E3 is dead

It's over.

The Richard II Disease

There is something I call the "Richard II Disease". In Shakespeare's play, Richard II, the king (Richard II) was a weak man who, also, became a weak king. His throne was taken which began the War of the Roses (Shakespeare uses this play to begin a type of 'trilogy' with Henry IV Part I and Part II coming after and Henry V completing the full tale).

Richard II did not *grasp* poetry. Rather, it grasped him. Being so overawed by poetry, he was lost in it and, indeed, romanticized by it. In fact, practically everything overawed Richard II in the play. To him, he was 'over-awed' by the crown. Any king who remains 'over-awed' by his own throne is going to become a weak king.

This 'Richard II Disease' is exactly what creates the Nice Guy or rather the "Sappy Guy". Not understanding women or having any experience with them, Nice Guys become "overawed" by the females. They find females "majestic" and a spectacular "wonder". This is nonsense. Only children would find such wonder as they are new to this world. This is why Nice Guys are seen as incredibly weak by women and men. And this is why Nice Guys are still seen as "children" even if they have grown male bodies.

The 'Richard II Disease' is probably the chief culprit afflicting Christianity and the force behind this so-called "feminization" of religion. Real men look at religion with attempts to understand and rationalize it. The Richard IIs look at religion with only one purpose: to be overawed by it. So the focus becomes on a fantastical display of flowery language, a potpourii of feelings, and a bouquet of feminine contexts. Christianity used be presented as "The Truth" which, today, it no longer does and keeps attempting to rely on 'awe' (but awe of Truth and the awe of Richard II is very different)

Can we be 'over-awed' on other things and create a type of 'unhealthy Nice Guy addiction'? Certainly! The intense feelings of sex can over-awe people and have people literally worshipping copulation itself (and lose total control of themselves to it). Likewise, the intense feelings of alcohol, drugs, and even food also can 'over-awe' people and keep them addicted to this 'awed' state.

My favorite example is ancient artifacts. People know the Stonehenge is great, but there is little reason as to why. The same goes with the Pyramids. Completely over-awed by them, many people insist that space aliens came and made them (!).

The worst culprit is the modern notion of "love". Love is seen as something you submit to, something to "over-awe" you. This definition of "love" keeps the Nice Guy in a state of continued cycle no matter how many times he gets burned. Does this mean one cannot be 'awed' by a woman? You fall in and out of awe over the course of any long relationship. But you certainly don't 'submit' to this awe. Nice Guys see themselves as Romantics. Vain women see the Nice Guy as submitting to their WONDERFUL selves (which every woman thinks herself wonderful). The truth is in the middle. Nice Guys are submitting to their misplaced awe (usually placed upon some hard to obtain woman).

Don't let feelings of awe have you lose control of yourself. And certainly, never submit to it.

Sunday Reading: Voice of the Neuter

I have decided I am no longer going to post anything significant on this blog on Sunday. Sunday will become a day of rest for me. So, instead, I will link to someone else's excellent essay and say, "Here is your Sunday reading!"

For this week: The Voice of the Neuter

Quote:

Above all, it is a sexless voice. Not, I hasten to add, a "gay" voice. Not that at all. It is neither that gentle nor that musical. Nor is it that old shabby lisping stereotype best consigned to the dustbin of popular culture. No, this is a new old voice of a generation of ostensible men and women who have been educated and acculturated out of, or say rather, to the far side of any gender at all. It is, as I have indicated above, the voice of the neutered. And in this I mean that of the transitive verb: To castrate or spay. The voice and the kids that carry it is the triumphant achievement of our halls of secondary and higher education. These children did not speak this way naturally, they were taught. And like good children seeking only to please their teachers and then their employers, they learned.

This is not to say that the new American Castrati of all genders live sexless lives. On the contrary, if reports are to be credited, they seem to have a good deal of sex, most often without the burden of love or the threat of chlldren, and in this they are condemned to the sex life of children.

Has Feminism Always Been Around?

An emailer asks a series of very important questions:

You heavily concentrate on feminism as the root of the problem, but weren't men like this before feminism? I have a hard time believing the way I naturally am (AFC) is because of the cultural influence of feminism. It seems like i'm just "hardwired" to be completely clueless and inept regarding females. It seems more like i've been playing a predestined role in society, just like an ant would, but luckily I have a higher consciousness that has allowed me to escape AFCism. Don't we see over and over again in pre-feminist literature, the story of the AFC that secretly loves a prize woman and never professes his affection, while she is attracted to the alpha-male character who isn't deserving of her?

Haven't men always been like this for thousands and thousand of years? What about the concept of chivalry that originated from ancient germanic tribes who paid great reverence to women and their chastity in pre-christian times?

When I refer to 'feminization' or to 'Matriarchy', I do it for reasons of simplicity. Everyone knows what I mean if I say 'feminization of society'. I don't believe Feminism is the mother of all evils. It is a tentacle attached to some other beast entirely (though I'm not sure what this creature is).

Chivalry was an aristocratic notion from the Middle Ages that has long since died out. Today, women demand chivalry without a clue of the origins of the word and what it means. When woman demand chivalry, they are actually demanding noble status. This is why chivalry must be opposed because it percieves one sex for being "noble" while another sex to be "peasant".

I tell women, "Chivalry only existed because of courtly love." Women DESPISE courtly love today. Also, back then there was actually stigma and restraints on woman's behavior. Today, before a date with you a woman could be giving a BJ to a guy at Jack-In-The-Box. This is why they do not deserve 'chivalry' anymore.

And you bring up an excellent point with the pre-feminist literature. Dicken's "Great Expectations" is a guy who is practically living his life to obtain some girl (and even then people despised Dicken's original and more accurate ending). Jane Austen novels also show the jerk and nice guy issues as well. It is safe to say that males have always struggled to become men.

But there are two definite changes: one soulful and the other economic that ushered in feminization of society.

Castration of the Soul Allowing Feminization

Today, there is much talk about people being more 'tolerant' and 'getting along' with each other. With all these religions and ethnicities mixed together, only a century or two ago those differences would have us at each others' throats in war. People back then, at least the non-peasants, actually had a soul. They would be willing to fight for something. Today, people have no fight in them. The typical 'Day of Culture' shows where some ethnicity has a carnival to show off their food and clothing. This is a joke because these things tell us nothing about their beliefs. Food and clothing do not make cultures, beliefs do. The wars between men have been a difference of the idea of Good and Evil, not these superficial differences of appearances or foods.

Why do Democracies never war with one another except with dictators (and terrorists)? The answer is because of different ideas of good and evil. Peace as defined to a Democracy is very different than peace defined as a dictator. Peace to a dictator is "no resistence" and "absolute rule". This is why war breaks out between dictators, democracies, terrorists, and communists. All have different definitions of what peace is. It is the height of stupidity for people to claim that war breaks out because of superficial differences between clothing and food.

Look at today's politicians versus those of fifty years ago. Notice how politicians even used to be passionate and manly? Today's politicians seem like wimps looking for approval from everyone. With the collapse of the Humanities, there is now no longer a cultivation of the soul. We have all become the castrati. This allowed a vacuum which feminists could largely expand in.

Economic Origins of Feminism

There is one undeniable great change in history: the Industrial Revolution. Before the Industrial Revolution, most people lived and died on their farms. Even the shopkeepers managed their own businesss. What I found shocking was that before the Industrial Revolution, everyone had a sense of business and had more financial sense then we do today (after the Industrial Revolution, we were all taught to work for someone else).

The home was vastly changed with the Industrial Revolution. Before, the home was the farm or the shop. Everyone produced: the husband, the wife, and the children. No one was expected to become idle. The family could see how hard the father worked since he was right there. Afterward, the father went to the factory and wealth built within the nation so children and wife didn't have to work. No one knew or cared what the father did. He simply brought home the money.

The home went from a producing area into a consumption area. Advertisers and merchants pounced on this opportunity. It became that the husband would make money which the wife would spend.

It is in Human Nature to want to matter, we have urges to produce as a life of consumption gets old. Before, women would manage and work the farm. Now, they honestly had little to nothing to do. (Some women love being nothing which Vilar warns to avoid.) So after the 1950s, the Home buckled to the economic pressure. Women sought careers to fulfill their 'production' urge.

So we end up with two types of Matriarchs. One is the woman who wants to stay home to do and become nothing. Her mind will rot. Her talk will become more dull. Her idea is the husband works while she puts her feet up (as housework is done now in seconds). The other is the woman who is ambitious for a grand career because she doesn't want to become 'nothing' (but most of the time it is youthful narcissism propelling her).

We are currently in the midst of a third great economic revolution (the first is agriculture and second is industrial). This is the Internet or digital revolution. With this revolution I'm noticing that the clock is being turn back to the way things were. It is no coincidence that the Men's Movement was born with the Net savvy men but the second wave Feminist movement was born in the industrial age universities.

The ultimate solution may be having women working at a home based business. This wave of people seeking financial freedom and independence will soon change the home from being an area of consumption to an area of production once again.

I think that is a key to preventing a woman to become feminist is have her producing by her own designs (rather than some 'job'). One happy marriage I know is that the wife makes pottery at home and sells it. Simple, and it does provide some extra money for the household. I have also noticed that women who work (at a real job, not a job where they can paint their nails) resist the brainwashing of feminists.

With the Industrial Revolution, women began to define being a 'woman' as not working. As Vilar points out, in woman's eyes the definition of a man is someone who works while the definition of a woman is someone who DOES NOT work.

There is a natural desire in people to want to be producers, to be merchants of a sort. When women were left idle, they began to use love in a bourgeois fashion. Today, Western Women believe their love, beauty, and presence is 'produced' by them and sold. Virginity, to them, is now seen in a bourgeois mindset that is increasing their market value. The only reason a woman does not become a slut today is because it would decrease their market value. Women see love entirely in a business sense (which is why men must think of marriage and relationships as a business transaction today).

Western Women's financial education seems to be little more than either a career or to manipulate a wealthy man to provide for them. If women were educated in the financial freedom sense, they might realize that they could become producers at home and create their own industry (as opposed to the career or prostitute type lifestyle).

Keep in mind that Woman's Industry, of sewing things, painting little things, and so on was absolutely destroyed by the Industrial Revolution (now we buy those things in the store). A vacuum was created. So now women either chase careers or believe they are producers of love selling at the highest giving price. Once this vacuum is filled again with a proper woman's industry (some digital incarnation of the old sewing and such), I think we'll see a restoration towards what was the old producing home and an utter collapse of modern feminism.

This explains why foreign women become corrupted in America. They begin to think of love through a bourgeois mindset. This means rationing sex and always looking for the 'bigger, better, deal'. If woman's bourgeois urges were set to a real industry (like in the old days of farming and sewing), they would not and could not apply it to love.

Status on the Emails

If you haven't recieved a reply from me, don't worry. I probably haven't got to your email yet.

"Why does it take you so long, Pook!?"

First, there are many emails. Second, many require a detailed response (think of a page or two). I get questions ranging to asking about girls to the rise and fall of civilizations.

"But you update the blog without replying to my email yet!?"

This is because a blog post is easy and is seen by a hundreds. But an email and its response is seen by one and very personal (making it extremely difficult at times).

Don't worry. You WILL get a reply back. It'll be days later, but you'll get a reply!

What should the Men's Movement do?

*Disclaimer*


Keep in mind that this is meant for the politically engaged and public part of the Men's Movement. When I mean 'Men's Movement', I am referring to the political motion, not the websites, blogs, message boards, and those things.


In politics, you must pick your battles. In other words, you pick the battles worth fighting over and don't waste time on unobtainable objectives.

The battles I think are worth fighting over (and winnable) for the Men's Movement are...

-Calling attention to and re-organizing the Family Law and its courts

-Make Paternity Testing mandatory for birth certificates and especially for child support.

-Have legislatures re-examine the laws concerning rape.

-Have legislatures re-examine the laws concerning sexual harassment.

-Have Congress amend and/or gut the Violence Against Women's Act.

-Fight for changing Divorce Law

This, already, will be an uphill battle. All of this is possible however. Paternity Testing is winnable because it is not that expensive to do DNA checks. It is very difficult to argue against paternity testing for child support to the mainstream populace (why should a man who isn't the father have to pay child support? Only a hateful feminist could support such an evil idea). Yes, I know they are using weird legal precedents currently. Expose it! Most of society just isn't aware of what is going on. It is the Men's Movement job to educate the vast population on these issues. Also, Paternity Testing can be argued for medical purposes. Having the father known allows a proper medical history for the child.

In order to change the current laws, attention must be called to them. It is doubtful the current legal system in place for Family Law would be abolished. However, it can be altered. A good example is the money for child support being looked at BOTH the father and mother's income rather than just the father's. Georgia and Australia both changed the child support to examine both parents' incomes much to the anger of feminists. Whenever the Men's Movement is successful, it ought to examine why so it can replicate the success later on.

Many of the legal battles can be fought under the banner of equality. Should men and women be treated equally under the law? This makes sense but is rarely done (such as the divorce laws and even sexual harassment laws). Why should a woman walk away with a slap on her wrist when the same action could send a man to prison? And what protections do men have against self-interested women who throw rape and harassment charges knowing they are not true? These are all issues that will get politicians to consider.

When you contact your representative, handwrite your letter. Do not type it or email it. These representatives are sent tons of spam and mail from politically interested organizations. People say representatives do not listen to their constituents, but this is not true in America (at least). They do listen especially the letters that are handwritten.

And most important of all, the Men's Movement should educate, educate, and educate. Those who have been on the bad side of Family Law (those unfortunate divorced men whose lives got shattered), tell your stories. However, do not tell it with seething anger as no one will listen to that.

I know this is controversial in the Men's Movement, but I believe the only key to political victory is getting some women on board. Once women come on board, there is no stopping the movement. I am not talking about all or most women, only a few. Many women know what is going around and may be sympathetic enough to participate (if we give them the chance). It is important for the Men's Movement to keep the door open for women to come aboard if they wish. Politically, this will make the Men's Movement impossible to be pegged as "angry male losers" if a few women are strategically placed as spokesmen.

Another big thing that could be pushed is teaching fertility in the already present government sex-ed classes in schools. While fertility is not much of an issue for men, it is extremely important for females. Women need to be taught that the height of their fertility is from 18-25 and goes downhill from there. The Government will be supportive of this idea since all Western Governments want to increase the fertility rate. Feminists will hate it because once women become educated about their fertility, they will most likely not pursue a career.

So what should the Men's Movement NOT do?

Obviously, the Men's Movement should not fight the wrong battles. These are battles that aren't related to the movement and/or have a high probability of never occurring. When the first Congress was debating the Declaration of Independence, unrelevant topics appeared such as the issues of slavery and off shore fishing rights. The only battle was Independence. The political issue of slavery was too divisive even back then. The political issue of off shore fishing rights was too irrelevant. I've seen such issues appear in the Men's Movement which need to be dropped ASAP:

-Libertarianism (Libertarianism is fine and good, but what point is there for the Men's Movement to fight this battle when Libertarian groups already exist?)

-Medical Marijuanna (What does this have to do with the Men's Movement?)

-Anything dealing with gays (While homosexuals fall under the Family Law, fighting the Gay Movement as well as removing these penalizing anti-men laws is not prudent. Pick your battles. Fighting the Gay Movement isn't going to bring the Men's Movement closer to reforming divorce and family law.)

-Kicking Women (Rampant "woman bashing" not only insures that no women will join but that many men will be turned away by such negativity even when justified. Think tactics. If the Men's Movement is interested in success, it will have to refrain from being percieved as 'kicking' all women [for substitute, kick the feminists.])

-Giving up on young men (We all were brainwashed once. Going around and calling any male who doesn't immediately agree with you names is not going to influence them. With all the young males born to single females, thinking they are 'dead' and giving up on them would also be a mistake. In fact, the Men's Movement could serve as a guidance for these young males who never had a real father.)

-Trying to get women to change their behavior and their attitude (This is pointless and a waste of time. Focus on the laws, not the women as it is the laws that put us in jail. You can avoid the women and their attitudes for the most part. But you cannot avoid the law. We do not want women to love us, we only want women to be unable to hang us.)

-Be filled with hostility and rage (Rage never inspires anyone to join a movement. Others like you may agree, but that vast mainstream will just conclude you are an angry loon. Optimism and explanations of how things would be better with our proposed changes will persuade people. Anger and thinking the world is going to end will not.)

Women and their behavior/attitude should not be the focus of the Men's Movement. Rather, the focus should be on reforming the law. Politically and in the open, attack the law, but going after the women (who have used these laws to their advantage) is going to push away the politicians and mainstream we need to persuade.

A man is not entitled to love and good responses from women. But a man ought to be entitled to be immune to a woman having the legal power to destroy his life when innocent of no crime.

I believe the probability for victory vastly increases if the Men's Movement focuses on smaller battlefields rather than large, epic ones. Men's lives would improve considerably if divorce, family courts, and child support were reformed. Make that the first target and save the other issues for another day.

Spinsterhood: The LOUD Epidemic

Millions of women are suffering and thousands come to us looking for a cure. Single men, the cure is you. Won't you please help them before it's too late?

Symptoms of Spinsterhood

Single women frequently display the first symptoms of spinsterhood within a day or two of experiencing the end of a relationship or simply from spending too much time without a significant other. They include, but are not limited to:

* Declarations of "strong woman" appear immediately
* Celebrity/movie/horse infatuation
* Consumption of *special* coffee more than one time a day
* Constant sneer on her face
* Generally unmodest appearance

Spinsterhood is not limited to just the average Jane. More information about this affliction can be found in Pook's Mill's advertisement on the Internet. Unlike stupid magazines, this advertisement is available today!

Risk of Infection

If warning signs are detected early enough, spinsterhood can be prevented before it spreads to other unsuspecting females. Women in relationships should not engage in any activities that might increase their risk. This includes:

* Attempting to control their boyfriend through sex and praise
* Not letting their man do his important masculine hobbies
* Generally acting like a bitch

Any of these or other more minor actions may cause the relationship to deteriorate and can eventually lead to spinsterhood.

Finding a Cure for Spinsterhood

Gentlemen, this cannot continue! The greater spinsterhood spreads, the louder and more shrill women become. Think of civilization's ears! Spinsters tend to become hysterical and form political movements assaulting men. Their faces shrivel up with hate and begin to become deluded that men are nothing more than brutish beasts. You don't want your country to become infested with these spinsters, do you?

Don't let your nation enter a tax downfall! Those retirement programs need fuel to burn through the next few decades! Cure spinsterhood and have as many children as possible! Our governments need more tax revenue! What are you waiting for? Marry a spinster today!

Do It For the Felines!

Frequent spinsterhood has become an increasingly troubling national problem afflicting millions of females and threatning the Government, the Arts, and even Society itself.

What's that you say? You don't WANT to marry these broads? You think they are too skanky, fat, and ugly for you!? Well then...

Therefore, I, being the stupendous Pook, Master of Everything Pookish, have decided that effective today, this blog will devote itself to helping others overcome this problem. Remember that the most frequent symptom of Spinsterhood is owning multiple cats. Don't forget that many poor cats are in jeopardy of being owned by those gleeting knotty-pated boar pigs! So the next time you find a spinster (such as a single mother with children from different men) having Machiavellian advances at you, and you find yourself revolting at her skankiness/fatness/ugliness, just come to this post. These wholesome images of cute little kitties will have you thinking pure thoughts at saving these cats from miserable lives if these women become spinsters and remind you of what's really at stake.

Remember, think of the kittens...

Friday Cat Blogging!!!

You missed it! Yesterday was apparently 'Friday Cat Blogging Day'.

"Oh no, Pook!"

Yes, OH NOES!!! I know you're thinking, "Gosh darn, how dare I miss the Friday Cat Blogging Day on Feminist Sites. What could have come over me?"

Fear not, for I have applied my Pookish talent to acquire some links just for you. Yes, I'm not making this up. On Friday, it is apparently tradition for feminists to post pictures of their cats.

Why?

I haven't the slightest clue.

One example of a previous Cat Blogging Day.

Here is another one with bad poetry mixed in.

Another example.

And yet another example.

This woman posts pictures of all FOUR of her cats...

And this woman has MOVIES of her cats.

If you look around feminist blogs, you'll usually find that they, the feminist, hold themselves Master of Everything Art, Poetry, and Music and consider themselves Expert of Culture. There you will find bad poetry, poor art, and the crucifying of Shakespeare (link above is named 'Shakespeare's Sister'!). They are so vulnerable on the Humanities front.

Anyway, while most normal people were out having fun, these feminists took pictures of their cats and posted them on their blogs. Next trend I suspect will be Cat Pageants.

Bachelorism: An Epidemic?

I am tired of online ads for these matching services. Usually, it is a woman lying down almost nude with a huge command of "MATE" on the picture.

So how do these online matching services get the females? Do they have men showing their chest with a huge command on it of "MATE"? No, they get this instead.

Apparently, Bachelorism is a disease.

The world's number one dating and relationship company, Match.com, is taking a stand against bachelorism, a disturbing epidemic that affects more than 41 million men nationwide(1). Match.com has thrown its support behind a new campaign, http://www.bachelorism.org , to raise awareness for the causes and cure for this devastating syndrome.

Single men are painted as babies that must be 'rescued' from oblivion. This is how many bachelors are seen... as losers simply because they don't have some girl. What intrigues me is what if someone did the same for single females? What if someone made an ad campaign that made single women to be hysterical and unrational but only a man could 'save' them from self-destruction? Do you think that would go over well?

Since no one else will do it, here, at Pook's Mill, I'll come up with an ad campaign similiar to bachelorism. This could be fun...

Plato's Warning About Writing

Our vision of history comes from past writings. But what about the time before writing was invented? And if writing was invented beforehand, could it have been possible for civilizations to ignore writing because they saw it as a vice?

Plato, one of the last who knew the pre-writing civilizations (and, hence, the Mill), wrote this in the end of Phaedrus. In the book, Socrates refers to a story that the Egyptian Thamus tell the god Theuth that writing, far from being a benefit, will plant forgetfulness in men's souls, that it will only seem to be wisdom and will tell men of things without really teaching them; they will thus seem to know much but in fact know nothing. They will have the conceit of wisdom, not genuine wisdom.

The response of civilizations after to this goes as follows: "Haha, Socrates was such a DORK!!! Plato was such a fuddy duddy! Writing was a proper invention the helped the world. It is like the fool who thinks computers will harm us, or the automobile will destroy us."

However tempting it is to think this way, Socrates was anything but a dork, and Plato was no fool. We're not talking about some nerd in history. This is PLATO, the guy who invented philosophy for us. So let us give him benifet of the doubt.

It is common to find people out there who have read a great deal of many books and believe this gives them the key to wisdom. Does it? And we know writers with many blogs where the template is always the same: Humanity is stupid, the blogger is super-intelligent, and the blog performs as an arena where our intellectual Columbus spews his 'revealing' comments.

"You, yourself, do this very thing, Mr. Pook."

Perhaps. But would others post a blog post like this? I'm trying to point out is that it is possible to read too much. Of all the books I have read, I wonder: would it have been more illuminating if I were fishing instead?

Most ancient literature was composed not by ink and parchment (or tablet) but rather through oral poetry and chants. Homer's Illiad and Odyssey was crafted from oral tradition, not writings. The Muhabarata, the great work of India, was also from oral tradition. So was the Finnish epic known as the Kaleva. Even the Old Testament probably originated from oral traditions.

As I'll explain in a future post (probably tomorrow), I do not believe in the word 'culture'. Culture, the word, was invented by Kant and hasn't obtained widespread use until after World War 2. "This is controversial. You are a radical Pook." All Pooks are radical. Some are just more radical than others!

It is known that Finland, Esthonia, and Lapland are a cultural island. Ethnically, they are related to the Hungarians and other Asian people (Siryenians, Votyaks, Cheremisians, etc.) They speak languages which belong to the Ugro-Finnish family whose languages are described as "agglutinative" and often characterized by vowel harmonization. This tradition has remained seperate from most of the world until fairly recently. Yet, the parrallels of the Kaleva and the Norse and Celtic mythologies are striking. There was no contact yet the transmission was oral.

But this would better put Plato's warning into perspective. Dieterlen's introduction to Marcel Griaule's Conversations with Ogotemmeli deals with Dogon education and with the personal experience of waiting sixteen years before the sage old men of the tribe decided to "open the door". Behold:

In African societies which have preserved their traditional organization the number of persons who are trained in this knowledge is quite considerable. This they call "deep knowledge" in contrast with "simple knowledge" which is regarded as "only a beginning in the understanding of beliefs and customs" that people who are not fully instructed in the cosmogony possess. There are various reasons for the silence that is generally observed on this subject.

Now, I could quote the full text, but the point can be easily made. In this African society in the year 1941, this tribe had a few elders who had the "deep knowledge". These Westerners had to wait over a decade before being entrusted of obtaining this "deep knowledge" which was transmitted orally. This "deep knowledge" is, of course, the astral plane, philosophy, great legends, and everything else... in other words, the Mill. Not only did this African society hold such traditions about keeping the knowledge of the Mill to the elders, almost every ancient society was like this. Even with the invention of writing, Christianity kept knowledge within its Latin clergy not because of aristocratic temptations but because this 'circle of elders transmitting knowledge orally' has been the standard of all ancient civilizations. Today, we have no familiarity with Greek and Latin which has cut us off from those traditions (these traditions of those Greeks were, of course, the Pythagorean, Orphic, and Neart East traditions).

Was Plato right about writing? I think he was, at least in making it impossible for us to understand the ancients and the traditions of all civilizations concerning the Mill. "The mind has lost its cutting ege, we hardly understand the Ancients," wrote Gregoire de Tours back in 600 A.D.

But the very error might be our reliance on writing itself. Writers are well aware that practically every plot possible has been told (plot as in matter of form such as 'revenge plot' ad nauseum). But there is one interesting difference I find in the ancient stories and politics to today's stories and politics. Today, we believe in the Linear. Much of politics is debated around what is progressive. Evolution is, itself, a type of linear mode of thinking. As for plot, one thing the ancients did not have was time travel. Today, we have no problem thinking Marty McFly can go back in time and change history. But to the ancients, they would be unable to comprehend that because, for them, there was no linear time line. There was only cycles, only a circle. Odysseus could not travel through time like Marty McFly, but he could visit the Land of the Dead as well as those other strange islands of the living.

Writing is linear. The sentence has its beginning and its end. But the oral transmission, while also linear, depends entirely on memory. The "deep knowledge", the Mill, is a pure structure of numbers bounded by times and rhythms... like music (as oral transmission, given through poetry, often became). Archaic thought is cosnological first and last and must be considered as a whole and not as a sum of parts whether it be astrology, forces, gods, numbers, planetary powers, Platonic Forms, Aristotelian Essences or Stoic Substances. The Mill cannot be analyzed in the usual sense. I can talk about seen objects but how to explain motions, change, and rhythm? Think of physics as that is seen primarily as numbers. How do you understand this ancient context of an irresistible circle of time if you consider time to be linear and think through writing?

Plato's warning about writing was that it destined us to think in linear terms for everything and broke off any possibility of tapping into that ancient knowledge. "So what, Pook? We are better today than yesterday. We are healthier, have better technology, and live better in every way."

True. But Mankind's high state of living comes that we have more minds living today. With six billion alive, we can focus on the most specialized tasks. This was impossible when Mankind numbered four million, lived in ditches, and hunted rabbits. The Mill gave us Plato, gave us Science, gave us the Humanities, and may arguably have given us the religions.

How can universities, full of bookworms, be able to piece together wisdom that was transmitted orally? How can a linear mind grasp the ancient cyclical mind?

These are good questions (with no clear answers). It is a far cry from the conclusion we began with of Socrates being a fuddy duddy about new techniques. It shows that the Mill must be not be read but heard.

Matriarchy and the Churches

Someone emailed this to me:

I adore Christianity; it is a core part of who and what I am. I don't go to church anymore. The reason? I do not feel welcome or wanted and that is completely because I am male.

Yes, yes, I know ... most of the leaders are men. So what? The dominant "alpha" man who leads hates lesser men as much, if not more, than the feminists. I get more than enough hate just living my day to day life: I do not want to go to church to get more.

I have no problem with any person wearing what they want to church: Show up in a bikini for all I care. I have no problem with everyone running around "helping" at the service: It makes for a good leg stretch. I have no problem with female pastors: One of the best ministers I have ever known happened to be a woman and a physician. I could go on and on and on and on a...

Mother's day ... flowers for the women and a sermon on the greatness of the mother
Father's day ... a long lecture on the failings of all men

THAT, that is a part of what upsets me. It is only a part.

The church as it now is upsets me. I do not feel welcome, wanted or cared for.

I've tried to explain this to my wife, mother and mother-in-law. They cannot understand it, or refuse to understand ... I'm not sure which.

There's a church in our area which is violently anti-female. Woman must walk behind her husband, not speak in church, wear VERY conservative dress, wear a hat in church yada yada yada. I tried to get my wife to think how SHE would feel going there. She just said anyone trying to make me go there would find a shotgun up their nose. She couldn't get as far as the feeling. I doubt I'll ever get them to see the point ...

I think this emailer is asking more as to why his wife and mother-in-law don't SEE what is going on.

Consider financial independence. Most people think working for someone else and having your business defined by someone else is the way how life is. Most people never question it. If you were making a great income, why should you wonder about financial independence? But if you get fired, get heavily leveraged, then of course you begin to reconsider.

Consider Nice Guys. Most of us would have remained Nice Guys if it worked. When you kept slamming into the wall for being a Nice Guy, a light bulb eventually went off, "Hey, I need to do something different."

That is the only way how I can guess why your wife and mother-in-law don't see it. To them, it is all The Way. They haven't been stung so why care? Most people's historical perspective begins the day they were born. If they haven't seen anything different in the past, then they don't reconsider what is going on today.

As the husband, they also might not take what you say seriously. I've noticed most women don't believe men have anything worthwhile to say or think. This is why they paint us a bunch of 'horn dogs' or 'sloths' because they can't percieve anything differntly. You could be in a room thinking the secret of the universe but the woman will only think that the room needs to be cleaned and that YOU are wasting time.

Women also percieve God differently then men. To men, God is the pinnacle. God is the ultimate. God, to man, is the source of all wisdom, love, and everything else. But to women, God is just another man who'll work for them.

Law doesn't care about your karma

Due to posting the Esther Vilar book, I saw an interesting reviewer say that he had to 'let go' of the book whereas on the first review on the UK Amazon site, he praised it.

Here is his first review:

The Truth Hurts, 16 Nov 2003

Reviewer:

M. Maguire (Madrid, Spain) -

This book by Vilar is deadly serious. It is not a tongue-in-cheek satire at all, and it pulls no punches in its brutally honest assessment of "Woman". Back in the 70's Vilar herself was vilified by women everywhere and crucified by the feminist establishment after daring to break the unwritten rule, the Female Omerta, to speak out and expose her gender for the "lazy manipulative scheming parasitic prostitutes" that most men learn painfully by the age of 30-40 they are, always were, and always will be. Along with the great Otto Weininger's "Sex and Character", also available from this site (I'm still amazed these two books are even in print in this warped feminist age!), there is no deeper or more honest exposé of the utter soullessness of woman and how she is, on all inner Spiritual and metaphysical levels, diametrically opposed to Man. Literally at the opposite end of the Spiritual spectrum. And this volume is all the more forceful in that it was written by a woman. It should be read by all men everywhere. It should be required reading by all pre-pubescent boys, handed down from Father to Son.

And this is his second review, three years later:

Letting go of Vilar, July 21, 2006

Reviewer:

M. Maguire (Madrid, Spain) -

I posted a review of this book on the Amazon.co.uk site quite some time ago, and since it won't let me post twice I must post here instead. This review is to detract everything I said in that first idiotic post. For the longest time I thought low of women and with each unpleasant miserable experience my conviction became stronger. Holding such attitudes, which I now know to be false, I then sought out material such as this book and books like Sex and Character by Otto Weininger. I now realize that far from reading this material for knowledge I was seeking it out to simply confirm my existing misconceptions. Recently I have undergone something of an inner realization, a complete change in my understanding of other people and especially of women. I have realized that your own thoughts and habitual mental states create your experiences in this "reality". If you think low of women your thoughts will come true and you will have nothing but terrible experiences with them. Each experience will confirm in your deluded mind that you were correct in your assumptions and only increase your conviction that they are low, and thus the vicious cycle started by your own mind will continue, getting worse and worse as the years and decades pass - until one day you awaken and realize the problem lies not with the opposite sex but with your own mind and delusional thought patterns. A woman will experience exactly the same if she clings to similar attitudes about men. I totally reject and detract every stupid word I said in my previous post on the UK site, and I apologize to my Sisters for any hurt or anger those foolish words caused them. Women and Men are equal. There are good men and good women, unpleasant men and unpleasant women, kind men and kind women, selfish men and selfish women. If you hold the attitude that ALL women are this way or that way, then those are the ones you will meet in your life since your thoughts create your reality. Realize that this is not true and instead think highly of them and your experiences with them will change for the positive.

I am all for fighting negativism, and I'm well aware the pessimistic outlook Weineger had on women, but this second review just makes me laugh. I think part of the problem is that he is from Spain which may (or may not) have been feminized. Esther Vilar's book is describing, mostly, North America and the UK (feminization is highest in English speaking countries).

I might have said the same thing he did several years ago. My biggest criticism for the so-called 'Men's Movement' is their rampant pessimism and gloom and doom. This always repelled me from them (and probably others). Two things showed me there was something very serious going on.

I knew a little law, not much, so I investigated that. I found that it was true that decent men were being screwed over in family courts and divorce. You have widescale paternity fraud. You have absurd sexual harassment laws and rape claims. I saw the double standards of teacher sexual abuse: slap for the woman but decades long imprisonment and stigma attached the guy. Also, men have no reproduction rights. Even if you are a sperm donor, you may still have to pay child support.

But the second thing was the breaking point. I was trying to understand why people stay in the rat race their entire lives. If you try to tell a girl you want to become financially independent, she will run for the hills! This baffled me as didn't women want ambitious men who desired to become rich?

I made two financial statements. One for man. One for woman. I realized that women placed their husbands in the 'asset' column. Women don't look for husbands, they are actually shopping for assets. The bigger your income, the more likely they will cling to you. This was the reason why most people remained wage slaves. The woman would usually work temporarily. Then she would retire "for love and family". The man was stuck being a wage slave his entire life.

This sounds all nice and wonderful with the 'think positive and you'll get positive' stuff. But anyone in North America or UK (at least) need to know that the reality is that there is a legal noose around your neck. The harsh legal situation isn't something people want to talk about but you better understand it fast. I don't want any of you to become a statistic of stupid laws.

What the reviewer is describing is 'karma' which I can understand. But he is ignoring the legal and financial leveraging against men entirely (which may be due to him being in Spain for all I know).

Here is a question: why did feminists sneak into the Violence Against Women's Act penalizing legal action against foreign brides? If a gentlemen want to marry a Russian or Brazilian, who does that matter? It is a free nation, is it not? Consider how rampant illegal immigration is yet the state will act on FOREIGN brides? The double standard is a female one and leads me to believe that mexican illegal immigration is allowed because it saved feminism (who else would be the nannies?).

I'm looking at these highly penalizing (and secret) laws, and I cannot deny that there has to be a Men's Movement to correct and educate on this matter. While I don't like the Men's Movement pessimism and doomsdayism, they are correct about the penalizing nature of these laws. You can be the world's most wonderful husband and still be raped by the Family Court. As a man, the State believes you are to be given duties, not rights. And the predecent law these penalizing laws are based on is very brittle and flimsy. It is ripe (and proper!) to be challenged.

Power corrupts. It is not that women are evil. It is that there is no social restrain on their behavior, no stigma, and that women have been given massive power by certain laws (which to my foreign readers, may not include you). I cannot recommend marriage to any man with these types of laws in place without the tightest pre-nuptials. And perhaps, not even then. The state has decided that marriage grants, legally, only duties on the men and only benifets on the women.

Law and finances are not what you 'think'. No wonder everyone is poor and require lawyers.

The Manipulated Man

Esther Vilar wrote a book called "The Manipulated Man". What she does is describe, in detail, how women manipulate men all their lives. This is a must read.

When Vilar went on the Tonight Show (with Carson) to talk about the book, the studio recieved such a backlash. Bookstores pulled the book. Women were not happy at all with it. Even today, a copy of the Manipulated Man will tend to disapear as when women find it, they destroy it. I, myself, need to buy another copy as I suspect a certain woman has removed my copy.

Most Men's Movement books tend to copy Vilar's contents and rewrite/add on to her work. So you might as well get the original source.

Here are some quotes from the book:

"If a young man gets married, starts a family, and spends the rest of his life working at a soul-destroying job, he is held up as an example of virtue and responsibility. The other type of man, living only for himself, working only for himself, doing first one thinga nd then another simply because he enjoys it and because he has to keep only himself, sleeping where and when he wants, and facing woman when he meets her, on equal terms and not as one of a million slaves, is rejected by society. The free, unshackled man has no place in its midst."

"Men have been trained and conditioned by women, not unlike the way Pavlov conditioned his dogs, into becoming their slaves. As compensation for their labours men are given periodic use of a woman's vagina."

"If praise is applied in the correct dosage a woman will never need to scold. Any man who is accustomed to a regular and conditional dosage of praise will interpret its absence as displeasure."

"Someday it will dawn on man that woman does not read the wonderful books with which he has filled his libraries, and though she may well admire his marvelous works of art in museums she herself will rarely create, only copy."

Mass Reincarnation of Neville Chamberlain

"Why won't you stop harping about the 'be who you are' stuff?"

Because it is the most important lesson I ever learned. Our lives seem so powerless because we actually GIVE power to others to define us, to shape us. For example, on Sosuave and life, you've certainly seen guys give women so much power to define the guy in question, to judge the guy, to determine the guy's worth. Instead, why don't we have the girl prove HER worth to us!?

It is time for you to define the rules for your life. If you give up those rules to anyone else, then YOU are to be blamed for where you are in life. Don't blame women, corporations, politics, or anything else. You define your life.

"We demand more business information from you Pook!"

Then consider this the first lesson of becoming a CEO. CEOs I've met in real life do share one quality: they don't care what anyone else thinks of them. It takes a hefty set of balls and confidence to direct a business. The CEO is the captain. Now, they certainly do care what the consumers, shareholders, and employees think, of course. But they only care within a set of strategy. Why would a CEO ask his employee advice on how to run the business?

If you can't define rules for your own life, how they hell are you going to define rules for your business?

In fact, this Pookish First Commandment even applies on a far greater scale. You, from sosuave, know about the dillemma of the Nice Guy. But what about Nice Guy Nations? What about Nice Guy Military? Act like a wimp on the world's stage, terrorists will smell weakness and bomb you. No nation has ever been attacked for being too strong.

For our personal direction, we always hear, "We need to obey the opinion of society." What is society and why let it define how your life is? And for the national direction, we always hear, "We need to obey the opinion of the world." What exactly is this 'opinion' of the world and why would a nation let itself be defined by other nations? Isn't the point of being independent country is for the country to define itself?

It is my hope that America tries to be America, the UK tries to be the UK, France tries to be France, and so on. Why should America try to be like France or France try to be like Algeria? It is like the entire world is infected with feminzation. There have been too many reincarnations of Neville Chamberlains (picture above) and not enough Churchills. Worrying about what everyone else thinks, the world is caged in fighting minimalist wars. By not allowing the full might of power to be unleashed, the problem just grows. I hear with the battles in Lebanon that terrorists wear civilian clothing and fire their rockets from houses. They are using the West's virtue as their primary weapon. They know no one is going to bomb those houses.

I believe most addictions and disorders are due to people not being who they are and giving the rules of their life to someone else. Eventually... they crack.

Imitation is suicide. There is nothing I find more disapointing than someone trying to be someone else. There is nothing more depressing than living your life to someone else's vision. You have a soul for a reason.

Real Seduction Versus Wimp Seduction

It is time for a pop quiz. What, sirs, is the definition of the term 'Wimp'? What does it stand for?

"One who doesn't score with women."
"Someone who isn't macho."
"The lack of coolness."

All these are good, gentlemen, yes. Yet, they are all wrong. I will give you a better explanation of the word 'Wimp'.

Woman

Influenced

Male

Person

A wimp is a male who has no soul. In fact, he looks to others, especially women, to influence how he acts. Wimps can easily 'score' with women because anyone can re-write themselves to be what women want. Anyone can paraphrase a woman's thoughts back to herself. And anyone can read from a script. Being so influenced shows you have no BALLS.

The big problem of Speed Seduction (or should I call it 'Nerd Seduction'?) is that it is Wimp Seduction. You seduce not in a matter of strength, of who you are, but of painting yourself in woman's eyes to be what she wants. You paraphrase her thoughts back to her. You analyze what she does and write lengthy internet reports on it. Or worse, you try to *connect* and pretty much do whatever to please her. The difference between the Nice Guy and the Wimp Seducer is that of tactics. Both are just as female influenced. "But what does it matter, Pook? The Wimp Seduction gets us girls. That is all that matters." Yeah, but keep that up and you'll be driven to despair and near suicide, as many of such 'seducers' have illustrated. If you have to trade your soul for sex, then you are doing anything BUT 'scoring'.

Real Seduction is just going up to her and doing it YOUR way. She says, "No, no..." but her eyes are saying, "Yes, yes..." You assume she wants it because you know Nature wants her to want it. In the end, you'll get her. You don't pretend to be a clown. You don't read from a script. You don't wear make-up. Women are attracted to male desire.

"But I thought having desire was bad." No, being pussy whipped is bad. Most guys' desire turns them into a wimp. Look them in the eye. They know what you want. They can *feel* it. Don't be chicken about it.

"But she might reject me! Boo hoo!" Stop sobbing as I don't want to mop up this post with all your womanly tears. The question is not whether she will reject you or not. The question is whether YOU want her or not. If she says no and you still want her, try it again. Why give her so much power over who you should desire? Women LOVE being desired. But they DETEST wimps.

Let me give you an example from literature (groans come out from everywhere). Silence fools! Nothing art wise endures for centuries unless it relects Nature somehow. Here is my chosen example:

In the second scene of the first Act of Shakespeare's King Richard III, Richard III (at his gloucester status) has arranged the killing of King Henry VI. He interrupts his funeral procession to woo his widow, the Lady Anne. So aside from Richard being an ugly hunchback, he killed the King, her husband. This, obviously, is going to be an uphill battle for his seduction.

She screams at him, "Blush, blush, thou lump of foul deformity!" Most guys would take the hint. She goes on to call Richard a devil, a toad, a diffused infection of a man, a hedgehog, a homicide, and a dissembler, and then spits in his face and tells him to hang himself. Yes, the signs of disinterest are hard to miss.

Richard doesn't run away or make posts on the internet how 'hurt' he was. He ignores all the foul stuff she says and pours on the the sweet-talk. Eventually, she becomes his wife. This scene is very electric, makes for very good theater, and is a challenge to act it (I've tried it on stage). But the real challenge is for the girl who plays Lady Anne who must be disgusted but yet interested. A very entertaining scene to watch as well.

"But Richard is a foul villian, Pook!" Of course. But so are many seducers. You can have a crappy car and be homeless yet be a master of women. You can be ugly, be a toad, and still be able to get the girl. The point is that you act on your desires, rather than react to hers. You be who you are. You improve yourself, yes, but only towards your vision and goal of yourself. You don't improve yourself so you become more of an ornament to attract women. That is the female influenced way. That is the Wimp Way.

Seduction from your influence, rather than manipulating yourself to fit her influence, is not only more satisfactory seduction, it is mentally healthier. You won't be driven to suicide because you'll be acting on your soul rather than denying it for female affection.

What is WoW? (the bizzare world of Jeopardy)

This story is just all too hilarious. Ken Jennings, a 94 game streak winning champ, makes fun of Jeopardy. A quote:

Finally, Alex. I know, I know, the old folks love him. Nobody knows he died in that fiery truck crash a few years back and was immediately replaced with the Trebektron 4000 (I see your engineers still can’t get the mustache right, by the way.) But that’s beside the point: “Alex” is the franchise. You can’t just bring in Ryan Seacrest without warning, more’s the pity.

His blog post is here.

The Questioner

As I go through the emails, this guy had so many questions that I'd thought I'd answer here (in case others have similiar questions!).

For your reading pleasure:

Regular text = Pooky Wooky

Bold text = The Questioner


OK to the point. I feel that all your posts are very... seperate, a whirlwind of ideas which don't fall into place and form some sort of context or "reality map" (I hate saying that). At least for me it hasn't.

You are correct! When this blog started, I didn't know what the heck I was doing. I just threw stuff up there.

"But you can throw stuff on Sosuave just as well, Mr. Pook." Now, now, Sosuave is a 'how to get girls' forum. I already paid my dues there. Besides, I'd rather talk about other things then 'how to get girls' which, on Sosuave, I'd have little choice.

So I fashioned the Mill to be the point of this blog. The Mill is that maelstrom, that starry wheel, of the ancients. From the Mill, all astronomy, religion, art, and science revolved around. It is a union of Math and Art. It is the astral plane.

With all the anti-feminist pages out there, I chose a different path of waging war on Feminism through the Humanities. Imagine a well of wisdom that, from whoever drinks of it, becomes wise. Now imagine a source of that well, some mill trickling water into it. This is a wisdom blog.

Am I looking for a "philosophy" from your writings?

Should I stop looking to find some truth or answers from the collection of your sosuave posts?

Should I just take them as singular pieces of advice?

The puzzle is not Pook or his posts. The puzzle is Nature. All of the sosuave posts were ideas on the Puzzle of Nature. Some of the posts came up with only theories. Other posts identified laws (such as testosterone as the Secret of the Jerk).

For advice, follow the Pookish Commandments that I am putting out. They seem so trivial and 'common sensical', but they are the greatest regrets of old men. Take the first commandment: Be who you are. Most people don't live like that. They care so much what other people think that they never do what they desire. What does it matter if you have a high paying job in a distinguished profession but you don't desire it? WOMEN and OUTSIDERS might think you are a success but if you aren't happy doing it, what the hell is the bloody point? As for the Second Pookish Commandment: Fight the Negativism, it sounds trivial but so many people retard their lives by their attitudes. I have found pessimists and chicken littles to be the grand losers in life. Besides, who wants to around a defeatist anyway?

"Self improvement" as I'm still not quite sure what you mean by self improvement. Improve myself for what? A better bench press can be measured, memory can be improved, but what can I improve in my "self"? Aren't I a constant? Isn't my personality set from my experiences? Am I just evolving my outer self? What is "self improvement"?

Self-improvement is exactly how it sounds. It is not evolving your outer shell. It is growing a pearl inside the shell. Self-improvement is just self-actualization. You are becoming who you are! You are unleashing your soul. You are not bottling your soul so you pretend to be an image.

You don't work out to turn your flesh into a masculine dress. You work out because you love it and because you have goals. I LOVE working out. I love how it makes me feel. I love the testosterone surging through my veins. It makes me happier, smarter, more action oriented, and just all around a more pleasant person to be around. The LOSER is someone who works out for the appearance alone (in other words, most women and idiotic males).

I hammered self-improvement on Sosuave because improving YOURSELF gave greater rewards than improving your GAME. With so much focus on manipulation strategies, you'd have a much more satisfying life and an automatic way to get women by improving yourself.

Self-improvement was a way of saying: "Invest time in yourself rather than investing time in girls." Why? It is because girls come and go, but YOU are forever!

And finally "Nature".

You always talk about "Nature" but what do you mean by nature? Am I right in saying... Women are attracted to tesosterone, (any fool knows this) this is nature at work? Right?

What else is Nature? Are we all completely "Nature" or is that what women are? Where does Nature work and apply?

Have you ever tried sailing a boat? You know that the sail must be adjusted to the wind. By harnassing Nature, you harnass the wind to propel the boat. A sailor is working within the rules of Nature which is why he is a successful sailor. If a sailor decided to buck Nature, his boat wouldn't be moving anywhere.

Some people believe they are so god-like in intelligence and wonder that the world ought to be manipulated into whatever shape they want. Xerxes believed this. He went to the beach, stared at the ocean, and said to the waves, "Thus far shall you come and no further!" The waves had no concern for Xerxes' orders and moved in. If Xerxes didn't suck in his pride and retreat from the waves, he would have drowned.

All science and humanity is based on unraveling the laws of Nature and using them how we see fit. We couldn't have airplanes flying through the sky unless we uncovered many of the principals involved such as uplift and aerodynamics. We couldn't have the Green Revolution unless we understood hybrid technologies and the principals of irrigation and fertilizer.

Our life standards improve when we harnass Nature's laws for own benefit like the sailor applying the sail to move the boat. My goal was never to tell you HOW to live but only reveal the laws operating under the process. WHY do girls go for jerks? I investigated until I found a satisfactory answr. WHY do married men routinely become fat, bald, and look like your ran them over with a steam-roller? There are reasons for things.

So what is 'unnatural'? Feminism is unnatural, that much is certain. Women trying to be manly and men trying to be womanly is unnatural. What is unnatural is the mockery and breaking of these laws. The result is always the same: unhappiness and despair.

The Nice Guy is an unnatural male. So there is no wonder that he is filled with unhappiness and despair. He is not obeying the laws of nature.

While Biology is about the laws concerning life (which genetics has now dominated), Physics being about the laws concerning motion, the Humanities are about the laws concerning Human Nature. History, Law, Language, and many other things hold the Humanities as their root. If the Humanities becomes corrupted, the rest will become corrupted as well.

When the U.S. Constitution was being written, the Constitutional Debate was essentially a debate about Human Nature. The U.S. Government has three branches because, the framers knew, that no one should hold all the power nor should it be split into two. I am told by a reliable source that present day Senators (each and every one of them) feel that they ought to be President (the House is more humble). So why is there only one President? It is because the framers knew there should only be one Commander-In-Chief, not a hundred. There must be one voice to command the troops. After all, Human Nature says there can only be one general, not a hundred. By obeying the laws of Human Nature, the U.S. Government has relatively endured. The point is that it is still around. If there was something seriously flawed, such a government would have collapsed such as the Soviet Union.

Like a building, our lives can collapse when we don't obey the laws of Nature. "But I desire FREEDOM! I want to be FREE from these laws of Nature!" some might say. This is a major mistake. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because people made laws. It is the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand (as laws of Nature) that caused people to form laws in the first place.

The essence of freedom is obedience to Nature's laws. This is why, in the Declaration of Independence, the British colonies cite Nature (and Nature's God) as the authority for the dissolving of those political bands. I'm citing a political example because its well known and shows how this context is applied everywhere. Contrast this to those forums where there was a whole galaxy of 'systems' and 'philosophies' with no constants established, no revelations of reality, except which poster had the biggest ego... which revolved around those who believed they best manipulated the world.

Counterfeit Pook?

Whispers swirl that I am a False Pook.

I get this email from Giovanni (who was, and might still be, a moderator on the Sosuave forum) that in order to extinguish the whispers I am to either post this blog in my profile or in my username on Sosuave. Keep in mind I haven't been to Sosuave in around two years. I suppose my profile linking to Mirror of the Soul and it linking here isn't enough to sway minds.

But I'm not going to do something so simple. First, I am too lazy to go to Sosuave ("But you are on the internet! Type in the URL!!!" Fool! I'm not going to go somewhere I don't want because others demand it.) Second, there is a bigger lesson to learn from all this.

Anyone can make a blog and proclaim themselves a Pook. But don't you think I've dealt with this before? I've encountered many forum posts (on other non-sosuave forums) where someone says, "Look what I wrote!" and, behold, there is the 'Be a Man' post! Don't you think the Pook on Sosuave knew about false Pooks and doesn't care about them?

"Why wouldn't Pook care about False Pooks? They are destroying the great name of Pook!"

The great name of Pook! The glory of Pook! The 'honor' of the Pook! Don't you see the irony of someone saying the 'great name' of Pook (which is the most absurd name ever)?

You will know the tree by its fruit. If this is a false Pook, then I will be uncovered by saying things that don't remotely sound Pookish. But if I am a true Pook, then wouldn't the words ring true now or eventually?

"You are not making this easy!" Of course not. That wouldn't be any fun.

You are not a god

Aristotle said that man is a social animal. (In other words, man creates families, cities, concerts and other fabulous things.)

But what if one becomes extremely individualized? By individualization, I mean cutting off one's family, mocking Nature, and marching to the drums of rhetoric from quacks. Aristotle answered that such highly individualized beings are either gods or beasts. (Keep in mind that in Aristotle's time, the Greek gods were the religion.)

Arrogance of the soul is the cause of disasters such as feminism. Many women literally believe they are 'goddesses'. Like an ancient Greek god, they believe they are above Nature itself. "I will do all these wonderful things!" she says, which the 'wonderful' usually means a new pair of shoes, a bigger house, and a more glitzy car. She believes she is 'beyond' the gender known as 'female'. "I am a strong woman," she proclaims. "I write worthless poetry and dream of an empty glamourous life." (OK, she doesn't say 'worthless' and 'empy', I couldn't resist typing that in). She literally lives her a life in the World of Image, trapped within Maya.

Men, trapped in the Matriarchy (i.e. the Maya), fall under a similiar spell. As their soul becomes arrogant, they become more deluded, more easily fooled by the images. They imagine themselves gods with their notches to their bedpost, working a grand career, or some other materialistic trapping.

I tell them, "You are not a god." This, they protest. "I too am a god," they proclaim. "See how wonderful I am?" They may or may not have worshippers. This may explain why many people (especially women) worship celebrities as, to them, they appear like gods. They are the center of the swirling storm, the spinning disc of Maya (the illusion).

And no, I am not trying to be funny. People literally think they are gods and goddesses. If a religion is not what they desire, they can easily re-write it so they become god-like in it (one of the reasons why people, especially women, love the occult and trash like the Da Vinci Code).

But if Aristotle is correct, then the other swing is the beast. These self-seen gods and goddesses are, actually, nothing more than beasts. You think you have a 'grand career'? No, your purpose is to make the owners rich. You think you are the star of the world just because you have a 'wife'? Or have you actually become a beast of burden? We work hard and then play harder.

All manipulators are armed with descendant fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil. Get *that* girl or *that* career and you will have paradise on Earth. Whenever we see ourselves as invincible and god-like, we have a veil so tight around our eyes that we cannot see the truth... that we were acting like beasts.

The only way to be free from being Human is to become a god or to become a beast. Let this be a reality check, you will never become a god. People will often attempt to trick you into thinking of how 'wonderful' you are, but this is so they can use you as a beast of burden.

The Matriarchy is about one promise: freeing us from being Human. To females, it promises them freedom from being a woman. To men, it promises freedom from being a man. To glorify this promise, there are exciting images to see from movies and television, many dumbed down books and universities to let people have the image of being smart, and the ever present image of materialism promised by an endless parade of commercials.

To ask your soul to become free of being a Human is like asking a fish to become free of water. You might as well ask the birds to be free from the air or squirrels to be free from trees.

Freedom is only found in embracing your humanity. For a matriarchial female, she will find happiness and a content soul only in becoming a woman. For a feminized male, he will find happiness and content only in becoming a man.

So this is a friendly post from your neighborly Pook to remind you that, "Yes Virginia! I am not a god! I am, instead, like an actor on a stage of Nature. So farewell folly-filled pompousness that had me thought I would become god-like in image, influence, and intelligence." You nod to the stage director, "His name is Time, and he, alone, determines when the play will end. But what I do on this stage is up to me."

'But Pook! Where are those arrogant ones on the stage?' Friend, they are TOO CHICKEN to come onto the stage of Nature, Life's Play, and act. They live out their narcissism in their bizzaro-world of illusions and never become who they are. So no matter how much you stumble up there on that stage, you are taking real steps in life while the fools take false ones.

The Way

Before Marriage














During Marriage













End of Marriage

The Musician

One of the benefits of no comments is that what does come in is well written and fleshed out.

For your reading pleasure:

Italics = The emailer

Bold = My emphasis

Regular text = El Pookius Master-Of-Universias

Here is the email:

My name is *****[Pook Note: I'm witholding names from these emails of course], and I have read some of your posts on Sosuave. I haven’t made a single post there in my life, so I never existed there in a sense. I have urges of registering at times, but never see the point in it (or it’s either I’m too lazy). Anyway, I’m a 19 year old college student in California who first majored in music composition but switched to civil engineering recently (You are right when you say feminism has gotten into our humanities, I’ll share my experiences with that in this e-mail).

I have to say that so far your writings have made a huge difference in my life already. What is so special is that you seem so down-to-earth, which is something I feel that is lacking a lot in the world these days.

Obviously, there must be another Pook running around. I refer to myself in third person, give Pook magical powers, and grant myself the most arrogant titles such as 'Pookus Extroadinarius'. That doesn't seem down-to-earth to me, but let us move on...

I really want to share some of my thoughts about music because they seem to be consistent with a lot of your values.

I’ve been playing piano all through HS and had dreams of being able to compose like Mozart (seriously hehe). I was perceived by my peers as the sort of geeky and weird kid who spent his time doing nothing but music. This led to me being terrible with the ladies in HS (since it really wasn’t the ‘popular’ music).

What struck me and surprised me when I was reading your writing was that you often will mention Mozart and Chopin. They are my two favorite composers! To me, both composers are the most down-to-earth and follow the natural style (which is composing in the melodic style of music by imitating the human voice). Kind of like how your writing is so down-to-earth and seeks only the natural!

I must make a confession: I am insanely jealous of music composers. It is the musician, not the poet, the painter, or orator, who has direct control influencing people's souls. No wonder Plato banned them from his Republic. With anything written or speaking, there is always the language barrier. But music has no such barrier.

Music truly is the perfect union of math and art. I have heard that the best programmers are also musicians. You never realize how important music is until it isn't there or done badly.

I can't imagine putting together a symphony. It is hard enough to write for one instrument, let alone all of them. Also, I know you just can't throw stuff in there. Everything has to be in tone with everything else. And the music has to have such a sense that it melts into motion.

My music education began (and ended) around a few instruments (trombone, euphonium, tuba which all have a very similiar element). I know so little about music that I definately plan to dive into it more one day. Musicians are like the chosen 'Pookish people'.


Anyway, so I attend University after HS all enthusiastic about learning how to compose in this natural style. In HS, I studied Mozart’s style thoroughly and I even had a copy of his simple thoroughbass method (It’s amazing, he simplifies things in a way so unique). But now I was in college and this was a sad year in my life. Not only did I receive so much criticism for majoring in music, my problems that I ignored only grew. I was still pretty anti-social and my urge to be with the ladies grew much stronger. This is when I discovered David Deangelo, Sosuave, and others. These problems were still bearable at the time, what was unbearable was the craft I put all my cards in during HS. Music.

I realized the whole University system for music was in a way corrupt! The whole “Art can be anything” philosophy ran amuck. Making it worse, the professors kept trying to make me compose away from this natural style I was pursuing! They would say I’m talented, but always criticize the style I used. I’m not sure how much you know about music, but the universities seem to hate tonal music, which is the music system that uses the tonal scale. I believe it was developed by Pythagoras and is very closely related to the laws of nature (So many classics came from this system).

Readers, picture a professor annoyed that his music student is studying Mozart and the classics from Pythagoras (A music student studying Mozart! How radical! Who else is he to study to learn music? A feminist?)

In my days in the university, I caught the professors' eye for trying to mimic the blank verse and any other form of verse (as well as the elizabethan sonnet and spenserian sonnet forms). They seemed 'annoyed' at what I was doing. I just shrugged and said, "How else am I supposed to learn?" I later learned that these professors weren't doers. Their job literally was the paralysis of analysis. They could write articles and papers about all these pointed hat theories on Shakespeare, but they couldn't write a single sonnet. This confused me. Isn't the best way to understand the great masters is to attempt to duplicate them?

I know with painting this used to be the way. Painters would take their canvas to the museum and try to paint alongside the masters. The teachings of painting techniques got passed from one generation to the next with each generation refining on the techniques of the past. For some reason, in the beginning of the twentieth century, this tradition got lost. Some blame the invention of the photograph. But this occurred with literature as well (music and theater are still mysteries to me).

I got tired of the music program and eventually quit. The program seemed to have one philosophy for composing, which is “You must compose radically different from the classics, any resemblance will be criticized upon and not tolerated”. Art is always changing and you can’t define it so it must be radically different! This whole craze of becoming radically different was also in the performance program of our universities. I heard that this one student in a recital or something had a vase near the piano, and at the end of a piece he shoved the vase off so it would shatter on the floor and that was supposed to symbolize something. My take on it was that the music had no substance so the student had to rely on theatrics like that. What’s worse is the audience buys into it and says it’s so ‘deep’. This is the kind of stuff I had to deal with in music and to me is an example of your saying that the humanities have been corrupted. (If you want another example, look up John Cage’s 4’33’’, you’ll get a laugh out of that!)

I'm speechless. I can't add anything to what the musician has said.

I looked up John Cage's 4'33", and I'm shaking my head. I'd like to rip these 'BRILLIANT' thinkers (oh, so brilliant that who are we peasants to question?), but I'll save that for another post (and give the musician the spotlight he deserves).

The highlight of my time in the program though was a time where a professional composer came to talk in our theory class (Counterpoint theory I believe). The first thing she made known to the class was that she was a feminist. Then, we had to hear her whole life story of how she had to go through life as a feminist and trying to make it as a composer. Listening to her was torture. To her, she struggled because she couldn’t find any other women to have as idols who made it as music composers. Boohoo hahaha. This was also before I even knew much about feminist and before I read your writings on sosuave, so it wasn’t that she was a feminist that bothered me, it was that she spent all her time talking about things other than music! I was interested in pure music, not her identity crisis. What was sad though was to see my fellow peers and professor eat the stuff up and feeling sorry for her and even praising her (especially the professor).

I gather that they weren't praising her for her music, they were praising her that she was a 'woman'? This is ridiculous.


So now I’m starting my third year of college but in the Engineering program. I have lots of hope for the future, but I believe engineering isn’t my passion. I have been reading a lot on financial stuff and real estate, and am striving to reach financial freedom in the future. I also continue to read your writings from sosuave and now your blog :) Sadly I am still struggling on the lady front even though I have made massive improvements on myself and am generally happier than I was a year ago. For example, a year ago I was 130 pounds, and now I am almost 150 and I play a lot of basketball.

The musician ends his email asking for my mentoring. I'm struck dumb because what else could I say that he hasn't?

He knows what his passion is in life (it isn't engineering so he wants to go back to music. I say: do it. Life is incredibly short. Spend it on what you love.)

He knows that he needs to work towards obtaining financial freedom (and he is in college! Most people don't get a hint of this until they are in their late thirties or forties! And many people don't get it at all).

And he knows about changing and altering his body.

What more could I say? He sounds like he's getting the Big Stuff correct. I'm posting his email here in hopes that an older professional musician would like to give him any pointers (heaven knows my ignorance on the music field).

The only thing I could say is focus on how audiences respond to your music (real audiences, not professors and academic no-nuts) and always improve that link it has with audiences. Hopefully, you'd want to get fabulously wealthy from your music, and the best way is to also study audience's reactions.

"But Pook!" someone might say, "how could he make money when everyone else is going the opposite way? How can you make money going against the current?"

In business, they call this a 'disruption strategy'. Consider all these people trying to please their professors and only end up having their lives producing rubbish. This musician will have little to no competition because everyone else will be making the same nonsense. You'll feel like a demigod because you will be walking through empty rooms in this talent vacuum.

As for women, they tend to have a soft spot for musicians (so I don't think his passion will end up interfering with the girls but, rather, attracting them). After 25, the tables turn and men increasingly obtain more options and leverage (whereas in high school, women seemed to have goddess like powers). This is what is so wonderful about being a man. Time is on our side. And we routinely marry younger women. Women have a shelf life- men don't.