Live In The Talent

Aristotle said that man has two peaks that are accompanied by intense pleasure: sexual intercourse and thinking. The human soul is a kind of ellipse and its phenomena are spread between its two foci that display our tropical variety and ambiguity.

This will be no surprise to those who understand sexual transmutation. The great salesman, as the great artist and great entrepreneur, tends to harness the sexual impulses not unlike a sailboat being powered by the wind. Transmutation also gives a reason for long term sexual relationship, i.e. marriage, for the husband is transmuted in that his energy is more direct, his world caught up more in that 'electric' world that is created when we fall in love, and the wife the same. But what if we do not get who we love? Is all lost? We should put trust in His handiwork as Nature tends to work even when our misunderstandings say otherwise. Even with a lost love, the man (or woman) enters a transmuted state whose memory can be recalled on.

This elliptical nature between sexual intercourse and thinking should explain a seeming contradiction: why great men tend to seem simultaneously wild sexually yet celibate often. The cause and effect is not the intercourse but the state of high sexual being within the man. This high state of sexual being does lead to great thoughts and, also, does lead to sexual liaisons. The latter can, sometimes, destroy the former but not always. We can watch Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson do great things of thought while their highly charged sexual natures tended to lead them to various ladies' beds. And to those greats that self-defined themselves as 'gay', they don't mean gay in the modern sense. They feared women would remove such transmutation from them and didn't have such fear with men.

It also explains why great writers, thinkers, artists, and businessmen are 'weird' and 'nuts' to the general public. However, it is a grave mistake to correlate 'weirdness' and 'nuts' to greatness. Most of the time, a nut is just a nut.

Freud saw only one focus in the soul, the same one as the brutes have, and had to explain all psychology's higher phenomena by society's repression. Freud didn't really believe in the soul but in the body with its passive instrument of consciousness, the mind. It is a blunted vision of the higher phenomena as illustrated by his crude observations about art and philosophy. Freud is now mainstream. Not only are the pimps and sluts dressed in the higher elliptical clothes once reserved for aristocrats, they use Freudian language as explanation.

The context that sexual intercourse is the peak of our lives and Human existence, which it *has* to be if change over time is nothing but consistent gene swapping, creates Humans who, naturally, want to experience the peaks in life so therefore gravitate toward sexual intercourse for the sake of sexual intercourse. Young people, who for their lives only recognize that being controlled by nature is the march of progress, have not yet understood as older people do that nature must be harnessed. Most will never understand in their lifetimes.

So what is the problem in this? The higher state of the soul, the elliptical end from sexual intercourse, is what I identify as 'talent'. Everyone has talent, a yearning drive to do something than live a life of an animal. Even the pimps and sluts have this yearning as well. When context never allows the soul to reach for talent but only sexual intercourse, often in an environment where this context is dominant (such as the modern world today) or when sexual intercourse comes too early in life and cuts the cord to the elliptical talent above, knowledge is never sought yet the person is filled with 'opinions'.

The events goes as follows:

-The young person either has a too soon sexual experience or too many that cements his context or he/she lives in an environment where the context is that the peak of human existence is sexual intercourse (and the 'talent' doesn't exist).

-The cord to knowledge and the 'talent' are snipped. The person can become skilled and even smart and thrive in today's economy. Yet, the person will never ever walk in the same realm that Bach, Plato, Shakespeare among others all did. They will walk past the ruins without wondering what went on ("And why should we, Pook?" Well, such wonder is what the Renaissance was all about).

-These snipped are literally so. They are sterile in the way of the soul. Even though their context is that the soul does not exist, they still long for something above the life of an animal. They desire their life to have meaning. At a young age, many think it will result in marriage and children. They realize this isn't the case.

-The snipped then proceed to make their lives worth meaning. No one wants to live an empty life. Thus, they become the perfect fodder for mass movements as detailed by Eric Hoffer's "True Believer" book be it Nazism, Communism, Environmentalism, Feminism, MGTOW, Christianity, nationalism, liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, anarchism, and so on. Interestingly, each and every person in the above says the exact same thing: "History will record our cause as true and just."

-As they age, they become obsessed with history in either re-writing it "this is how it really happened!" or in pointing at it "this is a historic event!".

If one doesn't want the above, then one needs to strive to live in the talent. Do not mistake to be LITT to mean seeing the elliptical opposite as destructive or that celibacy is the way. Living in the talent is all about being sexually charged and directing your energies to that talent. It does not mean not sleeping with women, it means not dedicating your life to sleep with women. It also means rejection of the context that sexual intercourse is the only peak of existence. It means striving towards excellence which is something bulls and geese cannot do (but even cattle can go their own way).

Talent already lives in you so you ought to live in the talent. No matter where you are, you'll always feel at home.

More reasons why I am not a MRA

There is nothing wrong with single issue advocates. The problem occurs when it starts to override everything else. Take the Elian Gonzalez scenario. MRAs, seeing only the boy returned to his father, begin immediately applauding. They cheer the Janet Reno who sent the troops to invade the house for the boy on one side while condemning Janet Reno for Waco. Never mind that children belong to the State, not fathers, in Cuba.

MRA has won ZERO political victories. Despite this, many have moved further and further to more extreme views. No more is it about equal rights for men as it is about taking away woman's right to vote and changing consent law among other things. This tells me most MRA are not really serious about the cause.

when people are serious about changing laws, they aim for the small victories first. Socialists do not declare they want to nationalize all industry. They would be dead in the water politically if they did that. Instead, they begin with small victories and so on to bigger ones. If MRAs were serious, they would try to make change in a tactical manner. Most don't have the self-discipline to do this. They would rather take a news story about some feminist or woman, proceed to bash it, and then leave satisfied only to return later and do it all over again. It does not seem such people are enjoying life. And enjoying life is how one converts and wins.

There are two matriarchies, the feminism and the 'traditional women' types. I've noticed when we attack one, it strengthens the other. Perhaps the answer is to pit the matriarchies against one another. Let them duke it out somehow.

Society is not a unit

It is not uncommon for any 'movement' or even 'observer' to lift themselves up as angels to look over everyone else with a God's eye. Two groups form, one being the observer and the rest being the pitiful mass of humanity. From this vantage, it does look like Mankind is a single group, a single culture, a single civilization.

This event of observer turning into a 'God' and the observer's equals turning into a 'unit' is common in classical literature. This is why all the 'great' kings and emperors only viewed themselves as 'above' and everyone else as 'the mass' which, like a biological mass, can be cut, sliced, and molded. Just as the gardener has his hooks, shears, and knives, so too does the politician has his laws, regulations, and taxes to remake civilization to 'uplift' it. This is why all politicians, all of them, fall into this view. This is why tyranny is the norm of history.

A common problem with the 'Men's Movement' is, like other movements, they turn themselves into observers that take the status of angels while everyone else becomes a 'culture' or 'society'. What hogwash!

People say there is a recession. But what they don't say is that the definition of 'recession' is based purely on an average. Do you live your life as an average? Do you invest as an average? Date like an average? Dream like an average? The solution to everything is stop being average.

The economy, of course, is not a unit. There are people making more money than ever before. In the Great Depression, Rockefeller and others made great wealth.

Society is not a unit. It never will collapse, only *change*. And it is inevitable it will *change* because people do not live forever. Freedom begins by seeing everyone, even ourselves, as individuals. People make wrong choices all the time. But that will not affect you.

"But what about government taxation, Pook?" you might say. "Their bad choices affect me."

That is nothing compared to city states going to war and nations dueling it out on the world stage. Society is not a unit; it is the trade of all. In fact, the cause of many of the problems that Men's Movement is set to fight against is because husband and wife became seen as a *unit* and that the family became seen as a *unit*. Since they are *units*, that means it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to pay child support and keep the wife a lifestyle she has become accustomed. If they cease to be *units*, then you can see the moral support for child support and wifely lifestyles dropping.

If one person murders another, the neighborhood is not *destroyed* for the neighborhood is not a singular entity.

All the talk about 'destruction of civilization' is funny because Western Civilization is not a static immovable unit. It moves with the people. At one point, Western Civilization was in the Islamo-sphere with the Saracens after the fall of the Roman Empire (a political entity). And when the Saracens fell, it went to Europe. When Europe or other nations falls, it will go somewhere else. AND IT WILL BECOME STRONGER THAN BEFORE.

Movements tend to be built up and spread by emotion (which is energy in motion). Should it be positive energy or negative energy? One leads to an endless cycle down the infinite dream where one keeps imagining civilization being 'destroyed'. Do you want to live your life in that mindset? The other leads to a cycle up. One leads to waking up with anger and rage. The other leads to waking with laughing. Which do you want?

Away, doom-shovelers! While you waste your time investing your emotions in the supposed 'civilizational collapse', I will invest my emotions in building myself up and aiming at a brighter future. This is, of course, uncommon Most politicians cannot do it and you can tell the evil by when they need to rely on harnessing negative emotions from the masses to win. Those few, those blessed few, politicians who harness positive emotions to win, are unanimously popular as everyone gets in line behind the person with the vision. The negative people call it 'delusional'. Everyone else calls it leadership.

Time to move beyond MGTOW

There is something very wrong with MGTOW. Instead of talking about 'men going their own way', we see...

-Anti-Americanism (or other rants against one's mother country)
-Declarations of Chicken Little economic/social/cultural collapse.
-Religious screeds against a particular religion or against all religions.
-Conspiracy theories.
-Evangelizing the 'Deck-Stacked-Against-Us-Have-No-Hope' view of society (which is unproductive)
-Evangelizing that one ought to live like a Mexican...
-...or another country...
-Forums become a 'Yes!' echo chamber. There is no discussion, just rants filled with yes-men.

These 'elements' are well known but ignored because of the 'good things' that do come out. We should just shrug off these things and compromise with them. Well, there is one problem.

When food and poison compromise, which is the victor? It is the poison. Eating it may be sustaining... for the short term... but your body fills up with these poison toxins. You begin to lose your ambition, your passion, and generally become filled with bitterness.

I have wondered how this is occurring. It is not uncommon. Many 'movements' somehow get filled with negative filled people with anger issues and other wackos. But not all movements. So how did MGTOW become a container for this garbage?

The answer is that MGTOW is founded on a negative itself: avoidance of woman. This has caused blanket rants against women. "But many of these rants are accurate, Pook!" So what? A farmer can rant all day about the unfairness of frost, but that will not get him anywhere. There is no cosmic justice out there. The world is what it is and its better to live in it that in a hyper-reality.

Perhaps this will hit more to the point. How many years has MGTOW existed? And what has changed since then? Really, nothing has changed at all.

But I have to wonder why no one in MGTOW can keep to the subject. Pick any random thread and you will find someone start going off the reservation of a speech against a religion or another unasked for soapbox sermon on some oddball subject. Often, many will randomly insert his "brilliant" assertion that civilization will collapse in ten years.

MGTOW is based on the belief that men have made mistakes (which should be spared making mistakes). These mistakes can include marriage, being nice guy, being worshipful to women, and so on. All these mistakes have a common theme: egotism. When the man got married, he was so sure he was doing the right thing and the naysayers were all jealous villains.

Since so many join MGTOW based on being wrong in the past, why does everyone act like they are right all the time? It is amazing! The egotism never died. It just shifted into new forms. This would explain why someone can't keep to the subject of MGTOW and instead must start bashing a religion, bashing a country, or bashing something else. One can be right on something and be wrong on other things. But MGTOW do not see that. They act like they have suddenly become right on everything (so they become vocal on it).

If we were wrong in the past, and it damaged our lives (such as getting married to a fiend), why do we strut around as if we have such 'wisdom'? If we were so wrong once, we could be wrong again. Yet, this reservation is nowhere to be found in MGTOW. Every man has his own pet theories. The dogs slip their leash and begin to ravage the good content.

To be honest, I don't see many happy MGTOW. There are no celebrations about being 'free' but complaining about... something. Trust me; celebrations and good cheer are far more effective and contagious than "being right all the time".

In normal society, people do not like being around someone 'right all the time'. Even if they are right, they are downright annoying. People prefer light-hearted, good cheered fun. When I think of MGTOW, 'good cheer' is the last to come to mind. MGTOW isn't about being alive as it is about escaping pain.

For as much as we mock feminists for being negative, for getting with women to talk bad about men, it is becoming more and more clear that MGTOW is becoming more like the mirror image. Behavior by behavior, a MGTOW male acts very similar to a feminist in lifestyle and habit. You begin to live alone, have meetings with guys to 'talk bad about women' (to ease existential pains), and write bad essays.

I think it is becoming clear that marriage and children is a natural longing in not just women but men as well. Nature did not intend gender avoidance. I believe generally everyone is repelled by the negative pessimistic tone found on MGTOW. However, people return consistently for a dose of the poison to ease the existential pain (caused by the natural longing of wife and children which is found in every culture and time). Once convinced by the rantings that women are more painful than pleasurable, the male goes off semi-satisfied. But, alas, the natural longing creeps up again causing the male to return.


why, it must be requited. I hear how I am censured:
they say I will bear myself proudly, if I perceive
the love come from her; they say too that she will
rather die than give any sign of affection. I did
never think to marry: I must not seem proud: happy
are they that hear their detractions and can put
them to mending. They say the lady is fair; 'tis a
truth, I can bear them witness; and virtuous; 'tis
so, I cannot reprove it; and wise, but for loving
me; by my troth, it is no addition to her wit, nor
no great argument of her folly, for I will be
horribly in love with her. I may chance have some
odd quirks and remnants of wit broken on me,
because I have railed so long against marriage: but
doth not the appetite alter? a man loves the meat
in his youth that he cannot endure in his age.
Shall quips and sentences and these paper bullets of
the brain awe a man from the career of his humour?
No, the world must be peopled. When I said I would
die a bachelor, I did not think I should live till I
were married.

-"Much Ado About Nothing", Shakespeare

MGTOW is equally damned.

Purpose of life is to win, not to survive

Attention all you mediocre males (for I will not call you MEN). You like to spew all sorts of speeches, essays, and words over anyone that will hear you. You smoke your words in a pretty pipe to null yourself to girlish comfort and gooishness. You, who say, life is to be survived not to be won. You who cower in the corners saving and scavenging for the pennies who are afraid to risk. In fact, you view risk as an enemy to your comfort. "Survive Pook! We are meant to survive!" You passion-less slugs! Not even a child would be as guilty as you are. Even a CHILD knows there are WINNERS and LOSERS in life.

As is my habit, I will give an excellent analogy. Through my periodic workouts (of which the ladies time their workouts at the same time to be in the presence of my Pookness), I tend to swim afterward. It is nice to cool down in the pool. But I noticed something particular. Why was swimming in the pool draining my battery more than lifting hundreds of weights? Why could little women, who were I admit were very muscular with their strong legs and tight rear, able to easy outswim me? Maybe swimming wasn't in my genetics? But that, I knew, was poppycock.

"Poppycock!?" cries a reader. Yes, poppycock. I swam harder but that just drained my energy further. What was I doing wrong?

I realized in swimming (just as with everything in life), we are taught to survive, not how to win. In swimming, you are taught how to stay above the water, how to use your arms to propel yourself from one side to another, and let us not forget to follow the black line. We end up flat on our face slapping the water endlessly as we struggle to go back and forth, back and forth.

No other creature on Earth swims that way. Fish do not swim flat, and they do not use their fins to propel them. "But fish were made to be in the water, Pook," you might say. "Man was made to be on the ground. Of course we cannot swim like a fish."

We were told we could not fly like a bird until Man's MIND came up with an answer. Instead trying to swim to survive, let us try swimming to win. "And how might you win, Pook?" Why, by imitating the master swimmer: the fish. Instead of swimming flat, swim at an angle like the fishes do (water has 1000 times more resistance than air. Think of all the air resistance that cyclers and joggers attempt to combat and wonder why swimmers don't do it for water.) The way how we swim is that we go against the water most of the time. 'Chop!' 'Chop!' ' goes our arms in the water. The engine to the fish is not its fins but its thrust with its body. The fins only guide. After all, golfers and baseball players don't swing with their arms, they swing with their thighs. With olympic swimmers, the faster swimmers are those who use their arms the least.

Nevertheless, I began swimming like a fish. Took a while to learn and required me to untrain my old habits to really use my brain to learn to swim again. I must certainly look funny being underwater, on my side. But what is funny is that I only have to rotate my arms a few times to go from one side of the pool to another. Those who swim to survive become annoyed as I keep up with them. "You are barely working at it!" they growl. "I know," I reply. "That is the point."

With Don Juan, you realized it was better to win than to survive. Nice Guys live to survive; Don Juans live to win. You understand the natural process so you do not 'work'. Nice Guys think of getting girls as working uphill- hard, frustrating, and taxing. Don Juans think of getting girls as sliding downhill- exhilarating, fun, a roller coaster. This same difference animates all of life: love, finance, sports, sex, learning, playing, and everything else.

"Live for what you NEED!" says the voice of security. "Live for what you WANT!" says the voice of freedom.

"That is selfishness!" damns a reader.

No. Selfishness is not doing what you want. Selfishness is demanding others do what you want as a form of entitlement.

So sit softly, you mediocre men who sit in the soft glow of your computer monitors. Live your life to survive. I intend to win.

"But you might lose, Pook!" Yes, but at least I can say my life was an adventure. Can you say the same for yours?

Huxley and Orwell foretold the Matriarchy

There are two political books the 'masses' keep gravitating toward of the last century. The books are Brave New World by Aldous Huxley and 1984 by George Orwell. Both books are cited by all political groups from across the spectrum. Each points to the other as 1984 while one group finds Brave New World a horror while another group sees it as a utopia. Something with these books have tapped into the Human mind in such a way that made them universal.

I am familiar with all the political books, and they are mostly dry, pompous nonsense on stilts. Why do those two books, beyond any other, keep coming up in people's dreams of horror?

The answer became so obvious that I could not stop laughing at my previous foolishness. The secret to appeal and horror of the two books could not be even more plain.

They have nothing to do with politics.

"But Pook! But Pook!" you say. "They speak of empires, of manipulation, of social reconstruction! How could they not be political books?"

We know the current course of Matriarchy did not start in the present. It has been gradually building well over a century if not more. Do not forget the De Beers manipulation of 'engagement rings' and diamonds started in the 1940s. Feminism began even in the 19th century. Progressive reconstruction of society was universally embraced by the West. You only have to see the Constitutional amendment on prohibition and eugenics (in America nonetheless!) to see the sociological events occurring today, as unimaginable thought they may be, they are the tree whose sapling was swaying happily in the twentieth century.

A most fundamental political book, Locke's Two Treatises of Government, based much of the idea of liberty and freedom based on the relationships of man and woman. Locke constantly cites Adam and Eve and even cites how the husband and wife treat one another in marriages. What a reversal we have had! Locke looked toward marriage, of coupling, to see "natural society" and base the government in regards to those observations. Now the government observes and "natural society" must be refit, remolded, chopped, spliced, and smashed to fit the 'Way'. Like a gardener having tools to reshape a bush, so too does legislators use tools of taxation, courts, and other laws to exact the same painful mold.

Let us look at these two books not as political fairytales but as a sense of something changing with the relations of man and woman.

Brave New World was written as a farce to the utopias of the time. But even Huxley was stunned at how many of the things in the book became true. Every writer knows that good writing is done on its own, that it never fits the beginning outline or vision. When the writer is done writing, he is often stunned at what was put down and often astonished at what his characters are saying. While the author may have intended this, and afterward may have suspected he wrote that because of this, really, he isn't as sure.

What is the conflict that Brave New World revolves around? It is not the genetics or Bernard's ambition. It is not the telling of the society itself. The Savage is the axis of the story. The conflict is the Savage (whom the reader identifies as himself) thrown into such a society where everyone is happy... yet are not. His reaction to the woman he falls for is most telling. His despair and constant quoting of Shakespeare, "Oh Brave New World that has such creatures in it!" is contrasting the pathetic flat world of the book to the glorious spiraling realm that Shakepeare, and indeed the West, once personified. The book illustrates the destruction of family, marriage, and the old ways.

1984 also has nothing to do with politics. The use of language, of manipulation, of 'Big Brother', are all just blocks which could easily be replaced with something else. The conflict of the story is expressed by Winston by, first, his past and his attempts of coupling with a woman he chooses. Winston says how he wanted to murder his wife, how child rearing was told to him as a 'duty'. 1984 was not about an omnipotent, omniscient government as it was about the destruction of a natural union between a man and a woman. It was not about Winston loving Big Brother as it was that they forced him to destroy his love for her. "Do it to her! Do it to her!" screams Winston at the climax.

Both Huxley and Orwell both appear to be candidates, in how their lives went, to have detected this slouching towards Matriarchy (or whatever you want to call it today) way back then. They wouldn't even have consciously knew it. It is like a Middle Ages work being filled with praises of God, even revolving around it, but not realizing it because he was so immersed in the times. This would explain who the two books hold so much gravity with the masses and why they are so often cited.

Sexuality was once intertwined with faith, with liberty, and with society. If it is true that sexuality's wheel has been fraying, that more and more people are turning into sex-less automatons and only resort to man/woman during intercourse (and even then only seen in the context of animals), imagine a third book to follow up what Brave New World and 1984 started. Imagine a book that could perfectly mirror society today. Not the society of images we see on TV or magazines, but how it really is. The difference between a good writer and a mediocre one is that the good writer never sees himself as writing, only as holding a mirror up to Human Nature.

What if the mirror was held up to society now? Is it possible to translate the pain and suffering that men undergo, as they commit suicide, after divorce and being ripped from their children onto the page? What about the sadness that enters men's hearts when they see daughters and other young women use sex to obtain material things? Or what about the abyss that men realize they have been manipulated their entire lives? And how about the heights (or should I say depths) of the modern woman's life with her cats? Can the farce of the family court be put into a book? Can the spiritual castration of men be properly illustrated? What an impact it would be to have the West look itself in the mirror! This is the appeal I believe MRA sites have. People are looking for a mirror of society and MRA sites are giving explanations.

Such a book would truly rise fast as one of the first 'great works' of the twenty first century. But in order for such a book to be written, the writer would have to march down the steps of the abyss far lower than Brave New World and 1984 ever did. He would have to write about such hellish subjects, and know it and dream it, consistently to get the work written. If most men commit suicide once knowing the truth, it would be extremely hard for one to make such a tome. It would take a very rare man to create such a work... without killing himself... and then having the balls to publish it.

And by writer, I am not meaning some newsletter or other author. I am meaning something more: a poet. Not in the sense that he writes in rhymes, but in the sense of how much Human Nature he would have to connect him.

I have heard several talented writers attempt such a work. They either abandoned the work in haste of going mad, did indeed go mad, or completed a work that shows some sparkles of insight but is mostly flat (for the author refused to fully enter the abyss). The sphinx will continue feasting until someone realizes how to answer with "Man!"

Radicalism of Vilar #8: Even in Sex, Man is Enslaved

"Women live an animal existence. They like eating, drinking, sleeping - even sex, providing there is nothing to do and no real effort is required of them. Unlike a man, a woman will rarely make an effort to get her partner into bed. If, however, he is already there and she hasn't planned to set her hair or undertake some other form of large-scale beauty repair and there is no TV programme she wants to see, she will not be averse to making love, provided he is prepared to be the active partner.

"But even the euphemisms 'active' for the male partner and 'passive' for the female do not conceal the fact that woman allows man to serve her in bed just as he does in every sphere of her life. Even through intercourse may give a man pleasure in the long run, it is nothiing more than a service to a woman, in which the man is the better lover, arousing desire more skillfully, quickly, and making it last longer.

"Men suspect that women tend to exploit them during intercourse and have developed a certain fear of female sexual appetite. "Signs of this appear in the rites of ancient cultures, in philosophical works of men such as Schopenhauer and Nietzche, in the novels of Baudelaire, Balzac an dMontherlant, in plays by Strindberg, O'Neill and Tennessee Williams. Since the discovery of contraceptives, this fear has reached almost hysterical proportions."

I have spoken much about sexual transmutation of men in the past. Men can utilize their sexual desire to make it bloom into their art, their music, their work, their actions, to make their life progress swifter and increase their resonance among people (i.e. "charisma"). As a salesman myself, I know that the highly sexualized people make the better salesmen while the lower sexualized people (of both men and women) become stuck with low sales.

One gender's transmutation is another gender's manipulation. At least, this is what the feminists say when they point to the great works of Humanity.

We know that most men do not understand transmutation. They can often just live an animal existence and try to hump the nearest female in sight. These men generally end up mediocre in life. Keep in mind, I am referring not to the highly sexualized male but the male who submits to his sexuality, rather than forging the sexuality into what he desires. Think of the trunk in high school who ended up getting a girl pregnant and is doomed to a life of paying for it.

Most women, also, do not understand transmutation. The "slut feminism" is merely that of an animal existence.

However, women do undergo transmutation. They sexualize themselves as much as possible meaning through exercise, tight clothes, long hair, make-up, and so on to and undergo training in dance and other things. The woman will become trapped in her own game (as Radical Vilar #2 will reveal) but she is certainly trying to get the wealthiest and socially desired male.

Some women (mostly feminists) will resort to writing bad books about female goddesses and the occult as well as being mesmerized by Egyptian mythology. These women are confusing their sexuality with their faith and have the shoes on backward. Nevertheless, they are trying to project that sexuality in some means. This would explain why such women are often extremely ugly.

It is quite common for women to declare men are all pigs who want nothing but sex. But if you have ever tried to eliminate sex from a budding relationship, the woman goes bonkers. She has no mind of herself, just her animal existence, and she projects that onto the men. "All men want is sex!" Well, ma'am, when was the last time a woman said something even remotely

abstract? Even with feminist theory, all they do is regurgitate verbatim what is heard. There are still no new ideas. The original nut of feminist theory is just a cliche with zombie girls echoing the cliche.

But let us listen some more.

"In truth, reliable contraceptives (invented by a man, naturally) have robbed man of the only triumph left to him in his state of sexual subjugation. Previously, woman was always to a certain extend at his mercy. Now she is suddenly in control. She can have as many children as she wishes. She can even select the father (rich, if possible). If she has no intention of having children, she can indulge in intercourse as often as it appears advantageous to her. Men cannot do that." Pg. 80-81

This is a good question. Have contraceptives increased man's power or woman's? Obviously, it is woman's whose fortune has doubled. She can now be the slut and be free from most of the consequences. This was much more difficult in the past.

I suspect contraceptives have been historically banned because of men insisting it so. This would explain why the ancient religions all banned contraceptives. Christianity banned all contraceptives unanimously until around 1928. It also finally explains why Onanism was frowned at (a man emptying his seed outside the woman). It kept giving the woman power.

Sex has two main long term consequences (not counting short term pleasure). One, it creates children. Two, it enslaves a man.

With contraceptives, the children element is removed but the enslavement of men are not.

"But Pook! But Pook!" you cry. "Would this not free the men too? All these women and little consequences?"

The changing definitions of man by the moderns have help emasculate men. A false definition is worse than a slander. But the definition of "man" as supported by the moderns is a man who has sex with as many females as possible. There is no historical basis for this. What was the definition of a "man" was the man WHO HAD THE MOST CHILDREN. This is why centuries ago, familes would range from eight to fourteen children. Men who were impotent and could not have children strived to display their manliness in some other way (such as America's George Washington).

The more children, the more new people were under the man's name. He became the leader of the household. He became the Patriarch in this way.

By pinning the definition of sex on 'as banging as many females as possible', one can pinpoint the further enslavements to men:

1) the married man keeps demanding sex from his wife who she can easily manipulate the man further based on such desire.

2) the bachelor throws his time away (which is more valuable than money) on playing the 'game' to get as many girls as possible. Women will manipulate the guy for entertainment, social access, and even money.

3) the guy throws his money away (less valuable than time) at prositutes, both offical and unofficial, just so he can 'feel like a man'.

We know that for men, sex is very much a mental thing. Alter the brainwashing and free yourself.

It is hilarious when someone tries to defend this definition of man using evolutionary behavior. Evolution only works if you have children you idiots. When I see demographic reports of less and less children born in each generation, I assure you that is not evolution in work: it is extinction.

Vilar goes on speaking how much women research sex and how it involves men (to 'rock his world to enslave them' essentially).

"Contrary to man's fear, women do not, however, weigh one man against another and choose the most virile- far from it, as she herself is not all that keen on sex. In view of that, and provided all other conditions are equal, she is likely to prefer the less potent man because she can always blackmail him with her intimate knowledge of his weakness. "In the realm of sex, more than any other, man is a victim of the principles of efficiency according to which he is manipulated."

You never hear about any pressure for the woman to 'perform'. The only thing you hear about that is if the woman cannot keep the man (i.e. manipulate him). This would explain why when a wife cheats, the husband "fails" and the wife is a "victim". And if the husband cheats, the husband "fails" and the wife is again the "victim".

"That sexual competence in a man is a matter of indifference to the majority of females is shown by the number of highly paid men who marry and stay married, despite the fact that they are impotent (it is unimaginable that a woman without a vagina would have an prospects whatsoever of getting married to a normally sexed man)." Pg. 84

A young man is often amazed that dating is really nothing more than sex. Women don't want to know you. They do not care about your dreams. The bait on the hook is sex and the purpose is to reel you in. Women's greatest fear is the celibate man as he cannot be hooked in any way.