Post: #1

Been chewing on this for awhile, gotta get it out there. Before everyone gets the troll smilies out: I know I might be violating Poe's Law. Please don't ban me. This bit of logic will serve as a cliff's notes version of my argument:

One of the first things that any man will learn about game is that women will often complain the loudest about the things they like the most in men. Any guy that has been friendzoned will hear his "friend" complain about her asshole uncaring boyfriend. Why is she with this guy? Because he's an asshole uncaring alpha cad. How does the guy in the friendzone "fix" this problem? By being nice and listening to what she says. What should he do? He should become the asshole uncaring alpha cad.

So here we go. Let's apply this principle from the small scale (micro) to the large scale (macro): feminists (and women) complain about the patriarchy. How do we fix women complaining about the patriarchy?

For the last 100 years (and even further) in the West we've "fixed" women's problems with the "patriarchy" by giving them more rights. We've given them the right to vote in a universal democracy. We've made hiring them for jobs a priority. We've listened to their complaints about male behavior and instituted behavioral and language restrictions everywhere in media, academia, professional life, and personal life. We've elevated them to the principal raisers of children. We give them the benefit of the doubt in all situations. We've listened to their every want and need and bent over backwards.

But, are women in the West happy?

They aren't happy at all. Take a few minutes and scratch the surface and most women in the West are miserable. And it has nothing to do with how much money they make or anything else. They are just unhappy. (if you've read Heartiste at all you can put the proper emphasis on unhappy). Why?

Big Bad Beta West is dominant in the world. It makes a ton of money. It can afford to give its girls everything they want. They can be big and fat and still be beautiful, they can "have it all", they don't need to confront their own fertility as a limited span, they can be respected and still be sexy, their voices matter above all else. Why are Beta West's women so unhappy?

Beta West has made a noob mistake. Beta West has listened to woman as a man and judged her as a man and tries to give her what a man needs. But a woman is not a man.

If you want to apply game at a small scale (micro-gamenomics for you future college professors), when talking to a girl at a bar or in class or at the grocery store or anywhere else, it is foremost that you appreciate her as a woman. But, somehow in the West, when we go to the large scale (macro-gamenomics) we see women the same as men. It's obvious that an individual woman is not a man. It should also be obvious that collectively women do not become men or think like men or act like men.

The solution to many women bitching about patriarchy is the same as the solution to a single woman bitching about your dominance. It's a shit test. The wrong answer is giving in. Do I need to fill in the rest?

The West has collectively failed the largest shit test in the history of competitive sexual reproduction.

And it continues to fail, just like the friendzoned beta tries to be nicer than the asshole boyfriend but never gets laid. The only way out of such a situation as an individual man is to reclaim your dominance as a man.

So what is the solution for men? Take what works on the small scale and apply it to the large scale. Reclaim your dominance. There's a word for that: Patriarchy.

Men should be making the decisions. This is delightfully simple. When you meet a cute girl, if you don't make the decisions, she thinks less of you. When pressed, women will say how much they don't respect a man that keeps appealing to them. Let's apply this small simple truth to the large scale. Men should be making the decisions. Let's bring back the patriarchy.

Let's do game on the macro level. Seriously. Not just with the one night stands, not just with your wife. You can't say that game works and not understand what it entails: Men are the decision makers. Men should be dominant. Men should step up to the plate and take all life has to reward them or shit on them.

Easy enough? How about this: You can't have a society that is based on what women say they need and want. Men can and should disregard what women say they need and want. And it is the men in that society that are to praise or to blame for when society crumbles. Giving women the right to vote is a bad idea.

Patriarchy is macro-game. This is why people who start with "how can I get laid" inevitably end up with "what is wrong with society". It's the same concept applied to a larger scale. And, it's no surprise that now, when women have more power than ever, they are complaining about the very things they are missing.

Bring back macro-game, bring back patriarchy.

Post: #2

Patriarchy is a society where male promiscuity is condoned.
Matriarchy is a society where female promiscuity is condoned.
Matriarchal societies have never thrived -All of them have perished sooner than later.
Problem is that, as Nietzsche envisioned, we live in a narcissist society where every social group is having its own party. PUAs are having their party, Feminists are having their party, Bisexuals are having their party, Transsexuals are having their party, SJWs are having their party and there's no sign this could end any time soon. Maybe next century, just maybe.

Post: #3

Michele Houellebecq's new book, Submission, presupposes that social conservatives in Europe would get exactly what they want (patriarchy, traditionalism, etc.) if only they would forget about Christianity and go with Islam. Certainly Islamic countries are patriarchal.

Post: #4

(01-30-2015 10:50 PM)Luvianka Wrote:  Patriarchy is a society where male promiscuity is condoned.
Matriarchy is a society where female promiscuity is condoned.
Matriarchal societies have never thrived -All of them have perished sooner than later.
Problem is that, as Nietzsche envisioned, we live in a narcissist society where every social group is having its own party. PUAs are having their party, Feminists are having their party, Bisexuals are having their party, Transsexuals are having their party, SJWs are having their party and there's no sign this could end any time soon. Maybe next century, just maybe.

All of this is happening because the natural order of things (patriarchy) has been suppressed. Humans are patriarchal by nature. The male is dominant physically and has higher variance intellectually. At some point in time, equilibrium should be restored. Anything else is doomed to failure as it goes against our very nature as a species.

There is no other end. And maybe this is why we look across the galaxies and see emptiness. When we suppress the same ideals that create our children and our civilization, we suppress our entire future. Perhaps intelligent civilizations ultimately destroy the own sexual process through egalitarianism and that's why the universe is empty.

Post: #5

(01-30-2015 11:03 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  Michele Houellebecq's new book, Submission, presupposes that social conservatives in Europe would get exactly what they want (patriarchy, traditionalism, etc.) if only they would forget about Christianity and go with Islam. Certainly Islamic countries are patriarchal.

I've thought about this a lot. Patriarchy is necessary but not sufficient for long term human civilization and technological progress.

Islam is either lacking or suppressing something that is inherently important. All societies that embrace Islam wholesale end up stagnating or going back to primitivism (which is no different than the feminist West where we are increasingly seeing primitivism in the sexual marketplace).

I don't think the West has a "Get out of Jail Free" card by embracing Islam.

Post: #6

(01-30-2015 11:03 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  Michele Houellebecq's new book, Submission, presupposes that social conservatives in Europe would get exactly what they want (patriarchy, traditionalism, etc.) if only they would forget about Christianity and go with Islam. Certainly Islamic countries are patriarchal.

Yes, I know, and I can't wait to read it as soon as the English translation is published. Now, without making early judgements about Houllebecque's work, I guess he means to integrate some Islam principles into Secular Laws. Otherwise, I don't think it can work. Islam is an openly militant political religion, something that goes into direct collision with Secular-Liberal-Individualistic-Western traditions. Besides, Islamic societies are basically awkwards, and either for military or cultural traditions Islam has never rooted in Europe, but in Bosnia. Spain was occupied during three centuries by the Caliphate, however, it never ended being Catholic.
One more thing, Islamic minorities always get in trouble wherever they are. Look at African nations. Look at India: Muslims and Hindus just cannot get along between them; and Hindus are as patriarchal, classist and racist as hell, you cannot accuse them of being liberals.

Post: #7

(01-30-2015 11:20 PM)dog Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 10:50 PM)Luvianka Wrote:  Patriarchy is a society where male promiscuity is condoned.
Matriarchy is a society where female promiscuity is condoned.
.....soon. Maybe next century, just maybe.

All of this is happening because the natural order of things (patriarchy) has been suppressed. Humans are patriarchal by nature. The male is dominant physically and has higher variance intellectually. At some point in time, equilibrium should be restored. Anything else is doomed to failure as it goes against our very nature as a species.
... the universe is empty.

All civilization is centralization. So, to have it, some kind of restrictions in every sense of life, including the sexual market, must be imposed by a stronger agent -The State.
Now, call me crazy, but I guess that the key element which brought civilization as we know it was a Communist principle: Marriage.
As we know, women are hypergamous -they look for the dominant males to mate. In a free sexual market, a tiny number of dominant males would hoard most of the women, and would father most of the children. In a society where mating and procreating goes through the institution of marriage you are promising every man, no matter how beta or omega he is, to have sexual access to at least one woman. The price to pay? To support that woman and the children he procreates with her. Ever heard about a more a Communist an Institution as Family?

Post: #8

Game + frame = patriarchy

From http://therationalmale.com/2011/10/12/frame/

"It is vital to the health of any LTR that a man establish his frame as the basis of their living together before any formal commitment is recognized."

Post: #9

I see a lot of prescriptions for change, to correct the current messed up state of the US and the world. The US should do XYZ with regard to Iran. Men should do XYZ with regard to rape hysteria. Patriarchy should be restored. The republicans should take the red pill and be ballsy in their dealings with the democrats. Progressive behavior is basically just a shit test to society, and the republicans would have the support of the majority if they would just stand up to this shit test.

The problem is that none of these things are ever going to happen. I see so many prescriptions of how things could be made right, and many are correct in theory, but they will never, ever happen in practice.

The only way most of the world's problems are going to be resolved is for the wheel of history to turn. The current financial system will crash like the Soviet Union did, the aftermath will take 20 years to unwind, and then gradually growth will return. The current wave of feminism will burn out over the course of a generation or two, as red pill ideas spread through all male populations, and women realize they will not get a man unless they act more feminine. Etc.

All of this is going to take a long time. I'm not saying everything will be peachy in a couple generations, but I think the current problems will have shifted, and different ones will take their place, just as we see in any other 20-40 year span of history.

Post: #10

It may be possible via the most unlikely avenue
This blogger only disagrees with one Manosphere tenet thing for ideological reasons. BUT at the end he makes a decent point about using socialism to 'put women back in the kitchen' to a certain extent.

This video by Morrakiu makes a similar case in the beginning:



Alternatives could be ending subsidies for women and things will balance out theoretically. But that would require going against the grain. Not impossible but a challenge.

Post: #11

(01-30-2015 11:51 PM)Luvianka Wrote:  Yes, I know, and I can't wait to read it as soon as the English translation is published. Now, without making early judgements about Houllebecque's work, I guess he means to integrate some Islam principles into Secular Laws.

Having read this reader-submitted synopsis of the book, that is not what he means.

"It’s tragic, he pleaded fervently, that irrational hostility towards Islam prevents them from recognizing the obvious: they were for the most part in perfect agreement with the Muslims. On the rejection of atheism and humanism, on the need for the subordination of women, on the return to patriarchy: their struggles from any point of view were exactly the same. But this fight to establish a new and natural phase of civilization could not now be conducted in the name of Christianity. No, it’s only with Christianity’s newer, simpler, and truer sister religion Islam that this battle could be waged."

http://www.unz.com/isteve/two-reviews-of...ubmission/

Post: #12

Things do change, dynamics are interchangeable. There was a film that I can't remember for the life of me what it was called. But basically the story line was about an old school aristocratic family with a submissive butler ended up getting ship wrecked off in an isolated island in the Pacific. Before the law the hierarchal order started to change, as money and wealth/status of the aristocrats wasn't useful in a jungle in the middle of nowhere. Where as the practical butler and second in command chamber maid, were able to hunt pheasants and pigs, cook nice feasts, locate the resources needed and even found some natural spring lakes. The aristocrats were at first dismayed by this and offended although after a while they realised that the butler was actually the best option so they stuck with him.

After a couple years later, the whole situation changed; the butler became king of the Island and had the head aristocrat trying to marry him off with his four beautiful daughters who needless to say where ecstatic about this.

Point of the story, is that you will be surprised how circumstances and outside variables can really change a situation. Same applies to economies, cultural norms and personalities. The Soviets in the 20s/30s actually implemented a sexual revolution on the same calibre as the 60s although it was almost enforced. This eventually perished as it was not practical, there needed to be some form of social contract among men and women. If you look at Russia now it is far more patriarchal than the Western European nations. Rightly or wrongly the country has a reputation for having strong masculine men and beautiful women, you will even find Arabs/Chinese that respect them.

Post: #13

(01-31-2015 05:56 AM)Constitution45 Wrote:  Things do change, dynamics are interchangeable. There was a film that I can't remember for the life of me what it was called. But basically the story line was about an old school aristocratic family with a submissive butler ended up getting ship wrecked off in an isolated island in the Pacific. Before the law the hierarchal order started to change, as money and wealth/status of the aristocrats wasn't useful in a jungle in the middle of nowhere. Where as the practical butler and second in command chamber maid, were able to hunt pheasants and pigs, cook nice feasts, locate the resources needed and even found some natural spring lakes. The aristocrats were at first dismayed by this and offended although after a while they realised that the butler was actually the best option so they stuck with him.

After a couple years later, the whole situation changed; the butler became king of the Island and had the head aristocrat trying to marry him off with his four beautiful daughters who needless to say where ecstatic about this.

Wow, can you try to remember the name? I'm intrigued.

Post: #14

(01-30-2015 11:20 PM)dog Wrote:  All of this is happening because the natural order of things (patriarchy) has been suppressed. Humans are patriarchal by nature. The male is dominant physically and has higher variance intellectually. At some point in time, equilibrium should be restored. Anything else is doomed to failure as it goes against our very nature as a species.

There is no other end. And maybe this is why we look across the galaxies and see emptiness. When we suppress the same ideals that create our children and our civilization, we suppress our entire future. Perhaps intelligent civilizations ultimately destroy the own sexual process through egalitarianism and that's why the universe is empty.

Human mating behavior is incompatible with equal rights.

Post: #15

I agree with the idea that they are asking indirectly for what they want. The only thing that could be improved is "Bring patriarchy" insead of "bring BACK patriarchy".

There has be no one true patriarchal society in history. Sadly.

Post: #16

Patriarchy has always been a struggle to achieve, much less sustain. Each man must do his part. I'm a LTR kind of guy myself, and always search for a feminine woman that may test my strength as a man, but I firmly, but lovingly put her in her place in a playful way. Women DO NOT want to be in charge, their protests notwithstanding. Be a playfully firm sexist that takes care of a woman's emotional, financial and other needs and she'll be putty in your arms. Women aren't tough, they are just disdainful towards weak men. A man's frame must not be a made-up construct, but who he is internally. That is a deep and loving appreciation for what women are, not for the men they are not.

Properly understood, one need not be an asshole to attract women, but rather search out the decent ones and let them know you're in charge. A certain "I've got this babe" attitude is what draws healthy women to you. Ignore the feminists and breed them out of the gene pool. That's the number one thing you can do to help bring patriarchy back, find a good woman, wifey her up, and throw her around in bed and put that bun in her oven. Women deep down know that they want to be owned by a man. Be it a good man who is a provider (who is rough around the edges, also known as being a traditionally manly man) or a bad boy. Either way, kill the weakness inside of you and become the man you were meant to be!

Post: #17

(01-30-2015 11:34 PM)dog Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 11:03 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  Michele Houellebecq's new book, Submission, presupposes that social conservatives in Europe would get exactly what they want (patriarchy, traditionalism, etc.) if only they would forget about Christianity and go with Islam. Certainly Islamic countries are patriarchal.

I've thought about this a lot. Patriarchy is necessary but not sufficient for long term human civilization and technological progress.

Islam is either lacking or suppressing something that is inherently important. All societies that embrace Islam wholesale end up stagnating or going back to primitivism (which is no different than the feminist West where we are increasingly seeing primitivism in the sexual marketplace).

I don't think the West has a "Get out of Jail Free" card by embracing Islam.

What gains that patriarchy may have given those societies. May have been undone by other means.

Post: #18

We can become Patriarchs ourselves.

A father and husband is a patriarch, but on a small scale.

This thread /thread-39579.html has some good insight on the matter.

Post: #19

By rejecting poor quality women, we promote patriarchy. Never turned down the opportunity to mock and shame those women who cause trouble. Women are very vain and herd oriented. If they believe something is unpopular, they will no longer back it, even if they were insisting it was the greatest thing since sliced bread yesterday. Women don't want to be associated with losers. The more feminist fatties are mocked, and fit and feminine women are heralded, the more sweet, pleasant women you'll see. There will be no legal battle waged, this is strictly a battle for each man and woman at a personal level, individual by individual, town by town.

Post: #20

(01-31-2015 02:15 PM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 05:56 AM)Constitution45 Wrote:  Things do change, dynamics are interchangeable. There was a film that I can't remember for the life of me what it was called. But basically the story line was about an old school aristocratic family with a submissive butler ended up getting ship wrecked off in an isolated island in the Pacific. Before the law the hierarchal order started to change, as money and wealth/status of the aristocrats wasn't useful in a jungle in the middle of nowhere. Where as the practical butler and second in command chamber maid, were able to hunt pheasants and pigs, cook nice feasts, locate the resources needed and even found some natural spring lakes. The aristocrats were at first dismayed by this and offended although after a while they realised that the butler was actually the best option so they stuck with him.

After a couple years later, the whole situation changed; the butler became king of the Island and had the head aristocrat trying to marry him off with his four beautiful daughters who needless to say where ecstatic about this.

Wow, can you try to remember the name? I'm intrigued.

It sounds a lot like "Admirable Crichton." It's a very old film.

Post: #21

(01-31-2015 12:01 AM)Luvianka Wrote:  All civilization is centralization. So, to have it, some kind of restrictions in every sense of life, including the sexual market, must be imposed by a stronger agent -The State.
Now, call me crazy, but I guess that the key element which brought civilization as we know it was a Communist principle: Marriage.
As we know, women are hypergamous -they look for the dominant males to mate. In a free sexual market, a tiny number of dominant males would hoard most of the women, and would father most of the children. In a society where mating and procreating goes through the institution of marriage you are promising every man, no matter how beta or omega he is, to have sexual access to at least one woman. The price to pay? To support that woman and the children he procreates with her. Ever heard about a more a Communist an Institution as Family?

I recommend you "The Ancient City" by Fustel de Coulanges. It's a study of the roots of Western law in primitive pagan religion.
Marriage in its original form was not at all communal. It was an alliance between elite men. It was hard bartered thing.
The custom of meeting your fiancee's father, talking to him and shaking his hand was originally the engagement itself. The dowry offered by the father was a major incentive. And most importantly, only the father of the woman could decide who she married.
It used to be that only men were citizens of a Greek or Roman tribe. Boys, girls were minors, subject to the paterfamilias (= father of the family) women remained children forever. Marriage was a kind of sexual adoption.

I get your point about polygamy versus monogamy, but there's another factor: If you freely maintain a dozen wives, then why would a smaller cheese use your marriage of his daughter to cement an alliance? He may as well be sending you a fruitbasket. By maintaining only one wife, you concentrate your allegiances. It's better bait for powerful friends. Better to marry the daughter of a bigwig than clutter your house with the daughters of farmers who bred more than they could feed.

Further, there was the custom of the family gods. The Greeks and Romans believed that the dead needed to be tended with offerings of wine and prayer. When a Roman patrician worshipped at his household altar, he was effectively laying flowers on the grave of his forefathers.
To make sure the spirits would be tended for all time, he wanted to keep his family as intact as possible. Having dozens of sons from a dozen wives would lead to chaos; his own spirit would wander the earth and starve as his sons fought over his holdings. Daughters would worship at the altar of another family once they were married.

This is all very picturesque, but the practical evolutionary result was that Greek and Roman men felt a religious compulsion to have male children, and to keep their properties intact through primogeniture (eldest son inheriting.) Monogamy meant less inheritance squabbling back in the days before people could calculate dates accurately.

This had the advantage of making their Y-chromosomal heritage steadily richer and more powerful through time, sowing many wild oats and impregnating many slaves and mistresses; all the while making useful allegiance-marriages and passing the house on from eldest male to eldest male.
The lands were not split up, so having more sons meant sending them out into the world to colonise it; a Patrician family was like a volcano of YDNA, scattering it far and wide, all while remaining central, steadfast, and singular.

Post: #22

Quote:Wow, can you try to remember the name? I'm intrigued.

I figured there can't be too many movies about something like that, so I googled: "Shipwrecked family butler" haha.

The film is called "Paradise Lagoon" or "The Admirable Chichton" from 1957

Post: #23

(01-30-2015 11:03 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  Michele Houellebecq's new book, Submission, presupposes that social conservatives in Europe would get exactly what they want (patriarchy, traditionalism, etc.) if only they would forget about Christianity and go with Islam. Certainly Islamic countries are patriarchal.

Exactly.

Islam and feminism go hand in hand. Ever notice that the Islamics in the media are always screaming their heads off over some trivial matter? And that there is rarely any self-controlled (and dare I say it), LOGICAL, response? They are always screaming about something the way Hitler used to. I remember an older German guy talking about when Adolf first reared his head in the media, saying that's what he hated about him the first time he heard him speak. He'd scream about very simple things.

Feminism is the same and so is Islam. It's often entwined with Islam and the Muslim men don't even know it. It is a twin spiritual sickness in both men and women in those countries, where Islam feminizes men and brutalizes women. Nature of the beast so to speak.

I don't mind patriarchy, as long as Islam is kept far away from it.

Post: #24

delete

Post: #25

delete