment to be natural (which
environmentalists will not do). All these people angry that food is being genetically modified
should realize there is no such thing as food that ISN'T genetically modified (especially rice and
corn). Modern genetics was even discovered from a monk studying pea plants. Just because
genetic modifying is a modern name doesn't mean it hasn't been occurring since the beginning of
Time.
403
Pook and the Infinite Monkey Theorum!!!
One of the best rules I ever learned was: "Never argue with an idiot. After a while, people will no
longer be able to tell the difference."
What amazes me is how message forums continually erupt with the stupidest arguments ever
known. Usually, these 'debates' revolve around politics or religion or even sexuality. What
amazes me is why anyone would spend that much time to say so little. You know no one is ever
persuaded. You could spend that time instead to read a book or something and truly get better
educated than with most of these 'Internet debates.' If you were a scholar debating through
newspapers or distinguished forums, that might make sense. But unknown Internet users
debating? Heaven help us!
However, I now smile when I come across a forum or thread stuffed with hundreds of pages of
pure junk arguing (and try spreading this word around.) Yes, friends, it is the Infinite Monkey
Theorem! There have been many mathematical simulations done, even an Internet simulation.
404
"But Pook!" you say. "What does the Infinite Monkey Theorem have to do with the digital
garbage of message boards and forums?" Foolish mortal! Humanity has debunked the theorem
unintentionally:
"It was said that if you locked enough monkeys into a room with typewriters, they would
eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare. Thanks to the Internet, we know
this not to be true."
No one suspected all those monkeys banging away at typewriters would be us!
Friends, now you can enjoy the weekend with ease. When curious people ask why you have a
chipper step, you can stand tall and proudly declare: "We have debunked the Infinite Monkey
Theorum!! The monkeys and their typewriters have been thwarted! The era of peace and
understanding is at hand!"
And what can they say to that!
405
Red Flag: Social markers for health analysis?
406
In this story from the NY Times:
New research suggests that people ages 30 to 69 who live alone are almost twice as likely as
those who live with a partner to suffer angina, heart attacks, or sudden cardiac death.
Oh noes! Read further and you get to this:
The best predictors of acute cardiac syndrome were age and living alone. Dr. Kirsten Melgaard
Nielsen, the lead author of the study and an internist at Aarhus Sygehus University Hospital,
said that it was not living alone itself that increased the risk, but the health practices of those
who lived without partners.
“They’re less likely to exercise, they eat more fat, and they’re more likely to smoke and have
high cholesterol,” she said.
So it is not really about living alone, it is about lack of exercise, eating more fat, smoking and
having more cholesterol. Living alone doesn't CAUSE these things. However, it may
CORRELATE with them. I might as well say that people watching television regularly are twice
as likely to get sick. After all, I can correlate television and sickness just the same.
At the end, we come to this:
“Doctors should look carefully at social markers in evaluating a patient’s risk for heart
disease,” Dr. Nielsen said. “If they do, they are more likely to find risk factors that they can
treat.”
So, in the near future, doctors (most of which will be women), will begin examining our social
lives to 'evaluate risk.' And if someone does live alone and/or has a 'poor social life' according to
the doctor, this will be seen as a 'risk factor' to be treated. Treated...how?
407
This is a big red flag of doctors going where they don't belong. A doctor cannot examine your
'social life' because there is no correct basis of what a "healthy" social life is. Some people are
naturally extroverts and introverts. Some people like to live alone.
With that in mind I should point out that, women HATE being alone. They think anyone being
alone is a LOSER (never mind men are most productive and think the best when alone).
Social life is a female phrase meaning "woman's life." Only women would think being social
24/7 is the norm for everyone and for both genders.
How about doctors test for markings of intellectual health? "But Pook, women would fail those
tests." Alas! Poor women!
So I am waving a red flag to keep an eye on this. Testing for markings of "social life" (which will
inevitably be defined by some woman) is right around the corner.
408
A Letter From Outside the Matriarchy
Like a happy Pook, I hopped over to my mailbox and found a magical letter! "How can this be,
Monsieur Pook? What was so magical about it?" It was the address. The letter came from outside
the Matriarchy. Most letters I receive come from inside the system.
I believe this email sums up much of the anger and disgust at the feminization of everything:
Sometimes all I can scream in my head is "Are you kidding me?" I've just lost a friend to
feminism/female dependency issues. I tried for 5 months to talk some sense in to him, but since
his mother was the dominant authority figure in his household, he reacts just like a chic and will
not hear of any Pookish wisdom. In turn, FUCK EM'.
I myself am a product of divorced parents and struggled with similar dependencies, all along
knowing that I was doing something wrong, I was fighting my natural instincts. Thank God for
my father who was uncharacteristically patient and waited until I was of age to tell me how it
really is. I wish that his instruction was all it took, but due to my mother, I missed out on the day
to day examples every young man needs. By the way, I do not hold any grudge or contempt for
my mother; I have a solid relationship with both her and my father.
Fast forward 10 years and I come across the young crop of guru's who advocate never
supplicating to women, yet who's methods do just that. While they are entertaining and
409
somewhat informative, I was just never going to do that crap. Alas, Pook and his fore fathers
have awoken me from the matrix. Now I enjoy all pleasures that once were guilty, lifting weights,
loud-fast cars, John Wayne movies, etc. I'd like to say that I'm cured, but it is not an overnight
process and each day I notice a small change for the better.
I went to a family dys-function a couple months ago and all my female cousins questioned my
lack of marital/child status (I’m only 28), to which I replied, "Why would I do that....I'm just
starting to really enjoy myself." I can barely scrape together enough respect to not laugh in their
face when they ask me something like that. It is sad that I use to think highly of my peers and
now.....now I pity them, and that itself is wrong, there has to be a happy medium. I want to be
respectful of my friends and family, but when I see them buy into some mainstream crap....all I
can do is walk away.
My family is full of unhappy marriages, divorced single mothers, estranged fathers, step
children, etc.....downright embarrassing. Everyone thinks seems to think it's a normal part of
life. Contact the CDC, it seems there is a virus attacking families across the world. Seemingly
this half of the family is disgusted with the other half, she won't talk to her sister-in-law, why did
this one move out of state? This is nothing to brag about, if this were medieval times, I would
ditch my family crest and use someone else’s.
How could I possibly find a woman worthy of my last name, so that I may continue my father’s
name, my legacy? I want to believe it could happen, but I know it won't. Sad part, I'd love to
start a family and all that, but not in this world, not with this crop of women. Good gracious,
you'd have to be insane to do that. Even with AD's machine (which explained a lot) it's such an
uphill battle. I don't fault the machine; it's the amount of crap that you have to filter out that is
not worth it.
410
Yeah, so I'm going to a friend's wedding this weekend, he's marrying a woman from Eastern
Europe. I've met her a couple times, she seems to have decent core values and such, but I'm still
leery. I will give her credit though, we were all out at this bar and a friend was desperately
eyeballing every chick in the place and she called him out on his pathetic behavior. She also
pointed out all the desperate attention whore qualities displayed by the females at the bar.
Another buddy is getting married to his GF of 6 years. I flat out told him not to do it, but what do
I know. I love my friend, but I can already see the fat wife, one kid too many, and all the debt to
go along with it. He told me that her ring was only $4000.00....Are you kidding me!!! Jewelry is
such a waste, it is a freakin' rock. Plain gold or silver bands are sufficient; it is merely a symbol
of union, not an investment in precious metals. I will never buy jewelry for anyone, unless she
gives me cash from her own account......even then I couldn't do it, I'd rather go buy a camshaft
or some roller rockers, or a whole muscle car, at least that I would enjoy.
You can't help someone who won't first help themselves.
This letter sums up much of the attitude of guys outside the Matriarchy. I have nothing to add to
it except to point out two things some readers (especially non-sosuave) would miss.
When he is referring to AD's Machine, he is referring to Anti-Dump's Machine. Anti-Dump was
a poster on sosuave who eventually vanished. Unlike most of those at sosuave, he was much
older and already divorced. He cut much of the 'crap' from the 'dating advice' by putting out the
idea of the machine. Instead of trying to get a girl to like you, he insisted, you ought to weed out
the girls who don't like you. Anti-Dump said that men operate under many assumptions such as if
a woman dates you then she really, really, likes you. Even if a woman marries she may not even
like the guy. Women get bored and can 'date' just for the hell of it. Women get manipulative too
which is why they might see you as only a tool. "Stop giving your heart out to anyone," he
insisted to the Nice Guys. "Protect your heart," he said. When you go out on a date, make sure
she goes with what you suggested since she should like you, not the date itself. Anti-Dump's
411
Machine is a handy guide for Nice Guys to get a grip on themselves and not play the emotional
tampon to every girl.
But the other thing I want to spotlight is the author's lack of guilt. He enjoys doing things like
muscle cars and all. He is simply being who he is. Why shouldn't he enjoy it? Because some
woman says so?
"Are men allowed to be happy?" I find myself asking this question frequently to women who
eagerly inform me of the "great responsibilities" men have. Men have a fatal flaw of allowing
women to assign guilt to things (such as sports, video games, John Wayne movies, and so on). If
a guy would prefer to read a book instead of going out to have a "social experience," he feels
guilty because women disapprove of his action (of course they do since reading a book doesn't
benefit them).
A social life is often a 'woman's life.' Guys shop for stylish clothes in hopes of impressing others
(not because they truly like them), they end up doing things they'd rather not do, and hang out
with 'friends' who really aren't exactly friends. I'm all for being social but it must come
authentically without the presence of guilt or sense of achievement that 'you went out.' If you
have a night in the town and you don't enjoy it, well, whose fault is that? Instead of wasting your
life doing something you dislike (because you believe society [i.e. women] smile on it), why not
spend life on things you do like?
The author's words ring with the clarity that he is free from feminine guilt. The author cannot be
shamed. Women have no control over him. Freeing yourself from feminine guilt is the first step
past the boundary of the mental womb of Matriarchy. It is False Guilt that tethers men from
leaving the Matriarchy. Cut the spiritual umbilical cord!
When you worship women, you give women the controls on guilt.
When you worship life, you place guilt firmly on matters of that impede your (and others') life.
412
So do you want to go back to your womb and let someone define your life, or do you want to
follow your soul to your dream's end? One path leads back to Matriarchy. The other leads to an
unexplored land...your own New World.
This will be the most important decision of your life.
Nice Guy Amuck
From Wikipedia:
Duck Amuck is a surreal 1951 animated cartoon produced by Warner Bros. and released in
413
1953 as part of the Merrie Melodies series and starring Daffy Duck, who is tormented by a
sadistic, unseen animator who constantly changes Daffy's location, clothing, voice, physical
appearance, and even shape. Pandemonium reigns throughout the cartoon as Daffy attempts to
steer the action back to some kind of normality, only for the animator to either ignore him or,
more frequently, to over-literally interpret his increasingly frantic demands.
From being a Nice Guy to dealing with Nice Guys, Daffy Duck in that particular cartoon, "Duck
Amuck" perfectly illustrates the emotions of Nice Guy. For fun, pretend Daffy Duck is the Nice
Guy and the animator, Bugs Bunny, is the girl. Hell, Nice Guys SOUND like Daffy Duck!
-------------------------First lines...
NICE GUY: Stand back, musketeers, they shall sample my blade! Touché!
[Suddenly realizes that there is absolutely nothing behind him]
NICE GUY: Musketeers? Unguarded, eh? My blade? Hey, psst. Whoever's in charge here, the
scenery, where's the scenery?
---------------------------
NICE GUY: [woman has re-drawn him as a weird flower-like creature] Hmm, that's funny.
414
Somehow I don't quite feel like myself. I mean I feel all right, but I... I...
[Sees himself in a mirror]
NICE GUY: EEEEEK! YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THAT!
---------------------------NICE GUY:[looking at corny background] Ho-Ho that's rich, ha ha. Now how 'bout some color,
stupid.
[Woman draws Nice Guy in wild, polka-dot colors]
NICE GUY: No. Not me you slop artist.
----------------------------NICE GUY: Would it be too much to ask if we could make up our minds, hmmmm?
-----------------------------NICE GUY:[after the island paradise disappears] Buster, it should come as no surprise to you
that this is an animated cartoon, and in animated cartoons they have scenery, and in all the years
I've...
[as he's venting, he is slowly being erased from feet up and is silenced when his face is erased]
NICE GUY: All right wise guy, where am I?
[Projector sticks between frames dividing Nice Guy in half]
415
NICE GUY: Now what?
NICE GUY 2: What are you doing down there?
NICE GUY: Down here? What are you doing up there?
[Pointing upward, sarcastically]
NICE GUY 2: *Down* here.
------------------------------NICE GUY: [after his parachute is turned into an anvil and he crashes to the ground, he is
beating on the anvil with a hammer and babbling incoherently. While he is doing this, the anvil
is erased and is replaced with a torpedo pointing straight up. After a few more hits, the torpedo
explodes. Nice Guy finally shakes himself off] All right. Enough is enough. This is a final, the the very, very last straw! Who's responsible for this? This... I demand that you show yourself!
Who are you? Huh?
[As he's venting, a doorway with an open door is drawn around him, then the door is pushed
closed by the eraser. The woman giggles, turns to the world, and says...]
WOMAN: Ain't I a stinker?
416
Two Spheres
Two spheres of life are placed upon the Earth. They exist on top of one another. Where one lives
in one sphere, that person cannot see the other sphere. These spheres are the masculine and
feminine spheres.
As men, we have our systems of beliefs, our moralities, and values. All men share similarities
that it is better to be smarter than dumber, stronger than weaker, and wiser than stupider. But
'smart,' 'strong,' and 'wise' exist only in a certain context: and that is to work. To accomplish.
When men look at women, they wonder how awful their existence must be. For women, in men's
eyes, are stupider, weaker, and dumber. Men see women doing menial tasks, and we wonder how
they do brain dead jobs.
Men think women are very emotional and can be like a frail flower.
Some men, when they think they 'understand' women, end up projecting their own male contexts
into women. For example, a man thinks his context of horniness is shared by a woman's. He
says, "She is just as horny as I!" (Whereas her horniness has a tactic involved)
A man peering at the feminine sphere is like a man on the shore of the world peering into the
ocean. They see shadows of movement on the other side and consider that liquid underworld to
be mysterious yet pretty shallow. Certainly nothing as complex and wondrous as above!
But let us jump into the waters into the Feminine Sphere. As we jump into the water, we realize
there is no liquid underworld. We appear on the surface just as when we left but it is a new
different over-world. And, likewise, there are women standing on the shore peering into the
depths of the ocean wondering what it is like in the masculine sphere. They see the shadows and
it seems interesting, a little mysterious, but they too think it is a shallow existence. And they pity
417
men for their shallow existence.
The feminine sphere is just as wondrous and detailed as the masculine sphere. Both were created
by Nature or Nature's God. Each sex pities the other for their 'shallow' existence.
Women do not think men are smart. They may be intelligent, but women will always think they
are smarter. The feminine sphere operates in a different morality. For a woman, to be 'smart' is to
manipulate others to do work for them. Beautiful women are despised by other women because
they have the potential to become very rich.
To women, men are stiff creatures who, if they give intelligent talk, are perceived as talking
nonsense. There are more practical concerns to talk about such as shopping and sex.
Both men and women exist for feelings. But men do not recognize video games, football, or the
praise they get from jobs or girlfriends to be 'feelings.' Also, women do not recognize
decorations, shopping, food, and sex to be 'feelings.' When a woman insists on remodeling, it is
considered very important to her. But if a man were to suggest a new HD TV to replace the old
TV, the woman would think it nonsense and to consider the man is interested only in new
feelings.
Women see men as weak creatures whose only benefit is that they can work for them. This is
why when a woman dumps you, she uses BS language like "Let us just be friends" and all
without telling you what is really wrong. She perceives men to be stupid because, let us face it,
many men do act stupid around women.
To women, religion is totally different than what it is to men. Everything exists in a different
context. When a man is with a woman wearing a hot outfit, don't look at her but at the other
women on the street. They will be staring daggers into her.
Women do not care what men think of her. It is nice if a man turns to look at her. But if a woman
turns and looks, then her day is made. Instead of saying a man said something about her; say that
418
a woman said something. She will demand to know who the woman is and what was said. But as
for the men? Well, who cares about those shallow simple creatures.
"But Pook! History books are filled with great men. And women read those books. So obviously
the masculine sphere is superior." Yes, women read those books. But history itself is part of the
masculine sphere.
The masculine sphere is full of straight lines, of towers, and pyramids.
The feminine sphere is full of reflections, of webs, and massagers.
Consider the home. Many men design the interior of their home for utilitarian purposes or for
cool electronic equipment. Often, it is a black look everywhere (non-reflection). Men do this
because it creates a mood within him.
A woman sees it totally different and considers the interior of the home a priority. She puts up
drapes, carpet, constantly cleans, gets matching furniture, all because it creates a mood within
her.
Men believe women are all about feelings because when they interact with them that is all he
sees. But women believe the same about men. They see your video game systems, speakers, and
fast car and think, "Toys."
The problem that has occurred was that somehow along the way, the feminine sphere was
proclaimed to be the 'master morality' while the masculine sphere was proclaimed to be the 'slave
morality.' Society views a 'man' as only a being that works for a woman. And a 'woman' is a
being that holds the leash over a man.
When a man thinks of equality, it is a difficult concept. Sure, he knows he should be fair, but he
can barely respect women as equals. This is the same for women. They also barely respect men
as equals.
419
I am tired of men standing on that shore, pointing at the water, and declaring, "What a shallow
existence women are living! They are not fit to live!" It is because on the other side is a woman,
pointing at the water, doing the exact thing. Women are very smart. They are just smart in ways
men do not perceive as smart (so they just label it ‘woman's intuition’). Women do the exact
same for men.
A few are able to travel to the other sphere. But they are always travelers and can only observe.
They will never be native to that other sphere. Esther Vilar was one such traveler. Her
"Manipulated Men" described women to a T but what she labels as men's hopes and dreams is a
little 'fuzzy.' But that is enough. No woman can understand a man well enough as men can (just
as men cannot understand woman as women can). But Vilar knew enough of our sphere to
communicate.
"Manipulated Man" should reveal that there is a looking glass and, on the other side, there is a
feminine world that is invisible to us. Vilar gave us a lens to 'see' it. We should strive to sharpen
that lens. The better we understand the feminine sphere, the better we understand women.
420
Psychoanalyzing the Bachelorpad
To talk to an associate through AIM, I forgot to turn off the auto-website loading feature. So
when AIM loads up, it sends me to some bizzaro-world chick webpage (apparently, the AOL
Singles Page). I shook my head looking at the 'bachelorpad' article.
The most annoying attribute of Western women is how any little thing you do or have is
psychoanalyzed. If you say, "I am happy," they won't believe you. They will instead look at your
shoes and think, "You are happy because you are wearing nice clean sneakers." Huh?
In the old days on Sosuave, I am sure many young men would look at this article and re-arrange
their lives to have the 'plus points' of such a bachelor's pad. But remember the Pookish First
Commandment: you have to be yourself. If you fall into the trap of re-orientating your life to
appear well in woman's eyes, you are giving women extraordinary power over your life.
Let's go through this 'psychoanalyzation' of the bachelorpad:
What to Look for? - House/Condo: Before you even enter his place, you can get a sense of a
person if rents or owns -- with ownership he's probably establishing roots. Does he live in a
high-rise? One with a doorman? If the doorman eyes you over one too many times when you ask
to be buzzed up, chance is he’s used to seeing the ladies coming and going. Hint -- Revolving
door!
421
A doorman!? Maybe I've been away from the city too long, but since when do all these areas
have doormen for them? I'm not talking popular restaurants but living areas. I'm sure a New
Yorker would tell me, "Duh, Pook, everyone has a doorman!" Apparently that is the case, as this
article seems to suggest.
So if you don't have a doorman, then something is wrong with you guys.
Also, it can make more financial sense to rent than own. With everyone wanting to get rich by
becoming landlords, there is much competition for tenants. "Sure! I volunteer to be a renter!"
With everyone wanting to own everything, I'd go the opposite since renting prices will become
more competitive. Too many people bought into the 'real estate' get-rich-quick bug so why not
take advantage of it financially?
I've tried telling women this, but I might as well talk to a chicken. It clucks back just the same.
- The Neighborhood: Feel safe leaving your car out front? If not, chance is you won’t be
comfortable visiting with him in the future either.
OK. This one seems straightforward enough. But why would anyone require an article to tell
them the obvious?
- Pets: It’s fine if a dog greets you at the door -- provided it isn’t a poodle or a Pomeranian. A
cat, though, you might want to think twice.
I don't own any pets. I could see how it would be strange if the guy had a...rooster or something
in his place. That IS unusual. And maybe a French poodle would be little odd too. But what is
with the cat? A cat is a common animal. What is wrong with a guy owning a cat? I must have
missed something that went up on the Woman's Network about this. Does a guy owning a cat
mean he's effeminate or gay or something?
422
- Chinese Carry-Out: It’s fine for a guy to eat out occasionally, but it’s different when his sole
meal source is Special No. 9. Practice up on your cooking skills since you’ll be the designated
chef in this relationship.
Shouldn't the cooking skills be 'practiced up' already? Oh, I am so silly! I thought a real woman
would already have excellent cooking skills.
- Fresh Vegetables: Bingo! You have a man who not only eats healthy, but he knows how to cook
too. Vegetables stay fresh for only so long so this guy is probably visiting the local market twice
a week.
I swear...you have a meal with a woman and she psychoanalyzes your entire life by what is in
your plate or in your refrigerator. Instead of doing something like...TALKING to the guy, she is
'psychoanalyzing.' Bah!
- Milk: It’s all about the expiration date. Milk does a body good as long as it hasn’t turned into a
lab culture. Expired milk can only mean more dirty things to come. Did I say bathroom shower?
If a guy has expired milk, he is obviously a rascal and probably a villain to boot. I am sure if
someone notice expired milk in Hitler's refrigerator, long ago, there would be no Third Reich.
Thank goodness for this article!
- Stemware: Guys tend to focus on the bottle of wine -- not really how to serve it. Stemware,
instead of tumblers, gets a silver star. Blown crystal, instead of machine cut, is an automatic
gold star! Hint -- Feel the stems for a machine cut seam.
Feel the stems!? Come on! I bet if I looked through the historical archives, I could find this tone
and similar advice given to princesses and royalty. Apparently, this is what these girls think they
ought to be.
- Brands: This guy still drinking rail vodka? That was fine for college, but you want to make
423
sure he has graduated to adulthood. He doesn’t have to have Courvoisier, but he should have a
couple basics for entertaining.
All this nonsense is putting an artificial template on what a guy 'ought' to be. And none of this
stuff really matters. What if they guy doesn't drink at all? What if he doesn't entertain in such a
fashion? It is important for guys (and girls) to be who they are. This is impossible with stupid
articles like these telling girls what is 'proper.' Being an adult has nothing to do with what type of
brand you have.
- No Liquor: Even if he doesn’t drink, he should definitely have something on hand if he
entertains. Dry is fine, but what about the guests?
I don't know about you guys, but I treat my home to service me, not "guests." And why do
women these days have such fascination with liquor? Liquor was interesting...until I turned
thirteen.
If you like wine/beer/whiskey/whatever, wonderful! If you do not, then don't drink it! The only
stupid thing is to drink it for an 'image.' When I exited a modern art museum in Dallas (don't
ask), I saw the workers set up a table and drink red wine right in the middle of the museum (with
the little pinky finger extended). Apparently, they believe they are so...sophisticated, that such
wine is required for being in presence of all their modern art. Who knows?
- TV: A flat screen means this guy is up on the latest gadgets and he has a good job to afford it.
Check out the screen size since the bigger the screen the more likely your Monday nights will be
spent watching football.
This I know to be untrue. Poorest people I know spend the most on their home theater. They
think investing is too expensive but have no problem plopping thousands for a larger television
and more speakers (which they probably can't tell the difference anyway).
But in Woman's Universe, your TV defines your wallet and all your free time. Please.
424
- VCR: This guy still running off of a VCR for his movies? Chance is he hasn’t been to
Blockbuster lately. He may not be into movies, but keep searching for more clues. Hint -- Hit the
eject button!
What? Who still goes to Blockbuster? People on the cutting edge go with digital downloads or
with a service like Netflix. Blockbuster is history.
- Picture Frames: See pictures of his parents and you’ll know he is a family man. See pictures of
his niece or nephews, then kids are probably top of mind. See single females, then you might be
in trouble.
What amazes me is instead of psychoanalyzing, if woman would just ASK directly they would
get a solid answer.
- Little Blue Pills: These are hardly an issue, but it’s good to know up front if you man might be
needing a little extra help.
I'm not going there.
- Multiple Brown Prescription Bottles: Like with most guys, these medicines have probably been
sitting there for the past five years. Even though they are expired, they provide a health history
that only seconds his doctor’s records. Watch out for names like Valtrex since there may be
something more lurking beneath his skin.
So they find your health history through your bottles? Lovely.
- Nose Hair Trimmer: Good hygiene is important so if he is trimming his nose hair, he is
probably taking care of all the other important parts too.
I'm not going there either.
425
- Candles: This guy is a romantic if you see candles. Check to see if the wicks are used heavily
since this is a telltale sign he might entertain often. Hint -- Guys aren’t lighting candles when
home alone.
God, I hate the candle routine. Candles are good when there is no electricity. Bah.
- Plants: Hopefully, his vegetation isn’t "flora silka" since fake plants translate into LAZY. Live
plants or no plants are better than fake. And whose lobby did he steal that plant from anyway?
I have never met a guy who said, "OMG, I need a plant of my apartment. Oh noes, I must have a
plant immediately." If we don't live in our apartments like most women, then there 'is something
wrong with us.'
- Picture Books: Now these books don’t exactly tell you what he likes because they're probably
just for show. If he has anything at all, it’s a sign that he wants to impress whoever it is that
comes to his place.
This is actually the first good note in this article. A common Speed Seduction tactic was to make
a picture book to 'show' a woman just how adventuresome he is (or to attempt to tell her that).
Naturally, the article writer says the guy is trying to 'impress' her rather than 'brainwash' her. The
article writer is correct on this. Women love the speed seducers because she holds so much
power over them.
- Hangers: You know you shouldn’t, but you want to peek inside. Wood hangers are a sure sign
of a man who takes pride in his appearance since he doesn’t chance clothes to flimsy wire
hangers.
Yes, gentlemen! Your life shall now be defined by hangers that are in your closet!
- Dress Clothes: Not all guys wear suits, but they all don’t show up to the office in hiking gear
426
either. The finer the clothes the better chance his job treats him well -- very well.
Judging by clothes is nothing new. Let us move on....
- Shoes: Hopefully, his shoes aren’t all over the closet floor. And why are ladies eyes always
drawn to a man’s shoes in the first place? You know what to look for so just check it off of your
"Mr. Right" inventory review.
Happily, my shoes are all over my closet floor. I am not going to buy some frilly shoe house just
so my shoes can live there while they live fine and well in the closet anyway.
- Books, Books & More Books: The best way to find out what his interests are is through what
he reads -- provided it’s not Maxim.
The library does not define the man. I have so many books sitting there that were gifts from
relatives. Just because you own books doesn't mean you read them. For evidence, just go through
any English professor's office.
- Alarm Clock: What time is the alarm set for? Remember the early bird always catches the
worm. 10AM? Move on fast!
What if he is rich? Alas!
- Inside the Drawer: You knew I was saving this for last. Well this is one place you can’t go. You
opened the forbidden medicine cabinet … you even opened his closet door. But this is the one
place that is his and only his. So respect him and, if you end up spending the night, you’ll soon
find out what’s inside but I’m not telling you.
You cannot respect someone by psychoanalyzing him.
What to learn from this? Anti-Dump said, "When a woman tells you how men should be, stick
427
your finger into the light socket." After all, it is just as productive.
Remember the first Pookish commandment. BE WHO YOU ARE. It is up to YOU to define your
life, not any woman. If you are going to live your single life with woman telling you everything
to do, then you might as well be married.
"No, I don't have children!"
This is what I find myself saying quite frequently. When younger, I would get the question of
"Do you have a girlfriend?" But now the question is not even that of marriage but, "Do you have
any children?"
Everyone around me in the workplace has children...yet none of them are married. Scratch that.
One woman is married but her husband is in jail for armed robbery. She has his name tattooed on
her chest (how do I know that? Let's just say she likes showing her cleavage).
Another guy is married but his story is a little different. He did the happy dance with a young
Mexican girl and got her pregnant. The father threw out the young Mexican girl and he had to
marry her. Other characters are even from different states but are stuck here because they got the
girl pregnant.
"No. I don't have any children."
They look at me with amazement, with astonishment. I look at them in the same way.
428
Gentlemen, if you are familiar with what I've written in the past, you know I am not a friend of
the "OMG, sex opportunity? Go for it ALL THE TIME!" mentality. I've turned down far more
sex than accepted. The reason being is that I believe in transmutation. But the point comes to a
question I have been wondering about....
Is sex a liability or an asset?
To the woman, it is an asset. Hence, she calls her boobs and butt her 'assets' as they put money in
her pocket (literally). But what about for a man?
"Liability, Pook! There is no such thing as 'Free Sex!' And sex never generates money for the
male."
Oh heavens! We are guilty of looking at sex in that same narrow dimension. Sex includes the
differences of gender. Sex, combined with passion and faith, is the triumvirate that allows
transmutation.
Is debt a liability or an asset?
"Stupid question, Pook! How can there be any doubt? Debt takes money away from your pocket.
It is most certainly a liability!"
For the majority of people, debt is a liability. But for wise and the achievers, debt can be made
into an asset. Most people go into debt for depreciating THINGS like cars or large TV sets. But if
you go into debt for buying a business or investing in real estate that can very well put money
into your pocket. Borrowing money to build the business is common yet it is still debt. Very few
think of it that way. Those who see that other side will go far.
In the same way, sex is a liability for most people. Debt is dangerous and should be respected.
However, sex has stronger teeth. For men, sex takes away YEARS of their life (as they chase
girls around), stunts their growth (as they try to 'socialize' with girls they bring themselves down
429
onto their lower level and stay there), generates debt (need the cool car to get the chicks, the
house and wedding for the girl, the dates, and so on), as well as spawning annuities (i.e. babies
which are VERY expensive).
Stupid men treat sex, like debt, as a liability. With using debt badly, they just go further and
further into debt. But using sex as a liability, they sink further and further into mediocrity. They
become...nothing.
But wise men will treat sex as an asset. Transmutation is the big key. For example, it is well
known the more sexualized the man, the better salesman he is. The wrong label for this effect has
been called 'charisma' but 'charisma' is nothing more than someone who has developed a highly
sexualized character. Einstein believed in transmutation even go as far as saying that if a man
had not made any benefit to science before he was 30, he never will mostly because of the sexual
rise and fall within the body. Talented artists have transmuted. Dante could not get Beatrice but
turned her into a gigantic heavenly body in his Divine Comedy. Shakespeare is flooded with
sexuality. In ancient sports, athletes would keep away from women as they sensed it would sap
their strength. Consider Tiger Woods before and after he married his supermodel. Consider
Napoleon when he pushes aside Josephine for a young honey. Consider Beethoven constantly
unable to get the women he wanted so he channeled that energy into symphonies instead.
Passion. Sex. Faith. The combination of these three, mixed into one another, creates the genius.
Passion is what you love to do (say music). Sex is the awakening and channeling of the sexual
alchemy element inside you. Faith is the yearning of ascension, of spiritual upwardness (which
modern psychology and Rousseau beliefs cannot emulate).
Mediocre people have NONE of those three traits.
AVERAGE people focus on one of those traits.
The EXCEPTIONAL people have two of the three traits.
430
But the GENIUS has all three traits.
Passion (let us say the love of music) becomes very DULL without the sex element and becomes
FLAT without the faith element. Most music today (all the love pop song nonsense) tends to
combine the sex element. A few artists, while keeping up to that formula, stumble some faith
elements in to make something truly interesting. Then, alas, they become frustrated as they are
unable to replicate that success.
Man is a board on the rock of sex. Most men break but a few are able to catapult themselves.
Majority of humans will never know about transmutation. They are doomed. Those that discover
it find it only after forty. Only a precious few can utilize it when young.
When surrounded with unmarried people with kids, one has to respect that sex has teeth.
Ignorance of it is the biggest cost to one's life.
For the guys who have regrets about not recognizing or taking advantage of 'opportunities' of
girls early in life, I want you to consider something. Would that one girl have satisfied you? No?
What about girl two? Or girl three? "None would satisfy me, Pook," you said. "I would still be
horny as ever." Then why, in God's name, do you think girl four, girl five, or girl six will make
any difference?
Just as the guys who got depressed because all their friends were getting married who later saw
them get divorced while he remains a happy bachelor, look at the guy who DIDN'T jump at
every opportunity a lady threw his way. Sure, he may be depressed and regretful. But that is only
short term. Long term, he sees the guys chained to girls they bonked with a kid or marriage or
something else.
Sex can be more destructive and enslaving than debt. But if debt, properly used, can make
wealth, imagine what the sex element can do.
431
Three Men and the Wolfish Woman
"Men are pigs," say the women. But if men are pigs, who is the wolf seeking to sink its jaws into
the sweet tasty nutrients that the pigs are?
Just as there are three little pigs, there are three little boys. The first one is Nice Guy. The second
one is Speed Seduction Guy. The third one is Smart Guy. And instead of houses made of physical
matter, men build mental houses that shelter and protect us all our lives.
It does not take much mental vigor to be a Nice Guy. That is why his house is made of straw. He
doesn't even think. He just throws whatever is nearest around him up there. Likewise, it does not
take much vigor to be Speed Seduction Guy. All you have to do is log into a website and literally
432
follow instructions. He laughs at Nice Guy while he builds his mental house made of sticks. Both
Nice Guy and Speed Seduction Guy get done building their mental houses early so they laugh at
Smart Guy as his is slowly, but methodically, building his mental house full of bricks.
When the wolf comes, the wolf comes as a dancing woman. Nice Guy and Speed Seduction Guy
are charmed and dance with the wolf (while Smart Guy keeps building his house). As soon as
Nice Guy and Speed Seduction Guy find out their charmer is a wolf disguised as a dancing girl,
they flee to the Nice Guy House (as all Speed Seduction Guys start out in Nice Guy House of
straw). The wolf shreds the straw house apart. Then they run into the Speed Seduction House of
sticks. It falls apart but they quickly reassemble it. The wolf laughs and puts on additional sticks
that eventually collapse the structure. The two run and keep going in circles until finally running
into Smart Guy's House of bricks.
The wolf (woman) keeps trying to break into Smart Guy's house. But, unlike the Nice Guy
House of Straw and Speed Seduction House of Sticks, the house holds. The wolf eventually tries
very hard to get in which the doors are opened and the wolf runs through only to slam her face
against the wall again. (Showing that Smart Guy isn't avoidant of woman, he can have her inside
the house but be able to kick her out once again.)
As Nice Guy and Speed Seducing Guy play and dance happily inside Smart Guy's house, they
look outside and see wolfie playing a little violen, crying, and snow falling. This is wolfie's trap.
Sure enough, it works. Nice Guy and Speed Seduction Guy fall in sympathy with the wolf and
rush to the door to let wolfie in. Smart Guy covers the door and says, "NO!" Speed Seduction
Guy pushes Smart Guy out of the way so Nice Guy and Speed Seduction Guy can rush outside of
the house to let the wolf in.
Smart Guy hides behind the door and, being smart, discovers the 'tune' wolfie is using and flips it
around. Poor wolfie! Now the wolf must suddenly start to dance! Now that wolf's disguise is
ruined, the wolf chases the three around the house.
The end comes when the wolf takes the elevator that, according to the wolf, will take it to finest
433
heights possible where the three men are but, alas, the wolf plunges into the depth never to get up
again. So it is with the woman who thinks they will ascend to the highest of heights possible
inside the Smart Guy House only to fall into the abyss.
A story from a police officer...
434
At a recent birthday celebration for my one year old nephew, the small party was attended by my
nephews' godfather. He is a police officer in his forties I believe. His wife is in her thirties.
The background was that he was married and had several children back in Georgia (I think).
After the last child, he and his wife agreed that this was to be their last child. So he had a
vasectomy just to insure she wouldn't accidently get pregnant.
Well, she got pregnant. This was how he found out she had been cheating on him. Although I'm
not sure who exactly initiated the divorce, I do know the police officer was shattered financially
and lost everything, including his children. So what do financially shattered people do? Why,
they come to Texas!
He re-married again but this time with a very traditional Catholic. I take it that she was very
picky bird and came from a rather large family. The two are attempting to have children but
Nature is saying no because to either the woman's age or both of their ages.
The police officer sat on the couch with his wife and told me, along with my sister and her
husband, a story that I wish to share with you.
The story was how a young man (the police officer's friend) and his girlfriend got into an
argument out in public. This is not uncommon. Both were well dressed. During the argument, the
girl stepped back and tripped. She fell to the ground and twisted her arm. She screamed in pain.
At this time, police officers were at the scene. They heard shouting and saw the woman fall and
scream. When they looked at the man, his face was red. He was one of those guys who, when
they had some beer, would have their face and ears turn red. Immediately, the police separated
the two. Both of them told the same the story. The girl stepped back, tripped, fell and twister her
arm. The cops would not believe this and so took the young man to jail for assault.
This young man happened to be a friend of the police officer telling the story. So when he heard
what happened, he personally intervened. He told them that he knew the guy, that he was no
435
assaulter, and that his face gets red with beer and not with rage. He told them that they were
already immediately separated and said the same thing. There was no way for them to make up
the same story. And with this line of reasoning, the young man was set free. If the police officer
had not intervened, what else would the result be?
The police officer drank his beer and then told me about himself. Police officers have a low life
expectancy not just from the risk of dying on the job but because of all the fierce work involved.
Fire fighters also have this lower life expectancy. He told me this because his body was falling
apart and deteriorating fast.
Now, police officers' wives are given a special bonus when the husband dies on duty. The wife
joked that if she came into the house and found him dead, she would put his uniform on him and
drag him into his patrol car so she can claim he died on duty. He laughed at this and said, "She'd
do it!" He seemed positively confident that his wife would put his body into the car just for a
bonus.
As the discussion continued, the police officer informed us how much he got paid when he first
entered the service saying that it was less than a school teacher. His wife, a school teacher,
became shocked and angry at this. "You only made that much money!?" Obviously, I could tell
that this picky girl thought she deserved riches and seemed as if she was STUCK with him.
Perhaps she thought being married to a police officer would be glamorous. And her saying how
she would drag his body to the patrol car just for a financial bonus seemed distasteful. Keep in
mind, this was as traditional religious girl as you can get.
Women want money and power; they differ in the means in how they acquire it. Some go the
feminist route and attempt to make a career to obtain this power and money they think is theirs.
But what is not often talked about are the women who go the religious route who think that
Virtue is some sort of entitlement to glory and wealth. It isn't.
One way you could test out to see whether a woman was truly 'Christian' or not is to reference
this part of the New Testament. In it, a man approaches Jesus and says that he has been following
436
the Ten Commandments. What else is there for him to do? Jesus turned to him and said, "Sell all
your possessions and follow me." And with that, the man's face fell.
Tell that story to the woman. Watch her reaction. True religious women are... (gasp) religious.
Just as feminists believe their degrees and careers are entitlements to better husbands, so too do
religious feminists believe their 'virtue' and 'religion' to be entitlements to better husbands.
Virtue's root word is 'Vir' which, in Latin, means 'Man.' Virtue is not named after women for the
obvious reasons.
437
Bachelorism: An Epidemic?
I am tired of online ads for these matching services. Usually, it is a woman lying down almost
nude with a huge command of "MATE" on the picture.
So how do these online matching services get the females? Do they have men showing their
chest with a huge command on it of "MATE?" No, they get this instead.
Apparently, Bachelorism is a disease.
The world's number one dating and relationship company, Match.com, is taking a stand against
bachelorism, a disturbing epidemic that affects more than 41 million men nationwide(1).
Match.com has thrown its support behind a new campaign, http://www.bachelorism.org , to raise
awareness for the causes and cure for this devastating syndrome.
Single men are painted as babies that must be 'rescued' from oblivion. This is how many
bachelors are seen...as losers simply because they don't have some girl. What intrigues me is
what if someone did the same for single females? What if someone made an ad campaign that
made single women to be hysterical and irrational but only a man could 'save' them from selfdestruction? Do you think that would go over well?
438
Bachelor joys are sold off when you marry
The best time to get something like a used motorcycle or a used sports car is when a man
marries. The new wife gets the guy to sell such 'things.' In this case, a very nice collection of
video games that spans twenty five years.
After some game playing in my youth, I got away from video games (and only recently began
playing them again). Video-games can be a pathetic way to waste time and a bad way to become
addicted. Despite that, for time per money, video-games are the best value for entertainment
especially used games. Consider the prices for amusement parks, concerts, or buying tons of
DVDs. Whatever the problems with video games, they do not put you in front of advertising like
TV (at least, not yet) and tend to be free from political correctness (which seems to be why
young males love it so).
Ask yourself, why would a new wife have a problem with a game collection? The games are
already bought so they won't be a liability. At worst, they may just sit there innocently in a box.
Come to think of it, do women sell their 'bachelorette' stuff? What would bachelorette stuff be? I
439
can't think of any off hand. All I know is that the bachelor stuff disappears and the man lives in a
"woman's world." The guy then is stuck with the garage with its utilitarian nature. People say
that you would sell your "bachelor joys" if you really love the girl. But I say she would insist on
you keeping them if she really loved you. Isn't love supposed to be making the other person
happy and not a psychological machine to churn out money?
Notice the dog in the EBay listing? Almost every young couple today seems that the girl gets a
"dog" to become "the couple's dog" to cement their "relationship." …Poor dogs. Nothing more
than pawns to get the guy to think of "couple" instead of "he" and "she." And I thought cats had
it bad.
Love as license
If you are said to be doing something wrong in the Matriarchy, the solution is to wrap what you
are doing as LOVE. Love has become the mythological wonder that no one can criticize or
question.
If people are angry that you are marrying a foreign woman, do not tell them the 'facts' and why
you are doing it. Instead, tell them you are in love.
Instead of apologizing for living a less glorious career instead of one that makes more money
that you hate, say that you are doing what you LOVE. It always works.
If you have gone to court due to armed robbery, tell them how you committed the crime out of
love (somehow, someway). You will easily be given a lesser charge.
440
If you are a female teacher having sex with a male student, tell them it was all about love. No
one will question it and the courts will let you off.
If you are a politician and desire to raise taxes on everyone, tell them that you are doing it for the
cause of love.
If you are a homosexual and desire laws to be changed and altered, pick up the cause of LOVE.
If you are a feminist and are pushing for worldwide sterilization and easy to access abortions, say
how all of this is the pursuit of love.
If you are a slut, just say how you have a rich 'love life.'
If you are a desperate housewife and want to cheat on your husband, again do it under the banner
of love. Bridges of Madison Country have shown the way.
As you can plainly see, 'love' gives one a license to do almost anything. So when a woman
begins to shame you about anything, bring love into the discussion somehow and someway. No
woman will assault the magical wonder of 'love' because it is through that where they hold all
their cards.
441
Footprints
442
Did you know one way you can tell the difference between a bachelor and a married man? Look
at their footprints.
Married men walk on their heels as if the world is on their shoulders. Bachelors walk on their
toes.
Don't believe me? Look at the footprints yourself. Young boys place the weight of their body on
the front of their feet when walking. Bachelors continue the tradition. But married men, their
weight shifts as their heels dig into the ground.
Sunday Reading: Voice of the Neuter
I have decided I am no longer going to post anything significant on this blog on Sunday. Sunday
will become a day of rest for me. So, instead, I will link to someone else's excellent essay and
say, "Here is your Sunday reading!"
For this week: The Voice of the Neuter
Quote:
Above all, it is a sexless voice. Not, I hasten to add, a "gay" voice. Not that at all. It is neither
that gentle nor that musical. Nor is it that old shabby lisping stereotype best consigned to the
dustbin of popular culture. No, this is a new old voice of a generation of ostensible men and
women who have been educated and acculturated out of, or say rather, to the far side of any
gender at all. It is, as I have indicated above, the voice of the neutered. And in this I mean that of
the transitive verb: To castrate or spay. The voice and the kids that carry it is the triumphant
achievement of our halls of secondary and higher education. These children did not speak this
way naturally, they were taught. And like good children seeking only to please their teachers and
then their employers, they learned.
This is not to say that the new American Castrati of all genders live sexless lives. On the
contrary, if reports are to be credited, they seem to have a good deal of sex, most often without
the burden of love or the threat of children, and in this they are condemned to the sex life of
children.
443
Take being called "gay" as a compliment
It is common for single men to be declared to be "gay" by women (who often giggle when they
say it). Do not be angry with this 'slur' on you. Rather, look at it for what it is.
When a woman asks if you are 'gay,' she is thinking about you sexually. In other words, she and
other women are willing to have sex with you. However, you are not pursuing them and this
annoys them. Women tend to project themselves onto men: hence we become dumb, stupid, sexcrazed creatures in their eyes.
Also, women never get 'rejected.' If a man doesn't ask them out, the problem HAS to be with
him. It cannot be a problem with her. So she will easily say, "HE MUST BE GAY" rather than
say, "HE REJECTED ME!" One can have fun and turn this around on women. If a woman
doesn't have a boyfriend because she is picky or something ask if she is gay. Watch the
fireworks.
If you look good and appear worthy, women will yearn for you. If you appear nonchalant,
women will accuse you of being 'gay.' Take this in stride! You are on their minds and dreams, but
they have no influence over you. You have beaten them at their little game. You have reversed
the usual of hot girl being disinterested in the guys but the guys having much interest in her.
While looking up famous bachelors in history, I have noticed a peculiar situation. Is it possible
for a man to be great and choose to remain a bachelor? I think this is very possible and quite
probable. However, academics do not believe it is possible. If a man is single and great, he must,
in some way, be a repressed homosexual.
Before people shout out 'conspiracy-to-feminize-everything,' I have another theory. The reason
why most female scholars say this is because of something rooted in female behavior. There are
444
many reasons why a great man could not marry (provided if he desired to). These things include:
-A man is too eccentric to be the usual husband for a wife.
-A man is too ugly which women find grotesque.
-Women just don't plain like him.
None of these possibilities are given. If a great man didn't marry, there is only one possibility
given: because he chose not to. And he chose not to because he was not attracted to females. He
was a repressed homosexual!
Gentlemen, have you ever obtained every woman you wanted? The universal answer is "No."
Men do get rejected as all of us are aware. So why isn't this possibility given? Why is the only
answer: "Repressed homosexual!!!?”
The answer, I believe, is that there is a hidden knowledge that women will, eventually, attempt to
marry this 'great man.' If these men lived under a bridge, we would hear nothing about it. But
these 'great men' were writers, artists, philosophers, and warriors, they were above average. And
as women age, the less picky they get. Eventually, these guys will have women who desire
them...rather, women who desire to have power over them. And since the means for a man to be
manipulated is through his sexual desire, if these men refused to be married, then obviously they
had no sexual desire! Obviously they were gay!
This seems to be the pattern these academics use when proclaiming that there can be no such
thing as a 'great man who remained a bachelor.' It is revealing that women marry for totally
different reasons than men do. These female scholars, not understanding men, only assume they
had to be gay.
Being called 'gay' frequently by women, I had the opposite problem that the only reason why
they want to be with me is because of sexual reasons. Many would say, "How can one complain
445
about this?" But do you know how sad it is that women aren't interested in having a connection
in any other way (at least, in most of my experiences). They know I am not a Nice Guy to be
lorded over. I don't exactly match the jerk 'bad boy' that needs to be tamed. I fit the more 'hot
mysterious guy who isn't paying women the attention they are entitled to.'
It is SAD that many women develop no inner lives. It is SAD that many women live a life of
illusion. But what is worse is that these women are incapable of sharing my interest in these
others things (hence, they can never be truly 'friends'). I feel annoyed and alienated by this
constant materialism and lack of any interest outside of pop-culture from these 'women.' I don't
associate with these girls because I, honestly, don't have anything in common with them. They
label me "GAY!!!!" as I am not going sexually crazy over them, but for, say, a potential wife you
are looking for some better qualities in her than a roll in the hay. Do they understand this? I don't
think they do.
On Sosuave many guys resorted to techniques and (supposed) manipulation? I believe a better
approach is to keep the focus on you and to build, and improve, your own life. I still believe this
today. However, most women are absurdly trapped by techniques and manipulation. All of this
gives them the illusion of power of men. A woman not focused on manipulation is to be one girl
plucked out of ten thousand.
Feminists accuse men of using sex as 'power' because that is precisely what women do.
Gentlemen, which do you find more common? Is it women who are interested in meeting a guy
and seeing if they are truly compatible? Or is it a woman interested in finding some sort of
trophy and manipulating that to make their friends jealous?
Men and women define 'love' differently. We know how men mean it. But women see love as the
key to power. This is why you never say "I love you" to a woman because, in their ears, they are
hearing, "You have total power over me."
Men conquer worlds. But women conquer men. The 'great men who remained bachelors' must be
re-written in history as 'suppressed homosexuals' because I don't believe most women honestly
446
understand a man's desire to understand and conquer a world. If no woman is able to conquer
you, especially if you become 'great,' they assume this is because you were immune to their
leverage over you (sexual interest) so that you had to be 'gay.' No other possibility is considered.
Women don't have a clue what men are and what we can do. Our destiny, in their eyes, is only to
be a dumb work-horse working to buy material goods. That's a shame. If women ruled, the great
arts would be totally ignored. Great literature would be mocked. Everything in the Humanities
would become...meaningless. Even other fields would be affected such as the sciences with
absurdities that focus on 'understanding and conquering people' rather (the social sciences) than
Nature itself (Physics, Biology, Chemistry, etc.).
And this is exactly what happened.
447
Radicalism of Vilar
"The Manipulated Man" is the most cited book for the Enlightened Men and the most influential.
When I first read it, I was tearing out my hair saying, "I cannot prove she is wrong!" It takes
repeated readings and some time for the Truth to fully sink in.
Due to how perspective altering the book is, we haven't exactly gone through the book with a
fine tooth comb. Vilar makes radical statements that the Men's Movement has not yet caught on.
What Vilar says is as mind bending as the first time you read "Manipulated Man."
448
So what are these fine toothed things we may have missed? Stick around. The upcoming posts go
through each one. Since the blog is going to get serious, take this time to have a laugh.
Radicalism of Vilar #1: Even in Sex, Man is
Enslaved
"Women live an animal existence. They like eating, drinking, sleeping - even sex, providing
there is nothing to do and no real effort is required of them. Unlike a man, a woman will rarely
make an effort to get her partner into bed. If, however, he is already there and she hasn't planned
to set her hair or undertake some other form of large-scale beauty repair and there is no TV
program she wants to see, she will not be averse to making love, provided he is prepared to be
the active partner.
449
"But even the euphemisms 'active' for the male partner and 'passive' for the female do not
conceal the fact that woman allows man to serve her in bed just as he does in every sphere of her
life. Even through intercourse may give a man pleasure in the long run, it is nothing more than a
service to a woman, in which the man is the better lover, arousing desire more skillfully, quickly,
and making it last longer.
"Men suspect that women tend to exploit them during intercourse and have developed a certain
fear of female sexual appetite.” Signs of this appear in the rites of ancient cultures, in
philosophical works of men such as Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, in the novels of Baudelaire,
Balzac an dMontherlant, in plays by Strindberg, O'Neill and Tennessee Williams. Since the
discovery of contraceptives, this fear has reached almost hysterical proportions."
I have spoken much about sexual transmutation of men in the past. Men can utilize their sexual
desire to make it bloom into their art, their music, their work, their actions, to make their life
progress swifter and increase their resonance among people (i.e. "charisma"). As a salesman
myself, I know that the highly sexualized people make the better salesmen while the lower
sexualized people (of both men and women) become stuck with low sales.
One gender's transmutation is another gender's manipulation. At least, this is what the feminists
say when they point to the great works of Humanity.
We know that most men do not understand transmutation. They can often just live an animal
existence and try to hump the nearest female in sight. These men generally end up mediocre in
life. Keep in mind, I am referring not to the highly sexualized male but the male who submits to
his sexuality, rather than forging the sexuality into what he desires. Think of the hunk in high
school that ended up getting a girl pregnant and is doomed to a life of paying for it.
Most women, also, do not understand transmutation. The "slut feminism" is merely that of an
animal existence.
450
However, women do undergo transmutation. They sexualize themselves as much as possible
meaning through exercise, tight clothes, long hair, make-up, and so on to and undergo training in
dance and other things. The woman will become trapped in her own game (as Radical Vilar #2
will reveal) but she is certainly trying to get the wealthiest and socially desired male.
Some women (mostly feminists) will resort to writing bad books about female goddesses and the
occult as well as being mesmerized by Egyptian mythology. These women are confusing their
sexuality with their faith and have the shoes on backward. Nevertheless, they are trying to
project that sexuality in some means. This would explain why such women are often extremely
ugly.
It is quite common for women to declare men are all pigs who want nothing but sex. But if you
have ever tried to eliminate sex from a budding relationship, the woman goes bonkers. She has
no mind of herself, just her animal existence, and she projects that onto the men. "All men want
is sex!" Well, ma'am, when was the last time a woman said something even remotely abstract?
Even with feminist theory, all they do is regurgitate, verbatim, what is heard. There are still no
new ideas. The original nut of feminist theory is just a cliché with zombie girls echoing the
cliché.
But let us listen some more.
"In truth, reliable contraceptives (invented by a man, naturally) have robbed man of the only
triumph left to him in his state of sexual subjugation. Previously, woman was always to a certain
extend at his mercy. Now she is suddenly in control. She can have as many children as she
wishes. She can even select the father (rich, if possible). If she has no intention of having
children, she can indulge in intercourse as often as it appears advantageous to her. Men cannot
do that." Pg. 80-81
This is a good question. Have contraceptives increased man's power or woman's? Obviously, it is
woman's whose fortune has doubled. She can now be the slut and be free from most of the
consequences. This was much more difficult in the past.
451
I suspect contraceptives have been historically banned because of men insisting it so. This would
explain why the ancient religions all banned contraceptives. Christianity banned all
contraceptives unanimously until around 1928. It also finally explains why Onanism was
frowned at (a man emptying his seed outside the woman). It kept giving the woman power.
Sex has two main long term consequences (not counting short term pleasure). One, it creates
children. Two, it enslaves a man.
With contraceptives, the children element is removed but the enslavement of men is not.
"But Pook! But Pook!" you cry. "Would this not free the men too? All these women and little
consequences?"
The changing definitions of man by the moderns have help emasculate men. A false definition is
worse than a slander. But the definition of "man" as supported by the moderns is a man who has
sex with as many females as possible. There is no historical basis for this. What was the
definition of a "man" was the man WHO HAD THE MOST CHILDREN. This is why centuries
ago, families would range from eight to fourteen children. Men who were impotent and could not
have children strived to display their manliness in some other way (such as America's George
Washington).
The more children, the more new people were under the man's name. He became the leader of
the household. He became the Patriarch in this way.
By pinning the definition of sex on 'as banging as many females as possible,' one can pinpoint
the further enslavements to men:
1) the married man keeps demanding sex from his wife who she can easily manipulate the man
further based on such desire.
452
2) the bachelor throws his time away (which is more valuable than money) on playing the 'game'
to get as many girls as possible. Women will manipulate the guy for entertainment, social access,
and even money.
3) the guy throws his money away (less valuable than time) at prostitutes, both official and
unofficial, just so he can 'feel like a man.'
We know that for men, sex is very much a mental thing. Alter the brainwashing and free
yourself.
It is hilarious when someone tries to defend this definition of man using evolutionary behavior.
Evolution only works if you have children you idiots. When I see demographic reports of less
and less children born in each generation, I assure you that this is not evolution in work: it is
extinction.
Vilar goes on speaking how much women research sex and how it involves men (to 'rock his
world to enslave them' essentially).
"Contrary to man's fear, women do not, however, weigh one man against another and choose the
most virile- far from it, as she herself is not all that keen on sex. In view of that, and provided all
other conditions are equal, she is likely to prefer the less potent man because she can always
blackmail him with her intimate knowledge of his weakness. "In the realm of sex, more than any
other, man is a victim of the principles of efficiency according to which he is manipulated."
You never hear about any pressure for the woman to 'perform.' The only thing you hear about
that is if the woman cannot keep the man (i.e. manipulate him). This would explain why when a
wife cheats, the husband "fails" and the wife is a "victim." And if the husband cheats, the
husband "fails" and the wife is again the "victim."
"That sexual competence in a man is a matter of indifference to the majority of females is shown
by the number of highly paid men who marry and stay married, despite the fact that they are
453
impotent (it is unimaginable that a woman without a vagina would have an prospects whatsoever
of getting married to a normally sexed man)." Pg. 84
A young man is often amazed that dating is really nothing more than sex. Women don't want to
know you. They do not care about your dreams. The bait on the hook is sex and the purpose is to
reel you in. Women's greatest fear is the celibate man as he cannot be hooked in any way.
Vilar's Radicalism #2
454
There is only one main difference between men and women: men are curious while women
never are.
One main difference between men and women: Men are curious. Women never are. Only thing
women might be curious are new bodily pleasures. Of all the qualities of man, his curiosity is certainly the most impressive. This curiosity differs
basically from that of woman. A woman takes interest only in subjects that have an immediate
personal usefulness to her. For example, if she reads political article in the newspaper, it is
highly likely that she wants to cast a spell on some political-science student, not that she cares
about the fate of the Chinese, Israelis or South Africans. If she looks up the names of some Greek
philosophers in the dictionary, it does not mean she has suddenly taken an interest in Greek
philosophy. It means she is trying to solve a crossword puzzle. If she is studying the
advertisements for a new car, she is not doing it with a platonic interest in its technical features,
but because she wants to own it.
....
Man's curiosity is something quite different. His desire for knowledge has no personal
implications, is purely objective and, in the long run, is much more practical than a woman's
attitude.
....
Man's curiosity is universal. There is almost nothing that does not interest him, whether it is
politics, botany, nuclear physics, or God knows what. Even subjects out of his province hold his
interest, such as bottling fruit, preparing cake mix or caring for a baby. And a man could not be
pregnant for months without knowing all the functions of the placenta and ovaries in detail.
Men not only observe the world around them, it is in their nature to make comparisons and to
apply the knowledge they have gained elsewhere with the ultimate aim to transform this
newfound knowledge into something else, something new.
One need not emphasize the fact that practically all inventions and discoveries in this world
have been made of men
455
....
Pg. 41-43
Women not being curious, and hence not having a HUNGER to learn and see new things, has
been one of my biggest disappointments with their sex. Without curiosity, there is no intellect, no
ability, and no talent. The only curiosity women appear to portray is trying out new bodily
pleasures. These include:
-New sex positions
-Dating Pook to try out his bodily pleasure (or another guy, or yet another guy)
-Eating stupid and absurd foods (women are annoyed that I am pleased with a decent grilled
hamburger or steak most of the time).
-Sunbathing, saunas, and massages
-Sport type activities
-Why Action Dates work better than Talking Dates
Men vary in their intelligence and what they study. But all men are the same in that we are all
curious...about everything...in some sort of way. Women lack this.
Women define 'adventuresome' as new sex positions, dating many guys, eating weird foods, and
so on. But if a man pursues his curiosity, such as learning about space or the oceans or anything
of that nature, he is condemned as a nerd.
In MGTOW sites and all, rarely do we hear men's groups subscribe 'curiosity' to men. They may
apply 'smarts' but smarts are different than 'curiosity.' Have we truly understood Vilar when we
keep saying men are different because of (X) and not because of simple curiosity?
It should be noted that the animal greatest known for its curiosity is the cat. While cute and
fuzzy, the cat is famous for its curiosity ("Curiosity killed the cat" etc). Some Men's Rights
Activists blast cats as spawns of Satan since they appear to possess the same traits as women do
456
(selfish, lazy). But what if cats are liked by women because they possess the traits of men? Smart
men are "lazy" (resting) whenever they get a chance and are always curious like the cat.
457
Vilar's Radicalism # 3
Masculinity and Honor is an Artificial System designed to manipulate men.
Thanks to women, everything is labeled "masculine" or "effeminate," "worthy" or "unworthy."
By imbuing all they do with sentimental and emotional values to such a degree that no one can
remain unaffected by them, women have created for themselves a fool's paradise. Whatever they
do is pointless compared with male achievements. And since they say so themselves, why should
men quibble?
Of course, if men really wanted to, they could destroy this tissue of lies and replace the terms
"masculine" and "effeminate" with "hard" and "easy."
...
458
It is simple to analyze this vicious circle: women invent rules, manipulate men to obey them and
so dominate the male sex. Of course, these rules in no way apply to women themselves. The male
sense of honor, for example, is a system invented by women who loudly exempt themselves from
it. They renounce the concept of honor and, as a result, manipulate men.
In a recent television series, "The Avengers," there was a scene in which two antagonists were
facing each other across a billiard table, a pistol in front of each of them. It was agreed that to
give them each an equal chance, they should count aloud up to three and then shoot. The hero,
however, grabbed his pistol and fired at the count of two, thus saving his own life. He chose to
remain outside the system and was therefore in a position to manipulate the other who, although
in mortal danger, preferred to stick to a system approved by society rather than to use his own
judgment.
Pg. 59-61
What is a Man? Certainly not masculinity or honor. Vilar will later define exactly what man is.
But it is true that everything that is 'masculine' and 'honorable' is disadvantageous to men and
advantageous to women. It is 'masculine' to lift heavy objects. It is 'honorable' to always be nice
to women. It is 'masculine' to join the military. It is 'honorable' to help the mother-in-law at all
times.
Even though readers of "Manipulated Man" know how this is advantageous to women, I do not
think it has yet been internalized that IT IS ALL FAKE. MGTOW are still talking about 'honor'
and 'masculinity' as if it means something. It should be noted that Shakespeare opposed honor
and blunt masculinity. The movers and shakers of the past, the philosophers, the poets, the
musicians, the artists, would today be called 'unhonorable' and 'unmasculine.' But since there was
no Matriarchy in that time period, you can see why people were attracted to such fields and tried
459
to study them.
It is time to let it go. Let Honor go. Let 'Masculinity' (though not testosterone) go. The
manipulation of Honor is not that Honor is being used to serve females; it is Honor itself is a
female construction. Why should we 'honor' politicians? The only 'honor' that should be
recognized is that band of brotherhood between soldiers. But is that really honor? Not really.
That does not fit ribbons or medals.
Don't try to be masculine but try to be who you are. Those who embrace who they are, their soul,
their passions, strive to be You Inc., will naturally be confident. It is those that strive towards
masculinity, towards its images and clichés that end up becoming the biggest wimps.
Prior to the 20th Century, male friendships and companionships (these are close friendships,
NOT homosexuality) were depicted in literature and the world. It is interesting that the only way
men are allowed to be 'close friends' is under 'Honor' as in old war buddies. Male friendship is
savagely attacked as 'effeminate' (and now 'gay') because it does not help women in the slightest.
This conditioning is so deeply rooted that sharing a two bedroom apartment with a guy, it is not
uncommon for that guy to say, "Look! I am just trying to save money! I don't sleep with him or
anything!" As the Internet and MGTOW is showing, male friendship is our greatest strength
against Matriarchy. No wonder it is considered the most 'unhonorable' and most 'effeminate'
thing ever!
460
The Musician
One of the benefits of no comments is that what does come in is well written and fleshed out.
For your reading pleasure:
461
Italics = The emailer
Bold = My emphasis
Regular text = El Pookius Master-Of-Universias
Here is the email:
My name is ***** [Pook Note: I'm withholding names from these emails of course], and I have
read some of your posts on Sosuave. I haven’t made a single post there in my life, so I never
existed there in a sense. I have urges of registering at times, but never see the point in it (or it’s
either I’m too lazy). Anyway, I’m a 19 year old college student in California who first majored in
music composition but switched to civil engineering recently (You are right when you say
feminism has gotten into our humanities, I’ll share my experiences with that in this e-mail).
I have to say that so far your writings have made a huge difference in my life already. What is so
special is that you seem so down-to-earth, which is something I feel that is lacking a lot in the
world these days.
Obviously, there must be another Pook running around. I refer to myself in third person, give
Pook magical powers, and grant myself the most arrogant titles such as 'Pookus Extroadinarius.'
That doesn't seem down-to-earth to me, but let us move on...
462
I really want to share some of my thoughts about music because they seem to be consistent with
a lot of your values.
I’ve been playing piano all through HS and had dreams of being able to compose like Mozart
(seriously hehe). I was perceived by my peers as the sort of geeky and weird kid who spent his
time doing nothing but music. This led to me being terrible with the ladies in HS (since it really
wasn’t the ‘popular’ music).
What struck me and surprised me when I was reading your writing was that you often will
mention Mozart and Chopin. They are my two favorite composers! To me, both composers are
the most down-to-earth and follow the natural style (which is composing in the melodic style of
music by imitating the human voice). Kind of like how your writing is so down-to-earth and
seeks only the natural!
I must make a confession: I am insanely jealous of music composers. It is the musician, not the
poet, the painter, or orator, who has direct control influencing people's souls. No wonder Plato
banned them from his Republic. With anything written or speaking, there is always the language
barrier. But music has no such barrier.
Music truly is the perfect union of math and art. I have heard that the best programmers are also
musicians. You never realize how important music is until it isn't there or done badly.
I can't imagine putting together a symphony. It is hard enough to write for one instrument, let
alone all of them. Also, I know you just can't throw stuff in there. Everything has to be in tone
with everything else. And the music has to have such a sense that it melts into motion.
My music education began (and ended) around a few instruments (trombone, euphonium, tuba
which all have a very similar element). I know so little about music that I definitely plan to dive
into it more, one day. Musicians are like the chosen 'Pookish people.'
463
Anyway, so I attend University after HS all enthusiastic about learning how to compose in this
natural style. In HS, I studied Mozart’s style thoroughly and I even had a copy of his simple
thoroughbass method (It’s amazing; he simplifies things in a way so unique). But now I was in
college and this was a sad year in my life. Not only did I receive so much criticism for majoring
in music, my problems that I ignored only grew. I was still pretty anti-social and my urge to be
with the ladies grew much stronger. This is when I discovered David Deangelo, Sosuave, and
others. These problems were still bearable at the time, what was unbearable was the craft I put
all my cards in during HS. Music.
I realized the whole University system for music was in a way corrupt! The whole “Art can be
anything” philosophy ran amuck. Making it worse, the professors kept trying to make me
compose away from this natural style I was pursuing! They would say I’m talented, but always
criticize the style I used. I’m not sure how much you know about music, but the universities seem
to hate tonal music, which is the music system that uses the tonal scale. I believe it was
developed by Pythagoras and is very closely related to the laws of nature (So many classics
came from this system).
Readers, picture a professor annoyed that his music student is studying Mozart and the classics
from Pythagoras (A music student studying Mozart! How radical! Who else is he to study to
learn music? A feminist?)
In my days in the university, I caught the professors' eye for trying to mimic the blank verse and
any other form of verse (as well as the Elizabethan sonnet and Spenserian sonnet forms). They
seemed 'annoyed' at what I was doing. I just shrugged and said, "How else am I supposed to
learn?" I later learned that these professors weren't doers. Their job literally was the paralysis of
analysis. They could write articles and papers about all these pointed hat theories on
Shakespeare, but they couldn't write a single sonnet. This confused me. Isn't the best way to
464
understand the great masters are to attempt to duplicate them?
I know with painting this used to be the way. Painters would take their canvas to the museum and
try to paint alongside the masters. The teachings of painting techniques got passed from one
generation to the next with each generation refining on the techniques of the past. For some
reason, in the beginning of the twentieth century, this tradition got lost. Some blame the
invention of the photograph. But this occurred with literature as well (music and theater are still
mysteries to me).
I got tired of the music program and eventually quit. The program seemed to have one
philosophy for composing, which is “You must compose radically different from the classics; any
resemblance will be criticized upon and not tolerated.” Art is always changing and you can’t
define it so it must be radically different! This whole craze of becoming radically different was
also in the performance program of our universities. I heard that this one student in a recital or
something had a vase near the piano, and at the end of a piece he shoved the vase off so it would
shatter on the floor and that was supposed to symbolize something. My take on it was that the
music had no substance so the student had to rely on theatrics like that. What’s worse is the
audience buys into it and says it’s so ‘deep.’ This is the kind of stuff I had to deal with in music
and to me is an example of your saying that the humanities have been corrupted. (If you want
another example, look up John Cage’s 4’33,’’ you’ll get a laugh out of that!)
I'm speechless. I can't add anything to what the musician has said.
I looked up John Cage's 4'33," and I'm shaking my head. I'd like to rip these 'BRILLIANT'
thinkers (oh, so brilliant that who are we peasants to question?), but I'll save that for another post
(and give the musician the spotlight he deserves).
465
The highlight of my time in the program though was a time where a professional composer came
to talk in our theory class (Counterpoint theory I believe). The first thing she made known to the
class was that she was a feminist. Then, we had to hear her whole life story of how she had to go
through life as a feminist and trying to make it as a composer. Listening to her was torture. To
her, she struggled because she couldn’t find any other women to have as idols who made it as
music composers. Boohoo hahaha. This was also before I even knew much about feminism and
before I read your writings on sosuave, so it wasn’t that she was a feminist that bothered me, it
was that she spent all her time talking about things other than music! I was interested in pure
music, not her identity crisis. What was sad though was to see my fellow peers and professor
eat the stuff up and feeling sorry for her and even praising her (especially the professor).
I gather that they weren't praising her for her music; they were praising her that she was a
'woman?' This is ridiculous.
So now I’m starting my third year of college but in the Engineering program. I have lots of hope
for the future, but I believe engineering isn’t my passion. I have been reading a lot on financial
stuff and real estate, and am striving to reach financial freedom in the future. I also continue to
read your writings from sosuave and now your blog :) Sadly I am still struggling on the lady
front even though I have made massive improvements on myself and am generally happier than I
was a year ago. For example, a year ago I was 130 pounds, and now I am almost 150 and I play
a lot of basketball.
The musician ends his email asking for my mentoring. I'm struck dumb because what else could
I say that he hasn't?
He knows what his passion is in life (it isn't engineering so he wants to go back to music. I say:
466
do it. Life is incredibly short. Spend it on what you love.)
He knows that he needs to work towards obtaining financial freedom (and he is in college! Most
people don't get a hint of this until they are in their late thirties or forties! And many people don't
get it at all).
And he knows about changing and altering his body.
What more could I say? He sounds like he's getting the Big Stuff correct. I'm posting his email
here in hopes that an older professional musician would like to give him any pointers (heaven
knows my ignorance on the music field).
The only thing I could say is focus on how audiences respond to your music (real audiences, not
professors and academic no-nuts) and always improve that link it has with audiences. Hopefully,
you'd want to get fabulously wealthy from your music, and the best way is to also study
audience's reactions.
"But Pook!" someone might say, "how could he make money when everyone else is going the
opposite way? How can you make money going against the current?"
In business, they call this a 'disruption strategy.' Consider all these people trying to please their
professors and only end up having their lives producing rubbish. This musician will have little
to no competition because everyone else will be making the same nonsense. You'll feel like a
demigod because you will be walking through empty rooms in this talent vacuum.
As for women, they tend to have a soft spot for musicians (so I don't think his passion will end
up interfering with the girls but, rather, attracting them). After 25, the tables turn and men
increasingly obtain more options and leverage (whereas in high school, women seemed to have
goddess like powers). This is what is so wonderful about being a man. Time is on our side. And
we routinely marry younger women. Women have a shelf life- men don't.
467
Groundbreaking study finds that narcissism runs in
celebrities!
Yes, someone did a study on this.
Celebrities have more narcissistic personality traits than the general population, and people
with narcissistic tendencies seem to be attracted to the entertainment industry rather than the
industry creating narcissists, according to a groundbreaking study conducted by researchers
Drew Pinsky of the Keck School of Medicine of USC and S. Mark Young of the USC Marshall
School of Business and the USC Annenberg School for Communication.
As someone who is attracted to the entertainment industries, I would have to agree to a point.
Sometimes narcissism can be mistaken for being 'soulful.' You cannot become a cog in a machine
in the entertainment industry...unless you are on the technical or finance side of it.
I would say those who go into politics are more narcissistic. The most narcissists are those who
go into journalism.
Reality TV personalities had the highest overall narcissism scores when compared with actors,
musicians and comedians.
You don't say!
"Our research also shows that many celebrities exhibit narcissistic behavior prior to becoming
468
famous, which could indicate a self-selection bias for the entertainment industry by certain
personality types," said Young who holds the George Bozanic and Holman G. Hurt Chair in
Sports and Entertainment Business at USC.
Most women have an interest in the entertainment business. This is why they talk about
celebrities all day. "HEY, DID YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO KEANU REEVES?
OMG!"
Your life is a stage for a woman to play the celebrity role she craves. When you take your life
elsewhere, she has no stage. She cannot play the girlfriend, the wife, the mother, or anything
worthwhile. Women love celebrities because they see themselves in them. So next time you fall
asleep to a woman babbling about celebrities, remember what the Pook said: "She talks about
narcissistic celebrities because, as a narcissist, she finds herself on common ground with them.
Beware!"
469
Pook Grows Wings; Co-Workers Stunned
I have been an advocate of Anthony Ellis's program for quite some time. Until I started a new
job, I actually was out of the loop for going to the gym in all (as a door to door salesman, it is too
difficult to keep up). However, at the new job I could get back into the program. I declared to the
co-workers that I, the caterpillar, will be growing wings. They said I was too skinny. "But it is
good to be skinny!" said one fat hag. Having been through the program several times, my muscle
fibers were dormant but waiting. Muscle memory was all still in place even after a couple of
years.
In three months, I gained 35 pounds of muscle mass. Yes, it is possible.
Now, you might ask, "Why gain muscle, Pook?" For the testosterone, silly! I noticed that I began
470
sleeping better, I was generally happier, and I was eating better. The downside is that my sex
drive goes up which often concludes with a woman (unfortunately).
Women are persuaded by male's bodies as much as men are by female bodies. I know the girls
don't care about me. They don't want to know who I am. They don't care about my dreams. All
they care about is that think my body is *hot* and I get flooded with the "You need a girlfriend
immediately!" line (with the girl saying that often volunteering). I respond back with how
worthless American women are and the reactions are priceless. Some women become hostile,
others become reflective. Either way, it is much better than simply saying, "Oh shucks, I am just
waiting for the right lady!" or something as retarded. It amazes me how these women assume I
will go for them. They are that arrogant. What I mean is that if a guy sees a girl they think is
*hot*, they do not assume she is automatically his. He tends to think she already has a boyfriend
or husband. Or he also thinks he has to work to get her. Even players know they have to do
something in order to get the girl. But with women, no, they feel entitled to the guy.
There is no better rebuke to women than to be hot and say no to them. They cannot take it!
Anyway, I will tell you how I gained mass so fast. Outside of Anthony's program, I throw in
swimming during Chest day (Anthony disapproves but I do it anyway. I have an urge to swim for
some reason. Swimming is good for the chest and shoulder muscles anyway. Besides, swimmers
end up with hot bodies anyway).
I use NO supplements except for Twin Lab Ultra Fuel that is used immediately after the workout.
No creatine. No stupid shakes. I use REAL FOOD for every meal with FRESH MEAT. I do not
eat Whey bars or processed meat. All my meals are cooked (a week in advance). I have 8 hours
of sleep as well. I do not divide my meals in cute little Tupperware. I have the food and I eat as
much as it as I can for every meal.
In the gym, I look funny because I struggle with weights (because I use HEAVY weights to me).
I have had idiots come up to me to give me "tips." I ignore them and keep doing what I'm doing
which stuns the meathead. But now I am bigger than the meathead.
471
There is a good way to identify whether or not women *like* you. If women are trying to set you
up with one of their friends, they think you are below them but they are trying to help out a
friend. Imagine a kid being given a cookie he doesn't like. But a cookie is a cookie so she gives it
to someone who might like that type. However, when women really *like* a guy, she will
volunteer herself. She will not try to set the guy up with a friend because she wants him for
herself!
What always amazed me were not women's changing reactions to my body, but men. For
someone reason, the big muscular guy gets respect. Behind my back, they make jokes. But I
suspect that is only because they notice the reactions of the women.
Anyway, every guy should try to gain muscle mass at least once in life. You will probably like it
so much that you want to continue it for life. You don't gain mass for women or for anyone else.
You do it for yourself and in how you feel. Seriously, all I do is go to the gym for an hour and
half three times a week, eat six times a day, and get 8 hours rest. It is not hard to do. The
challenge is to be consistent. If you are consistent, you will see how it is like a machine where
the iron is reforging your body. You will look into the mirror and see an underwear ad staring
back at you.
472
473
Sosuaver asks, "How else to boost
testosterone?"
Within an email, was this question,
Right now I'm in the process of finding ways to increase my testosterone (because a man without
any testosterone is not a man at all). It's too bad that testosterone has such a bad rap, the only
time you seem to hear about it in the news is in the context of steroids or prisoners or cavemen,
and back in the nerd days I would avoid 'testosterone poisoning' like the plague. The last thing I
wanted to be was one of those dirty, muscular types who were constantly playing sports and
sweating all the time. But these were the guys that the girls would go for, and why not? The most
feminine girls go for the most masculine guys, and you also mentioned in some of your posts
about women being able to detect high testosterone like some sort of sixth sense. All these guys
on sosuave talk about confidence and the importance of good posture and talking with a deep
voice with a touch of sexuality in it, but I've found that testosterone has given me all that and
more. So I'm wondering . . . what things did you do during your transformation to increase your
testosterone levels?
I boosted my testosterone primarily through body building. As a naturally skinny guy, my body
has a fast metabolism. One of the side effects of ordering the program off skinnyguy.net was the
huge emphasis on testosterone. Testosterone is the hormone in your body that makes your
muscles grow. And it is also the hormone that defines you as male. (The emailer knows the
following but I'm recapping for the blog viewers). Maleness and femaleness don't result easily in
a nice black and white fashion. There is a type of shade. It is testosterone that creates the male in
the womb and during puberty, the 'male growing up effects' is all caused by the flooding of
testosterone in the system. Women are attracted to men, not girly-men. Real men have
testosterone. Women are attracted to jerks because 'jerks' are highly testosteronized men. For
those of you who want to be good guys and not be an evil jerk, this is still the way.
474
Testosteronize yourself and watch how women will react to you differently. Hell, your life will
change just having that testosterone surging through your veins.
"Not uh, Mr. Pook! I am an intellectual! My mind is above everything of the body!" Yet, there
was never a philosopher who could endure the toothache patiently. We get cranky when we're
hungry; we get angry when we are sleepy and tired. Without a doubt, the biggest influence on
your day to day is your own body. So treat that body well.
To answer the question: keep in mind that you're doing the three "pillars" that build testosterone
(these are also the three things in Anthony Ellis's work out guide). First, get enough sleep. You
won't believe how many nerds and dorks I see who don't get the sleep. Your body just won't
function correctly unless you get a solid 8 hours a night, especially for any muscle growth. If
you're having problems getting sleep, fix that pronto. Second, eat the correct things and in
enough quantity. In Ellis's workout, I go through six meals a day with most of it protein. Remove
most of the garbage from your diet. This includes fast foods and most sugar. I tend to like my
sweets too much so I still unfortunately keep eating cookies. It is the drinks that you can fix the
most garbage. I've found Splenda to be an excellent work-around to this (and Splenda has caught
on with the drink makers big time. I used to be stuck with that nasty diet rite.) This may not be
popular to say, but alcohol and chain smoking tends to reduce testosterone. They don't call it a
beer belly for nothing. Third, make sure you are doing something physical that stresses the body
to produce testosterone. For me, it is free weights activating my Type II fibers.
While my currents interests aren't in testosterone, I'd like to study it some more in the near
future. There is a link to genius and testosterone. But there is also a link to very successful men
and testosterone. There are certain professions and activities that are 'high testosterone' meaning
the people who engage in them have unusually high amounts of testosterone. (I do not know yet
whether they did these activities due to high testosterone or by doing these activities their
testosterone increases). Salesmen tend to have higher testosterone than average. Anything with
sports obviously does (women's attraction to sports men goes beyond the image). Actors also
have high testosterone. (This is my pick as I tend to be attracted to the theater.) Rock stars have
high testosterone as do probably most performing musicians. Businessmen also will probably
475
have high testosterone. I'll try to look into this some more.
But I would follow those three pillars: sleep, eat, and work-out. There may be a fourth pillar of
'being in public' as every profession that seems to involve doing things in public have high
testosterone levels. If you want to focus on growing more testosterone, try growing your muscles
more. I went from 140 pounds to 210 pounds. There really is not that much of a biological limit.
If you do hit it, you'll be working so hard to maintain that 'plateau' you would be asking, "How
can I LOWER my testosterone!?"
Testosterone is ambrosia to men. Eat it and become demi-gods on Earth.
476
“A full workout without the work!”
A good way to become rich is to sell women products designed to help them get a guy. The
'fitness' industry gimmicks and silly products they sell to women (since they are obsessed about
working out to ensnare a guy) astound me. The Holy Grail to be sold is a product that 'tones' your
body without doing any of the traditional work.
They've done it again, and color me impressed. This time it is a vibrating machine!
We can so easily deconstruct this article:
With her heavily muscled arms, you would be forgiven for thinking it is the result of a punishing
exercise regime at the gym. But it seems the Queen of Pop's incredible shape is, in part, thanks to
The Power Plate - dubbed the 'miracle' machine.
477
The Queen of Pop has hired trainers both for diet and exercise. A stupid vibrating machine does
not do zilch which is why it is mentioned 'in part.'
The new exercise machine removes the need to actually work out. Manufacturers claim that the
vibrating platform offers the same benefits of an hour-long sweaty gym workout in just 15
minutes with the machine burning the calories for you.
There will NEVER be a machine that removes the need to actually work out. And how in the
world can an hour long workout be reduced to 15 minutes?
Body builders know that the machine is not in the gym but it is your body itself. Your body is the
machine. Those 'machines' and weights are just tools for you to help expand that machine that is
your body.
The plate works by giving the body muscles a high speed workout, as the vibrations make them
contract and relax up to 50 times a second.
If this is considered a 'workout,' then roller coasters at theme parks should make us all buff.
Originally developed by Russian scientist Vladimir Nazarov, whole vibration training was used
to prevent astronauts' muscles and bones wasting when they were in space.
And I'm sure Vladimir Nazaroz also has an interest in the sales of this machine. I live in
Houston. I KNOW astronauts (two showed up for my brother's wedding), even a director at
NASA who has fun stories about the Russian cosmonauts they have had to work with. Russian
cosmonauts generally aren't worried about becoming weak in space (to the astonishment of the
American crew). While it may be true that vibration training was developed for space, this is
because there aren’t too many alternatives to working out up there. It is not like bench presses
mean anything in zero gravity.
478
But fitness experts remain skeptical about the benefits of the machine. Chief executive of the
Fitness Industry Association, Andree Dean said: "It should only be used in conjunction with
other types of exercise.
"It's great for those short of time, but it is not a quick fix and people shouldn't think that if they
use it, they don't have to go to the gym anymore.
"It certainly does not provide cardiovascular exercise, which keeps the heart and blood
circulation system healthy."
This was at the bottom of the article for the obvious reasons.
It's a joke, and I suspect women will eat it up. I am now kicking myself because I could have
sold a vibrating machine to women for 'toning purposes' for tons of money.
Body training revolves around the big three: enough sleep (since this is where your muscles
grow), proper diet (the hardest part), and correct exercises. Correct exercises are not magical
machines. The only magical machine is your own body.
To budding entrepreneurs out there, this is your day. You can profit heavily off of women’s'
Matriarchal distress. Car mechanics, plumbers, and any job women won't do will heavily profit.
Those making scams such as in expensive university degrees, bizzaro exercise machines, and
idiotic books that make women feel smart (Da Vinci Code) will make a killing.
479
480
51:49
51: 49!
Dealing with women is often like dealing with a casino. Mermaid-like, they beckon men to them
with the promise of untold happiness and pleasure yet the odds are always stacked in the favor of
the house. Just like how a casino has an 'atmosphere' of "jackpots," of people "getting lucky,"
there is a 'romance' about with people coming in and winning the game. Some enter the casino to
just have a fun time playing but many come to win. Yet, the house always wins.
A young man getting married or investing significant time with a woman is like spinning the
wheel or throwing the dice. So caught up are they with the atmosphere of the casino and the
crowds saying, "Bet more! Bet more!" they ignore their instinct and stop thinking. Caught up in
the rush, they play their cards.
...And they lose. Even the players eventually lose if they keep playing too long. The House
always wins.
The solution is to obey the 51: 49 principle.
We make decisions everyday about everything (including deciding not to make a decision at all
which counts as a decision). 51: 49 principle states that over time, the balance of good and bad
choices will even itself out to 51 percent good and 49 percent bad choices.
"But Pook!" you say. "That is a horrible average. It should be 65: 35 or so." Sure, you hope the
good decisions in your life will end up being in the 90s or 80s percent. But the POINT is for it to
be 51 percent and above.
481
When it comes to women in the Anglosphere, men are used to being on the 49 side (where
women are used to being on the 51 side). Sure, you don't win all the time. But women win FAR
more often than men do. Nice Guys take the 49 side as "normal" (whereas they are probably
more like on the 12 percent side of winning if that). What many speed seducers do not want you
to know is that they also fail more than they succeed which can put them over to the 49 side.
Casinos work on the idea that most gamblers will push their luck beyond the point of 51:49 and
end up on the wrong side of the formula. Because of this, the House will tend to win more times
than it loses.
The same is true of women in the Anglosphere. They are counting on men to be gamblers and for
them to push their luck beyond the point of 51: 49 to end up on the wrong side of the formula.
This is why women tend to win more time than lose in their dealings with men.
Most men in matters of love, so used to being on the 49 side and tasting the sour of defeat more
than the sweetness of victory, become conservative with risk. They will excuse themselves from
the opportunity to learn from their mistakes or to see the casino for what it really is. This, in turn,
loads the dice against them making the correct choices in the future despite the game becoming
more and more loaded with "money and time" (what a man bets with).
The result is that men become trapped in an ever decreasing circle and find themselves boxed in
and unable to move at all. Men being boxed in with the perception that they have increasingly
limited choices, is it any surprise that they willingly part with their money to coaches, mentors,
and counselors to guide them from the maze of dead-end options to discover what life was like
when it was a simple matter of making a choice?
There are many different branches of the Men's Movement. Like it or not, there are many men
who use the Movement like a blanket where they can pretend they are never wrong ("All of
society is against me!"). Others use it for their basket of conspiracies ("The water is being
poisoned with estrogen to feminize all men!"). Some are frustrated financially and creatively
with their lives and simply use the Movement as a means to vent their frustrations (mass
482
movements attract those who are frustrated with their own lives). And, of course, there are those
who really have suffered injustice, those who have had their kids and wealth taken from them,
those who want to stand up against unjust laws, and others who just want to stand up for
masculinity.
Let us welcome the 51: 49 branch. Those who welcome the 51: 49 have their object to be on the
51 side, not on the 49 side as most men are stuck in. Sometimes their success could be 85% or
so, but the point is to be winning more than losing. I reject marriage simply because it is on the
49 side. Dealing with women on MY terms, for example, puts me in the 51 category. I don't lose
with women; they lose with me. I turn the House rules against itself, and they stand shocked that
I am winning more and more. Sometimes the House wins but not majorly and not in a way to
knock me to 49.
Men will be shocked because they are used to the House winning all the time, of being 49.
Women will be shocked because they KNOW the House is supposed to win all the time that men
are not supposed to be at 51 or higher.
When you deal with women, ask yourself, "Is this a 51 action or a 49 action?" Having a
relationship with a 30+ year old woman would be a 49 action. You WILL lose eventually. Having
a relationship with a 21 year old is often more of a 51 action. You WIN almost any way it turns
out.
Women have been playing the 51: 49 game for quite some time, and they are very good at it.
This is why women will not risk or gamble to put themselves into the 49 zone. This is why men
must make all the risks, all the moves, because smart girls do not gamble past their 51 zone. If
she messes up, she becomes even more risk averse and makes the game become 61: 39. If you
want to know why older women can become more demanding, there you go.
"Why are you single?"
Men Going Their Own Way? No!
483
51: 49!
"Why don't you get married?"
51: 49!
Why don't you settle down and have lots of children?
51: 49!
Why don't you let yourself fall in love with a woman?
51: 49!
The principle also applies well in business and other practical matters. You do not put yourself in
a position where the House will eventually win. You want to put your life in matters where you
will eventually win, on average.
51: 49!
484
95-5 Rule is Bunk
There is a saying on Men's Movement sites that 95% of the women go for 5% of the men. These
5% of the men are famous, wealthy, players, or thugs. And, of course, the 'Nice Guys' rot in 'hell.'
There are two major glaring problems with the 95-5 rule.
First, it is based on a wrong premise. Women do not *choose* the men...ever. Women do not ask
out guys. They do not pay for dates. They can flirt and do that type of thing to persuade a guy.
But every part of the relationship is controlled by the guy. It is men who ask out the girl. It is
men who pay for the dates. It is men who propose.
Women do not propose to men. They also do not normally ask them out. So it makes sense to say
that the *choice* women have is only limited to the access of men they can flirt with and/or the
guys already interested. Only from them may they choose. (Of course, women think their 'pool'
of suitors is higher than ever because women do not know the difference between a man
interested in her for fifteen minutes versus a man interested in her for a lifetime.) So how can
there be any 95-5 rule if women are not the real choosers?
The second error is that the 95-5 rule applies to men more than women. In order to be a man it
485
takes rational and soulful choice. In order to be a woman is to just simply have a face. Women
want men for marriage which limits their selection rather permanently unlike men's desires for
women who a beauty can be tossed from one guy to another. There are far less wealthy and
famous men than there are beautiful young women.
On the Internet or in passing, when one says "girlfriend" or "wife," one easily imagines the type
of girl he would think would fit that role (often a young beautiful agreeable creature). However,
the majority of girlfriends and even wives are anything but young, beautiful, and agreeable.
When you see an old or fat woman, you do not think of her as a woman. The only women that
show up on men's radars are the young, pretty ones. The 95-5 rule is a mirror image of how men
are to women, not women are to men.
A better way to think of it is this way: Do you believe there is too much sex out there or too
little? If you said little, then no matter what else you say or do, you will be in a world of little
sex. However, if you think there is too much sex out there, somehow, the world will reflect that
and, you will see it everywhere. This works the same with money. Those who believe there is too
little money around remain poor. Those who believe there is too much money out there become
rich.
I believe in the 100 - 0 rule. "What rule is this, Pook?" Why, it is simple. You either are flooded
with women or want none. You see a world full of girls or you don't see any at all. If you have
already decided that 95-5 is the law of the universe, then that is what you will only see. But the
reality isn't 95-5 due to the two main problems mentioned above.
486
Are men allowed to have any standards in
women?
This is a question I find myself asking women. Women believe men only have one standard for
women: their 'hotness.’ (Sometimes, these women think their personal standards are the same
that men use. These women will focus on a career without realizing men are not attracted to
that.)
What is strange is that these standards are not absurd or 'movie-star' quality. These are simple
standards our parents and grandparents had. Here are the common ones of men.
487
For your reading pleasure:
Italics: the standard.
Text: the El Pooko.
Bold: Feminist replies.
A woman who does not have children already.
Why would a man want to marry a woman who already has children?
Men need to step up to the responsibility of being fathers to these single mothers' kids.
A woman whose focus is on a family instead of a career.
The Forbes article already shows the responses to this.
What!? You want women to be barefoot and pregnant? 1950s are over, baby! You will
accept career women OR ELSE!
A woman who can cook.
Century and more ago, a less attractive woman with superior cooking skills was an attractive
deal. Many girls tried to "wow" guys with their cooking skills (and still do the same today). A
man might find superior dining to be a better deal than looks which often fade.
Why don't the men cook for her? This is a standard back when men use to oppress us poor
women.
488
A woman who is modest.
Most men don't want a woman who dresses like a slut (as a wife). Yet, this standard is seen as
'insisting to control women.' Huh?
Foolish Pook! You should not judge women based on what they wear (despite us doing it to
males). Any stigma or standard based on how women should be dressed shall be construed
as oppression to all women!!!
A YOUNG woman.
This is biology at work. Men prefer young fertile women. Children do not emerge from old
women.
This is hatred at work. Men prefer young women because they want to conquer and control
the poor little girl. They are intimidated by older women because we are STRONG
WOMEN.
Women who are not bossy.
Who wants to be around an unpleasant personality?
You just need to be able to handle a 'strong woman.'
-------------------------Are men allowed to have ANY standards in women? It appears that the only standards allowed
are the ones that women choose for us.
What fascinates me is that men do not attempt to change the standards women hold for men.
Rather, men become a pretzel to remold themselves to fit what women want (and still lose
489
anyway). Here are a few of the standards women have for their men:
Tall
Well dressed
Good job/ has money
Can socialize, has a social network
Handsome
Sweet
Confident
Funny
Wants to be a Good Man
Etc.
When women express their interest in tall men, you do not hear men protesting that they should
like short women. You do not hear men say women should cease looking for men with good jobs
and start looking for bums (rather, they protest the expectation of super-riches which very very
few people ever have). No man says that women ought to accept unconfident men, or boring
men, and so on.
And certainly, men do not throw themselves at the Legislative Palace to enforce their sexual will
into law.
On dating forums (such as sosuave), there is endless discussion of what women want, how
women think, how do men get them, and so on. But absolutely no one would say: "Let us
demand that women totally change their standards for men."
Yet, western women do this to men all the time. Women say: "You are not allowed to have those
standards."
Why must men adjust their standards but not vice versa? This is why I ask: "Are men allowed to
490
have any standards?" You cannot brainwash the men to desire something they naturally would
not (although they try).
Letter defending men having options
491
These women want all the options in the world: to work, to not work, to get married, to not get
married, to abort, to not abort, on and on and on.
But are men to have any options other than The Way? Apparently not. This letter (sent by an
emailer) is common of many women's attitudes towards a foreign wife.
My favorite quote:
WOMAN: So, how does that make you different from women who are after men for their money
or power?
MAN: I have no objections to such women. They can set their criteria in any manner they so
choose. I provide an avenue for men to counter such women. I am not trying to restrict anyone
´s selection of a spouse as you appear to be.
That sums it up. Never trust anyone who desires to restrict your options.
492
An emailer from sosuave writes...
The consequences of the things you discuss are so far reaching. I read your article about "nerds"
just now and how the answer to 99 out of 100 questions in money. You made such a great case
for this. I am in shock. Holy shit.
What I am in even greater disbelief about is HOW EFFECTIVE this marketing has been. It
seriously caused me to pause and quickly scan through my experiences, and I was stunned to
recall SOOOO MANY guys I know who are living according to how women want them to be and
planning their futures according to how women want them to be. And of course, when the men
strive to be "how women want them to be" they end up as soulless, joyless, approval seeking
drones.
So...whatever has the potential to make money is "cool" and whatever doesn't is "nerdy." "Cool"
obviously equates to higher perceived social value, while "nerdy" equates to lower perceived
social value. Smart marketers understand the truth that while men seek to conquer the world,
women seek to conquer other PEOPLE. A man set on conquering the world only needs tools
necessary to his goal. Alas, men have a sex drive and desire women. So in order to make
UNNECESSARY items relevant to the practical-oriented man, marketers made the items relevant
to women. Thus, it becomes PRACTICAL for a disempowered male (in his head) to attain all the
bullshit society SAYS he needs to get women.
493
The car companies were smart and did this early on. But some markets weren't being exploited
enough.
Home Depot for instance. Home Depot sucks. It smells like wood and it's fucking boring. But the
marketers saw that more money could be made. WHAM, out pop about a dozen different home
improvement shows on women's television networks, each depicting house renovation as "the
thing to do" for couples who are married and having nothing better to do with their lives. Chaching. Well done, Home Depot.
I can now see the orchestra dictating how males spend their lives. Feminism pops onto the
historical scene. It does good things at first, like giving women the right to vote, but women
didn't want to stop. They used guilt and manipulation to acquire MORE power...undue and
unfair power. Men conceded and played the feminists' appeasement game. Through massive,
sweeping cultural and media-based efforts, feminism elevated women above men in the minds of
the masses. As a result, "nice guys" crop up in the following generations. They are raised their
whole lives to believe that women are better than they are and deserving of anything they
demand, simply for being female.
The marketers exploit this TO NO END. "A Diamond Is Forever." Chocolate candies are now
associated with a core human emotion (what the FUCK!). Masses of steel, rubber, and plastic
(cars) are seen as the golden ticket to pussy. Being a spineless fraud of a man and giving power
away to women is glorified in movies. Isn't this stuff all too obvious now? We've been played for
suckers. In this system, men, on the whole, lose. Marketers, the economy and women win.
I had occasionally caught glimpses of this system in singularly-occurring moments of clarity, but
I had never fully consolidated the whole picture in my mind's eye until I read your blog posts. I
had never fully understood the breadth of your condemnation of feminism on sosuave.
The jigsaw pieces are coming together.
"Man, I see in fight club the strongest and smartest men who've ever lived. I see all this
494
potential, and I see squandering. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables;
slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so
we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place.
We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war...our Great
Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be
millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact.
And we're very, very pissed off."
The great Hindu Avatar, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, spoke how Maya had to be overcome.
Maya is the World of Illusion.
We live in an image dominated society. If a newspaper had a series of articles of how bad people
were starving in some African country, no one would care. But show one image of a dirty boy
with flies in his eyes, then, all of a sudden a huge outcry is unleashed. "We cannot let the this
happen!" people will say. "We must DO something!" It is amazing how much activity a photo
generates. I got my biggest hits from the blog post of those three lion photos.
Women, and the men who are their satellites, are completely image dominated. It is no mistake
as to why they spend all day getting 'prepared' for an event that is an hour. To a woman, image is
power. So no wonder celebrities are seen as the most powerful to women! Woman's world is the
Maya: The World of Illusion. Its princes are the celebrities. Its great careers are the ones of
highest image (like doctor and lawyer) and jobs that deal with image creating (journalism,
advertising, and anything connected with media).
Many corporations enjoy the Maya as well. I've noticed companies focusing heavily on creating
an image for the young employee rather than anything else. The employee is built up, is said to
be 'amazing!' to be declared as anything but a wage slave, given a fancy title, but this is all just
image. If you were so important, they wouldn't easily lay off you and your co-workers at the
flash of a second. They wouldn't have to spend so much time trying to 'build' you up. In jobs
where you're the most highest leveraged, I've noticed that they try to build you up the most.
495
There is only one way not to be trapped by the Maya. Every guy I have escaped from the Maya
share it. It is to have a soul. It is to have a vision and purpose to your life. If you do not have a
soul or vision for your life, women and employers will gladly give one for you.
Control your life or someone will control it for you.
Thank This Man
Thank this man and thank all other men like him. These men were ambushed and attacked by
feminist soldiers and legal artillery. They have been divorced. They have had their children
ripped from them by courts. They have seen the inner-core of the Matriarchy.
They have been through Hell.
Here is a quote from his pages:
Like most of my age group, I grew up being told that, as a man, I needed to help in making the
lot of women more equitable with my own. I grew up being told I had advantages in the
workplace, socially, in just about every walk of life just because I am a man. Much of this
seemed to make sense. There were fewer women than men in many workplaces, women were
frustrated at being expected to look after the home while men worked at their careers. In college,
I knew intelligent, resourceful women, it seemed entirely reasonable to me that they should be
able to choose what they wanted to do with their lives, just as I had been convinced I could.
I proudly counted myself as a feminist. Some of my female friends insisted that I had a male
chauvinist streak, but I worked hard to suppress it insofar as I could identify it. In my naiveté, I
496
felt certain that as I strived to treat women as equals, they would strive to treat me the same way.
I grew up, went out into the world, got married and had a child. My wife didn't have a career, as
such, when I met her. She worked, yes, but not with any apparent long term aim. I didn't think
much about it at the time, I was in love, and nothing else mattered. Throughout our marriage, I
tried hard to give her the things she wanted, including supporting her as best I could in various
attempts at starting one career or another. I tried hard to share in housework, and particularly to
share in the care and raising of our child, just as I had seen my own father do with me.
Then the marriage failed. It failed spectacularly. My very own Titanic, my personal World Trade
Center, my Hiroshima.
The details don't matter, but suffice it to say that she got custody and my life became hell.
Now, you might ask, "Gee, Pook, why are you quoting this?" It is because I get emails from guys
asking for lady advice and telling me how they are "miserable" because they don't have a
girlfriend or multiple girlfriends. This might be frustration but it is not true misery. We have no
idea the Hell on Earth it is to have your wife backstab you, to financially destroy you, to take
your children away from you, and to have the courts and society back it all up. I have thought
that maybe I could imagine it, but no, there is no way to imagine such Hell. These men have
passed through Ground Zero of the Matriarchy and have warned the rest of us of the ambushes
and sneak attacks waiting ahead. Any one of us could have become like these men. This is why
we must thank them. They have saved us from the legal hell a Matriarchy can impose.
I'm serious. When you find a man in the Men's Movement, who got reamed through the
Matriarchy divorce and court system, thank him. It is those men who are getting the word out on
the horror. It is they who are saving you from a similar fate. They have walked before us and
triggered the mine field ahead. We know now that the path is rigged.
Gather, gentlemen. Let us treat these men like soldiers. They have proved most royally: and, for
their warnings and acts, let our future triumphs speak loudly for them. Young men, let us stand
and salute!
497
Jerry Doyle a Men's Rights Activist?
One of the great things about the Internet for reading is how far curiosity will take you. A simple
search, a click on a link here and there, and as you hop from page to page, you uncover an odd
trail whose information often surprises.
When I listened to a Babylon 5 episode commentary via Netflix, the scene where Sheridan (sp?)
gives Delenn the engagement ring had Jerry Doyle (actor who plays Garibaldi) suddenly start
mocking the entire thing going how the girl would wait a couple of years, get a divorce, and get
all your money taken from you, etc. I filed that in the back of my head to do a quick bio search to
498
see if the guy had been divorced and taken to the cleaners. Sure enough, he was. Who knew that
the wife/ex-wife that did was the chick that played Talia Winters? When she left the show, they
married, had a kid, and divorced a couple years later.
Even weirder is finding out Doyle was a jet pilot, ran for a Republican congress seat, lost, and
began his own talk show. You are so used to seeing these actors as absolute airheads that it is odd
to see them doing... something interesting. Apparently, Doyle agrees with this as he made the
term "grapefruit mentality" which most women, I know, think: "LOL! Let us talk about
celebrities all day! Oh, that Keanu Reeves! Tee hee!" Sure enough, there is a link on his website
to the National Center for Men.
Support against the legal double standards for men may not seem broad on the surface but,
apparently, runs deep. It would have been interesting if Doyle won the election. A TV camera
fades onto Congress and you see Garibaldi there.
Believe the older men
Guess what my first email was? It was a G-mail invite! You guys make me laugh (and yes I took
the gmail invite :) ).
In any case, I've been lurking other forums and listening to plight of older men in their 30s-60s.
On Sosuave, being shy or having problems dealing with girls is seen as the problem. But with
these older men, being divorced, being manipulated (for decades), being screwed by the family
courts, being shattered financially (and at their age they can never recover from), having their
499
children separated from them, paying child support for eighteen years, and suffering more
strange laws against them is the real problem. And if the separation doesn't occur, it is living The
Way, that pre-formulated life which they abandoned their passion and dreams for. If they are
bored, they consider themselves lucky. THAT is a problem. Those Sosuave issues of 'not getting
the girl' are like straws compared to these life wrecking icebergs dead ahead.
"That is easy for you to say, Mr. Pook!"
Believe the older gentlemen when they say, "Not getting the girl will not be the source of life's
misery." I have yet to hear an old man say, "Gosh, I regret making mistakes with women."
Strangely, it is, "I wish I hadn't married when I did" or "I wish I stuck to my passion in life and
didn't do what others wanted me to" or "I wished I invested earlier in my life instead of working
for someone else."
Why Marriage No Longer Works
I am a believer in Occum's Razor. The simplest and clearest explanation is often the best one.
I am seeing divorce occur among the usual married but also with traditional religious. Sometimes
it is the woman who initiates the divorce. Other times, it is the man.
500
The desire for divorce has been said to be the effect of immorality, paganism, repression, bad
male attributes, bad female attributes, and so on. But one thing every example has in common is
that the person claims authorship of their lives.
Imagine one's life is a story and the person wants to control the pen writing that story. Sounds
fair and good. But no one could alter the state of their marriage in most of history.
Throughout time, arranged marriages were the norm. In fact, throughout most societies people
were not the author of their lives.
Marriages tend to work when one of the couple does whatever the other wishes, or both do what
someone else wishes. One may claim authorship over their lives and, often, that can lead to
divorce if she (or he) decides to "get more" somewhere. If two claim authorship over their lives,
then no relationship is possible.
Most men surrender to "love." They go along to get along. In long marriage couples, studies (and
validated by my own parents) show that often the man does what the woman wants.
It is the modern illusion that marriage is supposed to be about happiness. Households and vast
family trees used to be revered. Aristocracy protected their line very carefully but even the
peasants were family centric. It was not a nuclear family, but even more. Young couples often
moved in with their parents. Four generations could be under one household.
Marriage was a joining of two families and, that alone, was seen as a major effect. There was no
atomization. The heritage went on. Young sons would take over family farms and businesses or
become king.
The radical change has not been marriage or sexual mores but the complete abolishment of
heritage. No one cares about the family line. A woman having kids from multiple fathers would
never have been permitted back then. Why? It would destroy the family line.
501
Marriages worked because there was a family line and marriage was seen as an extension of that.
Today, marriage is legally and metaphorically seen as a contract of consensus. One could
describe it as people duct taped together (the duct tape being the law). People did not tolerate
single mothers and whores because of the family line.
For proof of how revered the 'family line' was, consider the bastard. In Shakespeare, the 'bastard'
played most of the villains. The bastard was an outcast.
It is not a coincidence that the abolishment of the family line has disrupted reproduction rates to
below replacement levels. When the family line was intact, people had many children. The
family line went on and spread.
For over a century, women have used "love" as something men to surrender so she claims
authorship over her (and now his) life. Curiously, young women today are now even throwing
out their charade of 'love' and expect men to obey anyway. I have tried to tell them that attacking
romance will not be helpful to their long-term plans. They do not listen and wonder why they are
alone.
It is important how we define a 'successful' marriage. Is a long lasting marriage a 'success?' Not
if it produces little children and gives the man an early grave. A 'successful' marriage should
leave the earth with more people than when the married couple was born. A 'successful' marriage
should have some sort of wealth to pass down to heirs...even a poor old farm. A 'successful'
marriage should create a family line.
This means the modern 'successful' marriages are bunk. There is no wealth to pass down. No
children aside from a replacement or two. And no family line. So having one in the couple claim
authorship of their lives does not help.
The 'successful' marriages (using the definition above) appear to neither claim authorship. They
let family, religion, or something else be the author. It is this non-authorship what is declared to
be 'non-freedom.' So when a feminist or someone says she needs more 'freedom,' she wants more
502
power to be an author on her life (i.e. to do whatever she wants).
It is true that women were 'controlled' back then. But it is also true that men were 'controlled' as
well. As today we may protest this non-authorship, the results cannot be denied. In non-English
countries, we can see some of this still in effect. In China, the family line is so cherished that
they are willing to kill their own daughters in order to have male heirs. In America, Mormonism
is growing by leaps and bounds because of the reverence toward the family line. It is not a
coincidence that one of the largest genealogical research libraries exists in a Mormon Church.
A common modern delusion is the belief that creativity means the absence of controls, of
constrictions. Rather, creativity was the opposite. Mozart's education was very controlled, very
constricted, and steeped in mathematics and Humanities. But all this heat and pressure created
diamonds. A good poet knows the mathematics behind music and how language is constructed.
Bad poets only expel their feelings like gas. From working out, to achieving new goals, to
excellent painting, poetry, or writing, it all depends on definite controls.
If someone went into a gym and said, "I will become author of my own body!" and began doing
one exercise and then another with no sense, he would be thought mad. It is the same with our
mind. If you read comic books, you will be stupider than someone who read Plato. In order to go
anywhere in life, one must push. And to push means constrictions.
It is well documented that children prefer order to chaos. In dating and love, there is confusion
because there is no system, no controls, nothing. Courtship is dead. The harder rules we impose
on ourselves, the happier we become. The key to improving life is to improve your standards for
yourself.
When someone acts in "who they are," they are content. A painter who paints is content. But if
the painter wants money or something else and becomes a banker, he becomes unhappy despite
getting what he wants. When we let "what we want" interfere with "who we are," we get bent.
In order to solve the marriage problem, we need to ask, "Who is marriage?" instead of "What I
503
Want in marriage." I expect everyone to disagree with this. But that is because people still
believe 'relationships' happen. No. People do not even see one another. They are in a relationship
with a "want" and are pursuing it. But wants are fickle. They change and multiply. This is why
women are never satisfied. It is because they are in love with wants, not men.
504
Media got it right in 1986: Newsweek predicted
the 'Marriage Crunch'
Here is a fantastic article Newsweek did on the 'marriage crunch' way back in 1986. The article is
full of great quotes and really reveals how some women think (such as one woman deciding to
buy a house instead of getting a husband to do it. So that is the purpose of husband, to give them
into a house?). It also shows many women's panic over this article back then.
One quote I love (paraphrasing) is that the older single men are 'bottom of the barrel' while the
older single women are the 'cream of the crop.' I would say it is the other way around. The older
men get, the easier it is for them to marry.
Twenty years later, Newsweek had to 'apologize' for the article. It was apparently 'disproven'
since ten of the women mentioned in the story eventually married (but probably not who they
really wanted). Remember, even feminists who swore off marriage end up getting married
eventually.
It was like Moses came down the mountain and said, “Boo on you women.”
MRA statistical guys could find another fun statistical line similar to the "If you are a single
woman at forty, you have more of a chance by being killed by a terrorist than marrying."
505
Women are desperate to get married
An emailer sent me a link to this hilarious Oprah story. A man was able to marry five women at
the same time. Obviously, there are smart, strong, and substantial women who could only get
'played' if the man was a demi-devil. Well, at least Oprah thinks so.
According to all of these women’s' stories, Eric's technique was to wow a woman with his false
résumé—which often included references to him being a Navy SEAL or a pilot, including a crisp,
white Navy uniform, and being orphaned and raised by abusive foster parents. He would then
ingratiate himself to the women's families and propose marriage within weeks of dating.
From one of these women’s perspective, she meets a Navy SEAL in his crisp, white Navy
uniform, thinks he falls in love with HER immediately, and proposes marriage within weeks.
Anyone who proposes marriage within weeks is crazy. Why would a decorated military officer
jump for marriage with one of these girls? It is because she thinks she is "all that."
There is a joke that I like which reveals women's narcissism. "My girlfriend and I both agree on
one thing: we both think she is hot." Women do not LIKE these guys. They just like them liking
her. Even if you are a mega-dork, she will still think you are 'OK' because you have good-taste
for liking HER (which is obviously the greatest of all goddesses on Earth, at least she thinks so).
506
Like many of the women, Melissa says Eric displayed a "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" split
personality. "One day he would just be so sweet and loving and then, like, the next day, all of a
sudden, he would blow up. He'd be throwing stuff around and push you around," she says.
Women love this! You become a mystery and are highly entertaining. Despite this 'personality
flaw' that Oprah complains about, these women still marry him even after knowing of this.
"He told me he had inherited money from his mother, who had died when he was 2 years old,"
she says. "He pretended like he had money, but I never actually saw it. He played it really well.
I mean, he had a story for everything."
This guy knew what these women wanted.
A part of Eric's modus operandi, these women claim, was to lie about his own finances and steal
from them.
"He stole four checks from my great grandmother, wrote one, made it out to me for $4,000,
forged my name to the back of it and deposited it into my checking account," April, Eric's fifth
wife alleges. "He also wrote three other checks to pay off some credit cards."
Awesome! A Gold Digger Male!
All of these women were made vulnerable by their emotional neediness, Dr. Robin says, and Eric
was able to "sniff out" that they were weak and vulnerable. These women believed that they were
insufficient on their own, so his con was sure to work on them. The goal for these and all women
is to repair their spirits and eliminate this feeling.
So the doctor's advice is for all these women to become feminists. By not needing a man, they
507
won't be prone to con games! You go Oprah!
What is interesting to me is that this guy did most of his behavior in Houston which I am located.
His behavior is awful but if a woman did what he did, she would have been applauded and the
man 'shamed' for speaking up.
A woman is allowed to marry under false pretenses. A man is not.
If women are allowed to be con artists in the game of love, why not men? Are these women mad
that he wasn't in love with her or that they were not as 'hot' as they thought?
508
Advertisement
And now a word from our sponsor....
Hello, Pook's Mill readers! We have acknowledged that many of you have not been saving
kittens from nasty feminists (hence, your refusal of marrying them). Perhaps if you allow me a
moment, I may rekindle your heart and cast it not to love feminists but to save the kittens.
When you say that feminists are evil and mean, we do not disagree. Indeed, Nature spitting out
such an abomination as the feminist frightens even the philosophers (who only tend to frighten
509
themselves). But, do keep in mind; Nature did not create the feminist as the feminist emerged
from a decay of isolated female debris. This female debris, totally left alone by worthwhile
males, was made easy plucking from unworthy males who saw these girls as merely holes to fill.
This is shocking...oh yes. But after a few wham, bam, and thank you, ma’ams, the female debris
puffs with rage and wounded pride.
As you may have observed, feminists project their own failings and desires at us, the champion
men. With devilish tongues wagging to shame us for their own transgressions, we are condemned
of sins worst than a Barbaros. It is feminists who need to get laid. It is feminists who want power
over their husband. It is feminists who are bitter and cold. It is feminists who have no faith in
love. When a woman accuses of sexual harassment, she is the one who desires it. When a woman
is obsessed with talking about men taking all the money and the power, the very things she
desires are money and power.
All men are flung onto a scale with the difference being how much you are brainwashed. On one
end of the scale is 'lots of sex and no guilt,' i.e. the home of the Jerk and their ringleader: the
monstrous Pook, and on the other end of the scale is 'no sex but lots of guilt,' i.e. the home of the
Nice Guy and their ringleader: the pleasant and pure Anti-Pook. The amount of guilt you feel
with women correlates to the amount of sex and interesting life you have.
Sirs, we cannot have men living for pleasure these days! Who would pay the taxes needed for the
medical care of fat people and the retirement for the Baby Boom (and those on failing pensions)?
Therefore, I ask you do the following:
First, ignore everything Pook says. He is a monster.
Second, fill your mind with guilt. Become guilty...over everything. When you wake up, apologize
to the nearest woman. You do not need a reason as she will accept the apology without question.
Apologize that you are a man. Apologize that you have an Adam's apple. And then, apologize
that you didn't apologize sooner.
510
Third, become convinced that manly pleasure is decadence. Competition, testosterone, sex,
genius, and the humanities- these are to be your new sources of sin. Your new virtues shall
include domestication, appeasement, spinelessness, lack of sex, estrogen, and, in general, the
will to obey anything with a vagina.
You may ask, "Why ought I to give up my spine? Why should I hang my testicles on her mantle?"
Sir, you know not what you do! By being a man, you leave the feminists to fester alone. What
they always do is buy a cat, sometimes multiple cats. Have you seen what happens to these poor
cats after living with a feminist?
Yes, it is shocking. We must put an end to the suffering to our little felines. I ask you to marry the
feminists!
What! You do not readily accept? Oh, you think that YOU will be howling just like that kitty?
Well then! Do not despair as we will so toxify your brain with brain washing that you sit through
the marriage with a dumb smile on your face...a smile of a drugged man. It will not be a smile of
passion, of pure pleasure of living. It will be the smile of a sap.
You ask the cost of this brainwashing that will make feminists become appealing? This is the
only little hitch. It will cost you your soul. Yes, it is unfortunate, but we really need you to marry
these feminists.
Hurry, then, to your nearest brainwashing center...I mean Academic University! Enroll in the
Feminist Studies or perhaps almost anything in the Humanities. Read how men kept the poor
women down back then and even today. Know how barbaric testosterone is. Stop eating meat as
that only creates more testosterone. Watch Opera and daytime TV. Attend the Landmark Forum.
Once you are sufficiently brainwashed, you will look at the FAT, WHALE-like, and POWERHUNGRY feminist and smile with delight. All your brainwashing will tell you that THIS is the
'ideal woman.' She will look at you, worthwhile male, and say, "What!? Not a movie star or a
millionaire? Not good enough!" But, within time, she might come to appreciate you. …Might.
511
But while you are marrying the feminists, we will free the cats. Marry the feminists not to help
them but to save the cats. Do it...for the kittens. Marry a feminist today!
And, behold, how happy these saved kitty kats became!
Part three
512
Change and your context
513
The end is not nigh
The Doomslayer
In the 1960s, and perhaps a little before, a wave of doomsdayers appeared and spoke of the
Malthusian disaster ahead. The Malthus view is simple: as human population increases, we will
run out of natural resources, out of food, destroy all Nature, and end up with massive famines
with civilization collapsing.
In the 1970s, this context gained greater traction. Sensationalist authors appeared such as Paul
Ehrlich who wrote the book, "The Population Bomb," which predicted mass famines in the
1970s and 1980s. Unfortunately, Environmentalism used doomsday ideas to propel their beliefs
into the political sphere. The EPA was established. People began to fear that we would pollute
ourselves to death that all natural resources were going to vanish, that mass extinction would
result with the expanding Human population, and, in short, we faced a very bad future ahead
unless we took political action now!
To consider how widespread the Malthusian doom was going on, nations began implementing
controls on 'population control.' Pope John Paul II was internally debating the entire matter. Like
wildfire, the Malthusian context of disaster reached throughout the globe. School curriculums
were being remade to highlight the threat to civilization as we knew it. Children were taught to
recycle, but probably more to get their parents to recycle. We had Captain Planet and the
Planeteers and many cartoons of that time mirrored the doomsday at that time: that Nature on
Earth was doomed because of Human population. Even popular writers like the science fiction
author Isaac Asimov began writing stories to reflect the approaching Doomsday and to help the
514
movement out.
Then, all of a sudden, the Malthusian Movement collapsed in the 1980s. No one can make the
same arguments as, say, in the "Population Bomb" without being laughed out of the room. Even
though academics and perhaps some of pop-culture may still embrace Malthus, politically,
Malthus is dead. So what happened? "The election of Reagan." No, that doesn't explain the
change in John Paul II's attitude as well.
Could one man have stopped the hysteria single-handily? Could one man have such influence
that it is still sending shockwaves across the Earth? Yes. This is why he was given the title
known as 'Doomslayer.'
The man is Julian Simon. Mostly a student of economics and statistics, he said things, at the
time, which were shocking and (at first glance) seen as stupid but then he marshaled the
enormity of statistical and factual information to back up what he was saying. What Simon said:
People are the Ultimate Resource.
Simon argued that the Malthus doomsters used incorrect contexts to apply to Human behavior
(similar that an artist's context shouldn't be applied to that of biology which is the realm of
biologists). To the doomsters, Humans were nothing but mouths and creators of waste. Simon
said, "This ignores the creative and constructive elements in Man. Humans create more than we
consumes. If this wasn't so, Mankind would have gone extinct long ago."
To Simon, people were the ultimate resource. The reason why technology has advanced so
suddenly a couple of centuries ago and is still so rapid today is because there are so many Human
minds on the planet. "Could we have discovered electricity, combustion, created the Internet,
mastered flight, if the Human population was still only four million in number, living in ditches,
and hunting rabbits?" So, instead of seeing more people as bringing in more poverty, Simon saw
it as enriching Mankind. Of course, there are factors to be factored in such as education and all.
But, without a doubt, after the Industrial Revolution when population began to skyrocket,
515
technology began to skyrocket with it.
One of Simon's more famous quotes: "The large population is not because Humans live like
rabbits but it is because we have stopped dying like flies." Increased life expectancy, decreased
infant mortality, elimination of common plagues and diseases, have allowed people to have only
a few children and expect them all to live to adulthood.
If this is true, then the reverse also applies. If Humanity decreases in numbers, then our rate of
technological progress and discovery will slow down as well. Keep in mind that when the world
feared overpopulation, the big problem might be underpopulation.
Here is a fun statistic. When America was founded (or, rather, declared independent), the
population of the nation was three million. Today, the United States population is three hundred
million. And despite this vast change, the biggest problem in America is that of lifestyle. People
don't starve; they die because they are too obese. Even in third world countries, political
instability causes the famines, not the lack of food. Consider the great Ukrainian famine created
by Stalin.
Natural resources are infinite.
In this shocking statement, Simon left many mouths hanging open. "How could resources be
infinite?" they asked. "Simon has gone mad." After all, the Earth has a finite size. This means
there had to be a finite amount of oil, tin, copper, and everything else. For this example, let us
focus on oil.
The physical matter of a substance is commonly misinterpreted as the resource. Iron used to be a
rock until Man gave it purpose. Oil used to leak from the ground to poison lakes and ponds. And
was nothing but goo until Man gave it purpose.
The true natural resource is energy. With energy, one can transform one resource into another.
The reason why oil is pursued is not because it is black goo. The reason why oil is pursued is
516
because we obtain energy from it. Mankind has obtained energy from many sources such as coal,
to wood, to even whale blubber.
Also, keep in mind that most oil is not accessible. To the Human consciousness, all the oil we
can obtain is only in our present ability. But with advances to drill deeper and obtain it from
places people didn't think of (such as shale), the resource of oil actually grows and grows. "Oil
does not come from the ground," Simon said. "Oil comes from our heads." Many people don't
realize that there is a century's worth of oil in the tar sands of Alberta alone. But, like food, the
thing that afflicts the supply of oil is not the consumption but "political instability."
Simon believed that Human discoveries were infinite just as resources were. "We must not make
the mistake of Kelvin," he warned. Kelvin declared that all discoveries were made on Nature and
that all there was left was to refine them. Kelvin said this in the early 1800s. Our great
grandchildren will live in a life more abundant and rich than we will, with more discoveries, with
greater possibilities. This is a good thing.
The more resources Humanity uses, the more we create.
Again, more shock came from academic circles. But there is a clear correlation that as a
population grows and consumes more; the resources also tend to increase in quantity. Simon
wondered about this correlation. His answer was that Humans were the ultimate resource and
gave to the world more than they consumed. Hence, Mankind kept growing richer and more
numerous throughout Time.
The Environment is getting better, not worse.
Simon provided a historical view. When a nation becomes wealthier, they can create
infrastructures such as sewage centers; can afford to buy scrubbers to place into their factories,
and so on. So as a nation gets wealthier, its natural environment becomes better as well. We can
afford to grow trees and forests. We can afford to dismantle oil rigs rather than leaving them at
sea to be slowly dissolved by Nature.
517
Simon goes on with these shocking (at the time) ideas and backing it with an army of facts,
statistics, with trimmings of charts and graphs. Viciously attacked from almost all angles, he
continued. Paul Ehrlich went after him, and Simon eventually got tired of it.
"Why won't these people argue the facts?" he wondered. So Simon decided to make the
doomsters put their money where their mouths were. He announced a bet that, for the sum of
$10,000, someone could pick five non-government controlled resources. After a period of time of
that person's choosing, the prices of all five resources will be lower than before. Ehrlich jumped
and took the bet. He chose five resources and picked a decade as to when the bet would be
concluded: 1990.
In 1990, Ehrlich wrote Julian Simon a check. All five resources went down in price, some
dropped through the floor.
While Julian Simon was not influential in academia, he became extremely influential politically.
Politicians were taking notice and, politically, the Malthus movement suddenly died in the 1980s.
Pope John Paul II invited Simon to the Vatican so he could explain his ideas in person.
Afterward, the Pope condemned Malthus and population control.
Isaac Asimov wrote a stunned letter to Simon (which Simon includes in his book). Asimov
couldn't believe Simon's conclusions but admitted his bewilderment of Simon's presented facts.
Asimov stated, "No, I...cannot believe it," as it was too much of a reversal for him to take. Simon
commended Asimov for at least allowing himself to be 'amazed' unlike most of his critics.
In 1997, Wired Magazine wrote the article, "The Doomslayer" that gave Simon his title. What is
interesting is that a Danish statistician, by the name of Bjorn Lomberg, had read this article and
went bonkers. This Simon person had to have been an idiot. Lomberg says he was a member of
Greenpeace, and knew that this doom and gloom had to be true. Lomberg, a professor of
statistics, decided that Julian Simon would make a good exercise for him and his graduate
students to deconstruct.
518
The problem was that Julian Simon's facts and figures were correct. "I was stunned," Lomberg
revealed. He wrote several articles for a Danish paper which resulted in mass articles against him
for other papers. So Lomberg wrote the book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist" which turned
him into a sort of celebrity. At first thinking Julian Simon's optimism was a sort of 'American
arrogance,' he found there was much truth in it. And, like Simon, Lomberg was savaged by the
establishment. People do not like their contexts challenged especially when they have invested
their entire lives in it.
Julian Simon, in the early nineties, grew angry how politicians were using doom and gloom to
scare people into voting for them. He targets both liberal and conservative politicians. His
monumental book, "The State of Humanity," is stuffed with facts. He died not too many years
later.
What Julian Simon taught me was that facts should build our contexts rather than the other way
around. Simon had no axe to grind on the doomsters. In his class, Simon did something
professors would never do. He made his opponent's work required reading for the class. So the
class was required to read Ehrlich's "Population Bomb" before they got Simon's material. "The
facts are fundamental," he would say. His opponents, on the other hand, would say, "No, it is the
theory that is fundamental." I'd rather build a context on facts as that is solid ground.
I won't forget Simon's debating techniques. He would issue public bets to people. In one debate
about, I believe, overall air quality, his opponent went first and put up a chart showing
improvements to the air ever since this air quality program went into effect. Simon nonchalantly
put up his own chart of not the air quality of ten years but for a hundred and showed that even if
that air program hadn't existed, the air quality would have gotten better.
Keep in mind that Julian Simon was not critical of Environmentalism (even Lomberg today is
still an environmentalist) (and an environmentalist created his website). Simon's target was
doomsdayism. Would the world end in 1980? How about 1990? This was the nonsense that was
going around and affecting public policy. People love Doomsday and invest their emotions in it.
519
This is why they go crazy if you tell them, "There is no doomsday!" Normal people, when told
there is no doomsday, are joyous. When we invest our emotions into these hysterias, it makes it
harder for us to let go of them.
So I want to raise my glass towards Simon's direction. He is the paragon of the Pookish Second
Commandment: Fight the Negativism. Those old doomsters of the Malthus have their last stand
of Global Warming, and they are fast losing support on that. Too many people have taken up
Simon's torch. I cringe now when I hear guys in the Men's Movement talk about "society's
imminent collapse." Don't they realize that optimism and good cheer creates powerful
movements while doom-shoveling does not?
Become a Doomslayer. When a Doomsday comes your way, knock it down. Free others of its
mind control. The reality is that believing in doom and gloom leads to an unhappy life where the
only joy is Schadenfreude (the joy of a villain). And the reality is that those full of optimism and
good cheer often influence people more. There are books on "Optimistic thinking" that sells by
the millions. It points out that most people think pessimistic and have trouble being optimistic.
No wonder Doomsday can catch on as a political movement but fails utterly when it comes to
our personal lives.
Die Doomsday! Die!
Wired Magazine's excellent article: The Doomslayer.
Julian Simon's Ultimate Resource II (he put his writings on the Internet for free when he died.
Check out that table of contents with such controversial titles. The Grand Theory chapter is my
favorite.)
520
Huge oil discovery! Doomsters stunned!
The U.S. has discovered a huge oil deposit over 20,000 feet below sea level in the Gulf of
Mexico. This oil deposit would boost U.S. reserves by 50%. It is a spectacular find! The oil
companies win. Consumers win. The U.S. wins! Everyone wins! Well, not everyone. The
doomsters lose. But even if the doomsters won, they would still be unhappy and angry. The
reason why I never subscribe to doomsday is not only is it often wrong, doomsters become
unhappy at the sight of good news.
[Notice the wording of that article? The discovery 'underscores the importance' of supply? What
a joke of reporting.]
"But Pook! This is only delaying the inevitable. Oil is finite, and we will soon run out."
We will never run out of oil. Oil comes not from the ground but from our heads. As we get
smarter and more sophisticated, we harvest oil out of the darnest of places. The tar sands of
Alberta have more oil than the entire Middle East.
"No!"
Yes! From the Economist:
So the Middle East remains the only place that really matters in the oil world, right? Wrong,
according to the Canadians. For decades, they have been complaining that the official beancounters have unfairly neglected the energy trapped in the Athabasca tar sands of Alberta—rock
521
formations laced with hydrocarbons that can be mined and processed to yield barrels of oil.
Geologists have long claimed that the energy content of these sands is so great that there may be
more oil trapped in Alberta than under all of Saudi Arabia. The snag, of course, is that it takes
far more energy and money to squeeze oil out of this mucky stuff than it does to pump it out of
the ground at a conventional oil field.
The world is full of oil. The question is getting to it.
Did you know that the world is full of gold, too? There are acres of gold in my backyard. The
problem is that they are so small that the current technology to get them at profit does not exist.
The tar sands of Alberta are just one small example. The Gulf Oil find just shows how stupid it is
to be a doomster. Why bet on disaster? Anyway, do you know how expensive an oil rig is? How
about five billion dollars. It takes another billion dollars to install it. Collecting oil is very
expensive and takes considerable brain power to make it profitable.
This is why I say oil comes from our heads, not from the ground. The obstacle to us and the
infinite oil out there is from our limited Human minds. There is no such thing as limited energy.
We can split the atom and harvest infinite amounts of energy. There needs to be no conservation.
History shows that the more resources man uses, the more he creates.
"But Pook! We only develop better technology because of supply. The less supply, the more
demand for it!"
Yes, but as Julian Simon said, this is an extremely simplistic way of thinking about it and, as he
said, very naive. We do not want oil because it is oil. We want oil because it is energy. We are
converting black goo into energy. The demand is for energy, and it comes out of our heads. Is it
not amazing that as world population jumps up to six billion within a century, we have food and
resources to support such a population? And is it also not fascinating that the areas that are
impoverished are not by natural means but due to political turmoil. Political instability, not
522
entropy, causes famines and lack of resources. Unleash Humanity. Give them freedom! And
watch the world be filled with resources.
Don't worry about these terrorists
With the events of today, I'd like to put up a historical parallel:
The Barbary pirates were pirates that operated out of Tunis, Tripoli, Algiers, Sale and ports in
Morocco, preying on shipping in the western Mediterranean Sea from the time of the Crusades
as well as on ships on their way to Asia around Africa until the early 19th century. Their
stronghold was along the stretch of northern Africa known as the Barbary Coast (a medieval
term for the Maghreb after its Berber inhabitants), although their predation was said to extend
throughout the Mediterranean, south along West Africa's Atlantic seaboard, and into the North
Atlantic, purportedly as far north as Iceland. As well as preying on shipping, raids were often
made on European coastal towns. The pirates were responsible for capturing large numbers of
Christian slaves from Europe, who were sold in slave markets in places such as Morocco.
The comparison is apt. These Barbary pirates were Islamic and were nation-less. Many countries
thought the Barbary pirates had and would always exist. They gave them tribute so their ships
could pass freely.
When the U.S. became a country, it had no navy to protect its merchant ships. In 1784, the U.S.
Congress gave $60,000 as tribute to the Barbary States (this was significant money back then).
523
But the Barbary pirates kept attacking which prompted the building of the United States Navy.
The U.S. Navy then went on a series of wars along the North African coast from 1801 until 1815.
The United States Marine Corps also played significant role in these wars which is why, today,
the opening of the Marine Hymn has..."to the shores of Tripoli".
Whether they are attacking ships or airplanes, the villains play the same role in history. Thomas
Jefferson had no mind to appease, as he launched the navy after them, said:
"If the enemy shall put to death, torture or otherwise ill-treat any of the hostages in their hands,...
recourse must be had to retaliation as the sole means of stopping the progress of human butchery,
and... for that purpose punishments of the same kind and degree [should] be inflicted on an equal
number of their subjects taken by us till they shall be taught due respect to the violated rights of
nations."
524
World War IV
World War III could be said to be the Cold War. But World War IV is certainly about Radical
Islam.
525
Please watch this. We must expand people's context!
World War I ended in an armistice. World War II ended with unconditional surrender. World War
III ended when Soviet Russia was dealt with. But the new conflict is, at its root, religious. They
despise the Pope more than, say, President Bush. There will be no armistice, they will not
surrender. It is a conflict of those who worship life versus those who worship death. How do you
make a deal with someone who straps bombs on their own children?
A larger version is here for your viewing pleasure.
The video talks about how Radical Islam has hijacked Islam and is spread out among the
population. But the difference between Radical Islam and their Muslim brothers is that Radical
Islam worships death.
Soon, the West will be split among itself. Those Westerners who worship death more than life
will, naturally, side with Radical Islam and proclaim death to the West. One of the factions,
feminists, clearly falls into this category. It explains why the civilization and religion that
brutally treats their women and literally keeps them down, the Radical Islam, is ignored by the
feminists. Who are the feminists' enemies? Not just men but life-worshipping men and women. It
is you men who do not live for materialism, who do not live for image, who do not live for
power over other people. While Radical Islam gets a pass, feminists attack Christianity for
'putting down the women'. Feminists despise life so it is no longer strange to me to see them be
unannounced allies of Radical Islam (as their enemies are the same).
What I suspect is that Radical Islam is not new but very very ancient. It is the viewpoint most
civilizations and religions had long ago. The first Christians took the fish as their symbol as the
Mill of Time had the constellation of Pisces swing overhead (the previous era was Aries, the
'Ram'). While Jesus was very poor and did not seek violence, it ought to be remembered how
'revolutionary' that 'turning the other cheek' was in that era (the era of the Roman Empire). These
Death Worshippers are not new...they are twenty centuries behind the times.
526
527
The Ultimate Weapon to Level Civilization
From a tactics point of view, America's entry into Iraq has allowed America to have access to the
Middle Eastern stage. Before, this wasn't possible. The U.S. had to ask permission of Saudi
Arabia to stay there or another country. Now, it doesn't have to and, make no mistake, this is
grating on China and Russia and took them off guard.
Many of the Middle Eastern countries (such as Egypt) are scared of Iran as Iranians are Persians,
not Arab. Hezbollah is being funded by Iran. It appears they were testing how far they could go
with Israel (as Israel has made many concessions in these later years) and seems surprised that
Israel has bitten back.
Keep a close eye on China and Russia. Both countries are ancient enemies yet have a very close
alliance. Iraq (under Saddam) was heavily funded by Russia. North Korea is obviously heavily
influenced by China. The idea is that the Chinese/Russian Alliance is playing a game of foreign
policy chess. They, themselves, wouldn't act openly as it would be too obvious. But by using
satellites or even pitting terrorists and/or dictators against the Western Nations, they are using
nations like North Korea, Iran, and Iraq to thwart Western Nations' policy. If you notice, the UK
is staying very close to America (it is America's #1 ally). Japan is screaming, "WE WANT
MISSILE DEFENSE SHIELD NOW!!!" after North Korean missiles went into the Sea of Japan
(which may have been shot down). Japan is a wealthy nation and is way too close for comfort to
North Korea and China. Naturally, Japan is America's second closest ally.
It's well known that China has speedily been building up its military. However, Russia is
528
beginning to build up its military. Now, why in the world does Russia and China need such a
military? This question should answer itself.
The Doom and Gloomers are running around like chickens with their heads cut off. "We are
doomed!" they say. I see the reverse. You either confront the problem and solve it or it festers.
Much of the current conflicts are because the problem is being confronted rather than
"contained."
My solution is for the West to unleash the most powerful weapon ever known to Man unto its
enemies. This Ultimate Weapon is Feminism. There are bombs and biological weapons, but
Feminism is a sociological weapon (as powerful as the Black Plague if demographic predictions
hold true in Europe). Feminism would become lethal in a country such as China with there being
so few females per male. The West will survive Feminism. But other nations will crumble.
Nuclear weapons were used to end World War II. Feminism could be used to end World War IV.
Nations will fall onto their knees and say, "I beg you! No more! Stop the feminism! Anything but
that! Anything but that!!!"
Too bad there is no antidote yet.
529
Civil War in the Matriarchy
Semi-pussified males and men mistakenly believe Feminism is the Matriarchy. This is
understandable because feminists are 'visible' because they are trying to invade the masculine
sphere.
Women are smarter than men because they have manipulated us to not just work for them; we are
to die for them at a moment's notice. It was during the 1940s and 1950s that women began
pooling their leverage and cementing it over men. This was the time when 'engagement rings'
from Da Beers were popularized. Media began turning women into goddesses and idealized the
50s nuclear family. That nuclear family idea is the woman staying at home and getting men and
society to work for her. If a man was not married, he often could not even find a job. The
employer would say, "I will give job to the guy who has a family because he needs it more." Up
until this time in all of Human history, women had to work. Now, due to mechanization and all,
530
they could get men to work for them.
Men working for women and obeying them- this is the Matriarchy. The victory was so complete
and men were completely wrapped around woman's fingers. But this wasn't enough. Not content
to have the masculine sphere work completely for the feminine sphere, women sought interest in
conquering the masculine sphere as well. These are the feminists. As men, we can see them
because they are entering our masculine world and trying to take it over. But the feminine world
is invisible to men, and they had no idea how controlled they were.
Feminism has sparked a civil war within the Matriarchy. The feminists believe they have a
manifest destiny to conquer the masculine sphere as well. They believe that freedom means that
women are allowed to choose which gender they want to be (man or woman). Of course, men do
not get this choice as we are sinking closer to becoming a legal underclass. For proof, know that
woman has a choice of 'career' or 'homemaker' but man only gets on choice: 'job.' Women have
careers, men only have jobs. Remember that.
As Feminists attempt to absorb masculine values including careers, promiscuity, and all, they
come in conflict with the old style Matriarchy. At first, they were set to respect the boundaries of
one another and existed side by side as feminists pushed for more control of the masculine
sphere. Then something happened.
Men began to notice the feminists intruding on their world. And their initial complaints were
against them. They said, "I will never marry or work for a feminist. Take her slutty career ways
away from here!" Matriarchy who relies on men working for them noticed that their servants,
men, were rebelling against the feminists. They saw the writing on the wall: if men can convince
themselves to not work for some women (feminists), they may stop working for all women
altogether. With speed, the Matriarchy began to attack the Feminists. But it is not a complete
attack. Matriarchy is attacking Feminism only where they make female domination most visible
to men. This is why when you hear a Matriarch write an anti-feminist book, she says, "Feminism
has gone too far." The complaint is not that Feminism exists but only that it has gone 'too far.'
What defines 'too far?' 'Too far' is nothing more than men noticing the manipulation.
531
Feminists view conquest of the masculine sphere as the key to power. They are, literally, power
hungry. They do not care if some men stop working for them since they can now work for
themselves.
As the two set their sights on one another and fight, this is the time for men to slip away from
both.
Baby Bust Alters Politics
It is common to hear the "Doomsday" and "End of the West" mantras on the Men's Movement
sites. "Society is set to collapse!" they say. And most of this is due to the falling birth rate.
But, lo and behold, the birth rate is an average of everyone. Behind the average, however, some
people are having children while others are not and this difference alone is reshaping the political
landscape.
The greatest transmission of values from one generation to another is through children. Feminists
532
do not believe in children which is why they are on the path to elimination. I've said earlier that
gays have no political future because of the very fact they cannot have children. No matter how
great your art is, how brilliant your essays, how spectacular your career, without children you are
the walking dead.
The history of the Church, over two thousand years, is full of schisms and heretical groups.
Where are they now? Gone into the mist of time. There is a reason why the Church is extremely
rigid on matters of sexuality (against abortion, against gays, even against contraception). It keeps
a pro-fertility element precisely because of the ravages of Time. It is curious and a little funny to
see some of the modern ideas in ancient times (there was a group of Christians who believed in
abortion, created a schism, but this group bred to non-existence by 600 A.D.). So when you hear
something about the Church (or other long standing institution, the Church didn't become the
oldest western institution by being stupid) being rigid on matters of sexuality, to them it is a
matter of long term survival over short term political gain. From their viewpoint, it is better to
lose all of England in a schism than to change what they believed was Christ's definition of
marriage.
Feminism is an excellent social weapon for Western Nations to hurl at its enemies. While the
West will survive Feminism, will China? Will the Middle East? Nuclear bombs, in comparison,
are too inefficient, they explode and that is it, while Feminism sticks around longer than radiation
and infects all of society. Feminism sterilizes the women, assaults anything considered art to the
society, and turns wimps of the men of the afflicted society. Sun Tzu would have been awed of
Feminism's awesome destroying force... all done without firing a shot or declaring war.
Do not listen to the doomsters! The reason why the West has survived so long is because it is
strong, even successfully digesting feminism and currently expelling it from its stomach. The
West's enemies will not be so fortunate. China cannot survive feminism. Neither could a nation
like Iran. If Feminism has had such an effect on the West, imagine what it would do to the West's
enemies.
And smile because the predicted doom and gloom is not to come.
533
Women hate Feminism only when it interferes
with Feminine Aristocracy (Matriarchy)
534
Here is a fun story of women wishing to be barefoot and pregnant. These women are very
unhappy with Feminism and having to work.
"We can't seriously expect that 1960s and 1970s social feminism (a concept not even 50 years
old) is going to surpass what the female body is genetically, physiologically and psychologically
programmed to do."
Even to this day, feminists do not accept the reality that men and women are biologically
different. When it comes to their different brains, they believe that the brain differences are only
reactions to social conditions. In other words, in a feminist utopia, men and female brains would
look exactly the same if examined. Yes, they actually believe this.
Becca, a 29-year-old doctor, wants to "find that woman who burnt her bra, and beat her up."
Western women had it the best. They had the richest and sweetest men in the world. They had the
best living conditions and best life available to women. Yet, they threw all that away for
Feminism.
Feminism has revealed all of women's manipulation techniques and has woken men up big time.
Now men not only ignore feminists, they also are now immune to the old school of manipulation
techniques. Feminism didn't put the genie out of the bottle. Rather, the pain of Feminism has
slowly revealed to men that women were the wishers and men were supposed to be the genies.
Men are putting their genie back into the bottle and going their own way.
She says she loves her job; she just hates that she has to have it.
The key word is 'have.' Remember, men have jobs, women have careers. Women are supposed to
have options. As a male, you are not allowed to have options (even the discussion of options is
535
verboten!). You have one destiny: to work as a wage slave forever until you die. If you jinx the
system, you were to be shamed. But this shame and ostracizing is merely an annoyance and
laugh compared to the pain of The Way.
Women LOVE work. They just hate HAVING to work. For men, hah, there is no option.
"I want to be a wife and a mom, that's all I ever wanted to do," she says. "I'm a girl. I want to be
able to be a girl. I shouldn't have to be a doctor."
I shall translate her womanese:
In female language, to be a man is to work and to be a woman is to not work. She doesn't mean
girl in the true 'nature' sense (these same females would scream if you suggested a wife had
responsibilities to her husband like put food in his stomach and keep his testicles dry). She
means 'girl' is the aristocratic sense.
My friend Brianne, a brand-new attorney, jokes about her career plans with other female
lawyers: "Work the corporate environment for three years max and get pregnant during the third
year so we can leave."
And this is why many employers are suspicious about hiring young women. It is an absolute
waste of money for an employer to train you so you can just quit.
536
Of course, these women do not speak for all professional women out there. One woman, a bigtime lawyer and involved mother of two, told me it was "scary" that women are dropping
hundreds of thousands of dollars on school only to work for just a few years.
It is 'scary' only because it invalidates her choice to become that 'big-time lawyer.'
Feminism is about power. A feminist wants the power of a man while keeping the power of a
woman. In the country, we call this: "Having your cake and eating it too!" Each gender has its
abilities and minuses. These women want access to the options both gender has without
accepting the responsibilities either gender had. To these females, they don't want to be a girl in
order to live. They want to be a girl in order to receive the entitlements girls received (such as
not working and letting others do things for them).
I will solve all their female problems with the gender with a single sentence: "Ladies, ask not
what men can do for you, ask what you can do for men." Chivalry only worked when you treated
men like noble knights instead of worthless peasants. You can't expect knights to save you when
all the knights are, and can be nothing but, serfs in your Sexual Feudalism (where she owns all
the property but you just work on it).
537
The Questioner
As I go through the emails, this guy had so many questions that I'd thought I'd answer here (in
case others have similar questions!).
For your reading pleasure:
Regular text = Pooky Wooky
Bold text = The Questioner
OK to the point. I feel that all your posts are very... separate, a whirlwind of ideas which
538
don't fall into place and form some sort of context or "reality map" (I hate saying that). At
least for me it hasn't.
You are correct! When this blog started, I didn't know what the heck I was doing. I just threw
stuff up there. (Editor’s note: …yeah I noticed that too ).
"But you can throw stuff on Sosuave just as well, Mr. Pook." Now, now, Sosuave is a 'how to get
girls' forum. I already paid my dues there. Besides, I'd rather talk about other things then 'how to
get girls' which, on Sosuave, I'd have little choice.
So I fashioned the Mill to be the point of this blog. The Mill is that maelstrom, that starry wheel,
of the ancients. From the Mill, all astronomy, religion, art, and science revolved around. It is a
union of Math and Art. It is the astral plane.
With all the anti-feminist pages out there, I chose a different path of waging war on Feminism
through the Humanities. Imagine a well of wisdom that, from whoever drinks of it, becomes
wise. Now imagine a source of that well, some mill trickling water into it. This is a wisdom blog.
Am I looking for a "philosophy" from your writings?
Should I stop looking to find some truth or answers from the collection of your sosuave
posts?
Should I just take them as singular pieces of advice?
The puzzle is not Pook or his posts. The puzzle is Nature. All of the sosuave posts were ideas on
the Puzzle of Nature. Some of the posts came up with only theories. Other posts identified laws
(such as testosterone as the Secret of the Jerk).
For advice, follow the Pookish Commandments. They seem so trivial and 'common sensical', but
they are the greatest regrets of old men. Take the first commandment: Be who you are. Most
539
people don't live like that. They care so much what other people think that they never do what
they desire. What does it matter if you have a high paying job in a distinguished profession but
you don't desire it? WOMEN and OUTSIDERS might think you are a success but if you aren't
happy doing it, what the hell is the bloody point? As for the Second Pookish Commandment:
Fight the Negativism, it sounds trivial but so many people retard their lives by their attitudes. I
have found pessimists and chicken littles to be the grand losers in life. Besides, who wants to
around a defeatist anyway?
"Self improvement," as I'm still not quite sure what you mean by self improvement.
Improve myself for what? A better bench press can be measured, memory can be improved,
but what can I improve in my "self?" Aren't I a constant? Isn't my personality set from my
experiences? Am I just evolving my outer self? What is "self improvement?"
Self-improvement is exactly how it sounds. It is not evolving your outer shell. It is growing a
pearl inside the shell. Self-improvement is just self-actualization. You are becoming who you
are! You are unleashing your soul. You are not bottling your soul so you pretend to be an image.
You don't work out to turn your flesh into a masculine dress. You work out because you love it
and because you have goals. I LOVE working out. I love how it makes me feel. I love the
testosterone surging through my veins. It makes me happier, smarter, more action oriented, and
just all around a more pleasant person to be around. The LOSER is someone who works out for
the appearance alone (in other words, most women and idiotic males).
I hammered self-improvement on Sosuave because improving YOURSELF gave greater rewards
than improving your GAME. With so much focus on manipulation strategies, you'd have a much
more satisfying life and an automatic way to get women by improving yourself.
Self-improvement was a way of saying: "Invest time in yourself rather than investing time in
girls." Why? It is because girls come and go, but YOU are forever!
And finally "Nature."
540
You always talk about "Nature," but what do you mean by nature? Am I right in
saying...Women are attracted to testosterone, (any fool knows this) this is nature at work?
Right?
What else is Nature? Are we all completely "Nature" or is that what women are? Where
does Nature work and apply?
Have you ever tried sailing a boat? You know that the sail must be adjusted to the wind. By
harnessing Nature, you harness the wind to propel the boat. A sailor is working within the rules
of Nature which is why he is a successful sailor. If a sailor decided to buck Nature, his boat
wouldn't be moving anywhere.
Some people believe they are so god-like in intelligence and wonder that the world ought to be
manipulated into whatever shape they want. Xerxes believed this. He went to the beach, stared at
the ocean, and said to the waves, "Thus far shall you come and no further!" The waves had no
concern for Xerxes' orders and moved in. If Xerxes didn't suck in his pride and retreat from the
waves, he would have drowned.
All science and humanity is based on unraveling the laws of Nature and using them how we see
fit. We couldn't have airplanes flying through the sky unless we uncovered many of the
principals involved such as uplift and aerodynamics. We couldn't have the Green Revolution
unless we understood hybrid technologies and the principals of irrigation and fertilizer.
Our life standards improve when we harness Nature's laws for own benefit like the sailor
applying the sail to move the boat. My goal was never to tell you HOW to live but only reveal
the laws operating under the process. WHY do girls go for jerks? I investigated until I found a
satisfactory answer. WHY do married men routinely become fat, bald, and look like your ran
them over with a steam-roller? There are reasons for things.
So what is 'unnatural?' Feminism is unnatural, that much is certain. Women trying to be manly
541
and men trying to be womanly is unnatural. What is unnatural is the mockery and breaking of
these laws. The result is always the same: unhappiness and despair.
The Nice Guy is an unnatural male. So there is no wonder that he is filled with unhappiness and
despair. He is not obeying the laws of nature.
While Biology is about the laws concerning life (which genetics has now dominated), Physics
being about the laws concerning motion, the Humanities are about the laws concerning Human
Nature. History, Law, Language, and many other things hold the Humanities as their root. If the
Humanities become corrupted, the rest will become corrupted as well.
When the U.S. Constitution was being written, the Constitutional Debate was essentially a debate
about Human Nature. The U.S. Government has three branches because the framers knew that no
one should hold all the power nor should it be split into two. I am told by a reliable source that
present day Senators (each and every one of them) feel that they ought to be President (the
House is more humble). So why is there only one President? It is because the framers knew there
should only be one Commander-In-Chief, not a hundred. There must be one voice to command
the troops. After all, Human Nature says there can only be one general, not a hundred. By
obeying the laws of Human Nature, the U.S. Government has relatively endured. The point is
that it is still around. If there was something seriously flawed, such a government would have
collapsed such as the Soviet Union.
Like a building, our lives can collapse when we don't obey the laws of Nature. "But I desire
FREEDOM! I want to be FREE from these laws of Nature!" some might say. This is a major
mistake. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because people made laws. It is the fact that life,
liberty, and property existed beforehand (as laws of Nature) that caused people to form laws in
the first place.
The essence of freedom is obedience to Nature's laws. This is why, in the Declaration of
Independence, the British colonies cite Nature (and Nature's God) as the authority for the
dissolving of those political bands. I'm citing a political example because it’s well known and
542
shows how this context is applied everywhere. Contrast this to those forums where there was a
whole galaxy of 'systems' and 'philosophies' with no constants established, no revelations of
reality, except which poster had the biggest ego...which revolved around those who believed they
best manipulated the world.
Solution to the Matriarchy
Too many emails! Here is another...
Dr. Pook,
543
All this matriarchy business is a bit depressing. Your sosuave posts always left a nervous
excitement in the stomach, but Pook's Mill leaves an icy sinking in the stomach.
Perhaps both are awakenings, but to two different realities. One was pleasant and productive,
the other perturbing and preventative.
I don't know about you, but I had planned on getting married and having kids (in 5-10 years),
but with these realities in my face, I wonder. I want kids, but I want them to grow up with both,
their dad and their mom. I wonder is it possible to create a family the way I want? And if so,
how? You suggest living one's own way. And I agree. But certainly a man can do that, and get
married and raise a family.
What's your personal solution to the matriarchy problem? Wait until the laws change and I have
gray hair? Marry a woman from another country? Then I'd have to move there too. What if that's
not in my plan?
What’s a workable solution? ...Is there a way to qualify or distinguish a woman with traits who
would not turn into one of these horror stories? Then again, if I did, people change over time.
Really, it's unpredictable, isn't it?
Do you plan to get married? Have kids? If so, do you know how you'll approach it? And how?
I'm curious.
544
My hope is not to discourage anyone or spread unhappiness but rather the opposite. I want to
encourage people to go for their dreams and to be happy. This is the point of the Pookish
Commandments in the first place. If you do not work for your own dreams, you'll end up
working for someone else's.
I also hope that no one will take my word for what is going on. Rather, you begin to recognize it
in your surroundings. A man marries a foreign woman and the women (and saps) begin saying
the meanest things about this man. What crime or sin did this man commit? In an era of casual
love and even homoerotic love, why do they care so intensely about this guy's personal life?
Why the hate? Notice that there are new laws in place in America to restrict men from talking
and marrying foreign women. Why?
You turn to the left, and you see frequent misandry on television. When asked about what you
want in a girl, you say, "I want a girl who doesn't have tattoos, has no baggage, doesn't do drugs,
and who enjoys being a female." They will call you sexist. And just think, once upon a time
women wore dresses.
You turn to the right, and you see young men who got married but are now fast getting bald and
becoming fat. "What is happening!?" you wonder. But the stress and constant "lifestyle" wears a
guy down. They lose sleep. Their eating habits degrade. They decide to work all the time because
they would rather be at work than be home with wife and the kids. And they end up being total
saps to the wife.
I hope everyone begins to recognize these things around them. Once you see it, I think it is much
much harder to fall into the Matriarchy trap. In the same way, once we realized the Nice Guy
WAS the pathetic twerp that he was we were freed, for the most part, from Nice Guyius
Loseramongus.
I find talking about feminists and domineering females boring but necessary. This is why you'll
see some blog posts about it but then, immediately afterward, I change the subject. I'd rather talk
545
about the Mill or put up humorous things. I've seen too many guys destroyed by divorce and
paralyzed by a bad marriage.
As for myself, I am going to continue to follow my dreams and hopefully create a financial
system around those dreams. If your work involves doing what your passion is, you win (as then
it ceases to be work). I am not looking for a solution to The Way as in looking for some foreign
woman to fulfill everything. My views became solidified a year and a few months ago when I
buried some close friends. Life is short. None of us is getting younger. And while there is too
much to do in a life, choose to follow your dreams.
The best solution and prevention to the Matriarchy is to increase your soul. I have found those
who get trapped in the Matriarchy do so by becoming literally soulless. They have no passion in
life. And if you look at those who have the strongest souls, they are the movers and shakers of
the world and history.
Even more interesting is when women they think of me as a sex object but soon shy away from a
full relationship. Why? They see Pook as a sex object because he works out, doesn't supplicate,
and so on. But they shy away once they realize that Pook isn't going to drop everything in his life
just to become a wage slave (to get the house, then SUV, then the kids, and so on). As Mirror of
the Soul says, when a woman wants to marry you just say, "Wonderful! Then I will retire from
my job and stay at home while you work." The face that appears on the women is interesting
because they know they cannot manipulate you, you see through that. They almost always move
on.
I will marry when I meet a woman who lets me be who I am and who doesn't seek power over
me. There is no rush. Women have a shelf life. Men do not. Women only have a few summers
until they begin to age drastically. Men age well. When single, men look younger than their age.
After the age of 25, the odds shift to a man's favor. Women realize that they are going to age and
begin to search for a guy to marry.
What is infuriating is how many women respond to men going their own way by, at first,
546
rampant shaming and then, second, psychoanalyzation. "If you had a wonderful girlfriend, you
would not say such things!" or some other nonsense. If the women would join us in removing
these penalizing laws and cleaning up the family court, things would be much more productive.
(Many women get very nervous at this talk because they know there is some truth in it.) I am not
asking women to love us. I am asking they only be not allowed to hang us. No one should have
the power to financially devastate another or send them to prison on false charges.
Pook whispers: Psst, there is a hidden Men's Rights Activist who is a major MAJOR media
figure in America. He is not a member of Generation X or Y either. He has softly said the same
things but immediately stopped when women began asking questions. He already has enough
political knives coming at him; no need to add more.
547
What should the Men's Movement do?
"Political Action!" Not yet. As my formal education and actually working on political
campaigns, there is more to a movement than making blogs and petitioning the government.
Let me tell you the tale of two movements. One succeeded wildly while the other failed. One
altered the entire government of America while the other keeps losing power and influence. One
movement won, the other lost.
The Conservative Movement in America began in the sixties. It started intellectually, and
through magazines, pamphlets, words, and so on, the movement persuaded and grew. The first
main 'student' of this movement who would become active in politics was Ronald Reagan. This
movement then took to the talk radio and to the Internet to counter the mainstream news. People
heard and listened. Many were persuaded by substantial intellectual reasons. The focus of the
movement was on education, not action. And once people began to become educated and
persuaded, they took action themselves. I was in Washington D.C. during the election of 1994
when Republicans won control of both houses of Congress and everyone was in shock (everyone
548
in the beltway that is). The Democrats held Congress for over forty years! And, yet, massive
political change occurred.
Today, the Conservative Movement has propelled the Republican Party to control practically
every branch, including the Presidency. The real battle for the movement is now, not against
Democrats, but against old school Republicans who are angry that these conservatives are the
reason they are winning elections (and who are actively trying to defeat them). The Movement
battles are now more for inside the party against the typical beltway mentality. Illegal
immigration is a good example of this when the beltway began to go one way but the Movement
came and cracked down on it.
The other movement, the one that failed and will continue to fail, is the Democrat bloggers ever
since the year 2000. Liberals know that they too must make a movement similar to how
Conservatives did. But they are missing a critical difference. While the Conservative Movement
engaged the masses and attempted to persuade, the Liberal Movement does not do this. Rather,
the Liberal Movement exists in its hyper-reality of blogs such as DailyKos. They believe that the
movement is growing by GETTING LOUDER (rather than education, engaging, and persuading
the masses). These Liberal Bloggers may be very loud but, when the next election occurs, the
Democrats lose more power (which, they think they must get even louder).
Also, it should be noted that the Liberal Movement fails to put out any optimistic reasons to vote
for it. People do not like hearing their country trashed. Americans naturally don't want to hear
that America is evil and that Americans are stupid. You want your movement to be on the good
side of the country. If you have it set up where the country loses and your movement wins
(because the position is based on gloom and doom), then the movement will never succeed
because people do not like to fail.
I know this may all sound controversial, but you can see the conclusion in the election results.
The question is: does the Men's Movement want to WIN or does it want to 'play the role' and just
keep losing politically? (While never blaming the loss on the movement but on grand
'conspiracies')
549
I am interested in actually winning. In order to do so, the first and ultimate thing the Men's
Movement must do is focus on education and persuasion. The goal is to educate and persuade as
many people of the Men's Movement as possible. Some of this work has begun with websites
and papers. But it needs more, much more. It is also important to remember how you are
perceived politically. You don't want people to think you guys are just frustrated low income
workers being loud on blogs. The media will destroy you. This should be well known. The only
reason why the media has not focused as much on the Men's Movement is that it is not
considered a threat...yet.
"When does the education process end, Monsieur Pook?" It never does. In the 19th century, a
free trade movement began in England called the Cobden movement. There is much that can be
learned from the Richard Cobden Movement especially as one of the few successful libertarian
movements. Now, when the Corn Law was overturned and Cobden died, the Movement died as
well. Why? It is because, after achieving political victory, the movement thought everyone had
been persuaded. But politics is never static. You must never stop the education; you must never
stop the persuasion. This, the Conservative Movement also learned as they began to lose seats
after 1994. The Education never ends. What good is it for the Men's Movement to succeed only
to have Feminism appear again?
My point is to show why certain movement succeed or failed, I'm not arguing here for the
content of those movements. I am talking political TACTICS. If the Men's Movement is
interested in winning, it needs to learn them and come up with a plan. My suggestion is mass
education and persuasion and to never stop. The rest will come later.
Instead of trying to FORCE political action, keep educating the people and political action will
be demanded if not carried out by itself.
550
What should the Men's Movement do II?
*Disclaimer*
Keep in mind that this is meant for the politically engaged and public part of the Men's
Movement. When I mean 'Men's Movement,' I am referring to the political motion, not the
websites, blogs, message boards, and those things.
551
In politics, you must pick your battles. In other words, you pick the battles worth fighting over
and don't waste time on unobtainable objectives.
The battles I think are worth fighting over (and winnable) for the Men's Movement are...
-Calling attention to and re-organizing the Family Law and its courts.
-Make Paternity Testing mandatory for birth certificates and especially for child support.
-Have legislatures re-examine the laws concerning rape.
-Have legislatures re-examine the laws concerning sexual harassment.
-Have Congress amend and/or gut the Violence Against Women's Act.
-Fight for changing Divorce Law.
This, already, will be an uphill battle. All of this is possible however. Paternity Testing is
winnable because it is not that expensive to do DNA checks. It is very difficult to argue against
paternity testing for child support to the mainstream populace (why should a man who isn't the
father have to pay child support? Only a hateful feminist could support such an evil idea). Yes, I
know they are using weird legal precedents currently. Expose it! Most of society just isn't aware
of what is going on. It is the Men's Movement job to educate the vast population on these issues.
Also, Paternity Testing can be argued for medical purposes. Having the father known allows a
proper medical history for the child.
In order to change the current laws, attention must be called to them. It is doubtful the current
legal system in place for Family Law would be abolished. However, it can be altered. A good
example is the money for child support being looked at BOTH the father and mother's income
552
rather than just the father's. Georgia and Australia both changed the child support to examine
both parents' incomes much to the anger of feminists. Whenever the Men's Movement is
successful, it ought to examine why so it can replicate the success later on.
Many of the legal battles can be fought under the banner of equality. Should men and women be
treated equally under the law? This makes sense but is rarely done (such as the divorce laws and
even sexual harassment laws). Why should a woman walk away with a slap on her wrist when
the same action could send a man to prison? And what protections do men have against selfinterested women who throw rape and harassment charges knowing they are not true? These are
all issues that will get politicians to consider.
When you contact your representative, handwrite your letter. Do not type it or email it. These
representatives are sent tons of spam and mail from politically interested organizations. People
say representatives do not listen to their constituents, but this is not true in America (at least).
They do listen, especially the letters that are handwritten.
And most important of all, the Men's Movement should educate, educate, and educate. Those
who have been on the bad side of Family Law (those unfortunate divorced men whose lives got
shattered), tell your stories. However, do not tell it with seething anger as no one will listen to
that.
I know this is controversial in the Men's Movement, but I believe the only key to political victory
is getting some women on board. Once women come on board, there is no stopping the
movement. I am not talking about all or most women, only a few. Many women know what is
going around and may be sympathetic enough to participate (if we give them the chance). It is
important for the Men's Movement to keep the door open for women to come aboard if they
wish. Politically, this will make the Men's Movement impossible to be pegged as "angry male
losers" if a few women are strategically placed as spokesmen.
Another big thing that could be pushed is teaching fertility in the already present government
sex-ed classes in schools. While fertility is not much of an issue for men, it is extremely
553
important for females. Women need to be taught that the height of their fertility is from 18-25
and goes downhill from there. The Government will be supportive of this idea since all Western
Governments want to increase the fertility rate. Feminists will hate it because once women
become educated about their fertility, they will most likely not pursue a career.
So what should the Men's Movement NOT do?
Obviously, the Men's Movement should not fight the wrong battles. These are battles that aren't
related to the movement and/or have a high probability of never occurring. When the first
Congress was debating the Declaration of Independence, irrelevant topics appeared such as the
issues of slavery and off shore fishing rights. The only battle was Independence. The political
issue of slavery was too divisive even back then. The political issue of off shore fishing rights
was too irrelevant. I've seen such issues appear in the Men's Movement which need to be
dropped ASAP:
-Libertarianism (Libertarianism is fine and good, but what point is there for the Men's Movement
to fight this battle when Libertarian groups already exist?)
-Medical Marijuana (What does this have to do with the Men's Movement?)
-Anything dealing with gays (While homosexuals fall under the Family Law, fighting the Gay
Movement as well as removing these penalizing anti-men laws is not prudent. Pick your battles.
Fighting the Gay Movement isn't going to bring the Men's Movement closer to reforming
divorce and family law.)
-Kicking Women (Rampant "woman bashing" not only insures that no women will join but that
many men will be turned away by such negativity even when justified. Think tactics. If the Men's
Movement is interested in success, it will have to refrain from being perceived as 'kicking' all
women [for substitute, kick the feminists.])
-Giving up on young men (We all were brainwashed once. Going around and calling any male
554
who doesn't immediately agree with you names is not going to influence them. With all the
young males born to single females, thinking they are 'dead' and giving up on them would also
be a mistake. In fact, the Men's Movement could serve as guidance for these young males who
never had a real father.)
-Trying to get women to change their behavior and their attitude (This is pointless and a waste of
time. Focus on the laws, not the women as it is the laws that put us in jail. You can avoid the
women and their attitudes for the most part. But you cannot avoid the law. We do not want
women to love us; we only want women to be unable to hang us.)
-Be filled with hostility and rage (Rage never inspires anyone to join a movement. Others like
you may agree, but that vast mainstream will just conclude you are an angry loon. Optimism and
explanations of how things would be better with our proposed changes will persuade people.
Anger and thinking the world is going to end will not.)
Women and their behavior/attitude should not be the focus of the Men's Movement. Rather, the
focus should be on reforming the law. Politically and in the open, attack the law, but going after
the women (who have used these laws to their advantage) is going to push away the politicians
and mainstream we need to persuade.
A man is not entitled to love and good responses from women. But a man ought to be entitled to
be immune to a woman having the legal power to destroy his life when innocent of no crime.
I believe the probability for victory vastly increases if the Men's Movement focuses on smaller
battlefields rather than large, epic ones. Men's lives would improve considerably if divorce,
family courts, and child support were reformed. Make that the first target and save the other
issues for another day.
555
556
Never forget New Year's Eve of 1999
Before I move on to other merry Pookish work, I must fully reiterate the second commandment:
Fight the Negativism. Now I wished I could rephrase it as Become a Doomslayer. Consider:
Nature and Nature's God has infused in us the ability to grow with hidden aces of undiscovered
talents in our back pocket, ripe to come out and into play. In short, we have been crafted with the
possibility for creating achievements. However, it is lazy to prefer an alibi than an achievement.
As such, most people believe in alibis to cover up the emptiness they know their lives are.
Because of this desire for alibis, Humanity is prone to believe in hysterias...in crisis...in
doomsdays. There are many (unsuccessful) movements set to tune of Doomsday. All Doomsday
Movements are practically LOSER movements. These movements give us the alibi to not
557
achieve. And in all these doomsday movements, there is usually not a 'God,' but there is almost
always a 'Golden Age' that has eroded because of some serpent. The Doomsday Movements have
no savior but they always have their devils.
The Men's Movement, which is budding, is set to go one of two ways. Do you want it to become
a Doomsday Movement where the only belief is "Society will collapse!" because the devils
(Feminists) destroyed the Golden Age (before Feminism where, we are told, all marriages and
the sexes got along perfectly!). Is the Men's Movement growing people or is it giving men alibis
to do nothing? It's a good question, and I think there are examples for both. The Movement is too
young yet to say which way it will go. I hope it veers away from Doomsday.
To illustrate just how intellectually easy and tempting it is to think in the DOOMSDAY context,
never forget New Year's Eve of 1999. Historians will forever mock us. I'm even ashamed to have
lived through it.
As you recall, the 'Doomsday' was that computers were set to the year of two digits such as 88,
89 to mean 1988 and 1989. So, the lament went, when the year went from 1999 to 2000, the '99'
digit would turn to '00' and computers would think a century had passed or that Time had reset
itself!
The dangers, we were told, were ominous. The stock market would collapse. Airplanes would
fall out of the sky. Trade ships would sink. There would be a rush on the banks. Missiles would
fire without warning. The world was over due to our newfound reliance on computers.
Billions of dollars were invested into 'solving' the problem. Governments around the world sent
in special task forces. Companies reviewed their infrastructure and paid millions if not billions to
fix this problem or to inspect the system to make sure the company does blow up and fly through
the air when the year went from 1999 to 2000. At New Year's Eve, companies all over the nation
(and probably globally) sent employees to staff the offices and observe the computers. "Oh no,"
the executives said, "We don't think anything is going to happen. But we must have employees
sitting around and doing nothing at midnight just in case."
558
Inevitably, Father Time marched and the year went from 1999 to 2000. Some stayed home in
fear. A few huddled in their bomb shelters.
…And nothing happened.
No explosions. No collapse of society. Not a single airplane falling from the sky. Doomsday had
been dodged. Does the world sigh in relief? No! The world creates another doomsday! And
another and another!
559
Going beyond your own
way
Jesus was a jerk
560
One of the problems about reading any great works is that they tend to enter cliché. There was a
woman who, after reading Hamlet, thought it was nothing but a play of clichés (since the play is
so often quoted, parodied, referenced, etc.). The same occurs with the New Testament.
Jesus has been portrayed in modern media as a type of wild eye hippie, who he and his followers
held hands and sang kumbaya. It is no surprise that many think Jesus was a feminized nice guy
who everyone loved.
But the Gospels contradict this image entirely. Jesus was a jerk. And by jerk, I mean it in the
good way as in the divide between Nice Guy vs. Jerk. Jesus defied practically everyone and told
the most learned scholars in that era that they were wrong. He spoke parables and never seemed
to care what anyone thought of him.
"When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the Temple
courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves and others sitting at tables exchanging
money. So he made a whip out of cords and drove all from the Temple, both sheep and cattle; he
scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves
he said: 'Get out of here.' (John 2:13-16)
WHOA! Jesus had BALLS. He made a whip, kicked over tables, and drove the money changers
from the temple!
Reader, have you kicked over tables, drove sellers away, or even begun whipping people in
public? Far from being a wimp, Jesus could get angry, heaven help you if you stood in his way.
But...surely Jesus decided to bring peace and unity among all men...a type of pre-pre-pre-preproto-seed of the usual United Nations type dream...Let us read below:
561
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a
sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a
daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his
household." (Matthew 10:34-36 NASB)
The Lukan parallels read:
"I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled!" ... "Do you
suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on
five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three."... (Luke
12:49, 51-53 NASB)
"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and
brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:26 NASB)
Jesus was no diplomat but a trouble maker, a true jerk. He wanted to divide people, for the good
to be good and set itself apart from the wicked. But it is clear that Jesus is not an appeaser and
certainly didn't believe in appeasement. It sounds like he wanted people to stand for their beliefs
in Him even if it meant going against their family or town. Jesus cared not a whit for
pussyfooting.
While it is true the shortest verse in the Bible was, "Jesus wept," Jesus wept because his friend
had died. It is a huge distortion to say that Jesus cried all the time or was some depressed Goth or
hippie. Jesus told a woman, who was so busy washing and preparing things, to stop and join him.
When a disciple asked about leaving to bury his father, Jesus told him, “no,” since "let the dead
bury the dead." Jesus spoke with the authority of great teacher and not as a scribe which
562
astonished everyone. (Today, in democracies, everyone always believes they are little geniuses
but back then, a peasant knew his place. Jesus was radical.)
Jesus did not try to get along with the religious rulers of his time. He openly defied them and told
others to do the same. To Pontius Pilate, he never recognized his power but told him, "The only
power you have has been granted from my Father above...." This Jesus was the total opposite of
a Nice Guy; he was the greatest jerk History has ever seen.
"But Pook!" you might say, "He did not use violence or act like a thug! Truly, he cannot be said
to be jerk like." But people LOVE those who commit violence and act like thugs. Just witness
the beautiful women visiting maximum security prisons or the current media frenzy in America
around the supposed killer of the Ramsey girl. No wonder the crowd freed Barboras. Two
thousand years ago, at the height of the Roman Empire, violence and force were common and the
way. To be a jerk then was to defy that social template. And Jesus kept defying again and again
and again.
Far from being loved by everyone, Jesus was greatly despised. No wonder the political swords
went out for him. And it is no wonder why certain people relished his torture and eventual
crucifixion. While Jesus has been displayed as some pretty boy with a girlish aura and long hair,
I suspect he had more of a testosterone "bad ass" sense about him.
For you struggling Nice Guys out there and those who are trying to purge Nice Guyism from
their systems, remember that Jesus was a jerk, not a Nice Guy. He was assertive, he never
appeased. He did not wilt when it came to conflict. He stood up and defied.
I smile when someone points to a situation and says, "Do what Jesus would do." Imagine their
surprise when I pull out a whip!
"Ecce Homo!" Behold, the Man.
563
Indeed. He acted, lived, and died not as a wimp but as a man. It is far past time for Christian
males to abandon wimpiness and embrace Jesus’ fine example of pure masculinity.
564
Women are smarter than men
Henry Ford was a smart guy. Not because he could recite literature, history, law, or any of that on
the fly but because he could get others to do it for him. When critics accused him of being stupid,
he invited journalists in to answer any question. Around him he had his employees who answered
all the journalists’ questions. "See how smart I am?" he would say. But a journalist said, "But Mr.
Ford, you didn't answer a single question." But he didn't have to since he had others to do it for
him.
From the vantage point of men, women have these characteristics:
-They show no interest in philosophy, literature, or higher spirituality.
-They show interest in celebrities, gossip, and a lowly ordered life (lack of spirituality).
-They appear emotional with lots of 'oohs and ahhs' as well as crying on the spot. They have
temper tantrums. They appear giddy one moment and contemptuous the next.
-They are physically weaker than men and do not perform well in the subjects of mathematics
and engineering.
-They turn down 'nice guys' and mate with thugs and other scum. Sometimes they become single
mothers and end up in poverty.
-When they are young, they think of dating all the time and are always on the look-out for 'Mr.
565
Right.'
And yet, women are smarter than men. On MRA forums, you can hear men constantly give
examples and say how dumb women are almost with a white-hot frenzy. What do women being
dumb have to do with MRA? Nothing, yet it persists. The answer is that MRA men are in denial
of the truth: that women are smarter than men.
Let us look at the vantage point from the woman. In fact, let us say for this moment you are a
pretty woman. You do not need to work. All you need to do is get a guy to work for you. Viola,
you are done.
On a man's financial statement, a girlfriend would be labeled as an 'expense' while a wife would
be labeled as a 'liability.' But on a woman's financial statement, the boyfriend can be labeled as
'income' with the husband being an 'asset.' Men dislike dating for one part it is always money out
of their pocket. But imagine if dating was putting money into your pocket, and, if you got the
target, you would have an asset? Why, dating would fill your mind day in and day out! You
would always be on the hunt for a working asset to acquire or 'potential asset' that was young
enough to come and bloom to make money (especially if that asset had a college degree). Now,
do see how women are smarter than men?
Celebrity worship is something that irritates us Men. Celebrities are not geniuses but quite the
opposite! But scratch beneath the surface. Celebrities have money. Celebrities have power.
Celebrities own the media. Maybe they aren't that stupid for how else could they have acquired
that? Women look at celebrities as teachers for themselves. Celebrities are mind numbed fools
(which put them in common with women) yet they acquired so much. Women want that so they
look at the celebrity as the model, the template to follow. Women often refer to their male
admirers as their 'fan club.'
Intelligence and smart are too different things. A man may be intelligent yet be stupid. Michael
Crichton married five times and divorced four times. He is an intelligent man but pretty stupid.
Isaac Newton was intelligent. But he was stupid. (See how he pined for this one woman and her
566
daughter (!)) Many men are intelligent. Most are stupid though.
Women are not the emotional ones. They see love in a very calculated manner. It is men who are
the emotional ones. It is men who kill themselves over a girl or go bonkers in some other way. It
is men who are the saps. The bottom line is when it comes to romance, women use men more
than the other way around. Even the men who think they are 'using her' really it is the other way
around. How do I know this? Compare the 'work' a player does to the average hot girl. The
average hot girl just puts on some 'hot' clothes and that is it. The player, meanwhile, spends
agonizing amount of time working his 'game.' This game is like that wooden maze with the
mouse (who is the player) and the cheese (the pussy) at the end. But who made the game? The
women staring from the outside (as calculated as the scientist).
But what about the lack of spirituality? Surely, men are smarter from abandoning the lowly
ordered life! But again, no. Spirituality is something that even a beggar can obtain. But a big
house, fancy car, and all that, no, only a few can get riches.
Many MRA men have realized that killing yourself for a job is not a smart idea. In fact, the smart
thing to do is to have a stress free job with benefits (which women all obtain should they choose
to work). Men might say, "But they do not know mathematics and engineering!" Actually,
women don't know the humanities as well. So women changed the humanities to be whatever
they felt like studying (feminism got rid of all the dead white male authors for example). So
women are popping out with 'college degrees' that are worthless. But worthless to WHOM? Why,
to many men at businesses who are interested in workers. This type of woman never had any
interest in really 'working' anyway. She just wanted the status.
In the West, men operate from a Slave Morality (as described by Nietzsche). The biggest
believers in the Slave Morality are the 'nice guys.' Nice guys are great for marriage (i.e. slavery)
but they are not good, to women, for dates and all. Why? And the 'thugs' that men think are losers
because they do not operate from the 'Slave Morality' mentality, these thugs and 'scum' have
much in common with western women. Women operate from a Master Morality. Every pretty
woman thinks she is a huge celebrity in her little world. Thugs and 'scum' (from the male point of
567
view) operate on a Master Morality so they are more in tune with women. From woman's point
of view, nice guys are the 'losers and scum' who they must be careful with their words as to not
break the slave's heart. But the thugs appear to be more 'equals.' When a Nice Guy finds his balls
and acts that way to a woman, she is astonished. Now imagine how stunned a slave master might
be when a slave stood up to him! The slave master would think, "Wow, that slave has lots of fight
in him. He will make a great slave! He is not broken in yet." Notice how the thoughts are
identical with women?
Women use shame tactics because they work on most men. Women, like little Caesars, can order
men about at their will. This is why women are smarter than men.
But what of the single mother who lives in poverty? On first glimpse, yes, she appears very
stupid. But actually, she is CLUMSY. One being clumsy is not the same as being stupid. Women
aim at the stress free, fun life (which is smart) while many men aim for more-stress, responsible
life (which is often stupid). Women want to live to the fullest. She will screw the guy should it be
in 'the moment.' But she got pregnant not because she was stupid but because she was clumsy in
not applying birth control. Hence, Planned Parenthood and so many other agendas pushing birth
control education (and free birth control) everywhere. Many men and religious groups believe
this is a hedonistic for-the-love-of-sex act. What it is, really, is a calculated for-the-clumsywomen act.
Granted, with both men and women, there are differentiating levels of stupidity and smarts. But,
comparing the whole of one gender against the other, women are smarter than men.
Look at how politicians bend to their aim.
Look how they have taken over colleges.
Look at how courts serve them.
All the marriage laws run in a circle around woman, elevating her, while pushing down the man
568
to serve for her. Child payment and assets-taken-by-divorce are really nothing more than legally
enslaving a man.
See how, in romance, men are in full anxiety and go to tremendous lengths for a woman (where
as she hardly goes to much lengths at all).
Women are smarter than men. You know this was the truth you've been fighting against for so
long. We cannot improve until we accept this tremendous fact: women won.
"But, Pook! Women were not smarter than men throughout most of history? So what happened?"
What happened was that women were able to make men stupid and, thus, manipulate them at
will. How a man becomes "stupid" to be ripe for "manipulation" is the matriarchy's great secret,
and it isn't what you think.
The comic Jeff Foxworthy realized this truth himself when, as he said, his wife declared that she
was hot and he, automatically, got up and turned on the fan. She didn't ask for the fan to turn on,
but he automatically did it. Walking back to the couch, it hit him. "Women are smarter than
men," he realized because they have us working for them.
569
The Human Chessboard
From an entry at Mirror of the Soul:
I am an avid player of chess. People that play chess understand life, whereas those that don't
greatly lose out on a game which can give them insight into life as well as strategic thinking.
Consider in life that men fall into the categories of pawn, knight, bishop, rook, and king synonymous with the pieces on a chessboard - and all bow to the queen who is the most powerful
570
piece on the chessboard - synonymous with men bowing and being slaves to women in the
Anglosphere. Rarely do we see a man in the Anglosphere viewing himself more than a chess
piece. He mindlessly takes his role, whether it be pawn, knight, bishop, rook, or king and bows to
the queens of his life. However, the chess master bows to no one, and moves and controls each
chess piece for his advantage. You need to rise above your chess piece status in life, and become
the chess master, by transforming yourself to be above it all. If you don't, you will be constantly
bowing to the queens in your life, and be used by other chess masters to their advantage, and to
your detriment.
Let us expand on this analogy of this Human Chessboard.
The Queen is the woman to which all the other pieces bow. The Pawn is the usual shmuck, the
laborer, the dumb wage-slave who easily gets pushed around. The Bishop is the religious entity
such as a priest or pastor. The Rook is the political entity such as a legislator or judge. The
Knight is the 'shining hero,' the guy who attempts to be the hero at everything. These knights are
often found in dangerous professions such as the military, police, and firefighting.
What about the King? Why does the game end when he gets captured? And what about the
chessboard itself? Does it represent something? How does the Queen move so freely throughout
the board while other pieces are more restricted? Why do Pawns turn into Queens when they get
'promoted' at the end of the board (or sometimes they turn into Knights)? And who is the Chess
master’s opponent? After all, he must be playing against someone.
The King represents status itself. "The King is a 'Thing,'" Shakespeare's Hamlet mused. Most
people see success only through the eyes, never through the mind. Most people worm their way
through the world just to boost the 'status' to appear greater in other peoples' eyes. The King is
free to move in any direction because he has all the status. Yet, he moves very little because
otherwise it would be risky to his 'status.' We know how quickly those with high status can fall.
The game ends when the 'King' gets captured because that is the goal of all the players on the
board: all the Queens, Bishops, Rooks, Knights, and Pawns want the status of the King.
571
The Chessboard is Nature. The Queen is so powerful because Nature works so well in their
favor (in speeding through and maneuvering around men...the other chess pieces). Each piece's
greater understanding of Nature allows greater movement. Pawns are the most ignorant of Nature
so they only slowly march forward. Since Pawns are always stuck in the present, they can never
move backwards. The Bishop and Rook (politician) study the Queen (our glorious Anglo
Female!) to manipulate the other males. So the Bishop and Rook can mimic some of the Queen's
powers. The Knight is unpredictable and can zig zag on Nature's board.
Every Pawn's dream is reach the end of the board to become a Queen themselves. These are
the 'laborers' who suddenly become glitzy movie actors or some other star. They are literally
'queens' at that point. Every now and then, a few will opt to become the Knight.
The Chess master is not outside of Nature. He is not the Machiavelli of the world (that would be
the Queen). The Chess master PLAYS all the pieces on Nature. The reason why most people end
up being a piece on the board is that their perception does not seek to view the entire board. The
Queen will always see herself as a Queen. The rest of the pieces will always bow towards her
resulting in what they become.
The opponent of the Chess master is Time itself. The Chess master and Time play a grueling
game on the board of Nature. Woman, the 'Queen' that all people throw themselves toward, is the
most manipulative and dirtiest piece on the board of Nature. The other pieces are so
overwhelmed and confused by Nature so they, no doubt, see the Queen as a divine and celestial
goddess. Time is working Nature against the Chess master. But the Chess master can work
Nature against Time as well. Who were those who checkmated Time? Every great legend,
financial, engineering, or artistic, lives through people's minds because they bested Time.
Shakespeare revealed all he did was hold a mirror up to Nature and Time didn't have a chance.
All the Carnegies and Napoleons of the world became so by understanding (Human) Nature. The
pieces are forever locked onto the plane of Nature and the Queen naturally becomes their
greatest fear...and greatest desire to become. The Chess master laughs at those who desire to
become Queens for they will forever be pinned down to Nature...never ascending to combat
Time.
572
573
Reflect Nature's Law of Fertility Unto The
Women
In order for the Men's Movement to succeed, it must not only make inroads in persuading men, it
must also persuade many women. Remember, Feminism could never have moved so strongly if
it were not for the huge support from men. If the Men's Movement actually wants to win, it will
have to make a serious effort to get women on its side.
This is actually easier than you think. Many women are not happy with Feminism (but do love
female entitlement). Since this is Pook's Mill and not some other book, my procedure is to hold a
mirror up to Nature. In order to persuade women, we must reflect Nature back at them. Reason
fails. But reflections of Nature will succeed.
One mantle the Men's Movement can take up is to combat the Fertility Plague that is ripping
apart Western Nations. See map. Even the Prime Minister of Japan just shrugs and says, "I know
no solution to the fertility problem." This is an opportunity for a disruptor movement to come in
and seize the issue.
One of the casualties of Feminism is that brain-washed women focus on careers and get in their
thirties before having children. Hold the mirror up to Nature on this. Many women are not aware
that their fertility rapidly drops after the age of twenty-seven. No feminist rhetoric can change
this proof of Nature.
What if an enterprising student on college campuses made pamphlets or wrote in the school
paper informing women about their short-lived fertility and how not to waste it jumping through
corporate ladders? I have noticed this issue really "wakes up" many women. They suddenly
begin to realize that, hey, they shouldn't become men, that they are indeed women.
574
Educating women on their fertility won't make them join the Men's Movement, but it will get
them to start questioning their 'brain washing.' It is a start.
575
Checkmate!
The Human Chessboard is the way how many women view the world. To her, the 'Checkmate'
(and status) is marriage. Through various manipulation, she keeps maneuvering her pieces to get
the prize (which is YOU. It is YOU who are the prize being won). Your friends in the way? Poof!
She removes them from your life. You're hesitant to propose? Viola! She ramps up the bedroom
activity. Different religions? No problem. She changes or doesn't care about any religious
differences (why should she? Religion to her is a tool, not something to submit to).
"Check..."
"Check..."
"Check..."
576
Alas, you dastardly Don Juan! Each alignment she places the pieces, you squiggle by. But soon
you are cornered.
"Checkmate!"
Now you find yourself walking down the wedding aisle. "NOOOOO!!!!" you scream.
Marriage is the great 'Checkmate' of a woman's life. I wondered why they used to be SOO
HAPPY when they announced an engagement (and of course planned for a wedding). The groom
just stands there with a look of smug bafflement. On one hand, he is probably thinking, "Gosh,
she is SO HAPPY! She must love me SO MUCH. We will be so happy together!" But, on the
other hand, he is wondering, "Why is she putting so much focus over this stupid wedding than
us? Wouldn't it be better to put the expenses of the wedding into, say, the new house? And why
did I pay so much for that engagement ring?"
When Man is faced with a contradiction, he always chooses the path of maximum vanity. I think
one of the biggest barriers of men not realizing they are being manipulated is their own ego. It is
a huge blow to the ego to know you were so wrapped around a woman's finger. "It has to be
love," the man will insist. "Yes, she is so much in love with me and wants the wedding to be
perfect. That must be it!"
If you find yourself unfortunately trapped and have to listen to women talk about their
'relationships,' try to listen to them as if they were pieces on the chessboard plotting their
checkmate. You will be in awe for then you find that women, far from emotional, possess the
most calculating thoughts ever.
577
We Need to Shame Women
578
If there is going to be shame tactics against men, how about shame tactics against women?
Single Mother- Refer to their children as 'bastards' and that she is the mother of 'bastards.' She'll
get angry, but it is the truth. Instead of 'single mother' use the phrase 'mother of bastards.'
Of course, the single mothers I am referring to are those who had children out of wedlock. I'm
not referring to widows.
Slut- Referring to her as 'slut' might backfire as some women enjoy being called sluts. Use the
word 'diseased' instead. 80% of sexually active women have herpes (yes, it’s true. Google it if
you don't believe me). Say to her: "Hello Diseased One!" Oh man, she'll hate you. But the shame
is true.
Career Woman- When the career woman says how she is going to have a nice car, have a big
house, have all this money, just walk away saying, "You would make a wonderful husband."
She'll know exactly what that means.
Woman-who-refuses-to-have-children- Point out that she is 'barren.'
Feminist- Call her a 'feminist.' She will go bonkers for you labeling her correctly.
Why is shame always one way? Why don't women get some shame? It is well past time that we
correct this.
579
For Those in Doubt
A transcript on Tom Leykis show is below. Read.
A listener writes in and says, "I told my girlfriend I wanted a prenup [prenuptial agreement]. She
said, 'You have nothing!' I said, 'It's for future earnings.' She got pissed and she said, 'Well, I
don't want to get married.' But then she agreed to sign if I gave her a baby. Damn, Tom. Then
I’ll be into her 18 to 22 years. I’m confused. Should I have a family—or not and be alone?" And
it is unsigned.
I cannot tell what your age is, but I'm guessing you're young. I do not think you're 30. I think
you're closer to 20. But what you can see from this negotiation here is that her interest is not in
you. It's in money. Mon-ey. Like so many women, she wants to lay some of the burden of
life on you. She wants you to pay.
By the way, just because you don't have some leech of a broad living in your home doesn’t mean
you're alone. You've got friends. You've got your family. You've got chicks to screw. You are not
alone. And just because some broad moves into your house doesn't mean you've got company or
security. That broad can stop putting out. She can lie to you and have sex with other people
behind your back. She can refuse to do housework or leave the care of the child up to you. So
many things can go wrong. Is it really worth it?
Take it from me: There is nothing wrong with living alone. Nothing. The problem is being
lonely, not living alone. Living alone is the best thing I did for myself. Ever. And it is not for the
reasons you think. It is not because I can "screw whoever I want." Nothing like that. More often
than not, the reason you want to be alone is to do the things you take for granted now. And if
580
you're still living with Mommy, maybe these are things that you’ve never had the opportunity to
do. Some of the things you can do include [watching] whatever you want on television. Sports,
for example. Or not [watching] television at all. Broads love watching TV. And they like the
shows you hate—makeover shows, entertainment shows, shows about the entertainment
industry, Entertainment Tonight, Access Hollywood, The Insider. Those are the shows they
like. You don't watch those shows. Would you like that as the soundtrack of your life in the
background all the time?
Chicks expect you to take the majority of the financial burden. Trust me when I tell you:
You’ll be paying for most of the rent, if not all of it; most of the electric bill; most of the gas
bill; most of the cable bill; the satellite bill. She will want clothes and accessories. Who do
you think is gonna pay for that?
Groceries for one—I don’t care what they say, they say "two can live as cheaply as one?" Yeah,
tell that to the supermarket when she insists on buying things you don't have in your house, like
yogurt or 2-percent milk or tampons. If two can live as cheaply as one, you're going to have to
cut back in order to accommodate her and her needs. Moisturizers, ten-dollar bottles of shampoo,
all kinds of things that you are not buying now, you’ll be on the hook for.
You can have sex, you can have companionship, you can have friendship, and not have anybody
living at your house. That means you can live in a smaller place and pay less for it—lower utility
bills, lower grocery bills, lower phone bills because she'll no doubt want you to take over her cell
phone bill. She'll have you paying for that. Women also are obsessed with buying gifts for every
obscure person. Hey, I'm all about buying birthday gifts for my buddies, people close to me.
Most chicks I know keep a Rolodex of everybody they've ever known and insist on sending
cards and gifts to people they haven’t talked to in five years. You don’t do that.
581
There are a million reasons you want to be alone, not the least of which is, you don’t want to
have to answer for your whereabouts all the time. And sometimes your whereabouts are not
being out getting laid. Sometimes your whereabouts are as simple as browsing through a
bookstore; having a beer with a buddy; going to a ball game; staying late at the office; staying
late at the office and then going out to watch Monday Night Football; whatever. Once you take
a broad in, she will complain about all of that. Oh, sure, there are exceptions. So all you
exceptions to the rule, don’t bother calling in, because we know that there are needles in every
haystack. But it's a big frickin' haystack, you know what I'm saying? Most of us don’t feel like
combing through it. The letter writer is, you know, out there. You’re right to ask her for a prenup,
to tell her you won’t marry her without a prenup. Oh yeah, she’ll sign if you give her a baby. You
know why she’ll sign if you give her a baby? I’ll tell you why. Because as you said, you’ll be
into her for 18 to 22 years of payments. It's all about money. There’s nothing wrong with
being alone.
I have to imagine some of the negotiations regarding prenups have to be fascinating. I have to
believe that because we talk about it on the air so much that many of you—either because you
heard us talking about it or because you're just that kind of person and you gravitated to a radio
show like this—I have to imagine many of you have confronted your girlfriend, your fiancée,
whoever, with a prenuptial agreement, and have had negotiations like this letter writer. You
know, you told her there's going to have to be a prenup. What did she say? How did she respond?
Did she say no? Did she stop having sex with you? Did she start negotiating? Have you tried to
get her to sign a prenup? Have you told her you won’t get married without a prenup? What was
the response?
Pook:
The legal issues of marriage are just the tip of iceberg. There are financial and time issues as well
(she taking up your money and time). My best friend understands the legal problems of marriage
and has sworn to never marry much to his girlfriend's annoyance (she has tried to whittle him
down but to no avail). However, the two live together and are going to buy a house. This means
582
she has hooks into his money, his time, and, like any other husband, is turning him into a house.
What has got me are all those stupid entertainment shows. How on earth could women watch
them? Soap operas at least tell a (bad) story but why fawn over actors and directors who are
chumps anyway? I have yet to see a girl fawn over a famous chemist, author, or engineer. It is
always these stupid Hollywood people.
You single guys think you are miserable. You are only miserable because you perceive happiness
from a slave's context. So once you find a 'woman,' you become 'happy.' All the things you do
now you take for granted. Observe married men. If they were so happy and joyous, then why are
they fat, bald, in constant health problems, and drinking?
583
Why do people stay bitter?
Why on earth do people prefer doomsday over paradise, rage over laughter, or anger over
happiness?
The biggest cause of political movements is losing in life. Most people who protest and march in
the streets in the West do so because they have lost out in life. They feel the rich became so by
584
stealing it from them, that those who are happy did so by making them sad, and so on and so
forth. They throw themselves as the legislative palace because they blame society rather than
themselves. Sometimes they were legitimately wounded by unfair laws and their cause is just.
But still, they are not the first people in history to taste the sting of an unjust law. Why throw
away your life to the pool of bitterness because of a single act?
The Men's Movement faces this tragedy directly. Many men have had their lives torn apart by a
backstabbing legal process. When you hear these guys, you hear rage and anger from them. But
this is not attractive to others to join the movement because who wants to wake up full of rage
and anger all the time?
One thing is that I don't think these men have fully healed (or even want to). While married,
everything they did was wrong. But now, everything in the world is wrong and they, of course,
are always right. It’s a pendulum shift. The world is always in doomsday. They are full of pain
and want feminists and others to be full of pain too.
Why do people stay enraged? Don't tell me it is "to get things done" because I see more
complainers than true activists. The true tragedy is not what feminists have done but the pain we
inflict on ourselves.
With all there is out there to achieve and enjoy, with all there is to live and be happy with, why
waste all that on being bitter for the rest of your lives? Why live in Hell? And why is there this
desire (from doomsters) to imagine Hell on Earth?
I think it is conditioning. Some men are so used to Hell that they don't know anything else. Some
people are more comfortable in Hell.
Victory against Matriarchy is not in writing manifestos, blogging, or shouting from the rooftops.
Matriarchy has declared war not on men, but on the joy, love, and life men enjoy. So whenever
you feel joy and share genuine love in your life, add that to your victory list of accomplishments.
Living well is the best revenge.
585
When men are happy, feminists know they have been defeated. They want you to be angry. They
want you to be miserable. They want you to be alone apart from women. But they don't want you
to find love in your life. They don't want you to find true joy and live life. They don't want you to
be your soul's content.
What more justified battle is there to be fought when the prize is joy itself?
586
Nirvana
For years on sosuave (and on this blog), my profile's location is only known as "Nirvana."
Do you want to know what Nirvana is?
Quickly, my pooklings, gather around the blog! I will show you Pook's homeland, the place
where men are men and women are women, where being a man meant more than being an
animal.
Once upon a time, women wore dresses. They were not allowed to wear short hair or else they
would be mistaken for prostitutes (and were thought the same if they smoked or drank). There
are tales, legends, whispered from old men's breaths of an ancient age where sexuality was
vibrant and masculinity and femininity shimmered throughout society. Like Winston talking to
the old men in 1984, so too must we do the same. All the old men say the same thing:
"Everything has changed." It is time you see Nirvana for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAsqbRgj67w&feature=player_embedded
587
The Difference between the Matriarchy and the
Patriarchy
A young man approached the Pook and asked, "Monsieur Pook, tell me, what is the difference
between the Matriarchy and the Patriarchy?"
And the Pook replied, "What do you think it is?"
The young man sniffed and said, "It is power of gender. Matriarchy has women in control.
Patriarchy has men in control. Perhaps we need a third option where no gender has power."
"No. It is either-or. There is no middle ground."
"So what is the difference, Pook?"
"I will tell you. The 'touchstone' of civilizations has been debated for centuries. Some measure
their technology, others measure their 'culture,' yet other measures them through what form of
government. The defining moment of civilization is how TIME is measured."
588
"Why not money? Why not power?"
"It is because Time is finite. We can make more money, obtain more power, but no one can ever
create more Time. From the Maya to the Egyptians to the ancient Greek to the Babylonians and
to every ancient civilization, Time was sacred. The Calendar was sacred. To them, monsters were
creatures that upset Time and had to be thrown out. The hero arises to 'set time right' and dispose
the monsters. These are the mythologies and legends of Mankind."
"What does this mean? You say mythologies are about Time?"
"Civilization, then, was obsessed with Time. Virgil saw the Virgin constellation rise in the sky
and the lion constellation sink in to the hemisphere. The Pisces constellation rose overhead. This
caused Virgil to write the prophecy of a drowning lion, the rising Virgin which the sun passes
through, and the age of the fishes. Virgil could not know the Church would adopt that Virgil's
passage as prophecy for the Christ nor could he have predicted that the first Christians would live
under the sign of the fish. We cannot ignore the interpretation of time. Egyptians would construct
pyramids aimed at where the Orion star once was. Plato would create philosophy from these
tales. Aristotle would mourn their passing from the world at his time. Consider that our calendar
month's names come from the Roman Empire and the Church. Consider that our time line is split
with B.C. being Before Christ."
"What does any of this have to do with the difference between Matriarchy and the Patriarchy?"
"Everything. The difference between the Matriarchy and the Patriarchy is the interpretation of
TIME. In the Patriarchy, time flows upward. This means the older one gets, the better one gets.
People study, grow wiser. Christ gave his Parable of Talents where people plant a seed of talent
and make it grow. 'You will know the tree by its fruit,' He would say. Elderly are revered in
Patriarchy."
"But TIME flows downward in Matriarchy?"
589
"Correct. Civilizations, especially the Western ones, have been completely cut off from those
cosmological roots that created our timeline, our calendar, and our heroes. Hamlet, echoing the
ancients' heroes, said: 'Oh, Time is out of joint, and cursed spite! That I was ever born to set it
right!'"
"So in Matriarchy, the young is worshiped and aging is seen as a disease."
"Yes. Women are pinned to the Wheel of Nature. Round, round, she goes. What makes a woman
attractive if not her baby fat? Alas, that will melt over time. Women place all her chips on her
appearance. She may be a goddess in her 20s, but the 30s face sharp decline, and the decline
does not stop. A man, on the other hand, does not place all his chips on his appearance. He places
it is his talents and mind which grow, plant like, over time. So a man may be a loser in his 20s,
but in his 30s he faces growth, in his 40s faces major growth, and time keeps getting better to
him."
"Some men will choose to live like women. Do they experience time as women do, as getting
worse as time goes on?"
"Yes."
"So a Matriarchy would worship the young, discard the old, praise beauty, despise talent and
intellect, and perceive life to be a series of short exciting bursts of energy which must not be
missed out on. And the Patriarchy would worship the old, not take the young seriously, not take
beauty seriously except in its mathematical proportions, praise talent and intellect, and perceive
life as a growth."
"Well done! Now, consider the Family in how Time is interpreted."
"A Patriarchy would have blossoming after blossoming, a growing Family Tree. A Matriarchy
would not care about the Family Tree and, instead, create many 'now' experiences which are
more intense than the Patriarch's family. Yet, these intense experiences are like novas. They flash
590
and are gone. The Family Tree will endure and grow."
Pook nodded. "Consider the seasons. Men begin in Winter, go to Spring, then Summer, and at the
end have a Fall. Women, however, begin in Spring, then go to Summer, then Fall, and end up in
the misery of Winter. Women have one summer. Men have endless summers."
"What do you mean?"
"It is another reason why the 95-5 rule doesn't work. Women are pinned to that Wheel of Nature
that slowly rotates as they age. In their late twenties and thirties, they have 'baby rabies' and want
babies. Women are confined to their geography as well. She cannot separate herself from The
Way. When it is 'time' to have babies, she will be looking for a sucker. If she is hungry for a
boyfriend, she will look in her immediate surroundings which include work and college and any
friends one of her girlfriends can toss up. Many women go to university with the intention of
getting a wedding ring on her finger. She does not have much time to do this."
"So women are more confined by time than men are."
"Yes. As a man, your wealth and status will grow which will attract more and more women.
However, women are *melting* and do not have the time."
"This might explain why the countries with the lowest birth rates are the most feminized."
"Yes."
"So the Matriarchy began by somehow having time flow the opposite way? How did this come
to be? Could it be through technology since the young get technology so much faster than the old
do?"
"The values of Pro-Youth, Anti-Talent, Anti-Family Tree, Pro-Bursts of Experience became
established by forgetting and dismissing the old Time orientated rules (today, scholars say
591
'Before Common Time' instead of saying 'Before Christ'). The values of an animal-eating,
hunting, and sex- have been hailed as the greatest of values a person can have. The values of
building a family tree or planting your talent has become frowned at or turned into liabilities.
There is a reason why we call it Mother Earth and Father Time."
"And all the ancient civilizations have been re-interpreted as fertility rites and goddess worship
instead of time worship."
"Yes. The ancient civilizations that did appear to worship the woman were more wedded to the
lunar sense of time. Even in those places, men became in charge since they grew better in time
while women do not."
"Man, it sounds like God's cruel joke."
"Yes. It as if Men and Women are exactly the same except they experience time differently. Men
start low and get better. Women start high and get worse. Someway, in the middle, they meet and
it is never exact for any two people. Women are obsessed with looking YOUNGER and all their
products are designed to stop time or make it go backwards (at least, in appearance to their
bodies). Men are obsessed with getting BETTER. "
"So how do we return to the Patriarchy?"
"For yourself, plant your seed of Talent and grow it. Follow your passion in life. Pursue your
dreams. Get better, every day. But for the nations, it would be to discard the values that prop up
animal values as 'noble' and raise the hated 'noble' values back to their true place. Let Wisdom,
not Beauty, wear the crown and let Time and Talent, not Money or fun, hold the guiding scepter."
592
The Adventurer and the Vortex
One day, the magnificent Pook decided to share his manliness (for it would be selfish to contain
so much manliness!) with the world. The people rejoiced in this and children ran to greet the
Pook when he appeared.
However, Pook encountered a band of disgruntled people huddled in a circle. They hissed their
frustrations of life to one another and that was their ritual. Then, they would all disperse to their
jobs and lives which they despised. Next day, they would gather, share in their complaints about
the world, and then leave again to do it the next day. Seeing the cycle, Pook approached the
group.
"What do you want!?" seethed a young man in his twenties who was beginning to look like he
593
was entering his forties. "Why do you disrupt us?" came an old woman's screech from a woman
just turning twenty five.
"Tortured souls," the Pookius Maximus said, "Every day, you gather and complain. Yet, then you
go back to what you complain about."
Then came the protests.
"X isn't fair!"
"Y is corrupt and has been turned conspiracy against us!"
"Z will eventually collapse due to this injustice!"
Such are the common replies! And how frequent they come! Now, reader, you may inquire about
the beings of this group. Rest assured, the beings are both liberal and conservative, pious and
hedonistic, rich and poor, men and women, as well as your ancestors and your descendants. They
are the 95% of the people. They are the masses.
"Let me be mirror to your thoughts," said the Pook. "I want you to see your mind reflected as it
really is. Permit me to ask some questions."
"Very well," allowed one member. "Ask and you shall have your answers."
"Do you believe that you have suffered unfairness?"
For the first time, animation electrified their answers of "Yes!" Each and every one of them
believed their fate was unfair.
As Pook kept talking to them, a pattern emerged. Each and every one believed in a spiritual law
594
of fairness. Bitterness swelled in them as they recited how "unfair" this or that was. All of them
dreamed of the collapse of the "system" where their spiritual law of fairness would "return" the
natural order of things.
Adults believe in Fairness like children believe in Santa Clause. Santa Clause is very much a
figment of that Fairness. He knows who has been naughty or nice, bestows gifts on the good and
coal on the bad. But just as there is no Santa Clause, there is no Fairness Spiritual Law either.
Life never runs smooth. It is a bumpy ride with set-backs as well as uphill struggles and downhill
surges. If a person complained that a ride was not "fair" he would be considered mad. The
purpose of the ride is the fun of taking different roads, seeing new scenery, and meeting the new
people that come in your life. This is the Adventurer which every Human begins as (what we
label the 'innocence' of a child) but can easily become corrupted into something else.
What is the opposite of the Adventurer? It is the Vortex. A Vortex is someone who is miserable in
life and who complains as a swirl of angst. The nature of the complaint does not matter. It could
be about the job, the women, the men, the world, SOMETHING. What happens when you
combine many vortexes together? They create a giant Vortex that creates such a sucking sound
that, standing near it, you literally begin to think the world is an Evil Place.
The Feminist is a Vortex. She thinks life has been unfair to HER and becomes a swirling cyclone
of angst. Combine her with other swirling cyclones of angst and you have a giant vortex that
begins to suck in normal women nearby. Men are not attracted to the Feminist Vortex (unless
they have somehow been 'sucked in' so to say) because no one likes negativity and parasitism in
their life.
The Nice Guy is also a Vortex. There are many definitions for 'Nice Guy,' sometimes it is the guy
who is naive, the guy who believes in 'love,' the guy with old morals, or simply a guy who is
very polite. But the true definition of 'Nice Guy' is that like with all Vortexes, he believes in a
Spiritual Law of Fairness. Beautiful women are not going for him. They are going for the
"jerks!" What injustice! As the normal guy becomes a Nice Guy Vortex, he may become 'buddies'
595
with similar thinking guys but women avoid him more. And the more women avoid him, the
more the Vortex intensifies causing women to avoid him even more. "It's not fair!" whines Nice
Guy.
Vortexes are everywhere. It is your job, as the Adventurer, to avoid them. Obstacles in your path
are what make the Adventure fun. The only REAL obstacle is the Vortex who, like Sirens, will
suck you towards to the rocks where the masses of shattered lives lay on the beach.
How do you know if you are in a vortex? Here are some signs:
1) Are your conversations about NEGATIVE things that are occurring that is out of your control?
2) Do the people participate in hopes of vomiting their frustration?
3) Is the theme of the conversations revolving around the concept of UNFAIRNESS of some
form?
4) When the people talk, do they smile? If not, they are more likely in a Vortex.
The Vortex eats up your valuable energy. Instead of using that energy to ADVENTURE, to
discover new and wonderful things, you go in circles in the Vortex. Time passes. And one day,
you will simply...stop. Since Fairness will never come, for that would mean Heaven on Earth, the
only way out of the Vortex is to die.
Most people in their lives swirl around their vortexes, like the toilets, all their lives.
There are so many Vortexes it would be ridiculous to mention them all. But the most common
are political. When we get frustrated in life (which is inevitable), many lose their senses and
become drawn to a political 'cause.' When our talents and passions are frustrated, we tend to turn
to new 'causes.' This is why children of wealthy people get caught up in political 'causes.' It’s the
same with actors and many of the population. Hitler was a frustrated artist first, dictator second.
596
In many ways, the Feminist and the Nice Guy are far more alike than different. When career
women go off to dinner together, they are complaining about men (i.e. super vortex). Nice Guys
can be the same. Other groups you are thinking in your head right now apply as well. Consider
these Vortexes to be the Cult of the Fair. All their doubt and anger leads to PRE-MATURE
AGING.
"But Pook," cried a woman. "If what you say is true, if that is the Cult of Fairness, then what is
the alternative? Who follows the Adventurer?"
"My lady," I replied, "the opposite would be the Cult of the Fantastic. There is no spiritual belief
of Fairness in this one. By adopting the mindset of what they WILL do, they live completely and
enjoy the bumpy ride. The Fairness Cultists huddle from their rat holes to point, be envious, and
hurl moralizations. They condemn the Adventurer for violating the Law of Fairness where they
are really condemning themselves."
I then turned to the crowd and said, "You are all done with the Vortex. You will now stop
thinking of what you are NOT achieving and, instead, think of what you ARE achieving. This
puts you in a mindset looking for opportunities and challenges rather than barriers and
obstructions. This simple change of your mindset will remove the detractors and doubters from
your life and attract the movers-and-shakers."
And with that, the crowd dispersed for the last time. One person swore that he would find a new
job within the next two months. Another swore he would buy that house in six months. Yet,
another decided to devote his free time back to his passions and dreams. The Vortex imploded
and, they all became adventurers again.
597
Real Seduction versus Wimp Seduction
598
It is time for a pop quiz. What, sirs, is the definition of the term 'Wimp?' What does it stand for?
"One who doesn't score with women."
"Someone who isn't macho."
"The lack of coolness."
All these are good, gentlemen, yes. Yet, they are all wrong. I will give you a better explanation of
the word 'Wimp.'
Woman
Influenced
Male
Person
A wimp is a male who has no soul. In fact, he looks to others, especially women, to influence
how he acts. Wimps can easily 'score' with women because anyone can re-write themselves to be
what women want. Anyone can paraphrase a woman's thoughts back to herself. And anyone can
read from a script. Being so influenced shows you have no BALLS.
The big problem of Speed Seduction (or should I call it 'Nerd Seduction') is that it is Wimp
Seduction. You seduce not in a matter of strength, of who you are, but of painting yourself in
woman's eyes to be what she wants. You paraphrase her thoughts back to her. You analyze what
she does and write lengthy internet reports on it. Or worse, you try to *connect* and pretty much
do whatever to please her. The difference between the Nice Guy and the Wimp Seducer is that of
tactics. Both are just as female influenced. "But what does it matter, Pook? The Wimp Seduction
gets us girls. That is all that matters." Yeah, but keep that up and you'll be driven to despair and
near suicide, as many of such 'seducers' have illustrated. If you have to trade your soul for sex,
599
then you are doing anything BUT 'scoring.'
Real Seduction is just going up to her and doing it YOUR way. She says, "No, no..." but her eyes
are saying, "Yes, yes...." You assume she wants it because you know Nature wants her to want it.
In the end, you'll get her. You don't pretend to be a clown. You don't read from a script. You don't
wear make-up. Women are attracted to male desire.
"But I thought having desire was bad." No, being pussy whipped is bad. Most guys' desire turns
them into a wimp. Look them in the eye. They know what you want. They can *feel* it. Don't be
chicken about it.
"But she might reject me! Boo hoo!" Stop sobbing as I don't want to mop up this post with all
your womanly tears. The question is not whether she will reject you or not. The question is
whether YOU want her or not. If she says no and you still want her, try it again. Why give her so
much power over who you should desire? Women LOVE being desired. But they DETEST
wimps.
Let me give you an example from literature (groans come out from everywhere). Silence fools!
Nothing art wise endures for centuries unless it reflects Nature somehow. Here is my chosen
example:
In the second scene of the first Act of Shakespeare's King Richard III, Richard III (at his
Gloucester status) has arranged the killing of King Henry VI. He interrupts his funeral procession
to woo his widow, the Lady Anne. So aside from Richard being an ugly hunchback, he killed the
King, her husband. This, obviously, is going to be an uphill battle for his seduction.
She screams at him, "Blush, blush, thou lump of foul deformity!" Most guys would take the hint.
She goes on to call Richard a devil, a toad, a diffused infection of a man, a hedgehog, a
homicide, and a dissembler, and then spits in his face and tells him to hang himself. Yes, the
signs of disinterest are hard to miss.
600
Richard doesn't run away or make posts on the internet how 'hurt' he was. He ignores all the foul
stuff she says and pours on the sweet-talk. Eventually, she becomes his wife. This scene is very
electric, makes for very good theater, and is a challenge to act it (I've tried it on stage). But the
real challenge is for the girl who plays Lady Anne who must be disgusted but yet interested. It is
a very entertaining scene to watch as well.
"But Richard is a foul villain, Pook!" Of course. But so are many seducers. You can have a
crappy car and be homeless yet be a master of women. You can be ugly, be a toad, and still be
able to get the girl. The point is that you act on your desires, rather than react to hers. You be who
you are. You improve yourself, yes, but only towards your vision and goal of yourself. You don't
improve yourself so you become more of an ornament to attract women. That is the female
influenced way. That is the Wimp Way.
Seduction from your influence, rather than manipulating yourself to fit her influence, is not only
more satisfactory seduction, it is mentally healthier. You won't be driven to suicide because you'll
be acting on your soul rather than denying it for female affection.
601
Why Men Fall into the Trap of Matriarchy
At a time when everyone seemingly dons tattered arrogant souls, when, in order to feast on the
height of their self-seen greatness, everyone yields to their usual brainwashed tropes. In the
Matriarchy, there are two: the Grand Career and the Grand Household.
The Grand Career is not a ‘job’ but something more ‘glorious.’ A plumber is a job, but a lawyer
is a ‘career.’ Never-mind that a plumber can get good money and adds more to society than many
lawyers, the difference between a ‘job’ and ‘career’ these days is image. Women, who worship
the image, will excitedly pursue these careers. But in the end, a ‘career’ in that traditional sense
is often a losing situation. It is the trap of the Wage Slave.
The Grand Household (notice how I did not say ‘Grand Family’) is the big McMansion, this is
the Perfect Wedding, and this is the 1.6 kids with a 1.1 dog. Not only women desire this but so
do many men. Some prefer the Grand Household over the Grand Career and vice versa (many
women want both). But both of these are life not coming from your soul, from YOU BEING
YOU, but from a pre-existing template.
I wondered, “How can people live their lives refusing to be who they are, by rejecting their own
soul and passion by desiring a pre-made life?” The answer is that they all see the Grand Career
and Grand Household as THE SUCCESS. Everyone is scared of being seen a ‘loser’ so they all
desire ‘success’ (which is why woman’s biggest shame tactic is saying a guy lives with Mom at
602
home. While there is nothing to envy in this man’s position, it is highly preferable than to be a
man convicted of murder, of crimes, of furious sins, yet these are the ‘men’ many skanks desire
due to the rebellious image they hold.)
Is a Grand Career the ‘true success?’ Maybe, if it is truly what you love to do. But keep in mind
that there is no job security these days. You can easily get fired from your job. And no matter
how much money you earn on your ‘Grand Career,’ the owners of the business always make
more. You will never become rich by having the ‘Grand Career’ (unless you become some star
like a famous actor and the probability of that occurring is very low). Why should I invest my
life in making someone else rich? Why not invest my life in making MYSELF rich?
Is the Grand Household the ‘true success?’ Again, maybe, if it is truly what you want. But also
keep in mind that everyone else has the same cookie-cutter home with a similar dog. If this
wasn’t the case, then why would sitcoms prove to be so universal? Also, again, this is the life of
image. It is the picture of the ‘family’ (with dog) sitting on the fireplace mantle. Can your life be
defined by a picture? Many people think so.
Women get sucked into the Matriarchy for the obvious reasons. But why do men (especially in
the Anglosphere) get sucked into the Matriarchy?
1) They have no passion in life. They have no dreams, no goals, and no vision. They do have
sexual desire which is the closest they’ve felt to passion. In fact, they misuse the word ‘passion’
as to mean sexual desire. If your passion in life is only women, you will be sucked into the
Matriarchy.
603
2) They have small souls and desire validation. Sexual desire can be treated in numerous
ways: masturbation, pornos, prostitutes, visiting other countries, and so on and so on. Women
will employ shame tactics against any way that doesn’t benefit them. The Way is HER way.
Marriage is usually the only proper way for her. In the last few decades, even the ‘player’ is now
considered ‘proper’ by women. Many women do want no-strings attached sex and players easily
provide it. Players also are ones who desire validation. They seek only sexual validation,
however and, like the Nice Guy, have a very small soul (since they are so easily manipulated
even though they think it is the other way around).
3) They see progress only with their eyes. Many people are not interested in becoming rich.
They are only interested in LOOKING rich. This is why many go into massive debt buying a
fancy new car, huge house, or something else trivial. Real wealth is time. But you cannot see
‘time’ so people never consider their most precious asset. Although I love my father much, he
was very foolish with his time. Where I grew up, we had acres that had to be cut. I hated cutting
all that lawn. My father, however, loved it. The reason why was that he could SEE the difference
of cutting. This explains why I think many people LOVE yard-work or housework. It also
explains why people will invest hours into MMORPGs but not the usual video game. Other
people can SEE their ‘improvements’ in the MMORPG while in the usual video game one
remains invisible. The Matriarchy worships the visible, not the invisible. The visible components
are all celebrated (materialism, the ‘compassion’ traits of religion) but not the invisible (the
thinking, the intelligence, or even religion’s worship of the spirit). Body building gains so much
fandom from girls because they can SEE it. Body building, to me, is much easier than say
reading ancient history or understanding business. Yet, the Matriarchy yields to the visible, not
the invisible. Men, who think progress is only detected through the eyes, are destined for the
Matriarchy.
4) Men desire the X, Y, Z lifestyle. As children, through school and through jobs, we are taught
to think in the X, Y, Z fashion. This means that in order to reach the conclusion, we must do X,
then Y, and then finally Z. This is the ‘step by step’ book. This is also the instruction manual.
604
Many men find this linear style thinking relaxing and orderly. But this is the thinking of a slave,
not a free man. In freedom, there is no X, Y, Z life. There is no ladder. Men who think this way
yearn for a system to work within. With women, they want to work the system and WIN with
women doing the X, Y, Z steps. On Sosuave, I was constantly flooded with private messages
asking “WHY DON’T YOU GIVE ME DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS!? STOP WITH THIS
GENERALIZED TALK!!!” What they were truly asking me was, “Tell me the rules that are to
be obeyed to have success.” I inform them, “It is time for you to create your own rules for life. If
you do not, you will enter the woman’s rules by default.” These ‘woman’s rules’ are the
Matriarchy.
5) Many men worship sex and female companionship as if it were the greatest achievement
in life, that it alone makes them a ‘man.’ I am always amazed at the vagina worship by young
males. However, don’t bother to criticize this view as these types of men are very sensitive and
will lash back, “Don’t you enjoy getting laid?” These men foolishly believe that winning with
women is the same as winning with life. It isn’t. You can win with women and still lose in life.
Somehow, someway, placing one’s male appendage into a woman’s yahoo has been made out to
be the ‘height of manhood.’ I blame movies and modern music for this. The only ‘sexual
revolution’ has been the complete annihilation of fertility. I get a chuckle when young people
today say that people in the 40s and 50s were puritanical and didn’t have sex. Where did the
Baby Boom generation come from after all? It was common to have families of ten or higher a
couple of centuries ago. Before the rise of modern media, manhood was defined by the number
of children one had (poorer countries still hold this notion). This proved to be a problem for
infertile men no doubt. George Washington is a good example of this. While he could not prove
his manhood by fertility, he chose the battlefield and relentlessly pursued ‘honor’ to obtain it. If
one worships sex and finds that as the passageway into Manhood, one is destined for the
Matriarchy because you give women all the power to define your manliness.
6) Men desire the Matriarchy because they want to be seen as a ‘winner’ and laugh at the
‘losers.’ The Matriarchy does its fine share of shaming. Generally, any man who chooses not to
605
participate and devote his free time with women will be shamed in some way. Any time not spent
with or for women must be ‘earned.’ If you want to watch a football game, you must ‘earn’ it by
previously doing some deed for the wife or girlfriend. These men will believe everything women
say about the so-called losers of the Matriarchy. They will laugh at the ‘virgins,’ label them as
losers and mock them (and these virgins have done no wrong to them except to choose not to
interact with women on that level). They will mock the starving artist or struggling entrepreneur
for the ‘fantastic’ wage slave that they are. The Matriarchy has a defined set of ‘winners’ and
‘losers.’ Many men desire to be on top to laugh at losers. Pointing out the Matriarchy to these
men is the hardest because they don’t want to see that THEY might actually be losers. They don’t
want to possibly believe that a FEMALE has been controlling and dictating life’s terms to them.
This desire for Matriarchal pride and relishing of Matriarchal scorn for its ‘losers’ will easily
swallow men into the Matriarchy, and these are the hardest to break free.
What is the solution to not be sucked into the Matriarchy? It is to wear the armor of humility
(resisting the temptation to have an arrogant soul) and to have a sword of your dreams (where
you be who you are). With this, a man becomes invincible to the Matriarchy and other men
watch at the demigod in disbelief. How does he do it? Why does he walk so confidently? It is
because he followed the Pookish First Commandment: BE WHO YOU ARE.
Work for your dreams or you’ll end up working for someone else’s.
606
607
Huxley and Orwell foretold the Matriarchy
There are two political books the 'masses' keep gravitating toward of the last century. The books
are Brave New World by Aldous Huxley and 1984 by George Orwell. Both books are cited by all
political groups from across the spectrum. Each points to the other as 1984 while one group finds
Brave New World a horror while another group sees it as a utopia. Something with these books
has tapped into the Human mind in such a way that made them universal.
I am familiar with all the political books, and they are mostly dry, pompous nonsense on stilts.
Why do those two books, beyond any other, keep coming up in people's dreams of horror?
The answer became so obvious that I could not stop laughing at my previous foolishness. The
secret to appeal and horror of the two books could not be even more plain.
They have nothing to do with politics.
"But Pook! But Pook!" you say. "They speak of empires, of manipulation, of social
reconstruction! How could they not be political books?"
We know the current course of Matriarchy did not start in the present. It has been gradually
building well over a century if not more. Do not forget the De Beers manipulation of
'engagement rings' and diamonds started in the 1940s. Feminism began even in the 19th century.
Progressive reconstruction of society was universally embraced by the West. You only have to
see the Constitutional amendment on prohibition and eugenics (in America nonetheless!) to see
the sociological events occurring today, as unimaginable thought they may be, they are the tree
whose sapling was swaying happily in the twentieth century.
A most fundamental political book, Locke's Two Treatises of Government, based much of the
608
idea of liberty and freedom based on the relationships of man and woman. Locke constantly cites
Adam and Eve and even cites how the husband and wife treat one another in marriages. What a
reversal we have had! Locke looked toward marriage, of coupling, to see "natural society" and
base the government in regards to those observations. Now the government observes and
"natural society" must be refit, remolded, chopped, spliced, and smashed to fit the 'Way.' Like a
gardener having tools to reshape a bush, so too does legislators use tools of taxation, courts, and
other laws to exact the same painful mold.
Let us look at these two books not as political fairytales but as a sense of something changing
with the relations of man and woman.
Brave New World was written as a farce to the utopias of the time. But even Huxley was stunned
at how many of the things in the book became true. Every writer knows that good writing is done
on its own, that it never fits the beginning outline or vision. When the writer is done writing, he
is often stunned at what was put down and often astonished at what his characters are saying.
While the author may have intended this, and afterward may have suspected he wrote that
because of this, really, he isn't as sure.
What is the conflict that Brave New World revolves around? It is not the genetics or Bernard's
ambition. It is not the telling of the society itself. The Savage is the axis of the story. The conflict
is the Savage (whom the reader identifies as himself) thrown into such a society where everyone
is happy...yet are not. His reaction to the woman he falls for is most telling. His despair and
constant quoting of Shakespeare, "Oh Brave New World that has such creatures in it!" is
contrasting the pathetic flat world of the book to the glorious spiraling realm that Shakespeare,
and indeed the West, once personified. The book illustrates the destruction of family, marriage,
and the old ways.
1984 also has nothing to do with politics. The use of language, of manipulation, of 'Big Brother,'
are all just blocks which could easily be replaced with something else. The conflict of the story is
expressed by Winston by, first, his past and his attempts of coupling with a woman he chooses.
Winston says how he wanted to murder his wife, how child rearing was told to him as a 'duty.'
609
1984 was not about an omnipotent, omniscient government as it was about the destruction of a
natural union between a man and a woman. It was not about Winston loving Big Brother as it
was that they forced him to destroy his love for her. "Do it to her! Do it to her!" screams Winston
at the climax.
Both Huxley and Orwell both appear to be candidates, in how their lives went, to have detected
this slouching towards Matriarchy (or whatever you want to call it today) way back then. They
wouldn't even have consciously known it. It is like a Middle Ages work being filled with praises
of God, even revolving around it, but not realizing it because he was so immersed in the times.
This would explain who the two books hold so much gravity with the masses and why they are
so often cited.
Sexuality was once intertwined with faith, with liberty, and with society. If it is true that
sexuality's wheel has been fraying, that more and more people are turning into sex-less
automatons and only resort to man/woman during intercourse (and even then only seen in the
context of animals), imagine a third book to follow up what Brave New World and 1984 started.
Imagine a book that could perfectly mirror society today. Not the society of images we see on TV
or magazines, but how it really is. The difference between a good writer and a mediocre one is
that the good writer never sees himself as writing, only as holding a mirror up to Human Nature.
What if the mirror was held up to society now? Is it possible to translate the pain and suffering
that men undergo, as they commit suicide, after divorce and being ripped from their children
onto the page? What about the sadness that enters men's hearts when they see daughters and
other young women use sex to obtain material things? Or what about the abyss that men realize
they have been manipulated their entire lives? And how about the heights (or should I say
depths) of the modern woman's life with her cats? Can the farce of the family court be put into a
book? Can the spiritual castration of men be properly illustrated? What an impact it would be to
have the West look itself in the mirror! This is the appeal I believe MRA sites have. People are
looking for a mirror of society and MRA sites are giving explanations.
Such a book would truly rise fast as one of the first 'great works' of the twenty first century. But
610
in order for such a book to be written, the writer would have to march down the steps of the
abyss far lower than Brave New World and 1984 ever did. He would have to write about such
hellish subjects, and know it and dream it, consistently to get the work written. If most men
commit suicide once knowing the truth, it would be extremely hard for one to make such a tome.
It would take a very rare man to create such a work...without killing himself...and then having
the balls to publish it.
And by writer, I am not meaning some newsletter or other author. I am meaning something more:
a poet. Not in the sense that he writes in rhymes, but in the sense of how much Human Nature he
would have to connect him.
I have heard several talented writers attempt such a work. They either abandoned the work in
haste of going mad, did indeed go mad, or completed a work that shows some sparkles of insight
but is mostly flat (for the author refused to fully enter the abyss). The sphinx will continue
feasting until someone realizes how to answer with "Man!"
611
Plato's Warning About Writing
Our vision of history comes from past writings. But what about the time before writing was
invented? And if writing was invented beforehand, could it have been possible for civilizations to
ignore writing because they saw it as a vice?
Plato, one of the last who knew the pre-writing civilizations (and, hence, the Mill), wrote this in
the end of Phaedrus. In the book, Socrates refers to a story that the Egyptian Thamus tell the god
Theuth that writing, far from being a benefit, will plant forgetfulness in men's souls that it will
only seem to be wisdom and will tell men of things without really teaching them; they will thus
seem to know much but in fact know nothing. They will have the conceit of wisdom, not genuine
wisdom.
The response of civilizations after to this goes as follows: "Haha, Socrates was such a DORK!!!
Plato was such a fuddy duddy! Writing was a proper invention the helped the world. It is like the
fool who thinks computers will harm us, or the automobile will destroy us."
However tempting it is to think this way, Socrates was anything but a dork, and Plato was no
fool. We're not talking about some nerd in history. This is PLATO, the guy who invented
philosophy for us. So let us give him benefit of the doubt.
612
It is common to find people out there who have read a great deal of many books and believe this
gives them the key to wisdom. Does it? And we know writers with many blogs where the
template is always the same: Humanity is stupid, the blogger is super-intelligent, and the blog
performs as an arena where our intellectual Columbus spews his 'revealing' comments.
"You, yourself, do this very thing, Mr. Pook."
…Perhaps. But would others post a blog post like this? I'm trying to point out is that it is possible
to read too much. Of all the books I have read, I wonder: would it have been more illuminating if
I were fishing instead?
Most ancient literature was composed not by ink and parchment (or tablet) but rather through
oral poetry and chants. Homer's Iliad and Odyssey was crafted from oral tradition, not writings.
The Mahabharata, the great work of India, was also from oral tradition. So was the Finnish epic
known as the Kaleva. Even the Old Testament probably originated from oral traditions.
I do not believe in the word 'culture.' Culture, the word, was invented by Kant and hasn't
obtained widespread use until after World War 2. "This is controversial. You are a radical Pook."
All Pooks are radical. Some are just more radical than others!
It is known that Finland, Estonia, and Lapland are a cultural island. Ethnically, they are related to
the Hungarians and other Asian people (Siryenians, Votyaks, Cheremisians, etc.) They speak
languages which belong to the Ugro-Finnish family whose languages are described as
"agglutinative" and often characterized by vowel harmonization. This tradition has remained
separate from most of the world until fairly recently. Yet, the parallels of the Kaleva and the
Norse and Celtic mythologies are striking. There was no contact yet the transmission was oral.
But this would better put Plato's warning into perspective. Dieterlen's introduction to Marcel
Griaule's Conversations with Ogotemmeli deals with Dogon education and with the personal
experience of waiting sixteen years before the sage old men of the tribe decided to "open the
613
door." Behold:
In African societies which have preserved their traditional organization the number of persons
who are trained in this knowledge is quite considerable. This they call "deep knowledge" in
contrast with "simple knowledge" which is regarded as "only a beginning in the understanding
of beliefs and customs" that people who are not fully instructed in the cosmogony possess. There
are various reasons for the silence that is generally observed on this subject.
Now, I could quote the full text, but the point can be easily made. In this African society in the
year 1941, this tribe had a few elders who had the "deep knowledge." These Westerners had to
wait over a decade before being entrusted of obtaining this "deep knowledge" which was
transmitted orally. This "deep knowledge" is, of course, the astral plane, philosophy, great
legends, and everything else...in other words, the Mill. Not only did this African society hold
such traditions about keeping the knowledge of the Mill to the elders, almost every ancient
society was like this. Even with the invention of writing, Christianity kept knowledge within its
Latin clergy not because of aristocratic temptations but because this 'circle of elders transmitting
knowledge orally' has been the standard of all ancient civilizations. Today, we have no
familiarity with Greek and Latin which has cut us off from those traditions (these traditions of
those Greeks were, of course, the Pythagorean, Orphic, and Neart East traditions).
Was Plato right about writing? I think he was, at least in making it impossible for us to
understand the ancients and the traditions of all civilizations concerning the Mill. "The mind has
lost its cutting edge, we hardly understand the Ancients," wrote Gregoire de Tours back in 600
A.D.
But the very error might be our reliance on writing itself. Writers are well aware that practically
every plot possible has been told (plot as in matter of form such as 'revenge plot' ad nauseum).
But there is one interesting difference I find in the ancient stories and politics to today's stories
and politics. Today, we believe in the Linear. Much of politics is debated around what is
progressive. Evolution is, itself, a type of linear mode of thinking. As for plot, one thing the
ancients did not have was time travel. Today, we have no problem thinking Marty McFly can go
614
back in time and change history. But to the ancients, they would be unable to comprehend that
because, for them, there was no linear time line. There were only cycles, only a circle. Odysseus
could not travel through time like Marty McFly, but he could visit the Land of the Dead as well
as those other strange islands of the living.
Writing is linear. The sentence has its beginning and its end. But the oral transmission, while also
linear, depends entirely on memory. The "deep knowledge," the Mill, is a pure structure of
numbers bounded by times and rhythms...like music (as oral transmission, given through poetry,
often became). Archaic thought is cosmological first and last and must be considered as a whole
and not as a sum of parts whether it be astrology, forces, gods, numbers, planetary powers,
Platonic Forms, Aristotelian Essences or Stoic Substances. The Mill cannot be analyzed in the
usual sense. I can talk about seen objects but how to explain motions, change, and rhythm? Think
of physics as that is seen primarily as numbers. How do you understand this ancient context of an
irresistible circle of time if you consider time to be linear and think through writing?
Plato's warning about writing was that it destined us to think in linear terms for everything and
broke off any possibility of tapping into that ancient knowledge. "So what, Pook? We are better
today than yesterday. We are healthier, have better technology, and live better in every way."
True. But Mankind's high state of living comes that we have more minds living today. With six
billion alive, we can focus on the most specialized tasks. This was impossible when Mankind
numbered four million, lived in ditches, and hunted rabbits. The Mill gave us Plato, gave us
Science, gave us the Humanities, and may arguably have given us the religions.
How can universities, full of bookworms, be able to piece together wisdom that was transmitted
orally? How can a linear mind grasp the ancient cyclical mind?
These are good questions (with no clear answers). It is a far cry from the conclusion we began
with of Socrates being a fuddy duddy about new techniques. It shows that the Mill must be not
be read but heard.
615
The Seduction of the Men's Movement
Eric Hoffer wrote a brilliant book last century called, "The True Believer." In the book, Hoffer
began analyzing mass movements that ripped apart the twentieth century. Why do people join
mass movements? And why are those who most frequently join mass movements tend to be poor
or very wealthy? He solved the question as to why the children of wealthy parents end up
becoming lost in a mass movement.
Hoffer's answer was that people frustrated in life, frustrated in that their lives are not turning the
way they want, will lose themselves into a mass movement. Happy people generally have very
little need for a movement. A quote: "It is easier to serve Humanity than it is to serve your
neighbor." People want to matter in life, to think their lives have some sort of meaning. Children
of wealthy people want meaning just as much as the poor person. The ones who are most
resistant to the mass movement are those who are too busy working. Hoffer observed that those
who followed the Communist mass movement would turn around and follow the anti-communist
movement as easily as changing clothes. He also remarks on the 'mass movement' syndrome of
616
Islam (remember, this book was published in the early 20th century).
The mass movement of feminism is explained, very easily, that many of the women have
received disappointments in the affairs of love. They failed with men so they believe men have
created a system of cruel punishment against them (the "patriarchy"). A happy feminist is an
oxymoron. Many women recognize that feminism is the cause of frustration with men which is
why these same women will go to Men's Movement sites to say, "You all just need to get laid!" It
is more accurate to say that the feminists need to get laid...or rather, to become loved. They feel
they have missed out on bliss in life (of motherhood and happy marriage) and rail against anyone
having that bliss.
What is the Men's Movement? There is no order to it, no form, and no shape. It is the sum of
laments, of both personal and legal. My fear is that many men will attempt to lose themselves
into this "movement" instead of bettering their own lives. Men's Movement should be more
about turning males into men than be a catchall for all lamentations and frustrations at the hands
of Western Women. My big fear is about young men entering the "movement."
Men younger than twenty five years age should not bother with the "Men's Movement." They
should be focused on building their own lives. There is plenty of time (and plenty of feminists) to
fight later on. Your younger years are very formative, and it would be perilous to lose your soul
to the "mass movement" syndrome before that soul had fully matured.
Anyone can fight feminists. But not everyone can found a business, generate talent, or become
someone out of everyone. "Why does any of that have to deal with freeing men?" The biggest
chains are self-imposed. How do you know what to fight against politically if you do not strive to
fly yourself? If one does not 'fly,' one then assumes the mantle of a "movement" and uses it as a
vessel for all their frustrations in life.
The best way to fight feminism is to fight mediocrity itself.
617
Time to move beyond MGTOW
There is something very wrong with MGTOW. Instead of talking about 'men going their own
way,' we see...
-Anti-Americanism (or other rants against one's mother country)
-Declarations of Chicken Little economic/social/cultural collapse.
618
-Religious screeds against a particular religion or against all religions.
-Conspiracy theories.
-Evangelizing the 'Deck-Stacked-Against-Us-Have-No-Hope' view of society (which is
unproductive).
-Evangelizing that one ought to live like a Mexican...
-...or another country...
-Forums become a 'Yes!' echo chamber. There is no discussion, just rants filled with yes-men.
These 'elements' are well known but ignored because of the 'good things' that do come out. We
should just shrug off these things and compromise with them. Well, there is one problem.
When food and poison compromise, which is the victor? It is the poison. Eating it may be
sustaining...for the short term...but your body fills up with these poison toxins. You begin to lose
your ambition, your passion, and generally become filled with bitterness.
I have wondered how this is occurring. It is not uncommon. Many 'movements' somehow get
filled with negative filled people with anger issues and other wackos. But not all movements. So
how did MGTOW become a container for this garbage?
The answer is that MGTOW is founded on a negative itself: avoidance of woman. This has
caused blanket rants against women. "But many of these rants are accurate, Pook!" So what? A
farmer can rant all day about the unfairness of frost, but that will not get him anywhere. There is
no cosmic justice out there. The world is what it is and it’s better to live in it that in a hyperreality.
Perhaps this will hit more to the point. How many years has MGTOW existed? And what has
changed since then? Really, nothing has changed at all.
But I have to wonder why no one in MGTOW can keep to the subject. Pick any random thread
and you will find someone start going off the reservation of a speech against a religion or another
unasked for soapbox sermon on some oddball subject. Often, many will randomly insert his
619
"brilliant" assertion that civilization will collapse in ten years.
MGTOW is based on the belief that men have made mistakes (which should be spared making
mistakes). These mistakes can include marriage, being nice guys, being worshipful to women,
and so on. All these mistakes have a common theme: egotism. When the man got married, he
was so sure he was doing the right thing and the naysayers were all jealous villains.
Since so many join MGTOW based on being wrong in the past, why does everyone act like they
are right all the time? It is amazing! The egotism never died. It just shifted into new forms. This
would explain why someone can't keep to the subject of MGTOW and instead must start bashing
a religion, bashing a country, or bashing something else. One can be right on something and be
wrong on other things. But MGTOW do not see that. They act like they have suddenly become
right on everything (so they become vocal on it).
If we were wrong in the past, and it damaged our lives (such as getting married to a fiend), why
do we strut around as if we have such 'wisdom?' If we were so wrong once, we could be wrong
again. Yet, this reservation is nowhere to be found in MGTOW. Every man has his own pet
theories. The dogs slip their leash and begin to ravage the good content.
To be honest, I don't see many happy MGTOW. There are no celebrations about being 'free' but
complaining about...something. Trust me; celebrations and good cheer are far more effective and
contagious than "being right all the time."
In normal society, people do not like being around someone 'right all the time.' Even if they are
right, they are downright annoying. People prefer light-hearted, good cheered fun. When I think
of MGTOW, 'good cheer' is the last to come to mind. MGTOW isn't about being alive as it is
about escaping pain.
For as much as we mock feminists for being negative, for getting with women to talk bad about
men, it is becoming more and more clear that MGTOW is becoming more like the mirror image.
Behavior by behavior, a MGTOW male acts very similar to a feminist in lifestyle and habit. You
620
begin to live alone, have meetings with guys to 'talk bad about women' (to ease existential pains),
and write bad essays.
I think it is becoming clear that marriage and children is a natural longing in not just women but
men as well. Nature did not intend gender avoidance. I believe generally everyone is repelled by
the negative pessimistic tone found on MGTOW. However, people return consistently for a dose
of the poison to ease the existential pain (caused by the natural longing of wife and children
which is found in every culture and time). Once convinced by the rantings that women are more
painful than pleasurable, the male goes off semi-satisfied. But, alas, the natural longing creeps up
again causing the male to return.
why, it must be requited. I hear how I am censured:
they say I will bear myself proudly, if I perceive
the love come from her; they say too that she will
rather die than give any sign of affection. I did
never think to marry: I must not seem proud: happy
are they that hear their detractions and can put
them to mending. They say the lady is fair; 'tis a
truth, I can bear them witness; and virtuous; 'tis
so, I cannot reprove it; and wise, but for loving
me; by my troth, it is no addition to her wit, nor
no great argument of her folly, for I will be
horribly in love with her. I may chance have some
odd quirks and remnants of wit broken on me,
because I have railed so long against marriage: but
doth not the appetite alter? a man loves the meat
in his youth that he cannot endure in his age.
Shall quips and sentences and these paper bullets of
the brain awe a man from the career of his humour?
No, the world must be peopled. When I said I would
621
die a bachelor, I did not think I should live till I
were married.
-"Much Ado About Nothing", Shakespeare
MGTOW is equally damned.
622
More reasons why I am not a MRA
There is nothing wrong with single issue advocates. The problem occurs when it starts to
override everything else. Take the Elian Gonzalez scenario. MRAs, seeing only the boy returned
to his father, begin immediately applauding. They cheer the Janet Reno who sent the troops to
invade the house for the boy on one side while condemning Janet Reno for Waco. Never mind
that children belong to the State, not fathers, in Cuba.
MRA has won ZERO political victories. Despite this, many have moved further and further to
more extreme views. No more is it about equal rights for men as it is about taking away woman's
right to vote and changing consent law among other things. This tells me most MRA are not
really serious about the cause.
When people are serious about changing laws, they aim for the small victories first. Socialists do
not declare they want to nationalize all industry. They would be dead in the water politically if
they did that. Instead, they begin with small victories and so on to bigger ones. If MRAs were
serious, they would try to make change in a tactical manner. Most don't have the self-discipline
to do this. They would rather take a news story about some feminist or woman, proceed to bash
it, and then leave satisfied only to return later and do it all over again. It does not seem such
people are enjoying life. And enjoying life is how one converts and wins.
There are two matriarchies, the feminism and the 'traditional women' types. I've noticed when we
attack one, it strengthens the other. Perhaps the answer is to pit the matriarchies against one
another. Let them duke it out somehow.
623
Live In the Talent
Aristotle said that man has two peaks that are accompanied by intense pleasure: sexual
intercourse and thinking. The human soul is a kind of ellipse and its phenomena are spread
between its two foci that display our tropical variety and ambiguity.
This will be no surprise to those who understand sexual transmutation. The great salesman, as the
great artist and great entrepreneur, tends to harness the sexual impulses not unlike a sailboat
being powered by the wind. Transmutation also gives a reason for long term sexual relationship,
i.e. marriage, for the husband is transmuted in that his energy is more direct, his world caught up
more in that 'electric' world that is created when we fall in love, and the wife the same. But what
if we do not get who we love? Is all lost? We should put trust in His handiwork as Nature tends
to work even when our misunderstandings say otherwise. Even with a lost love, the man (or
woman) enters a transmuted state whose memory can be recalled on.
This elliptical nature between sexual intercourse and thinking should explain a seeming
contradiction: why great men tend to seem simultaneously wild sexually yet celibate often. The
cause and effect is not the intercourse but the state of high sexual being within the man. This
high state of sexual being does lead to great thoughts and, also, does lead to sexual liaisons. The
latter can, sometimes, destroy the former but not always. We can watch Benjamin Franklin or
Thomas Jefferson do great things of thought while their highly charged sexual natures tended to
lead them to various ladies' beds. And to those greats that self-defined themselves as 'gay,' they
don't mean gay in the modern sense. They feared women would remove such transmutation from
them and didn't have such fear with men.
624
It also explains why great writers, thinkers, artists, and businessmen are 'weird' and 'nuts' to the
general public. However, it is a grave mistake to correlate 'weirdness' and 'nuts' to greatness.
Most of the time, a nut is just a nut.
Freud saw only one focus in the soul, the same one as the brutes have, and had to explain all
psychology's higher phenomena by society's repression. Freud didn't really believe in the soul
but in the body with its passive instrument of consciousness, the mind. It is a blunted vision of
the higher phenomena as illustrated by his crude observations about art and philosophy. Freud is
now mainstream. Not only are the pimps and sluts dressed in the higher elliptical clothes once
reserved for aristocrats, they use Freudian language as explanation.
The context that sexual intercourse is the peak of our lives and Human existence, which it *has*
to be if change over time is nothing but consistent gene swapping, creates Humans who,
naturally, want to experience the peaks in life so therefore gravitate toward sexual intercourse for
the sake of sexual intercourse. Young people, who for their lives only recognize that being
controlled by nature is the march of progress, have not yet understood as older people do that
nature must be harnessed. Most will never understand in their lifetimes.
So what is the problem in this? The higher state of the soul, the elliptical end from sexual
intercourse, is what I identify as 'talent.' Everyone has talent, a yearning drive to do something
than live a life of an animal. Even the pimps and sluts have this yearning as well. When context
never allows the soul to reach for talent but only sexual intercourse, often in an environment
where this context is dominant (such as the modern world today) or when sexual intercourse
comes too early in life and cuts the cord to the elliptical talent above, knowledge is never sought
yet the person is filled with 'opinions.'
The event goes as follows:
-The young person either has a too soon sexual experience or too many that cements his context
or he/she lives in an environment where the context is that the peak of human existence is sexual
intercourse (and the 'talent' doesn't exist).
625
-The cord to knowledge and the 'talent' are snipped. The person can become skilled and even
smart and thrive in today's economy. Yet, the person will never ever walk in the same realm that
Bach, Plato, Shakespeare among others all did. They will walk past the ruins without wondering
what went on ("And why should we, Pook?" Well, such wonder is what the Renaissance was all
about).
-These snipped are literally so. They are sterile in the way of the soul. Even though their context
is that the soul does not exist, they still long for something above the life of an animal. They
desire their life to have meaning. At a young age, many think it will result in marriage and
children. They realize this isn't the case.
-The snipped then proceed to make their lives worth meaning. No one wants to live an empty
life. Thus, they become the perfect fodder for mass movements as detailed by Eric Hoffer's "True
Believer" book be it Nazism, Communism, Environmentalism, Feminism, MGTOW,
Christianity, nationalism, liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, anarchism, and so on.
Interestingly, each and every person in the above says the exact same thing: "History will record
our cause as true and just."
-As they age, they become obsessed with history in either re-writing it "this is how it really
happened!" or in pointing at it "this is a historic event!"
If one doesn't want the above, then one needs to strive to live in the talent. Do not mistake to be
LITT to mean seeing the elliptical opposite as destructive or that celibacy is the way. Living in
the talent is all about being sexually charged and directing your energies to that talent. It does not
mean not sleeping with women; it means not dedicating your life to sleep with women. It also
means rejection of the context that sexual intercourse is the only peak of existence. It means
striving towards excellence which is something bulls and geese cannot do (but even cattle can go
their own way).
626
Talent already lives in you so you ought to live in the talent. No matter where you are, you'll
always feel at home.