“I don’t know if I’ll cry; I don’t know if I’ll die laughing.”

 
I worked an early shift today (as opposed to my usual nights).

Thus I’m already drunk as David Crosby at new release party.

So take my words as you will.

[Although, I remind you, dear reader: In Vino Veritas.]

 

A homosexual friend of mine recently remarked (concerning one of the stars of the TV series ‘White Collar’):

“He’s attractive, in great shape, popular, wealthy, charismatic and has a solid career—

Of course he’s gay.”

 
Now, MGTOW’s tend to get a bad rap in the ‘sphere.

[I’m not calling MGTOWs homosexuals; hang in there with me]

In fact, I’m among those that tend to give them more credit than most.

Therefore, my friend’s words really struck a chord with me.

 
See, if a woman is meant to be a man’s helper—

Someone to assist him in achieving his True potential.

Someone to give him a leg up while he’s down.

Someone to bring to light to his darkness:

Why the Hell would I need one when I’m already on top of things?

 

 

That’s what always cracks me up about “hypergamy”.

The guys most attractive to women are the ones that have the least reason to stay with them.

Needless to say, the inevitable reply will be:

“But what about companionship?!”

Yeah, what about it?

If one woman is willing to be with a man, the overwhelming odds are every other woman will want to be, too.

And vice versa.

In short:

They’re filling a need that does not exist.

All the while, denying one that does.

It’s akin to giving a billionaire a free lunch.

 

 

There’s a Russian proverb that I wish more women would follow:

“If you want to be the wife of a general, then marry a lieutenant.”

Maybe that’s why the Russians seem to be in the lead, these days.

 

 

Just kidding.

There’s no “maybe” about it.

 

 

 

Ω

 

“I learned nothing but I swear I’ll never forget…”

↓

 

 

 

 

 

This post is not aimed at Pillscout, as he addresses my concerns [to a certain degree] in his closing lines.

But this particular passage of his did prompt me to write for others that may be unaware of some facts:

“We were dealt a raw deal in this day and age, and while others call doom-and-gloom about it, I just shrug and note that we really do live in interesting times.”

– https://pillscout.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/the-manosphere-as-it-is/

 

Anyone under 30 in the ‘sphere has that luxury.

They can see the Leviathan and cope with the rules and machinations, as its been rather clearly and effectively analyzed.

Plus, for the majority of them, prior to having to Truly deal with it.

 

However, what gets forgotten all too easily is the countless blind men [such as Deti, myself, et al] that scrambled in the darkness.

Feeling around.

And describing the elephant to one another.

For years.

If not decades.
Now, young men can benefit from the confusion, suffering and sacrifice with press of a button or the click of a link.

But it took an uncountable pile of shattered lives, dreams and beliefs to bring that wisdom so well within reach.

No, we were no soldiers.

Soldiers get paid, at least.

We just got scars.
Want to understand?

Go to jail [for a crime you didn’t commit – that’s key] for 10, 20, 30, 40+ years.

Tell me how you feel when you get out.

Describe to me how you look at people.

Share your thoughts on all that was taken from you.

Especially the one thing that can never be regained:

Time.
Until then:

Don’t deny me my anger.

That was – remains – my one and only gift.

And you’ve no right to it.

 

 

Ω

“… I can see you’re out of aces; for a taste of your whiskey, I’ll give you some advice.”

 

For the lurkers, detractors, and newbies, the ‘sphere’s attitude toward a man’s commitment to a woman is easily misunderstood.

I readily agree:

Commitment, for men, should be very slow in arriving.

But the reasons are deep, if simple.

 

 

See, when a man commits:

He places far more responsibilities upon himself than would otherwise exist.

His output – emotionally and materially – must increase significantly.

In a very real sense:

He hobbles himself.

 

In short, commitment pulls a man down while it raises a woman up.

 

Now, this isn’t to say commitment is without its benefits for men.

I’d be a fool and a liar to claim such.

But it’s crucial for a man to find the right woman.

A woman that will take what he gambles and provide a return for it.

This is also a reason why men should wait until they feel they’ve reached a certain level prior to committing.

 

 

In brief:

Never gamble if you can’t cover your losses.

And never expect the poker table to make you rich.

 

 

 

 

 

Ω

“This state is elevating as the hurt turns into hating…”

 

 

Since I was not blessed with overwhelming beauty of countenance, I’m forced to believe serpents slithered into my nursery and licked my ears clean:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra

Heaven knows that’s why I drink.

It dulls the voices.

 

 

Even as a very young man, I saw the chips falling.

So much so, that – despite being bright, well-spoken and extremely creative – I vociferously pursued a career with the US Federal government.

I wanted to make the nation better or, at the very least, stem the bleeding.

[Such is the exuberance of youth.]

I eventually found myself in the INS.

Then, as it changed, in Homeland Security.

What I failed to see – in my youthful hubris – was just how badly the cancer had metastasized.

 

 

Needless to say, it wasn’t long before my personal ethics signed my [professional] death warrant.

Not only did my credo get me ousted but it also prevented me from working the election polls [as only registered Democrats or Republicans can work them, in my home state].

Now, if I had to choose one thing – above all others – that alienates me from so many, it’s my nigh on pathological aversion to dichotomous thinking.

 

 

Which brings me to the following:

A preponderance of men in the ‘sphere advocate “learning a trade”, making use of the “underground economy” or both.

As it would take me hours to search through them all, here’s just a smattering:

Perks of being a “prole”

http://illusionofsanity.com/blog/?p=1009

http://illusionofsanity.com/blog/?p=939

http://stagedreality.wordpress.com/2013/07/20/what-i-learned-in-a-week-at-the-trade/

 

 

Permit me to be clear, I’m not saying the above is bad advice, per se.

What I am saying is one must understand this:

Should you choose that path, you will alter no greater course.

You will affect no significant change.

You will keep the machinery running while the machinery runs you.

You will be permitted to continue; you will survive.

But you will be, in effect, a Morlock:

Morlocks are a fictional species created by H. G. Wells for his 1895 novel, The Time Machine. They dwell underground in the English countryside of 802,701 AD in a troglodyte civilization, maintaining ancient machines that they may or may not remember how to build. Their only access to the surface world is through a series of well structures that dot the countryside of future England.

Morlocks are humanoid creatures, said to have descended from humans, but by the 8,028th century have evolved into a completely different species, said to be better suited to their subterranean habitat. They are described as “ape-like”, with little or no clothing, large eyes and grey fur covering their bodies. As a result of living underground, they have little or no melanin to protect their skin, and so have become extremely sensitive to light.

 

Of course, the servants of the Leviathan are quite easily perceived as the Eloi:

By the year AD 802,701, humanity has evolved into two separate species: the Eloi and the Morlocks. The Eloi are the childlike, frail group, living a banal life of ease on the surface of the earth, while the Morlocks live underground, tending machinery and providing food, clothing and infrastructure for the Eloi. Each class evolved and degenerated from humans.

The main difference from their earlier ruler-worker state is that, while the Morlocks continue to support the world’s infrastructure and serve the Eloi, the Eloi have undergone significant physical and mental deterioration. Having solved all problems that required strength, intelligence, or virtue, they have slowly become dissolute and naive. They are described as being smaller than modern humans, having shoulder-length curly hair, chins that ran to a point, large eyes, small ears, and small mouths with bright red thin lips. They are of sub-human intelligence, though apparently intelligent enough to speak, as they have a primitive language.

 

Now, I won’t ruin the story for those of you that have yet to read the novel, but the question of which is the Alpha and which is the Omega is not a puzzle easily solved.

Much like the paradox I’ve always believed Mankind to be, it is deeply simple yet remarkably complex.

Regardless, the tragedy remains:

Both groups left their humanity in their distant past.

 

 

Ω

“Ain’t me, it ain’t my crime; your rap, ’cause it ain’t mine…”

Martel has a splendidly candid post:

An Anectdote

To which, a reader-whom I consider to be the “thread winner”-gives this dialogue:

An Anectdote

 
I flatter myself that anon has familiarized himself with my work:

“Let’s make some honey, honey, in so many words…”

Winner, indeed.

 
Anon, you got it.

Remember:

The real reason women don’t like guys that are emotional tampons is because it forms a negative impression of her confidante in said woman’s mind.

If she only talks to you about/when she has problems, she’ll begin to associate you with those very negative feelings [consciously or subconsciously].

This is why, even if you are in a LTR with a woman, you should never really “troubles talk” with her.

A wise man [in a LTR] listens and nods for a brief time.

Gives her non-sexual physical contact.

Reassures her things will work out.

Then changes the subject.

[If you’re not in a LTR with her, skip everything; simply change the topic immediately].

 

See, if he’s nothing more than a sounding-board or stoic wall, he really can’t be emotionally associated with the negativity.

Note: This is also the reason many women will be with the worst example of “man” yet always forgive him or keep running to him.

He never allows her “bad moods” [wrongly or rightly] to stick to him.

Thus, she never Truly emotionally/internally associates him with “bad times”, regardless of any protestations she may offer.

Don’t believe me?

Try changing the mind of a woman in that particular situation.

I’ll be here.

 

 

 

Ω