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.

I got Rudolph!

Now I'm ready for Christmas dinner...

What I want for Christmas...

...the gift that keeps on giving... and giving.. and giving...

Pook Grows Wings ; Co-Workers Stunned

I have been an advocate of Anthony Ellis's program for quite some time. Until I started a new job, I actually was out of the loop for going to the gym in all (as a door to door salesman, it is too difficult to keep up). However, at the new job I could get back into the program. I declared to the co-workers that I, the caterpillar, will be growing wings. They said I was too skinny. "But it is good to be skinny!" said one fat hag. Having been through the program several times, my muscle fibers were dormant but waiting. Muscle memory was all still in place even after a couple of years.

In three months, I gained 35 pounds of muscle mass. Yes, it is possible.

Now, you might ask, "Why gain muscle, Pook?" For the testosterone, silly! I noticed that I began sleeping better, I was generally happier, and I was eating better. The downside is that my sex drive goes up which often concludes with a woman (unfortunately).

Women are persuaded by male's bodies as much as men are by female bodies. I know the girls don't care about me. They don't want to know who I am. They don't care about my dreams. All they care about is that think my body is *hot* and I get flooded with the "You need a girlfriend immediately!" line (with the girl saying that often volunteering). I respond back with how worthless American women are and the reactions are priceless. Some women become hostile, others become reflective. Either way, it is much better than simply saying, "Oh shucks, I am just waiting for the right lady!" or something as retarded. It amazes me how these women assume I will go for them. They are that arrogant. What I mean is that if a guy sees a girl they think is *hot*, they do not assume she is automatically his. He tends to think she already has a boyfriend or husband. Or he also thinks he has to work to get her. Even players know they have to do something in order to get the girl. But with women, no, they feel entitled to the guy.

There is no better rebuke to women than to be hot and say no to them. They cannot take it!

Anyway, I will tell you how I gained mass so fast. Outside of Anthony's program, I throw in swimming during Chest day (Anthony disapproves but I do it anyway. I have an urge to swim for some reason. Swimming is good for the chest and shoulder muscles anyway. Besides, swimmers end up with hot bodies anyway).

I use NO supplements except for Twin Lab Ultra Fuel that is used immediately after the workout. No creatine. No stupid shakes. I use REAL FOOD for every meal with FRESH MEAT. I do not eat Whey bars or processed meat. All my meals are cooked (a week in advance). I have 8 hours of sleep as well. I do not divide my meals in cute little tupperware. I have the food and I eat as much as it as I can for every meal.

In the gym, I look funny because I struggle with weights (because I use HEAVY weights to me). I have had idiots come up to me to give me "tips". I ignore them and keep doing what I'm doing which stuns the meathead. But now I am bigger than the meathead.

There is a good way to identify whether or not women *like* you. If women are trying to set you up with one of their friends, they think you are below them but they are trying to help out a friend. Imagine a kid being given a cookie he doesn't like. But a cookie is a cookie so she gives it to someone who might like that type. However, when women really *like* a guy, she will volunteer herself. She will not try to set the guy up with a friend because she wants him for herself!

What always amazed me was not women's changing reactions to my body, but men. For someone reason, the big muscular guy gets respect. Behind my back, they make jokes. But I suspect that is only because they notice the reactions of the women.

Anyway, every guy should try to gain muscle mass at least once in life. You will probably like it so much that you want to continue it for life. You don't gain mass for women or for anyone else. You do it for yourself and in how you feel. Seriously, all I do is go to the gym for an hour and half three times a week, eat six times a day, and get 8 hours rest. It is not hard to do. The challenge is to be consistent. If you are consistent, you will see how it is like a machine where the iron is reforging your body. You will look into the mirror and see an underwear ad staring back at you.

The Adventurer and the Vortex

One day, the magnificent Pook decided to share his manliness (for it would be selfish to contain so much manliness!) with the world. The people rejoiced in this and children ran to greet the Pook when he appeared.

However, Pook encountered a band of disgruntled people huddled in a circle. They hissed their frustrations of life to one another and that was their ritual. Then, they would all disperse to their jobs and lives which they despised. Next day, they would gather, share in their complaints about the world, and then leave again to do it the next day. Seeing the cycle, Pook approached the group.

"What do you want!?" seethed a young man in his twenties who was beginning to look like he was entering his forties. "Why do you disrupt us?" came an old woman's screech from a woman just turning twenty five.

"Tortured souls," the Pookius Maximus said, "Every day, you gather and complain. Yet, then you go back to what you complain about."

Then came the protests.

"X isn't fair!"
"Y is corrupt and has been turned conspiracy against us!"
"Z will eventually collapse due to this injustice!"

Such are the common replies! And how frequent they come! Now, reader, you may inquire about the beings of this group. Rest assured, the beings are both liberal and conservative, pious and hedonistic, rich and poor, men and women, as well as your ancestors and your descendants. They are the 95% of the people. They are the masses.

"Let me be mirror to your thoughts," said the Pook. "I want you to see your mind reflected as it really is. Permit me to ask some questions."

"Very well," allowed one member. "Ask and you shall have your answers."

"Do you believe that you have suffered unfairness?"

For the first time, animation electrified their answers of "Yes!". Each and every one of them believed their fate was unfair.

As Pook kept talking to them, a pattern emerged. Each and every one believed in a spiritual law of fairness. Bitterness swelled in them as they recited how "unfair" this or that was. All of them dreamed of the collapse of the "system" where their spiritual law of fairness would "return" the natural order of things.

Adults believe in Fairness like children believe in Santa Clause. Santa Clause is very much a figment of that Fairness. He knows who has been naughty or nice, bestows gifts on the good and coal on the bad. But just as there is no Santa Clause, there is no Fairness Spiritual Law either.

Life never runs smooth. It is a bumpy ride with set-backs as well as uphill struggles and downhill surges. If a person complained that a ride was not "fair" he would be considered mad. The purpose of the ride is the fun of taking different roads, seeing new scenery, and meeting the new people that come in your life. This is the Adventurer which every Human begins as (what we label the 'innocence' of a child) but can easily become corrupted into something else.

What is the opposite of the Adventurer? It is the Vortex. A Vortex is someone who is miserable in life and who complains as a swirl of angst. The nature of the complaint does not matter. It could be about the job, the women, the men, the world, SOMETHING. What happens when you combine many vortexes together? They create a giant Vortex that creates such a sucking sound that, standing near it, you literally begin to think the world is an Evil Place.

The Feminist is a Vortex. She thinks life has been unfair to HER and becomes a swirling cyclone of angst. Combine her with other swirling cyclones of angst and you have a giant vortex that begins to suck in normal women nearby. Men are not attracted to the Feminist Vortex (unless they have somehow been 'sucked in' so to say) because no one likes negativity and parasitism in their life.

The Nice Guy is also a Vortex. There are many definitions for 'Nice Guy', some be it the guy who is naive, the guy who believes in 'love', the guy with old morals, or simply a guy who is very polite. But the true definition of 'Nice Guy' is that like with all Vortexes, he believes in a Spiritual Law of Fairness. Beautiful women are not going for him. They are going for the "jerks"! What injustice! As the normal guy becomes a Nice Guy Vortex, he may become 'buddies' with similar thinking guys but women avoid him more. And the more women avoid him, the more the Vortex intensifies causing women to avoid him even more. "It's not fair!" whines Nice Guy.

Vortexes are everywhere. It is your job, as the Adventurer, to avoid them. Obstacles in your path are what makes the Adventure fun. The only REAL obstacle is the Vortex who, like Sirens, will suck you towards to the rocks where the masses of shattered lives lay on the beach.

How do you know if you are in a vortex? Here are some signs:

1) Are your conversations about NEGATIVE things that are occurring that is out of your control?

2) Do the people participate in hopes of vomiting their frustration?

3) Is the theme of the conversations revolving around the concept of UNFAIRNESS of some form?

4) When the people talk, do they smile? If not, they are more likely in a Vortex.

The Vortex eats up your valuable energy. Instead of using that energy to ADVENTURE, to discover new and wonderful things, you go in circles in the Vortex. Time passes. And one day, you will simply... stop. Since Fairness will never come, for that would mean Heaven on Earth, the only way out of the Vortex is to die.

Most people in their lives swirl around their vortexes, like the toilets, all their lives.

There are so many Vortexes it would be ridiculous to mention them all. But the most common are political. When we get frustrated in life (which is inevitable), many lose their senses and become drawn to a political 'cause'. When our talents and passions are frustrated, we tend to turn to new 'causes'. This is why children of wealthy people get caught up in political 'causes'. Same with actors and many of the population. Hitler was a frustrated artist first, dictator second.

In many ways, the Feminist and the Nice Guy are far more alike then different. When career women go off to dinner together, they are complaining about men (i.e. super vortex). Nice Guys can be the same. Other groups you are thinking in your head right now apply as well. Consider these Vortexes to be the Cult of the Fair. All their doubt and anger leads to PRE-MATURE AGING.

"But Pook," cried a woman. "If what you say is true, if that is the Cult of Fairness, then what is the alternative? Who follows the Adventurer?"

"My lady," I replied, "the opposite would be the Cult of the Fantastic. There is no spiritual belief of Fairness in this one. By adopting the mindset of what they WILL do, they live completely and enjoy the bumpy ride. The Fairness Cultists huddle from their rat holes to point, be envious, and hurl moralizations. They condemn the Adventurer for violating the Law of Fairness where they are really condemning themselves."

I then turned to the crowd and said, "You are all done with the Vortex. You will now stop thinking of what you are NOT achieving and, instead, think of what you ARE achieving. This puts you in a mindset looking for opportunities and challenges rather than barriers and obstructions. This simple change of your mindset will remove the detractors and doubters from your life and attract the movers-and-shakers."

And with that, the crowd dispersed for the last time. One person swore that he would find a new job within the next two months. Another swore he would buy that house in six months. Yet, another decided to devote his free time back to his passions and dreams. The Vortex imploded and, they all became adventurers again.

"No, I don't have children!"

This is what I find myself saying quite frequently. When younger, I would get the question of "Do you have a girlfriend?" that would come up. But now the question is not even that of marriage but "Do you have any children?"

Everyone around me in the workplace has children... yet none of them are married. Scratch that. One woman is married but her husband is in jail for armed robbery. She has his name tatooed on her chest (how do I know that? Let's just say she likes showing her cleavage).

Another guy is married but his story is a little different. He did the happy dance with a young mexican girl and got her pregnant. The father threw out the young mexican girl and he had to marry her. Other characters are even from different states but are stuck here because they got the girl pregnant.

"No. I don't have any children."

They look at me with amazement, with astonishment. I look at them in the same way.

Gentlemen, if you are familiar with what I've written in the past, you know I am not a friend of the "OMG, sex opportunity? Go for it ALL THE TIME!" mentality. I've turned down far more sex than accepted. The reason being is that I believe in transmutation. But the point comes to a question I have been wondering about...

Is sex a liability or an asset?

To the woman, it is an asset. Hence, she calls her boobs and butt her 'assets' as they put money in her pocket (literally). But what about for a man?

"Liability, Pook! There is no such thing as 'Free Sex'! And sex never generates money for the male."

Oh heavens! We are guilty of looking at sex in that same narrow dimension. Sex includes the differences of gender. Sex, combined with passion and faith, is the triumvirate that allows transmutation.

Is debt a liability or an asset?

"Stupid question, Pook! How can there be any doubt? Debt takes money away from your pocket. It is most certainly a liability!"

For the majority of people, debt is a liability. But for wise and the achievers, debt can be made into an asset. Most people go into debt for deappreciating THINGS like cars or large TV sets. But if you go into debt for buying a business or investing in real estate, that can very well put money into your pocket. Borrowing money to build the business is common yet it is still debt. Very few think of it that way. Those who see that other side will go far.

In the same way, sex is a liability for most people. Debt is dangerous and should be respected. However, sex has stronger teeth. For men, sex takes away YEARS of their life (as they chase girls around), stunts their growth (as they try to 'socialize' with girls they bring themselves down onto their lower level and stay there), generates debt (need the cool car to get the chicks, the house and wedding for the girl, the dates, and so on), as well as spawning annuities (i.e. babies which are VERY expensive).

Stupid men treat sex, like debt, as a liability. With using debt badly, they just go further and further into debt. But using sex as a liability, they sink further and further into mediocrity. They become... nothing.

But wise men will treat sex as an asset. Transmutation is the big key. For example, it is well known the more sexualized the man, the better salesman he is. The wrong label for this effect has been called 'charisma' but 'charisma' is nothing more than someone who has developed a high sexualized character. Einstien believed in transmutation even go as far as saying that if a man had not made any benefit to science before he was 30, he never will mostly because of the sexual rise and fall within the body. Talented artists have transmuted. Dante could not get Beatrice but turned her into a gigantic heavenly body in his [i]Divine Comedy[/i]. Shakespeare is flooded with sexuality. In ancient sports, athletes would keep away from women as they sensed it would sap their strength. Consider Tiger Woods before and after he married his supermodel. Consider Napoleon when he pushes aside Josaphine for a young honey. Consider Beethoven constantly unable to get the women he wanted so he channeled that energy into symphonies instead..

Passion. Sex. Faith. The combination of these three, mixed into one another, creates the genius. Passion is what you love to do (say music). Sex is the awakening and channeling of the sexual alchemy element inside you. Faith is the yearning of ascension, of spiritual upwardness (which modern psychology and Rousseau beliefs cannot emulate).

Mediocre people have NONE of those three traits.

AVERAGE people focus on one of those traits.

The EXCEPTIONAL people have two of the three traits.

But the GENIUS has all three traits.

Passion (let us say the love of music) becomes very DULL without the sex element and becomes FLAT without the faith element. Most music today (all the love pop song nonsense) tends to combine the sex element. A few artists, while keeping up to that formula, stumble some faith elements in to make something truly interesting. Then, alas, they become frustrated as they are unable to replicate that success.

Man is a board on the rock of sex. Most men break but a few are able to catapult themselves. Majority of humans will never know about transmutation. They are doomed. Those that discover it find it only after forty. Only a precious few can utilize it when young.

When surrounded with unmarried people with kids, one has to respect that sex has teeth. Ignorance of it is the biggest cost to one's life.

For the guys who have regrets about not recognizing or taking advantage of 'opportunities' of girls early in life, I want you to consider something. Would that one girl have satisfied you? No? What about girl two? Or girl three? "None would satisfy me, Pook," you said. "I would still be horny as ever." Then why, in God's name, do you think girl four, girl five, or girl six will make any difference?

Just as the guys who got depressed because all their friends were getting married who later saw them get divorced while he remains a happy bachelor, look at the guy who DIDN'T jump at every opportunity a lady threw his way. Sure, he may be depressed and regretful. But that is only short term. Long term, he sees the guys chained to girls they bonked with a kid or marriage or something else.

Sex can be more destructive and enslaving than debt. But if debt, properly used, can make wealth, imagine what the sex element can do.

Footprints

Did you know one way you can tell the difference between a bachelor and a married man? Look at their footprints.

Married men walk on their heels as if the world is on their shoulders. Bachelors walk on their toes.

Don't believe me? Look at the footprints yourself. Young boys place the weight of their body on the front of their feet when walking. Bachelors continue the tradition. But married men, their weight shifts as their heels dig into the ground.

Dreamgirl

This. Is. Contra!

One must give due when a manly entertainment form comes out. It could be a movie (Gladiator, 300, etc.) or music. But there haven't been too many manly games anymore filled with feminized heroes and heroines who dress in a bikini but carry giant guns/swords.

If you don't know about Contra, give it a read here.

One must give a nod to Contra 4 coming out. Just look at the website, and you will find digitized testosterone. Everywhere you click, you get an explosion with chip metal going on in the background. No soap operas. No 'love stories' in the game.

THIS. IS. CONTRA!!!

Weekend Nonsense

I haven't been updating as I should but I've been away from the computer too much. I'll start updating regularly soon. For now, here are a few videos from a DS game.

There are many things *wrong* with it. Can you catch them all? (And yes, the developer admitted he made it sound exactly as it does.)

Spanish Training For Everyone

Intro



Scene 2

WHAT THE HELL!!!??? hahahahaha



Scene Three

51 : 49

51: 49!

Dealing with women is often like dealing with a casino. Mermaid-like, they beckon men to them with the promise of untold happiness and pleasure yet the odds are always stacked in the favor of the house. Just like how a casino has an 'atmosphere' of "jackpots", of people "getting lucky", there is a 'romance' about with people coming in and winning the game. Some enter the casino to just have a fun time playing but many come to win. Yet, the house always wins.

A young man getting married or investing significant time with a woman is like spinning the wheel or throwing the dice. So caught up are they with the atmosphere of the casino and the crowds saying, "Bet more! Bet more!" they ignore their instinct and stop thinking. Caught up in the rush, they play their cards.

...and they lose. Even the players eventually lose if they keep playing too long. The House always wins.

The solution is to obey the 51 : 49 principle.

We make decisions everyday about everything (including deciding not to make a decision at all which counts as a decision). 51 : 49 principle states that over time, the balance of good and bad choices will even itself out to 51 percent good and 49 percent bad choices.

"But Pook!" you say. "That is a horrible average. It should be 65 : 35 or so." Sure, you hope the good decisions in your life will end up being in the 90s or 80s percent. But the POINT is for it to be 51 percent and above.

When it comes to women in the Anglosphere, men are used to being on the 49 side (where women are used to being on the 51 side). Sure, you don't win all the time. But women win FAR more often then men do. Nice Guys take the 49 side as "normal" (whereas they are probably more like on the 12 percent side of winning if that). What many speed seducers do not want you to know is that they also fail more than they succeed which can put them over to the 49 side.

Casinos work on the idea that most gamblers will push their luck beyond the point of 51:49 and end up on the wrong side of the formula. Because of this, the House will tend to win more times than it loses.

The same is true of women in the Anglosphere. They are counting on men to be gamblers and for them to push their luck beyond the point of 51 : 49 to end up on the wrong side of the formula. This is why women tend to win more time than lose in their dealings with men.

Most men in matters of love, so used to being on the 49 side and tasting the sour of defeat more than the sweetness of victory, become conservative with risk. They will excuse themselves from the opportunity to learn from their mistakes or to see the casino for what it really is. This, in turn, loads the dice against them making the correct choices in the future despite the game becoming more and more loaded with "money and time" (what a man bets with).

The result is that men become trapped in an ever decreasing circle and find themselves boxed in and unable to move at all. Men being boxed in with the perception that they have increasingly limited choices, is it any surprise that they willingly part with their money to coaches, mentors, and counselors to guide them from the maze of dead-end options to discover what life was like when it was a simple matter of making a choice?

There are many different branches of the Men's Movement. Like it or not, there are many men who use the Movement like a blanket where they can pretend they are never wrong ("All of society is against me!"). Others use it for their basket of conspiracies ("The water is being poisoned with estrogen to feminize all men!"). Some are frustrated financially and creatively with their lives and simply use the Movement as a means to vent their frustrations (mass movements attract those who are frustrated with their own lives). And, of course, there are those who really have suffered injustice, those who have had their kids and wealth taken from them, those who want to stand up against unjust laws, and others who just want to stand up for masculinity.

Let us welcome the 51: 49 branch. Those who welcome the 51: 49 have their object to be on the 51 side, not on the 49 side as most men are stuck in. Sometimes their success could be 85 % or so, but the point is to be winning more than losing. I reject marriage simply because it is on the 49 side. Dealing with women on MY terms, for example, puts me in the 51 category. I don't lose with women; they lose with me. I turn the House rules against itself, and they stand shocked that I am winning more and more. Sometimes the House wins but not majorly and not in a way to knock me to 49.

Men will be shocked because they are used to the House winning all the time, of being 49. Women will be shocked because they KNOW the House is supposed to win all the time, that men are not supposed to be at 51 or higher.

When you deal with women, ask yourself, "Is this a 51 action or a 49 action?" Having a relationship with a 30+ year old woman would be a 49 action. You WILL lose eventually. Having a relationship with a 21 year old is often more of a 51 action. You WIN almost any way it turns out.

Women have been playing the 51 : 49 game for quite some time, and they are very good at it. This is why women will not risk or gamble to put themselves into the 49 zone. This is why men must make all the risks, all the moves, because smart girls do not gamble past their 51 zone. If she messes up, she becomes even more risk averse and makes the game become 61 : 39. If you want to know why older women can become more demanding, there you go.

"Why are you single?"

Men Going Their Own Way? No!

51 : 49!

"Why don't you get married?"

51 : 49!

Why don't you settle down and have lots of children?

51 : 49!

Why don't you let yourself fall in love with a woman?

51 : 49!

The principle also applies well in business and other practical matters. You do not put yourself in a position where the House will eventually win. You want to put your life in matters where you will eventually win, on average.

51 : 49!

The Difference Between the Matriarchy and the Patriarchy

A young man approached the Pook and asked, "Monsieur Pook, tell me, what is the difference between the Matriarchy and the Patriarchy?"

And the Pook replied, "What do you think it is?"

The young man sniffed and said, "It is power of gender. Matriarchy has women in control. Patriarchy has men in control. Perhaps we need a third option where no gender has power."

"No. It is either-or. There is no middle ground."

"So what is the difference, Pook?"

"I will tell you. The 'touchstone' of civilizations has been debated for centuries. Some measure their technology, others measure their 'culture', yet other measures them through what form of government. The defining moment of civilization is how TIME is measured."

"Why not money? Why not power?"

"It is because Time is finite. We can make more money, obtain more power, but no one can ever create more Time. From the Maya to the Egyptians to the ancient Greek to the Babylonians and to every ancient civilization, Time was sacred. The Calendar was sacred. To them, monsters were creatures who upset Time and had to be thrown out. The hero arises to 'set time right' and dispose the monsters. These are the mythologies and legends of Mankind."

"What does this mean? You say mythologies are about Time?"

"Civilization, then, was obsessed with Time. Virgil saw the Virgin constellation rise in the sky and the lion constellation sink in to the hemisphere. The Pisces constellation rose overhead. This caused Virgil to write the prophecy of a drowning lion, the rising Virgin which the sun passes through, and the age of the fishes. Virgil could not know the Church would adopt that Virgil's passage as prophecy for the Christ nor could he have predicted that the first Christians would live under the sign of the fish. We cannot ignore the interpretation of time. Egyptians would construct pyramids aimed at where the Orion star once was. Plato would create philosophy from these tales. Aristotle would mourn their passing from the world at his time. Consider that our calendar month's names come from the Roman Empire and the Church. Consider that our time line is split with B.C. being Before Christ."

"What does any of this have to do with the difference between Matriarchy and the Patriarchy?"

"Everything. The difference between the Matriarchy and the Patriarchy is the interpretation of TIME. In the Patriarchy, time flows upward. This means the older one gets, the better one gets. People study, grow wiser. Christ gave his Parable of Talents where people plant a seed of talent and make it grow. 'You will know the tree by its fruit,' He would say. Elderly are revered in Patriarchy."

"But TIME flows downward in Matriarchy?"

"Correct. Civilizations, especially the Western ones, have been completely cut off from those cosmological roots that created our timeline, our calendar, and our heroes. Hamlet, echoing the ancients' heroes, said: 'Oh, Time is out of joint, and cursed spite! That I was ever born to set it right!'"

"So in Matriarchy, the young is worshiped and aging is seen as a disease."

"Yes. Women are pinned to the Wheel of Nature. Round, round, she goes. What makes a woman attractive if not her baby fat? Alas, that will melt over time. Women place all her chips on her appearance. She may be a goddess in her 20s, but the 30s face sharp decline, and the decline does not stop. A man, on the other hand, does not place all his chips on his appearance. He places it is his talents and mind which grow, plant like, over time. So a man may be a loser in his 20s, but in his 30s he faces growth, in his 40s faces major growth, and time keeps getting better to him."

"Some men will choose to live like women. Do they experience time as women do, as getting worse as time goes on?"

"Yes."

"So a Matriarchy would worship the young, discard the old, praise beauty, despise talent and intellect, and perceive life to be a series of short exciting bursts of energy which must not be missed out on. And the Patriarchy would worship the old, not take the young seriously, not take beauty seriously except in its mathematical proportions, praise talent and intellect, and perceive life as a growth."

"Well done! Now, consider the Family in how Time is interpreted."

"A Patriarchy would have blossoming after blossoming, a growing Family Tree. A Matriarchy would not care about the Family Tree and, instead, create many 'now' experiences which are more intense than the Patriarch's family. Yet, these intense experiences are like novas. They flash and are gone. The Family Tree will endure and grow."

Pook nodded. "Consider the seasons. Men begin in Winter, go to Spring, then Summer, and at the end have a Fall. Women, however, begin in Spring, then go to Summer, then Fall, and end up in the misery of Winter. Women have one summer. Men have endless summers."

"What do you mean?"

"It is another reason why the 95-5 rule doesn't work. Women are pinned to that Wheel of Nature that slowly rotates as they age. In their late twenties and thirties, they have 'baby rabies' and want babies. Women are confined to their geography as well. She cannot separate herself from The Way. When it is 'time' to have babies, she will be looking for a sucker. If she is hungry for a boyfriend, she will look in her immediate surroundings which includes work and college and any friends one of her girlfriends can toss up. Many women go to university with the intention of getting a wedding ring on her finger. She does not have much time to do this."

"So women are more confined by time than men are."

"Yes. As a man, your wealth and status will grow which will attract more and more women. However, women are *melting* and do not have the time."

"This might explain why the countries with the lowest birth rates are the most feminized."

"Yes."

"So the Matriarchy began by somehow having time flow the opposite way? How did this come to be? Could it be through technology since the young get technology so much faster than the old do?"

"The values of Pro-Youth, Anti-Talent, Anti-Family Tree, Pro-Bursts of Experience became established by forgetting and dismissing the old Time orientated rules (today, scholars say 'Before Common Time' instead of saying 'Before Christ'). The values of an animal-eating, hunting, and sex- have been hailed as the greatest of values a person can have. The values of building a family tree or planting your talent has become frowned at or turned into liabilities. There is a reason why we call it Mother Earth and Father Time."

"And all the ancient civilizations have been re-interpreted as fertility rites and goddess worship instead of time worship."

"Yes. The ancient civilizations that did appear to worship the woman were more wedded to the Lunar sense of time. Even in those places, men became in charge since they grew better in time while women do not."

"Man, it sounds like God's cruel joke."

"Yes. It as if Men and Women are exactly the same except they experience time differently. Men start low and get better. Women start high and get worse. Someway, in the middle, they meet and it is never exact for any two people. Women are obsessed with looking YOUNGER and all their products are designed to stop time or make it go backwards (at least, in appearance to their bodies). Men are obsessed with getting BETTER. "

"So how do we return to the Patriarchy?"

"For yourself, plant your seed of Talent and grow it. Follow your passion in life. Pursue your dreams. Get better, every day. But for the nations, it would be to discard the values that prop up animal values as 'noble' and raise the hated 'noble' values back to their true place. Let Wisdom, not Beauty, wear the crown and let Time and Talent, not Money or fun, hold the guiding scepter."

95-5 Rule is Bunk

There is a saying on Men's Movement sites that 95% of the women go for 5% of the men. These 5% of the men are famous, wealthy, players, or thugs. And, of course, the 'Nice Guys' rot in 'hell'.

There are two major glaring problems with the 95-5 rule.

First, it is based on a wrong premise. Women do not *choose* the men... ever. Women do not ask out guys. They do not pay for dates. They can flirt and do that type of thing to persuade a guy. But every part of the relationship is controlled by the guy. It is men who ask out the girl. It is men who pay for the dates. It is men who proposes.

Women do not propose to men. They also do not normally ask them out. So it makes sense to say that the *choice* women have is only limited to the access of men they can flirt with and/or the guys already interested. Only from them may they choose. (Of course, women think their 'pool' of suitors is higher than ever because women do not know the difference between a man interested in her for fifteen minutes versus a man interested in her for a lifetime.) So how can there be any 95-5 rule if women are not the real choosers?

The second error is that the 95-5 rule applies to men more than women. In order to be a man it takes rational and soulful choice. In order to be a woman is to just simply have a face. Women want men for marriage which limits their selection rather permanently unlike men's desires for women who a beauty can be tossed from one guy to another. There are far less wealthy and famous men than there are beautiful young women.

On the Internet or in passing, when one says "girlfriend" or "wife", one easily imagines the type of girl he would think would fit that role (often a young beautiful agreeable creature). However, the majority of girlfriends and even wives are anything but young, beautiful, and agreeable. When you see an old or fat woman, you do not think of her as a woman. The only women that show up on men's radars are the young, pretty ones. The 95-5 rule is a mirror image of how men are to women, not women are to men.

A better way to think of it is this way: Do you believe there is too much sex out there or too little? If you said little, then no matter what else you say or do, you will be in a world of little sex. However, if you think there is too much sex out there, somehow, the world will reflect that and, you will see it everywhere. This works the same with money. Those who believe there is too little money around remain poor. Those who believe there is too much much out there become rich.

I believe in the 100 - 0 rule. "What rule is this, Pook?" Why, it is simple. You either are flooded with women or want none. You see a world full of girls or you don't see any at all. If you have already decided that 95-5 is the law of the universe, then that is what you will only see. But the reality isn't 95-5 due to the two main problems mentioned above.

The Lace Curtain

To my surprise, there are those who read Pook in foreign nations (foreign to me). By foreign, I do not mean Canada or the UK but anywhere in South America or in Europe outside English speaking countries. I want to explain why there has been such a radical change in Pook over the last few years.

There is something called "the Lace Curtain". What I quote below, excerpts from Farrel's book: "Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say" will show the 'Lace Curtain' to be a wall of censorship, "the Lace Curtain" is a programmed mindset. Those who live in the Anglosphere have 'The Lace Curtain' mindset. It is very different from a mentality of nationalism or religion. The closest I can think would be Communism.

Everyone asks, "Since Communism and dictatorships have been shown to be a huge failure everywhere they are tried, why are politicians of free nations in awe still of these systems? Why do they want to revive socialism and its later evolutions of Communism and dictatorships?"

While it is true that Communism and dictatorships fail, and it is true that almost everyone suffers, the key is that one person does WIN BIG in Communism and dictatorships. Who? Why, the politicians of course! Politicians lose all the time in a free country as they will become hated and no one will build them statues. But in a dictatorship, why, there will be many statues and the politician gets all the power.

The same is true of Feminism. It does no good to write long essays on why Feminism fails, why the Matriarchy hurts men, or so on. What does matter is that it enthrones women. Women have no reason to question Feminism, naturally. Men question the Matriarchy when they begin to notice the long pattern of pains and injustices against them.

Before, I have mentioned much about "The Way". Go to school. Get a girl friend. Marry the girl. Get a career. Get a house. Get two dogs. Get several kids. Get two cars. Success becomes seen how far along you are on this 'track'. Hence, a guy who has a girlfriend is seen as 'more progressed in life' than one who doesn't. One who went to school is seen as more progressed 'in life' than one who didn't (even if the guy who didn't has more money like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs). If you deviate from this series of events, doing such unworthy stuff like following your passion, pursuing your dream, making yourself financially free, living for pleasure, etc. then you become condemned as "loser". At first, they will think this "loser" mentality is temporary. Soon, you will be on "The Way" again to the wife, the house, the wage slave career, and so on. One must actually disguise himself as following "The Way" while doing what you really want. If you do not, you risk termination from your job, social condemnation, among more stigmas. The Lace Curtain is the veil in front of your eyes that hides the truth of the world. Men only begin to tear at the Lace Curtain because of the frequent manipulation and pain that pushes them to but women will unconsciously keep that Lace Curtain in front of their eyes as long as possible. This is why you can never talk to women about the Lace Curtain. It is as fruitless as telling Stalin why Communism is bad It is GOOD to him so what does he care?

What if your mind became your enemy? What if you couldn't trust your mind anymore? And what if your mind kept throwing you into the jaws of the beast, towards certain and utter financial and legal destruction? This is how men are under the spell of the Lace Curtain. We feel we must marry, we must have a house at this age, we must have a girl friend at that age, and on and on. Look at the prices of engagement rings, fancy weddings, let alone taking care of a stay-at-home mom. Look at the absurd family laws, divorce laws, and how the law treats females with a velvet glove while slapping men with a spiked fist.

To my foreign friends who are outside the Lace Curtain, you will read and hear strange, mysterious, and horrifying tales; these, the stuff of nightmares, are imprinted INSIDE our minds for there is no escape. Sex and love are very powerful. Rousseau attempted to make them the foundation of his Brave New Society. The Lace Curtain is that society. But politicians and crusaders want power.

What if marriage, instead of being a vessel for peace, love, and stability, became an instrument of plunder? Politics is the cancer of society; political crusades are the passion of talent-less mediocrities. What if Love became poisoned by politics? Then Love would the State's means of power.

What! You look surprised? Do not be. Nationalism is the 'love of country' used to get men to go to war and work extra hard. Politicians are not above exploiting Love into an instrument of manipulation and plunder. Natural emotions of romance and love have become the weapons of every kind of greed.

The phenomenon of Men's Rights blogs springing up from the Lace Curtain induced nations (mostly the Anglosphere) is actually a transition of the user. Consider one's transition from Nice Guy to Don Juan. As a Nice Guy, the realization of Don Juan gave you a crisis which took you quite a while to accept.

Our minds are programmed in the Lace Curtain. The program was designed in such a vicious way that when an error is seen that threatens the Lace Curtain mindset, the mind will create new reasons and explanations to solidify the Lace Curtain. For example, when presented with the high divorce rates, a young man will say, "Ahh, they were not in love with their wives like I am. I will strive to make her happy. It won't happen to me." As you can imagine, defeating such a self-replicating mindset takes serious unrooting that is extremely painful. Such pain is the Lace Curtain's second best defense since most people prefer pleasure than pain, and the pain to unroot the program is hell-worthy. Women won't even try. Most men won't either. The men who do are brave.

When the de-rooting of the Lace Curtain program begins, the man must compensate with what, on the surface, sounds like woman bashing. The 'woman bashing' is not actually woman bashing but his only release of the pain as his mind sinks through the terrible hell of being unrooted. The phenomenon of Men's Rights websites has most of them in this process. You will find lengthy essays and some harsh tones. Women will view it and simply dismiss it as, "Angry males" but they are attempting to remove their programming. They are not blogging to talk to the world. They are blogging to talk to their mind. They are not posting messages on boards to talk to others. they are posting messages to themselves to save themselves. The reason why mens' rights boards has so much "Yes Man!" quality to it is because it is not so much a discussion forum as it is a tonic, a salve, for the bleeding mind as it is being cut up, diced, and re-arranged where the Lace Curtain program cannot get to it.

The de-rooting takes two to three years. This is why most Men's Rights blogs mysteriously vanish after two to three years. There is no more reason to talk to themselves. The Lace Curtain program becomes removed.

There are two types of men in the Anglosphere: those who live under the Lace Curtain and those who are free of it. Obviously, the former outnumber the latter. However, I have noticed the latter grow in number according to age. More men in their 80s will be free of the Lace Curtain than men in their 20s.

Below, you will hear about the censorship. It not so much censorship as it is a mindset of reality. Disagreeing with feminism is not tolerated not because of 'active' censorship but because feminism is BELIEVED to be the reality. So when someone says something against feminism, they are, to those people, saying something outside their reality.

Anywhere, here are the excerpts:

The power of feminists to allow only a feminist perspective to be aired (in every field that dealt with gender issues) came to be labeled the “Lace Curtain.”

The Iron Curtain shut out opinions considered a threat to Communism. The Lace Curtain shuts out opinions considered a threat to feminism.

In an Iron Curtain country, capitalist-bashing was the norm. In a Lace Curtain country, man-bashing is the norm. The chapter on man bashing hopefully made clear the degree to which man bashing is the norm; this chapter on the lace curtain shows us how each institution, from the government to the school system, from the helping professions to the media, produces that outcome, each in its own unique way.

In an Iron Curtain country, being too critical of core Communist tenets could cost you your job. Especially if your job was in the government, media or education system. In a Lace Curtain country, being too critical of core feminist attitudes (sexual harassment, affirmative action) can cost you your job. Especially if your job is in the government, media or education system.

The Communist Party achieved this power to censor formally, by revolution and becoming the one-party system of Soviet politics. Feminism achieved this power informally, by becoming the one-party system of gender politics: creating a new area of study, defining the terms, generating the data and becoming the only acceptable source of interpretation. This chapter explains how this occurs, and why.

Communists came into power by selling the belief that workers were exploited by capitalists. Feminists came into power by selling the belief that women were exploited by men. Both communists and feminists defined an enemy and sold itself as the champion of the oppressed.

Once Communism and feminism successfully defined themselves as progressive and morally superior, censoring criticism could be rationalized as progressive and morally necessary.

How do you know if you’re part of the Lace Curtain? If you feel more comfortable telling a man-bashing joke than a joke bashing all women. How do you know if you’re in an organization that’s part of the Lace Curtain? When you tell a man-bashing joke and everyone laughs, then tell a woman-bashing joke and no one laughs.... In some organizations, the censorship starts sooner... we don’t even think of telling the woman-bashing joke!

The Lace Curtain is less a “woman thing” than a feminist thing. But feminism has made women-as-victim so credible we would sooner think of saving whales than saving males. In this respect, almost all of us contribute to the Lace Curtain.

Which institutions create the lace curtain? Universities, in all the liberal arts, especially at the top-ranked schools; the school system, especially public high schools; government, especially at the national and United Nations level; the media, especially print media and television; the helping professions, especially social work; advertising, especially on television; book publishing, especially self-help and text books; funding institutions, especially those funding health, arts, and university research. Each institution censors and distorts in its own unique way. Each reinforces the other like academics citing each other’s research.

If your son or daughter is about to enter a top university in the liberal arts, he or she will be behind the lace curtain. You’ll notice it next Christmas. It is leaving many of our daughters with a love-hate relationship toward their dads and husbands; when they become mothers of sons, their feelings about men are transmitted to their sons, leaving their sons with mixed feelings about themselves. The Lace Curtain, like the Iron Curtain, ultimately hurts even those it was intended to benefit: leaving many employers fearful of hiring women; making many of our children fearful of marriage.

Is the Lace Curtain a conspiracy? No and yes. “No” by the current meaning of the word (a covert manipulation), but “yes” by the original Latin, meaning “to breathe together” (“spire” means to breathe; “con” means together). If we think of a conspiracy as people of a similar consciousness, in essence “breathing together,” then the Lace Curtain is a conspiracy. For reasons I discuss in the chapter on man-bashing, it is a “conspiracy” common to industrialized nations.

Below are personal examples of the author (a woman) of how she noticed the Lace Curtain. Read up, foreign readers, for this is exactly how it is in the Anglosphere:

As I listen to the stories of authors who have tried to articulate men’s issues, I hear one experience of censorship after another. Some I will share, but many authors who are published or still have hopes of being published, are afraid to be mentioned – “I’m afraid people will assume the real reason is that my work is inferior”; “I’m afraid it will be seen as sour grapes”; “I’m afraid people will say my book didn’t sell well and that’s why I’m so angry”; “I’m afraid....”

I acknowledge all of these fears myself. But I also know that if I don’t practice what I preach – that women can’t hear what men don’t say – then I have no right to ask other men to take risks I am myself unwilling to take. I know this will leave me vulnerable, and I know some people will never read this book because they will first read some news account of some distorted version of these personal stories that will make them turn off to me before they get started. I can’t say, “so be it” because I do care – I write to be read. But every man has exactly these type of fears when he first begins to share his life experience – that his career, his reputation (his readership) will be hurt. And sometimes, when he shares, that is a price he actually pays.

I will ask you to assume that if you have a teenage son, or husband, that he has these same fears, fears that keep a part of him silent even as another part speaks. If you are able to hear him in the way of Part I above, you will give him your greatest gift. Enough. Here goes....

When I was first elected to the Board of the National Organization for Women (NOW) in New York City, I was 26. I had never written for a national publication. The New York Times sought me out, did a major story on me and the men’s groups I was running, and asked me to write an op. ed. piece. I did. They published it, with hardly a word changed. They asked me to do a second. Again they published it with hardly a word changed. And a third....

As long as I was writing from a feminist perspective, The New York Times published everything I wrote. Once I began questioning the feminist perspective, The New York Times published nothing I wrote – not a single one of the more than twenty articles I have since submitted to them in the following two decades.

Back to the story...

The New York Times coverage led to the Today Show. During my years speaking from the feminist perspective, I was three times a guest on the Today Show. Once I began articulating men’s perspectives, I was never invited back. I was beginning to notice a pattern!

Phil Donahue had apparently seen me on the Today Show and in The New York Times and extended an invitation. When we met, we hit it off. He immediately invited his first wife (Marjorie) to meet me and dine together. When he and Marjorie ran into conflicts, he would call me for advice. After each show, he took me to the airport himself. On the seventh show, though, something happened. I began to add men’s perspectives. Suddenly, I was not invited back for years.

When Why Men Are The Way They Are was published, I was eventually invited for an eighth show. But articulating men’s perspectives, even in balance with women’s, led to another six year hiatus. When The Myth of Male Power came out, although it was from the male perspective, it was so much up Donahue’s line of relationships and politics that three producers were vying to be the one to produce the show. I was scheduled, with a firm date. The producers convinced my agent to book me as an exclusive on Donahue. As a result, queries to all other American talk shows were dropped. Then something happened….

The taping kept getting “postponed.” Eventually neither I nor my agents, Hilsinger and Mendelson, the most powerful in the book publicity business, could reach them. As I was trying to unravel the stonewalling, a Canadian show called. They were filled with enthusiasm. But suddenly it, too, kept getting “postponed.” This producer, though, had previously booked me; I could feel the remorse in his voice; so I pressed him for an explanation.

Finally he caved, “If you promise to never use my name I’ll tell you.” I promised. Hesitatingly, he started, “We wanted to have a balanced show, so we called a couple of feminists – big names – to be on with you. Instead of just refusing, they said in effect, ‘If you have this guy on, don’t expect us to bring our next book to you, or supply you with real-life examples to use on your show – we’ll do that just for Oprah.’ Another one used the moral appeal – something like, ‘Feminism is opposed to rape and the battering of women; so, if you have him on, you’d better take responsibility for making women even more vulnerable.’ Once the word got out that we were considering you, we got other calls, even one from a guy, sort of repeating the same mantra.

“Warren, most of us saw all this for the attempt at censorship it was, and as for me, I was excited by the controversy, but, well, it just took one of our producers who’s never met you and hasn’t read the book to freak out and, before we knew it, we were all afraid to stir up her indignation.” Well, there you have it. Or,... there I had it!

Then there was the day I first questioned in public the statement that men earned a dollar for each 70 cents earned by women. I did that on Hour Magazine, a show that was nationally televised at the time. The other guest was Gloria Steinem. I said, “Never-married women often earn more than never-married men, because....” Gloria, who had to that point (1986) viewed me as an ally, looked to host Gary Collins as if to signal “cut!” Gary Collins, who had always treated me with great respect, told me I must have gotten the sexes mixed up, and signaled for the producer to interrupt the taping.

Off air, I explained that I had meant what I said. I could see in Gary’s and Gloria’s faces that I had “turned the screw.” I could feel the segment was being redone merely so they could avoid saying directly that it would never be aired. And yes, it was never aired. My status changed from regular guest to never being invited back. As for Gloria Steinem? Well, she went from being a friend, to never returning my calls. Thinking a little humor might break the ice, I sent her a phone from Toys-R-Us with a dime taped to it. Maybe she doesn’t like Toys-R-Us.

I had naively believed that leaders as pioneering as I thought Gloria was would be delighted to hear of ways in which women were succeeding. Now I had to face a deeper fear: that some of my feminist colleagues might have an emotional investment in women’s victimhood that went so deep as to prevent any discussion that might dilute women’s victim status. Since my income came from feminist referrals, and since feminist power was solidifying the Lace Curtain, I felt, well, …scared.

I was eventually to discover that fear was well founded. My speaking engagements on college campuses were soon reduced to less than 5% – not 50%, but 5% – of what they were.

It isn’t that many women and even individual feminists were not open enough to hearing a different perspective. When I wrote The Myth of Male Power, an editor at Modern Maturity, the publication with the largest monthly circulation in the United States, had read it, loved it, felt it would be perfect for the male readers, and asked me to write two articles for Modern Maturity. I did. Both articles were loved, edited, approved, paid in full, and scheduled for publication.

I had just turned fifty, so I was to receive my own copy. I saw it in the mailbox, and quickly scanned the front cover to see if they gave it special coverage. No. Then the table of contents. Nothing. I called the editor. She apologized and said they had “changed focus” at the last minute. But something in her voice said “cover up.” I asked the editor to be honest. She was. She explained that one feminist researcher, who admittedly could find nothing wrong with the research, nevertheless protested. Loudly. The management became afraid. The editor felt as awful as I did.

The Twentieth Century had to deal with the Depression, the last gasps of Nationalistic Wars, Nazism, and Communism. The Twenty First Century will have to deal with Feminism. Our ancestors succeeded. So will we.