Monday, February 25, 2008
Perspective 128
Our Guest Connaisseur writes:
Materialism is woman. That's nothing new. She is genetically programmed as such because her fundamental drive is to have resources to raise her offspring.
In other words, one can't really blame her because it is truly an expression of her genes. What one can do is in this age, with her earning her own way, is not to be taken for the financial sucker. Been there, done that more than once. Never again. Free sex is the most expensive of all.
To say that women are no more materialist than men is a politically correct statement that has little to do with reality.
Since the dawn of humanity, woman has always sought resources to assure her offspring survive. That is her great legacy and the genetic basis for her materialism.
Note the majority of women get pregnant by Bad Boy -- whose behaviors suggest his children will be aggressive and competitive - read successful. But she relies on Nice Guy (one who accumulates resources or offers surplus labor) to raise them. Nice Guy accumulates resources to trade them for sex and the opportunity of offspring after Bad Boy has had first crack and left the scene. She mates with Bad Boy to have superior kids and gives Nice Guy a second crack and token offspring in trade for him using his resources to raise Bad Boy's kids. You have often heard Nice Guys finish last. That is why. But even more so, Nice Guys in reality do not even finish. This is the fundamental principle behind why a man should never date a single mom.
More feminist propaganda is that men have to be constantly struggling to fit into a definition of a macho image or "alpha male" - one that players have totally bought into and Nice Guys seek to emulate (rather poorly as I have seen) which has little to do with the dynamics of reality. Men compete for sex. Machismo is but one successful form of obtaining sex. Machismo is an older version of Bad Boy. It exists because it works, but machismo is not the goal, it is the means to get the goal, which is sex. Alternatively, you can simply use a prostitute (no machismo or alpha maleness needed) - hot wire the ignition on the car to say - while others are trying to buy it, or have already bought it.
Moreover, even though we like to think we are not genetically programmed, we most assuredly are. It is the strongest and most fundamental aspect of our being.
Let me offer two little examples, as I have before on here.
Example 1:
There is a particular experiment that has been done several times in England. Five women take a bath with a nonscented cleaner. They then wear a T-shirt for 24 hours. That t-shirt is put by itself in a plastic bag. A man is then asked to smell the t-shirts. He is asked to pick the one he likes the most or the one that offends him the least. Invariably, he picks the woman whose genes compliment his the most - giving the highest chance their children will be viable.
Example 2:
Smart commanders in the military understand that women should not and are not allowed on the front line in war because they jeopardize every mission. It is not that they are not competent, per se, but rather the problem is a male soldier will protect her rather than his fellow male soldiers and will jeopardize a mission to protect her because that is what he is genetically programmed to do. There are no successful front line military operations involving women because their presence makes men behave contrary to the mission.
As for love, it is just one set of genes screaming those genes over there are fit for reproduction. That is why love is irrational because it is a function of genes, not choice. That also explains why two people you could never imagine together - are together.
We are genetic animals with just a veneer of thinking brain - or pieces on a chessboard being moved...
Our Guest Connaisseur writes:
Materialism is woman. That's nothing new. She is genetically programmed as such because her fundamental drive is to have resources to raise her offspring.
In other words, one can't really blame her because it is truly an expression of her genes. What one can do is in this age, with her earning her own way, is not to be taken for the financial sucker. Been there, done that more than once. Never again. Free sex is the most expensive of all.
To say that women are no more materialist than men is a politically correct statement that has little to do with reality.
Since the dawn of humanity, woman has always sought resources to assure her offspring survive. That is her great legacy and the genetic basis for her materialism.
Note the majority of women get pregnant by Bad Boy -- whose behaviors suggest his children will be aggressive and competitive - read successful. But she relies on Nice Guy (one who accumulates resources or offers surplus labor) to raise them. Nice Guy accumulates resources to trade them for sex and the opportunity of offspring after Bad Boy has had first crack and left the scene. She mates with Bad Boy to have superior kids and gives Nice Guy a second crack and token offspring in trade for him using his resources to raise Bad Boy's kids. You have often heard Nice Guys finish last. That is why. But even more so, Nice Guys in reality do not even finish. This is the fundamental principle behind why a man should never date a single mom.
More feminist propaganda is that men have to be constantly struggling to fit into a definition of a macho image or "alpha male" - one that players have totally bought into and Nice Guys seek to emulate (rather poorly as I have seen) which has little to do with the dynamics of reality. Men compete for sex. Machismo is but one successful form of obtaining sex. Machismo is an older version of Bad Boy. It exists because it works, but machismo is not the goal, it is the means to get the goal, which is sex. Alternatively, you can simply use a prostitute (no machismo or alpha maleness needed) - hot wire the ignition on the car to say - while others are trying to buy it, or have already bought it.
Moreover, even though we like to think we are not genetically programmed, we most assuredly are. It is the strongest and most fundamental aspect of our being.
Let me offer two little examples, as I have before on here.
Example 1:
There is a particular experiment that has been done several times in England. Five women take a bath with a nonscented cleaner. They then wear a T-shirt for 24 hours. That t-shirt is put by itself in a plastic bag. A man is then asked to smell the t-shirts. He is asked to pick the one he likes the most or the one that offends him the least. Invariably, he picks the woman whose genes compliment his the most - giving the highest chance their children will be viable.
Example 2:
Smart commanders in the military understand that women should not and are not allowed on the front line in war because they jeopardize every mission. It is not that they are not competent, per se, but rather the problem is a male soldier will protect her rather than his fellow male soldiers and will jeopardize a mission to protect her because that is what he is genetically programmed to do. There are no successful front line military operations involving women because their presence makes men behave contrary to the mission.
As for love, it is just one set of genes screaming those genes over there are fit for reproduction. That is why love is irrational because it is a function of genes, not choice. That also explains why two people you could never imagine together - are together.
We are genetic animals with just a veneer of thinking brain - or pieces on a chessboard being moved...
Monday, February 18, 2008
Perspective 127
Our Guest Connaisseur writes:
It is what woman does that is offensive, and not what she expects that is offensive. It is when what she does is combined with her expectation that make her so offensive.
If she wants to be a baby machine, no problem.
If she wants to be a career woman, no problem.
If she wants him to be the bread winner, no problem.
If she wants to be the bread winner, no problem.
If she wants to contribute equally, no problem.
But here are the problems:
She wants to be a career woman, but he pays for everything.
She wants kids and a career, and expects him to pay for it all.
She wants a career and expects him to be okay with no kids and her constant reminder that she doesn't need him.
She want to be able to ask him out, but never does and never pays for it.
She wants to be treated like one of the guys and like a lady and gets pissed off when he does either or both.
She always wants it her way. There is no compromise on that. That is why the proposal rate is plummeting and the divorce rate escalating, and MEN ARE GOING THEIR OWN WAY.
If you are a man and want to have a tolerable relationship with a woman you have to submit to her domination and slavery and living like a eunuch. That is why us bachelors look at today's married men like they are anathema to masculinity and masculinity's God.
Equality in a relationship is a pathetic farce. It all swings her way and treating him as an equal is not in the mix.
Fairness and equal consideration are not in her vocabulary.
Access to sex is worth submission during part of your life (and yes, the player also submits to woman), when most young men cannot help but be driven by the storm clouds of testosterone, but this is a temporary storm, and it passes and there comes a point in which you say the typical woman is just not worth all the crap and subordination she hands out.
That is when one-night stands become the priority, but a relationship is strictly off limits because she is simply too difficult and demanding and no man in his right mind would agree to be in a relationship of any significance with a woman.
I love the hardware, but the software has become unacceptably corrupt. Her attitude has become so egotistically poisoned that I have better things to do than subject myself to her oppressiveness.
Woman give a lot of lip service to equality and relationships, but reality is if they don't have it their way they will dump on you, use you, and get rid of you like yesterday's laxative.
If I ever meet a nice woman who is realistic about life and willing to meet a man half way... heck, I'd be married in a second (make that maybe 2 or 3 seconds...or maybe just live together or something). But women just are not made that way anymore, and they haven't a clue as to why men are saying NO.
And in the end, it is not our job to even care or waste time with them...women that want to find out why they are being pushed into irrelevance by the next generation of men can find out themselves, but it will mostly likely be too late...and the rest of us men will be somewhere else outside the West, creating our east-west synthesis.
Our Guest Connaisseur writes:
It is what woman does that is offensive, and not what she expects that is offensive. It is when what she does is combined with her expectation that make her so offensive.
If she wants to be a baby machine, no problem.
If she wants to be a career woman, no problem.
If she wants him to be the bread winner, no problem.
If she wants to be the bread winner, no problem.
If she wants to contribute equally, no problem.
But here are the problems:
She wants to be a career woman, but he pays for everything.
She wants kids and a career, and expects him to pay for it all.
She wants a career and expects him to be okay with no kids and her constant reminder that she doesn't need him.
She want to be able to ask him out, but never does and never pays for it.
She wants to be treated like one of the guys and like a lady and gets pissed off when he does either or both.
She always wants it her way. There is no compromise on that. That is why the proposal rate is plummeting and the divorce rate escalating, and MEN ARE GOING THEIR OWN WAY.
If you are a man and want to have a tolerable relationship with a woman you have to submit to her domination and slavery and living like a eunuch. That is why us bachelors look at today's married men like they are anathema to masculinity and masculinity's God.
Equality in a relationship is a pathetic farce. It all swings her way and treating him as an equal is not in the mix.
Fairness and equal consideration are not in her vocabulary.
Access to sex is worth submission during part of your life (and yes, the player also submits to woman), when most young men cannot help but be driven by the storm clouds of testosterone, but this is a temporary storm, and it passes and there comes a point in which you say the typical woman is just not worth all the crap and subordination she hands out.
That is when one-night stands become the priority, but a relationship is strictly off limits because she is simply too difficult and demanding and no man in his right mind would agree to be in a relationship of any significance with a woman.
I love the hardware, but the software has become unacceptably corrupt. Her attitude has become so egotistically poisoned that I have better things to do than subject myself to her oppressiveness.
Woman give a lot of lip service to equality and relationships, but reality is if they don't have it their way they will dump on you, use you, and get rid of you like yesterday's laxative.
If I ever meet a nice woman who is realistic about life and willing to meet a man half way... heck, I'd be married in a second (make that maybe 2 or 3 seconds...or maybe just live together or something). But women just are not made that way anymore, and they haven't a clue as to why men are saying NO.
And in the end, it is not our job to even care or waste time with them...women that want to find out why they are being pushed into irrelevance by the next generation of men can find out themselves, but it will mostly likely be too late...and the rest of us men will be somewhere else outside the West, creating our east-west synthesis.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Perspective 126
Our Guest Connaisseur writes:
There are some basic facts of life in the West here, that table talk will not change: With the advent of woman's liberation, she can decide if the moment of meeting gets past the first moment, and she can decide if there will be a relationship. All he can really do is appear to be (sincerely or deceptively) someone she wants to know more about.
Non-western societies tend to see the mating ritual as imperative to the continuation of their culture, society, and way of life - not a fun little game of if she likes him or not. Breed or be extinct to be blunt is the modus operandi.
This is why non-western societies tend to have incentives for men to breed indigenously (locally to say with the given women) through monetary and property incentives, look-the-other-way-policy when a man fools around with a mistress or two, or three, etc. It is better to make the men happy so the collective will survive and not cause the men to look elsewhere and the collective dies out.
That's the brutal reality of nature in the competition of resources to fund a collective's survival. However, this is made blurry in the artificially constructed West where woman is for a time and a season making reproductive choices independent of the foresight of the long-term consequences - and nature has a very nasty habit of pulling the rug out from underneath the artificial constructions of man.
Therefore, if the West as a collective is to survive in the primal sense - as a people, a culture, a way of life - then there must be incentives for men to marry and have children to pass the culture on to, and not the punitive system we currently find in place which causes men to avoid marriage and kids, and will soon lead to the West's extinction.
It might be too late, last time I checked some numbers, well-skilled people coming into the US and Europe is on the downward trend and my well-skilled friends I know have left for Asia, Eastern Europe, South America - the world is big, and men will always go to places where they can obtain maximum benefit of being a part of a collective that appreciates them.
Our Guest Connaisseur writes:
There are some basic facts of life in the West here, that table talk will not change: With the advent of woman's liberation, she can decide if the moment of meeting gets past the first moment, and she can decide if there will be a relationship. All he can really do is appear to be (sincerely or deceptively) someone she wants to know more about.
Non-western societies tend to see the mating ritual as imperative to the continuation of their culture, society, and way of life - not a fun little game of if she likes him or not. Breed or be extinct to be blunt is the modus operandi.
This is why non-western societies tend to have incentives for men to breed indigenously (locally to say with the given women) through monetary and property incentives, look-the-other-way-policy when a man fools around with a mistress or two, or three, etc. It is better to make the men happy so the collective will survive and not cause the men to look elsewhere and the collective dies out.
That's the brutal reality of nature in the competition of resources to fund a collective's survival. However, this is made blurry in the artificially constructed West where woman is for a time and a season making reproductive choices independent of the foresight of the long-term consequences - and nature has a very nasty habit of pulling the rug out from underneath the artificial constructions of man.
Therefore, if the West as a collective is to survive in the primal sense - as a people, a culture, a way of life - then there must be incentives for men to marry and have children to pass the culture on to, and not the punitive system we currently find in place which causes men to avoid marriage and kids, and will soon lead to the West's extinction.
It might be too late, last time I checked some numbers, well-skilled people coming into the US and Europe is on the downward trend and my well-skilled friends I know have left for Asia, Eastern Europe, South America - the world is big, and men will always go to places where they can obtain maximum benefit of being a part of a collective that appreciates them.
Monday, February 4, 2008
The Queen Gets Trapped
Looking at the chessboard, we see life and its dynamics before us. Novice chess players make fatal mistakes and lose accordingly. Their tactical rush to acquire material pieces, and failing to focus on the strategical game that chess is, causes them to always lose.
One such mistake is using the power of the queen's movements to capture wing pawns (or poisoned pawns as they are called) that reside along the edges of the chessboard. In the novice's attempt at tactical success, he fails strategically - and when he uses the queen to take wing pawns - the chessmaster will trap his queen, dispatch her accordingly, and win the game in grand style.
In similar fashion, we see women in the Anglosphere rushing to capture the poisoned pawns (the bad boys, the thugs, the players, etc., and note that players are not connaisseurs, for connaissuers pick and choose women at a time and place of their discretion [that's called strategy] - in polar opposite to players and their constant obsession with getting laid - the citizen dildo pawn to say), and then we see Anglosphere women moaning and lamenting that there are no good men left or men are in a suspended state of adolescence.
When the queen takes a poisoned pawn, she opens herself up to the grand plan of the chessmaster, to be trapped, and dispatched. Once she is out of the way, the victory is quick - this is actually what feminism did for the average man (the chessmasters have always known what women really are, but the average man was always deluded in his Niceguy mentality - for the queen raised him to be such) - it exposed the queen, and now average men can see clearly what women are, were, and will be.
Thus we see before us, and always increasing, the chessmaster trapping the queens around him, and it is only a short time before she is taken out of the game (left with cats, old age, irrelevancy, and a bad attitude on the sideline of life).
While the chessmaster is focusing on strategic success in the game of life, the rest of the novices (men and women) are focusing on tactical successes to which a loss will always occur in the grand scheme of things. You can win a battle, but lose the war - as the common cliche goes.
Needless to say, don't be a knight (and chivalrous at that) and save the queen in her entrapment, because the chessmaster will take you out as well.
It is far better to realize, if you are going to act like a chesspiece, to act like the king. The queen might be the most powerful piece on the chessboard, but the king is the most valuable piece - and that is something to consider yourself as.
Looking at the chessboard, we see life and its dynamics before us. Novice chess players make fatal mistakes and lose accordingly. Their tactical rush to acquire material pieces, and failing to focus on the strategical game that chess is, causes them to always lose.One such mistake is using the power of the queen's movements to capture wing pawns (or poisoned pawns as they are called) that reside along the edges of the chessboard. In the novice's attempt at tactical success, he fails strategically - and when he uses the queen to take wing pawns - the chessmaster will trap his queen, dispatch her accordingly, and win the game in grand style.
In similar fashion, we see women in the Anglosphere rushing to capture the poisoned pawns (the bad boys, the thugs, the players, etc., and note that players are not connaisseurs, for connaissuers pick and choose women at a time and place of their discretion [that's called strategy] - in polar opposite to players and their constant obsession with getting laid - the citizen dildo pawn to say), and then we see Anglosphere women moaning and lamenting that there are no good men left or men are in a suspended state of adolescence.
When the queen takes a poisoned pawn, she opens herself up to the grand plan of the chessmaster, to be trapped, and dispatched. Once she is out of the way, the victory is quick - this is actually what feminism did for the average man (the chessmasters have always known what women really are, but the average man was always deluded in his Niceguy mentality - for the queen raised him to be such) - it exposed the queen, and now average men can see clearly what women are, were, and will be.
Thus we see before us, and always increasing, the chessmaster trapping the queens around him, and it is only a short time before she is taken out of the game (left with cats, old age, irrelevancy, and a bad attitude on the sideline of life).
While the chessmaster is focusing on strategic success in the game of life, the rest of the novices (men and women) are focusing on tactical successes to which a loss will always occur in the grand scheme of things. You can win a battle, but lose the war - as the common cliche goes.
Needless to say, don't be a knight (and chivalrous at that) and save the queen in her entrapment, because the chessmaster will take you out as well.
It is far better to realize, if you are going to act like a chesspiece, to act like the king. The queen might be the most powerful piece on the chessboard, but the king is the most valuable piece - and that is something to consider yourself as.
