MMX2010

From the AnonymousConservative.com/blog http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/what-does-a-feminist-loss-look-like/ Vox highlights a comment on Alpha Game on how men are winning the battle against feminism with indifference. I disagree. Men turning their backs on women is not a loss for the feminists – it is a win. A loss for the feminists would be a world filled with Sarah Palins – with pretty, cheerful women happily raising five loving kids, and growing old together with a loyal man in marital happiness. If that happened, the bitter feminist hags would look on, overcome with the narcissist’s rage, jealousy, and spite at the effortless success of their feminine betters. This site focuses on narcissists, because the narcissist is the single best example of the greater battle which rages within mankind. I went through life oblivious to the battle, but once I saw it within the narcissist paradigm, I began to see it everywhere. It is Normal vs. Narcissist, it is Conservative vs. Liberal, and it is also Good vs Evil. However it is, at its most fundamental, the unhappy people who have to intrude into the lives of others vs the happy people who just want to be left alone to be happy. Any feminist who minded her own business would be quite harmless in the bigger picture – she could easily be ignored when she decided she wanted a career before love, or that her immediate happiness was more important than any potential child’s. Thus to be a real feminist, and create all this harm we see, a feminist must also find a way to ruin the lives of the pretty, potentially marry-able women. In truth, that is feminism’s true goal – to render every woman as much of an enraged bitter spinster as the average feminist is destined to become. At this battle’s core is the narcissist – a miserable wretch, made powerless to improve their own lot by a constant overwhelming envy of others, and left livid at what they see as the unfairness of other’s bliss in the face of their misery. However their real overwhelming motivation is a desire to remove the happiness of others which so irritates them. This is the narcissist, just as it is the liberal, just as it is the SJW, just as it is the feminist. The “cause” ostensibly pursued by each is merely the excuse they use to justify their intrusion upon, and their attacks on, the happy. When viewed through this paradigm, feminism is not a war on men, it is a war on women – specifically it is a war on the pretty, sweet, happy women, waged by unhappy, ugly, bitter women. As with liberalism, it is cowardly rabbits trying to stir dissension and conflict between people who, left to their own devices, would otherwise be happy and successful, and make the rabbit envious. Feminism, like all destructive lies, is collapsing under it’s own weight. Combined with the K-selected economic reality that approaches, it will once again come to be viewed as the bitter ravings of worthless women who only a fool would marry. But the measure of its ultimate defeat will not be the measure of men’s indifference to the feminists. It will be the degree to which the good women of society reject the entreaties of the feminists to throw away their chance at love and marriage while they are young and able to have children. When beautiful women ignore feminist lore, and strive to find happiness in loyal marriage and the love of family while they are young and able, feminism will have been truly and completely defeated. When feminists look out to see the nice pretty girls gleefully enjoying the fruits of love, marriage, and family that are denied to the feminist hags, then the feminists will suffer the enraging defeat they most fear experiencing.

This isn't job advice, but if you're very interested in psychology, these two websites are golden. TheLastPsychiatrist.com TheRawness.com --------------------------- This website is interesting because of its controversial position on the amygdala and modern politics, but AC's amygdala attack hypothesis has served me very well. (Knowing what an amygdala freeze looks like, and then generating them in public puts a smile on my face.) AnonymousConservative.com/blog -------------------------- I know it's ideal to weave together you personal interests with your professional life, but not nearly everyone gets to do that. Hence, a STEM degree is the better bet - and you can determine how to weave psychology into your work.

Adding to your question, if a man say, "Yes! I'm upset that she's deceiving me!", that man becomes one of only maybe 5% to 15% of men who feel this way. Is such a man: (1) speaking about his own aesthetic preference, implying that he doesn't need anyone else to agree with him OR (2) speaking about his own moral preference, implying that everyone who doesn't agree with him is behaving immorally?

Because practically no one believes, "Hi, my name is John. This is a list of things I do that work really well for me; you should try them out and see if they work for you, too! And if they don't work for you, I'm sorry about that." is either: (1) controlling behavior, nor (2) evidence of narcissism.

Yes, absolutely. Islam is a unique form of cancerous violence, in a way that Buddhism and even Christianity are not.

There are many ways to feign indifference, but the one Kevin Beal seems most focused on is the notion of withholding the expression of the emotions anticipation, joy, and happiness from women, especially in the early stages of dating. He has strongly implied that such withholdings are equivalent to "presenting yourself as a policeman, when you're really not".

That video was Ep. 23, and they introduce themselves as the "Federal Project: Stop A Douchebag Movement". But in this amazing Ep. 3, they introduce themselves as "Stop A Douchebag Movement". In an interview, the founder of the movement said that President Putin gave his approval of their project, so he introduces himself as the Federal Project. Interview is here: http://www.vice.com/read/we-talked-to-the-guy-behind-stopxam-206 Video is here: -------------------- I also know that, as a police officer you know terms like "escalation and de-escalation", as well. So I'm sure you're in awe of the youth's abilities to simultaneously acknowledge people's poor behavior without either giving into it or escalating them in further levels of anger. In Pick-Up Artistry, we call that "Amused Mastery" and "Frame Control", so I'm glad to see two crucial PUA concepts extend beyond PUA. I'm glad about that. Lately, I've been dwelling on the concept "masculine right" - the way that men, by virtue of being right, compel themselves to bring that rightness to as many people as possible, for everyone's benefit. You do what you do because you are right to do it. And it's as simple as that. It's your town, your family, your children, your community - and all of these fold into and inform the fact that you're right. Because we live in modern times, we feel like atomized individuals with little ability to impact our community. And we've forgotten that community has never been anything more than committed individuals doing the best they can to both set an example and curtail the bad behavior of other individuals. Atomized individuals behave how Carl Bartelt behaved: (1) with an extreme lack of awareness of how his cannabis habit finances individuals who destroy his community, (2) and with an extreme expectation that he can, by words alone, expect you to change your behavior to suit his desires. Since I know how your behaviors positively affect your community, I'll take the opposite tact by telling you to stay safe, stay proud. and keep doing what you're doing. I'll also say that some people will attack you for not yet being convinced about peaceful parenting. Ignore those people, study peaceful parenting at your own pace, and decide however you'll decide. No matter what decision you make, it'll be enough because it is you who are making it. ----------------- Lastly, a snippet from an article. Link: http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/liberals-need-to-keep-their-hands-off-our-patriotism/ Relevant Quote - (pay close attention to the last paragraph): "Statistically speaking, the population of America was nothing special during the revolution. 97% of Americans didn’t partake of the revolution. 10% of Americans offered some support, but wouldn’t fight. That means roughly 87% was the same cadre of corrupted idiots we see today, content to watch the decline and do absolutely nothing, so long as they are able to hope that the decline will leave them alone. Back during the revolution there was an actual war in their backyards, and the future of the nation didn’t matter to them enough to do anything. Ask yourself if they remind you of anyone today. They didn’t have Kim Kardashin’s ass photo or Lady Gaga’s outfits to distract them, but it was the same bunch of tools. Regardless of the 87%’s patheity, the America which emerged back then wasn’t in any way banal, cowardly, or pathetic. It was exceptional, in the most extreme sense possible. Most amazing of all, it only took 3% of the population to force their amazingness on the rest, and make the entire nation the greatest the world had ever seen. The truth is in our world, 97% of a nation’s people can be worthless, and it doesn’t matter or affect the greatness of a nation. The only measure by which the greatness of a nation will be defined is by the quality of the great within it, and the degree to which they assert their greatness on the civic culture. If you are looking out on this nation as it circles the drain and saying, “What a bunch of worthless losers,” you’re missing the point. The nation is not what the citizenry as a whole are capable of. It is what the great within it can make of it. It’s never been about the losers. History will remember them about as much as it remembers that shopkeeper who informed for the King to save his own ass during our revolution. The worthless don’t count. Low-information voters don’t count. Liberals don’t count. They are all worthless in the larger picture. When the shit hits the fan, and believe me it will, they will hide under their wive’s skirts, and hope to God they don’t get hurt. That will be the sum total of their actions. Will history even grant them a footnote? Meanwhile, the real Americans, the great 3% who have always pulled all the slack in this nation when history called, will be the ones who define history by either making this nation great, or dying in the process. We’re not talking about even half the country. We’re not even talking about a substantial minority. We’re talking about a number measured in single digit percentages, who just decide to do what is right when the time comes. If you look out on this nation today and see patheity, it is a good thing. Those pathetic people shouldn’t have the gumption to make any changes to our historical timeline. Given their stupidity, that patheity can only be seen as a blessing. It will make it that much easier when the time comes for the real Americans to honor the gift our founders gave us, and preserve the greatness of this nation. That patheity should only increase your patriotism, because it indicates that the job of making America great will be that much easier. Never forget, that pathetic cohort is our enemy. Rejoice and thank God that our enemies are such a bunch of apathetic pussies with no convictions or courage. It is why they don’t count. Nobody has ever said that they loved their country and and been thinking about the Liberal pussies within it. Nobody has ever said that and been thinking about the plethora of small minded shitbags in their government, whose only ambition is to wield authority and oppress their countrymen with mouse clicks and phone calls, delivered from behind a desk. Nobody says they love their nation while thinking about the junkie in a corner looking for a fix, or the idiot Obama-voter gushing about Obama’s stash, or the slut bemoaning how unfair it is that she has to pay fifty cents for a diaphragm before banging the next stranger she meets. People who say they love America, are instinctively recognizing that America is defined by the greatness within it. They only think about the greatness, because through the natural order of the world, they know that such greatness is the defining quality of the nation’s future. Churchill will always define WWII Britain, and not Chamberlain, because Churchill made Britain great and Chamberlain was just a pathetic failure. If a cop saves a woman from being raped by killing the rapist, that cop defines America, because the rapist is dead, and we are too busy cheering the cop to even notice the dead body. When a Soldier, Sailor, Marine, or Airman dives on a grenade to save his buddies and protect the nation, he defines America, because it is his sacrifice which yields the end result of victory and it is his memory which endures after the battle, in the hearts of his fellow great Americans. America is the small business owner who succeeds in making everyone’s life easier, the good samaritan who saves someone from a car wreck, the firefighter who runs into a burning building, and even the guy who goes to a Tea Party rally to try and preserve some semblance of the governmental structure which our elites are now fucking up beyond all repair. America is our greatness, and for us that greatness is our America."

It's interesting that you see his invitation to men to adopt his list of standards, under the premise that every man who adopts them will become much happier - (and if not, he can just do his own thing) - as controlling. And it's interesting that you see him "as some sort of narcissist".

Mostly. These are sweeping generalizations, but: (1) Atheism usually leads to nihilism, hedonism, and government-intervention all at once. Nihilism because there's no god, hedonism because there's no future paradise, and government-intervention because all social problems have to be solved now given there's no future paradise. (2) Christianity leads to passivity, since God is pre-supposed to be handling everything on his own pace. I can accept that Christian-passivity looks like callous indifference to human suffering, but given the 100%-reliability with which expanding government powers (eventually) bankrupts every country, that callous indifference is essential to maintaining individual freedom over long periods of time. Islam is completely different with its call-to-violence over every non-Islamic society.

Three themes will run through my reply, Kevin. The first theme is, "The colored statement is a prediction of MMX2010's motives and/or emotions that was acquired NOT by asking me directly, but by going into your head and assuming, 'Because I feel this way, everyone else MUST feel that way.'" The second theme is, "Although every one of those predictions is utterly wrong, it is never considered that making wrong predictions EQUALS you don't know what you're talking about." The third theme comes later. ---------------- Kevin, what really happens is I choose to feign indifference because I'm genuinely interested and empathetic towards women. I just Skyped with a female FDR listener about this topic, and I explained to her how PUA (Roosh) explains it: "Basically, there are two mentalities: Scarcity-Mentality (which happens when men don't date very many women, and don't pleasantly interact with many women) and Abundance-Mentality. To openly express large amounts of emotional interest during the beginning stages is to convey a Scarcity-Mentality, and all forms Scarcity-Mentality are turn offs because they convey unreliability, lack of self-control, and an inability to recognize and respect a Quality Woman. Scarcity-Mentality men give the impression, "Man, I adore this woman so much, but if a slightly prettier, slightly happier, and/or slightly more confident woman comes along, I'md going to go after her!" Hence, a man must always display Abundance-Mentality by never broadcasting feelings of deep interest during the initial stages." She immediately and enthusiastically agreed, saying, "That's perfect. Now I know why I've always felt mildly disgusted whenever a man who barely knows me was very interested in me. I told myself it was because there's no chase, no hunt. But now I get it." Thus, I feign disinterest because women like it, and I want to show them a wonderful time. I don't care whether showing her a wonderful time now will become a deep romantic relationship in the future, because I enjoy acquiring the skills required to show multiple women a wonderful time. Themes one and two have re-appeared. Theme one is when you predict the emotions and/or motives of people, and your prediction here is twofold: (1) that I would never want to make a woman feel insecure, and (2) that no woman (or no "virtuous woman?") would ever enjoy feeling insecure. Theme two is that, although your every prediction is incorrect, it doesn't dawn on you to consider that you don't understand. What really happens is that if a woman feels wonderful when she feels insecure, then she'll enjoy my company when I make her feel insecure. Simple as that. And just two weeks ago, a long-time female acquaintance texted me, "I just miss you, no matter how much of an awful person you are." She enjoys the frustration, annoyance, and insecurity - and she violates no moral nor ethical rules by acquiring those emotional experiences from me. Themes one and two again resurface. First of all, you never asked me what I feel when I'm bottling my emotions of deep emotional interest. Secondly, you presume that I must feel fear by going into your head and saying, "Because I feel fear, then everyone else must feel fear. What really happens is that I feel emotions of exhilaration, relaxation, joy, and mild contempt whenever I'm feigning emotional aloofness during the beginning stages. I never feel fear, because I know that emotional aloofness is the correct play, whether she enjoys my company or not. So I never feel like I'm going to "lose" - which means there's no reason to fear. Roosh's argument is clear. The You That You Know Inside Your Head is something that only you will ever experience. And The You That You Know Inside Your Head is so big that it takes everyone a very long time to get a fuzzy picture of it. Thus, no matter what you do in the beginning stages, a person is always going to react to the Image You Present. Why do you think the woman who loves me became inspired to voice her love for me the moment she saw both: (1) the difference between My Old Self and New Self and (2) the utterly short amount of time I had devoted to crafting My New Self? It's because she realized that everything she was positively reacting towards was nothing but a dedicated, consistent Presentation of Image. And when she compared my dedication to Image-Presentation to the lack of dedication that other men possess, she expressed her love. You hold on to the "hope" that a woman will love The You That You Know Inside Your Head, but that's literally impossible unless she's known you for two years. Then you refuse to take specific actions that will emotionally please her, meaning she has less incentive to try and figure out Who You Really Are. Meanwhile, I don't care whether a woman Sees Who I Really Am, (because I know that's impossible). And I care only about showing her an emotionally wonderful time. And then, lo and behold, more and more women want to try and figure out Who I Really Am. The blue phrase is incorrect. I don't talk as if there are only two choices, I talk (correctly!) as if there are only two results: Woman Is Emotionally Pleased versus Woman Is Not. The red part is, by far, the most important thing you've said, and it leads into Theme Three. Theme Three is, "Kevin Beal, and the many other men who loathe PUA, begin their interactions with women by refusing to fulfill a specific subset of women's desires. And yet these same men expect, to the point of either genuine confusion/frustration or utter certainty despite having no female romantic partners, that women will prefer their company because of this refusal." In older time periods, when women's romantic and financial options were limited, this was a very sound strategy, because you could always use the "I make all the money, so I make all the rules!" strategy. But in these modern times, an extraordinarily small women will accept your proposal. Now I would understand your proposal if these female desires were somehow immoral. If these desires directly caused women to spank their children, I'd salute your moral courage. But these are aesthetic desires that morally harm no one. So I really don't understand your cocksure-confidence that often uses moralistic language ("liar", "lying to yourself") to voice itself. Nor do I understand your commitment to going into your own head to wrongfully predict what I'm feeling and why I do what I do. Nor do I understand the massive downvotes I've been receiving by people who share in your opinions.

How about these new arguments, then, Kevin? (1) Did you know that much of PUA literature endorses body language? By deliberately maintaining certain poses, day after day in the same manner as working out, a man's thoughts and feelings are changed. Before I began these body language exercises, I constantly worried, wasn't very confident, and was highly emotionally attached to how women reacted to me. But in as little as two weeks I became much less worried, much more confident, and much more emotionally aloof. Are the changes produced by body language exercises "dishonest", because they're forms of "pretending"? Or are they genuine changes that result from deliberate effort? (2) Did you know that Roosh's literature on neomasculinity endorses specific dietary products - (both whole foods and supplements) - that increase testosterone? For example, zinc, selenium, magnesium, and vitamin D are supplements designed to raise testosterone - while dietary improvements like cutting out sugar and increasing healthy fats from red meat and/or grassfed milk/butter are all designed to increase T-levels. Before I underwent these dietary changes, I was much less confident, much more worried, and much more attached to how women perceived me. But shortly after following these dietary changes, I became more confident, much less worried, and much more emotionally aloof with regard to women's perceptions of me. Are these emotional changes "dishonest" because they're a form of "pretending"? Or are they a natural result of changes in my hormonal structure, and therefore "genuine"? (3) Did you know that practicing certain facial expressions produces both instantaneous short-term emotional change, and that to consistently practice coherent facial expressions will produce long-term emotional changes? Ever since reading that, I've been deliberately practicing facial expressions to convey confidence and emotional aloofness. Are my newly-found confidence and emotional aloofness "dishonest" because they're "pretending", or are they the natural result of deliberately programming my body to become a confident and emotionally aloof person? ----------------------- (4) I promised I'd tell you a story. About two months ago, I started a romantic relationship with a highly intelligent and attractive woman. I had only been developing my personality as I described above for about three months before she and I met. When we met, I used a combination of Pick-Up Artistry and deep philosophical questions to create what she called "the best conversation of her entire life". About a month ago, she and I had our first argument - which was entirely my fault. The older parts of me, (which I had been devoted to altering), had resurfaced and she didn't like what she saw. Two days later, we talked it over, and I admitted both that I was wrong and that I had only been devoted to changing-myself for about three months on the day we met. Our conversation ended on a very happy note, and the last thing she told me was, "I love you, MMX2010." Does the fact that she could've accused me of being "dishonest" and "pretending" - but chose not to - erode your objections to PUA "because it is pretending"? Does the fact that her seeing the contrast between Old Me and New Me inspired her to tell me that she loved me erode your objections to PUA "because it is pretending"? Does the fact that she knows me far better than you supersede your objections, even if you choose not to drop your objections? ------------------------- (5) Earlier, you said, "I can't respect a woman who acts primitively the way PUA describes"? My counter-arguments are: (1) Pretty much all women act primitively the way PUA describes, and (2) A man can either work with a woman's primitive nature or work against it. Do you presume that my ability to tap into (and work with) this woman's primitive nature automatically means that our interactions were "dishonest"? Do you presume that it's impossible to simultaneously tap into (and work with) BOTH a woman's primitive side and her logical/rational/moral side? Do you presume that every man who taps into (and works with) a woman's primitive side must be committing some form of dishonesty? Do you presume that your decision to disrespect a woman's primitive side, (a side which, because it is focused on reproduction is automatically the most important side she has!), will be met with appreciation and admiration? Or do you presume, (like I presume), that your decision to disrespect a woman's primitive side will be met with disrespect and non-admiration? See? No condescension, just argument. (You'll notice that I now universalized the rule that all condescension can be dropped at a moment's notice, and conversation can resume as if no condescension had ever happened.)

You ignored the point where I said, what you call "domination" could just as easily be called "leadership", "natural attraction", "stewardship", "husbandry", "sexual chemistry", and a series of other words. You're also ignoring something crucially important: I've slept with multiple women, none of whom called me "dominating", nor "domineering". So now you're in the curious position of telling both me and every woman I've ever slept with that you-alone, based on your emotional reactions, know that I'm dominating. That position is extremely untenable, but you still want to hold it as if it were true. You're calling my approach "dominating", which is an insult to every woman I've ever slept with (all of whom have enjoyed my company), and you're telling me I should consider you? (Why would I consider you when you insult me, based on no evidence?) And you claim that I'm turning you off to PUA? (The simplest explanation is that your usage of the word "domination", based on no evidence - which you refuse to amend - indicates that you were turned off to PUA well-before this conversation began.) I'll offer you the same thing I offered Kevin Beal, with the same response expected. When I get a digital copy of Roosh's book, you can read it and assert which passages show "domination". If no such passages exist, you can admit you're wrong and then use Roosh's book to change your life. Deal?

I've become enamored with Vox Day's sexual-social hierarchy hypothesis. According to it, all Jihadists are Omegas. http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/01/roissy-and-limits-of-game.html I have a great deal of respect for Roissy's analysis of the female psyche. Even the mere terms he applies, in addition to being hilarious, provide tremendous insight for the average, clueless man who finds himself bewildered by the behavior of women around him. After all, what man could possibly assign much importance to the logical conclusions of a woman's "rationalization hamster". And many of the techniques he recommends will significantly increase the average man's ability to get off on the right foot with women regardless of whether a casual encounter or marriage is the goal. However, it must be kept in mind that Roissy's social construction of Game is intentionally limited in two ways. The overly simplistic division of men into Alphas and Betas is the natural result of his laser-like focus on scoring vs not scoring. Either you score or you don't score; scoring is Alpha and not-scoring is Beta. QED. And this singular, binary focus also leaves out the many other applications of the male social hierarchy that have nothing to do with women, much less sex. Note that this is not a criticism of Roissy's construct or his conclusions, but rather a tangential expansion of it. Whereas in Game there are only Alphas who score and Betas who don't, except for the Betas who learn the secret of becoming synthetic Alphas, I have come over time to view things in the following manner: Alphas - the male elite, the leaders of men for whom women naturally lust. Their mere presence sets women a-tingle regardless of whether she is taken or not. Once you've seen beautiful married women ignoring tall, handsome, wealthy, and even famous men because that ugly old troll Henry Kissinger walked in the room, you simply can't deny the reality of Alphadom. Example: Captain Kirk, Big from Sex in the City. Suggestion: Do you see a scoreboard? Right, so relax already! Betas - the lieutenants, the petty aristocracy. They're popular, they do well with women, they're pretty successful in life, and they may even be exceptionally good-looking. But they lack the Alpha's natural self-confidence and strength of character. They're not leaders and they're not the men to whom women are helplessly drawn. Most men who like to think they're Alphas because of their success are actually Betas. Most Betas won't change their game because they don't really have any need or reason to do so. This is probably the easiest social slot in which to find yourself, since the Beta enjoys many of the benefits of Alphadom without being trapped in the Alpha's endless cycle of competition. Example: Brad Pitt Suggestion: Have some compassion for the less naturally fortunate. Try to include them once in awhile. Deltas - the great majority of men. These are Roissy's Betas. Almost all of you reading this are Deltas despite the natural desire to believe that you are a brave and bold Alpha snowflake notwithstanding. Deal with it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a Delta, it's just a simple statistical and observable reality. The sooner you accept the truth about yourself, the sooner you will be able to control your unconscious inclinations and modify your behavior in a manner that will help you achieve your goals. I've gone out of alphabetical order here because delta symbolizes change, which most Deltas are capable to some extent. Hence the synthetic alpha instruction set known as Game. Example: Probably you. Suggestion: Never forget that there are plenty of girls on the girl tree. Gammas - the obsequious ones, the posterior puckerers, the nice guys who attempt to score through white-knighting, faux-chivalry, flattery, and omnipresence. All men except true Alphas will occasionally fall into Gamma behavior from time to time, this is the behavior and attitude that Roissy is attempting to teach men to recognize and avoid. The dividing line between a Gamma and a Delta is that the Gamma genuinely believes in the Gamma reality to the very core of his soul whereas the Delta is never truly comfortable with himself when he behaves in this manner despite being thoroughly indoctrinated in it by his culture. Example: Probably you if you've found yourself complaining about your lack of female companionship over the last two years. Suggestion: Remember that the statement "all are fallen" applies to women too. She isn't any more naturally pure or holy or ethereal than you are. Lambdas - the gays. They have their own social hierarchy. They can fill any role from Alpha to Omega, but they tend to play the part rather than actually be it because the heterosexual social construct only encompasses the public part of their lives. Example: Neil Patrick Harris. Suggestion: Straights will be more tolerant if you keep the bathhouse behavior behind closed doors. Sigmas - the lone wolves. Occasionally mistaken for Alphas, particularly by women and Alphas, they are not leaders and will actively resist the attempt of others to draft them. Alphas instinctively view them as challenges and either dislike or warily respect them. Some Deltas and most Omegas fancy themselves Sigmas, but the true Sigma's withdrawal from the pack is not a reaction to the way he is treated, it is pure instinct. Example: Clint Eastwood's movie persona. Suggestion: Entertain the possibility that other people are not always Hell. The banal idiocy is incidental, it's not intentional torture. Omegas - the losers. Even the Gamma males despise them. That which doesn't kill them can make them stronger, but most never surmount the desperate need to belong caused by their social rejection. Omegas can be the most dangerous of men because the pain of their constant rejection renders the suffering of others completely meaningless in their eyes. Omegas tend to cluster in defensive groups; the dividing line between the Omega and the Sigma is twofold and can be easily recognized by a) the behavior of male Betas and Deltas and b) the behavior of women. Women tend to find outliers attractive in general, but while they respond to Sigmas almost as strongly as they do to Alphas, they correctly find Omega males creepier and much scarier than Gamma males. Example: Eric Harris Suggestion: Your rejection isn't entirely personal. Observe the difference in your own behavior and the way the Betas act. And try not to start off conversations with women by sharing "interesting facts" with them. I'm not claiming that this hierarchy is science or incontrovertible fact, it's merely the lens through which I tend to view the current sexual-social hierarchy. I think it is a little more broadly useful from a theoretical perspective than the Game construct, even if it is less immediately applicable from a tactical point of view.

You sound like what "a really wonderful, empathetic teacher in a horrible public school system in a very bad school where only 20% of the kids graduate" would sound like. You're not idealistic enough to believe that you can reform the system, but you're not so jaded that you've surrendered all of your power and influence. You also remind me of the "Stop A Douchebag" movement in Russia. Basically, a bunch of douchebags kept driving on the sidewalk, putting children and pedestrians at risk. So a bunch of high school and college kids printed out these gigantic annoying stickers reading "I'm a Douchebag: I Drive Wherever I Want!" to threaten the douchebag drivers with. If a driver is on the sidewalk, a group of them stand in front of the car and politely ask the driver to turn around and use the road. If the driver respectfully complies, no anger or violence ensues. But if the drive repeatedly refuses, they get the sticker on their windshield. I feel satisfied listening to a bunch of untrained teenagers act with a professionalism, courtesy, and masculine strength that few men have. Someone objected, "Why don't these kids just let the community handle it?" To which someone replied, "Don't you get it? Those kids are the community." And so are you, TheFuzz. You are the community, doing what you can, to help whom you can, knowing that you'll never reform it all - but refusing to surrender your power and influence to depressed cynicism and nihilism. I feel like I owe you a steak dinner.

Okay, cool. *sigh of relief* I can't give specific advice, but the goal is to combine your ability to handle multiple facts at once with your wife's ability to naturally sense a woman's emotional state, so that you both deliver the best possible message to the Other Woman. I strongly suggest that your wife delivers the message, after practicing reading the most important paragraphs in front of a mirror multiple times so that she communicates calmly, collectedly, and confidently. Best of luck. You're doing the right thing. Just don't become so overburdened with expectations that she'll listen that you become enraged when she doesn't.

You're not the only one. Carl never considered: (1) That TheFuzz uses his salary as a police officer to support his wife and children, and (2) That every system is so much bigger than any one individual that no one's actions can significantly change that system. Instead, TheFuzz's actions merely improve the system by the smallest of margins - but that small margin is beautiful enough, in and of itself. TheFuzz isn't responsible for reforming the entire police system, just because Carl Bartelt wants to smoke cannabis.

Roosh has posted a massive article defining what Neomasculinity is. My best summary is that Neomasculinity is a very large, whole-life approach towards being a man in these unique modern times. http://www.rooshv.com/what-is-neomasculinity Neomasculinity combines traditional beliefs, masculinity, and animal biology into one ideological system. It aims to aid men living in Westernized nations that lack qualities such as classical virtue, masculinity in males, femininity in females, and objectivity, especially concerning beauty ideals and human behavior. It also serves as an antidote for males who are being programmed to accept Western degeneracy, mindless consumerism, and immoral state authority. The purpose of this article is to list and describe the principal doctrines of neomasculinity.

Not at all, Kevin. Just pointing out that (1) refusing to read Roosh's book, while (2) strongly believing that you understand its contents (and, by extension, all of PUA) better than I do is logically impossible. Saying that I'm "provoking your insecurity" just ignores the factual content of my arguments. If you were secure enough to admit the logical impossibility of your position, our conversation would take an entirely different tone.

Hello, TheFuzz. While not everyone in this thread has been empathetic towards your being a cop, I hope you'll answer thebeardslastcall's questions. I don't want to state my opinion until you've answered them.

So this answer will not nearly be as good as The Lizard of Oz's answer, but the ultra-condensed version is "Sexually frustrated men, who have no hopes of becoming the strong, masculine man that Islamic women want."

Nope, I saw it and laughed it off. The "changes about the logical consequences" are gigantic and are best understood through personal explanation. Let's say that you and I were interested in the same girl. On your first date with her, you'd be so focused on whether you were being Your Genuine Emotional Self that you wouldn't modulate your feelings of excitement, hope, and admiration for her physical features and intellectual capacities. Not one bit, because, as you said, "(1) You're tired of pretending to be someone you're not. (2) You'd rather be alone than pretend to be someone you're not. (3) You object to Pick-Up Artistry because it is pretending." So you'll blast her with 100% of your "authentic emotional experiences" - which Roosh warns is highly friggin' beta. And she'll probably never call you again. Meanwhile, I'd feel equally excited as you, equally hopeful as you, and equally admiring of her physical and intellectual capabilities as you. BUT I'd use a heavy focus on both my body posture and speech patterns to combat showing her 100% of my authentic emotional experience. Because my primary goal is to show her a wonderful time, particularly because it's ONLY our first date and she's almost certainly not-yet-ready to get into any heady philosophical and emotional exchanges. She'll laugh at my jokes, call me the biggest asshole she's ever met, and probably want to see me again. Deny this all you want, but your refusal to modify (by one centimeter) the expression of your emotions is by default a presumption that the majority of women have Bad Aesthetic Taste. That presumption leaks into your interactions with both women-in-general (whom you look down upon) and women-you're-beginning-to-date (whom you covet so much that you reveal too much, too soon).

It's not your fault, dude. She's a morally free women with her own moral agency making a choice. I mentioned in another thread that women have very simple classification systems for men, and two of those categories are Man That I'm Sleeping With versus Man That I'm NOT Sleeping With. And no woman makes major life-altering decisions - particularly decisions about children - by following the advice of a Man She Isn't Sleeping With. You're off-base only in your expectations. You see her as a friend; she sees you as a Man She Isn't Sleeping With. You expect your friendship to have strong influence over her. I'm telling you that you have close-to-zero influence. So, if you're entering this conversation expecting her to follow your advice, don't say anything because you'll beat yourself up when she doesn't follow your advice. But if you're entering this conversation not caring about whether she follows your advice, then speak up and let her make up her own mind. Expect, also, your wife to find out about this. Then decide whether your wife is strong enough to handle the most vicious personal attacks that The Woman You're Trying To Influence could launch against you. ------------------------ Have you thought about convincing Your Wife of your argument, and then advising Your Wife to talk to her friend?

Nothing is a larger denial than "Impersonating a policeman IS LYING JUST LIKE pretending to be emotionally aloof to a woman is lying." *grins* Of course not. Every Anti-PUA does the same thing. Step One: Refuse to read the greatest PUA manual in human history that combines philosophical principles, warnings that undertaking PUA without doing essential inner work is harmful, and a series of easily-understood tactical steps for conversing with, dating, having sex with, and maintaining relationships with chicks. Step Two: Use the flimsiest of arguments to assert, "I know that MMX2010 guy is reading these books, is living what they say, and is experiencing great happiness for both himself and the women he surrounds himself with - BUT I understand PUA better than he does!. Except that's obviously impossible, and I know that's impossible. But I admire your's, Rainbow Jamz's, Frederick Dortmund's, and the downvoter's commitment to the façade! If you took that emotional energy and channeled it into the Roosh Program.....never mind. It's hard to believe you negotiate at all, Kevin. This whole conversation began when you EQUATED "impersonating a police officer" and "feigning emotional aloofness to make a girl happy". No one says, "Stop having your feelings, Kevin! STOP STOP STOP!" That version of emotional aloofness is impossible, and not even I try to live up to that standard. Instead, Roosh says, "Don't express your emotional excitement at such obviously high volume and intensity. Be excited to see her, but don't convey-at-high-volume how happy you are to see her. Convey the opposite, because it makes her happy. Be excited to kiss her, but don't convey-at-high-volume how excited you are. Convey the opposite, because it makes her happy." So Roosh and PUAs like me are able to negotiate with women, because we accept: (1) that starting and maintaining relationships with women requires us to Make A Woman Happy By Giving Her What She Emotionally Wants, provided no moral, legal, nor ethical principles are violated, and (2) that every woman is free to emotionally desire What She Wants, provided no moral, legal, nor ethical principles are violated. Women are free, Kevin. Free to be whatever they want. Free to want whatever they want. And their feelings and desires don't have to be logically explainable in order for them to be valid. Their feelings are valid BECAUSE they don't violate any legal, ethical, or moral principles. Since your equating, "Impersonating a policeman" and "feigning emotional aloofness in the early stages of dating, because it makes her happy" serves the purpose of Never Questioning The Emotional Expression Of Your Feelings, it's enormously difficult to believe that you negotiate with women - because people who Never Question The Emotion Expression Of Their Feelings are strongly implying that their default position is, "I want to express what I want to express, and your emotional reactions to my expressions are invalid!" Example: "I'm sorry it hurts your feelings, (justifying a bad argument) but you have to take that up with reality, not me." (Since negotiation is predicated on caring about what the other person wants, your lack of focus on What Women Emotionally Want, coupled with the implied expectation that their every emotional desire be logically valid, predicts a very bad negotiator.) With me, an FWB relationship always means that either the woman isn't good enough for the man, or the man isn't good enough for the woman. If the not-good-enough party can accept his/her status and work to self-improve, an FWB relationship can develop into a more committed one. There's also nothing quite as powerful as sleeping with someone who doesn't think you're good enough for them. It snaps you out of your self-concept and self-assessments and invites you into her evaluations of your behavior and presentations, and of your personality (if you've known each other for more than two years).

Not quite. The correct version is, "The way to attract women is to work on yourself, be it in spirit, mind or body in ways that match what women want in a man, provided you're not breaking any moral, ethical, or legal principles." You can't just work on yourself in any way that you see fit and expect that women will find you attractive, because if the way you work on yourself is repellent to women, then you will not attract any women. As I mentioned earlier, Roosh's book Bang combines both philosophical principles - (especially pertaining to working on yourself in a way that attracts women) - with specific tactical advice concerning body language, conversation threads, and so on. Anyone who wants a copy of that book, so they can see what PUA is rather than talking off the top-of-their-head, can PM me.

Wow. Do you know why I ignored the proof? Because you equated "lying by saying you're a policeman when you aren't" with "lying by pretending to be emotionally aloof when you're really interested in her" and you refused to acknowledged the many moral, logical, and legal differences between the two situations. (You, wrongfully, stated that my eleven-item list was "pedantic" - rather than an exhaustive list showing how wrong it is to equate those two forms of lying.) Do you understand that "lying by pretending to be emotionally aloof" works because it gives her What She Wants, without violating any moral, ethical, or legal principles? Do you understand that PUA is nothing more than many scientific studies of What Women Want at various stages of their lives, coupled with advice designed to Give Her What She Wants? Do you understand that, "I don't want women to have the aesthetic preference for spanking children!" is a good argument, because spanking children violates multiple ethical and moral principles - whereas, "I don't want women to have the aesthetic preference for emotionally aloof men in the early stages of dating!" is a bad argument, because her preference for emotional aloofness violates ZERO moral and ethical principles? Do you understand that your focus on "no longer pretending to be someone I'm not" is a willful decision to NOT give women What They Want, and that the inevitable result of that decision is Some Other Man Is Going To Give Her What She Wants, and She's Going To Prefer To Be With Him? Lastly, do you understand that your decision to paint me as a "liar", in the same way that a man who pretends to be a policeman is a liar, is an extraordinarily non-empathetic and just-plain-morally-wrong?