GROIN

It’s hard to admit you’ve been conned. A con by nature is covert; it sneaks up on you. One minute you think you’re helping some guy collect his inheritance in Nigeria, and the next, you’re watching your retirement fund disappear.

Pulling a con requires the type of subtle military maneuver used in guerrilla campaigns. Do not attack the target; attack what supports it. Do not assault the fort; dig under it and let its own weight pull it down. In cons, you attack indirectly and let people’s fear or greed pull them in.

For example, you will see parents con their kids. In this case, a boy (let’s call him Conner) does not want to go to the library, and the discussion goes like this:

The essence of a successful con is redefining the underlying terms, and then making them sound pleasant, so that your victim rushes to the con. The best cons make the victim seek the con time and again. (I might consider “daytime television” to be applicable here.)

Let’s look at a really successful con that works over and over again:

White Knight Syndrome
n. A personality characteristic found in most males that lead them to:

1. rush to the aid of any female they see who appears in any form of distress.
2. Become attracted to said damsel in distress.
3. Follow the dying code of chivalry and generally act like a nice guy.

Also called “young man’s disease.” – Urban Dictionary

The con is that your good intentions become a tool of passive aggression.

If a girl is mad at her boyfriend, she wants to shit test or just provoke him, which will force him to overreact and get all apologetic. She will then get him to a public place, and hassle him until he starts pushing back. At that point — watch for it — she’ll roll her eyes around the room looking for a white knight.

Sure enough, in comes white knight, and he demands that boyfriend stop. Boyfriend may try to explain, but he can’t back down, so the two of them slug it out. Girlfriend sits back and watches. She will never feel more powerful. She has two (2) penises fighting for her. She will go home with whichever wins.

(Naturally, these rules do not apply to real women, only the dumb turnip-picker slags and the mentally unhealthy, many of whom populate our universities although educating them does nothing but make capable insane out of raging vagina. Real women have no time for this kind of behavior and would think both men were idiots. Not neanderthals — real women don’t oppose fighting — but idiots for being in this d-bag of a situation.)

White knighting gets more men injured, pride broken, and possibly publicly humiliated than any other act in which men engage. In the background you can hear the sound of a woman who pulled off a good, solid con: tee hee. She’ll go tell it to her girlfriends and they’ll all have a laugh.

But where do we get the impulse to white knight?

Some of it is just inexperience. You want to do something nice, and you have no idea how stupid and brutal other people are, so you intervene. Later on you’ll become cynical and go to the opposite extreme, where if a girl is getting raped at the next table you won’t even notice.

The other part, and the biggest part, is that our society trains you to think this way. The root of white knighting is liberal democracy. In liberal democracy, we are taught not that life is a struggle for a sensible social order, but that life is about treating people well. Share your toys. Be nice. Do The Right Thing.

In a masculine order, we care about having a sensible order. The people come secondarily because (duh) the order affects more than its immediate participants. Everyone will have to deal with the result. It’s less a question of person to person relations than finding a healthy order for everyone.

Liberal democracy doesn’t like that, because it affirms the law of the jungle, which is that some rise higher than others. From every aspect, having a hierarchy makes sense — except one. Socially, hierarchies are unpopular. If you want to appeal to a small group, you have have a hierarchy. But if you want a huge number of people to like you, you need to speak the gospel of equality and love.

Because it’s based in equality, liberal democracy has one single mode of thought: defend the weaker from the stronger, because that way, we’ll all be equal. In a liberal democracy, if you’re seen as defending the weak from the strong, people think you’re a Hero and may heap money on you. Think of Bono, Obama, Opraph and other fakers.

That dogma is what causes white knighting. In fact, if you think about it for a while, you’ll see that white knighting isn’t separate at all — it’s the dogma of being socially popular, specifically designed to ensnare men. If you see a weak woman and a strong man, you think: he’s probably oppressing her.

If there’s a solution to white knighting, it’s to stop raising our boys in a culture that encourages them to act like morons any time a woman complains. This probably means burning the television, any popular books from big publishers, and throwing out all your copies of To Kill a Mockingbird, but it might be worth it.

An interesting dialogue on masculinity has arisen, which is fortunate since you’d think the first thing a “men’s rights” movement would do would be to understand men. Alas, our political system is more defensive than pro-active, so that didn’t happen. But now is a good time to do it.

In one of the first posts to kick off this round of dialogue, Koanic writes:

What are the culturally universal traits definining manhood? Mark from Post: Masculine lists two:

1. Emotional dissociation.
2. Initiation.

Jack Donovan counters this with a more cosmological definition:

Masculinity is that which is least feminine; femininity is that which is least masculine.

In the last article posted on this site, it was suggested that masculine and feminine are complementary principles.

So now, as good investigators (a large category, of which “scientist” and “mystic” are both subsets) let us return to the original definition and see if we can reconcile these three viewpoints. Here’s an initial stab.

1. Discipline.
2. Initiation.

The idea of men as logically dissociated makes sense in that we must put emotions on the back-burner in order to accomplish what we need to do. However, there’s a larger part of it, which is discipline, in a martial sense.

You put aside your emotions, or even smaller logical concerns. A truly masculine force is able to sacrifice some or many in order to save all (yeah, I’m thinking of Ender’s Game here). This is a subset of what seems to always define masculinity for me, which is strong goal-orientation versus method-orientation, which is more of a concern for nurturers.

When someone is goal-oriented, everything else takes a back seat and becomes a means to that end. This is why men are the guardians of civilization, and women its anchors. The two complementary principles ensure that good things can exist by stimulating the need for them in each other.

The men’s rights movement is wasting its time crusading for “equality” when it should be focusing on defining masculinity.

If you want to know how men are really under assault in our blessed-are-the-meek culture, it’s that masculinity is distorted by social and media factors. As a result, no one knows what it is and so almost no one values it.

One reason that people like me turned from liberalism is that liberalism is part of that blessed-are-the-meek culture, and so it will never value masculinity, which is the opposite of meekness. Masculinity is not easy to define but it is clear what it is not.

When I think of what defines masculinity, what comes to mind is this: being male is a role, which comes with honor and pride. We are those who create things and fix situations. We are the guardians and the advance scouts, the conquerors and inventors, and also, the supporting force of community.

My favorite comment on The Spearhead came from user “Corky Again”:

They’re admired for winning battles, inventing stuff, creating beautiful paintings or sculptures, writing great poems or novels, exploring new territories, going to the moon, scoring the winning touchdown, expounding a philosophy, founding a religion. Etc.

The idea that full manhood is achieved only through financial stability, marriage and family is a womanly way of looking at manliness. It makes women the center of the male universe, and implies that success or failure as a man is directly related to achieving female approval. – Jack Donovan

These writers bring up an interesting dilemma: is masculinity conquest, or family life?

My answer: conquest and family life are two prongs of the same attack.

Women are the anchors of civilization. They form a fixed element that adapts, nurtures, nourishes and advances. They are essential, and femininity is an essential principle. Nature invented femininity for the same reason the framers of the US Constitution had both a Congress and a President: balance.

Masculinity is not “everything which is not feminine” — that would be a truly woman-centric view. On the other hand, masculinity is the principle I’ve mentioned above, which is creating and fixing. Women are the anchors of civilization, but men are its founders, advancers and curators.

The same impulse that makes us long to conquer and subjugate also makes us want to create, including families and communities.

When that impulse gets blocked, the result is not meek men settling down to stable homes, but men translating their meekness into any kind of crazy fetish they can:

Meet the self-described “bronies.”

The object of the bronies’ fascination is “My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic,” a remake of a 1980s animated TV show for preadolescent girls featuring plucky, candy-colored equines.

After the show launched in October 2010, video clips began appearing on 4chan, a website that largely draws geeky, tech-savvy guys. Before long, the bronies were born. They started holding local get-togethers, from Seattle to Brooklyn, where they recognized each other by the paper Pony cut-outs tucked in their shirt pockets. They’d discuss the latest shenanigans of Ponies with names like Twilight Sparkle and Fluttershy. – The Wall Street Journal

These are some very confused people. This society has replaced the idea of masculinity with an idea of men as perpetual boys who want their toys, their entertainment and occasional sex — but on a woman’s terms (bring a condom and flowers). Men are kept men in this time.

As a result, women are taking over in industry and social functions that once were better served by men. This increases the spread of blessed-are-the-meek culture, and a certain unfavorable light to all things truly masculine.

We will not succeed in re-asserting masculinity by attacking its wholesome principles in order to defend its more interesting ones (conquest, war, murder). But it’s important to remember this isn’t an either/or: many of history’s greatest conquerors were also proud family men and active in their communities.

Most of us can focus on one thing at a time. What happens when both parties in an interaction are wrong?

For example, Dan and Dave are neighbors. Dan wants to put in a new fence, and thinks it should be two feet closer to Dave’s house than it is now. Dave thinks the fence is in the right place now. A surveyor shows the border between their land is one foot closer to Dave’s house than where the fence is now.

Both parties are wrong. If you are watching as a bystander, you are tempted to — like at a football game, political rally, or street fight — take a side and cheer for it, filtering out any information that suggests weakness or inaccuracy on your side.

The result is that all three of you miss the truth.

As this passage from a writer I respect demonstrates, this situation happens more often than you might think:

Men don’t “refuse to grow up”. They drop out, (or rather, beta males drop out), and with good reason, because the sexual market has been reconstructed to pander to female hypergamous impulses. Men can no longer achieve the clearly-defined status over hypergamous women they once could because the traditional field of battle that afforded them relative supremacy and, thus, attractiveness, to women — the corporate office — has, via managerial despotism strengthening PC and diversity to a state religion, lopped their balls clean off. And so men retreat from the corporate drone working world to achieve their status elsewhere.

Men don’t avoid marriage and family because they have a “maturity deficit”. They rationally avoid marriage and family because, as the institutions are currently constituted, they are a raw deal for men. Marriage is a risk made too great by misandrist divorce laws, and kids are a cost made too high by falling wages and tightening housing markets, of which part of the blame must go to women who have been voting for increasingly leftie and feminist-friendly governments since suffrage. – Heartiste/TAFKAR

When you are trying to loosen a rope, and it comes loose suddenly and hits you in the face, you may be tempted to lash out angrily at life itself. Someone hit me! Grr…

But that’s an extreme reaction based in your fears for yourself, and your reaction to the pain, but not in your desire to find a sensible, intelligent response.

TAFKAR has a point, above: men are in a bad situation because of the rise of feminism, which is a sub-set of liberalism. The idea of universal equality in liberalism demands we provide subsidies and political protection to groups which never quite felt equal, and women don’t feel equal to men.

A huge industry exists to this end. Not just the sale of feminist products, starting with their odious chattering books, but also a vast swathe of our government and its NGOs and non-profits are made wealthy catering to “feminist” needs.

However, it’s possible that TAFKAR is both right and wrong. He could be telling us only part of the story. Let’s look more at feminist flakiness:

More to the original point, women have demanded and been given the ability to make every conceivable choice about how, when, and by whom they become a mother. Being the one who makes the decisions is called having authority. Women now have as near total authority on the conception and raising of children as is possible. This is an incredible amount of authority, and having an incredible amount of authority comes with an incredible amount of responsibility.

Anyone who has been trusted with a very large amount of responsibility knows that it is a very heavy burden if you are taking it seriously. Yet women don’t feel this burden. Commenter Chels was outraged at the very concept that she was responsible for picking her future children’s father wisely. How could she possibly be expected to do that? Yes, this is an extremely difficult task. If women were truly embracing their responsibility here it would be a very heavy weight on them. Young women would feel a solemn sense of duty.

But for the vast majority of women this simply isn’t the case. The search for the father of their children isn’t undertaken with a solemn sense of responsibility. It is taken as a time for fun and excitement. The overriding feeling is no matter what choices they make, if there is a bad outcome it isn’t their fault. Someone else needs to take responsibility. – Dalrock

We see a parallel here: both women and men are reacting as if they got hit in the face with a rope that broke loose. Ouch! Now it’s time for my tantrum!

MRAs are repeating the same error that women made. Feminism has not given women better lives. It has given them jobs and second jobs as single mothers. It has guaranteed that their penis count will be so high when they hit 30 that chances of a permanent union are nil.

Men face the same problems. Both parties are outraged. Could it be possible that both parties are wrong? And that both parties are having an emotional reaction, rather than thinking of a coldly logical solution?

It is. Even more: that’s the most common outcome in human affairs, and explains why incompetence and confusion often reign for centuries until someone sets people toward the right direction.

Last week, something vastly important happened to the men’s rights movement. It turned on itself, and through this, it will grow.

So far, the movement has been mostly hijacked by FMRAs (Feminist Men’s Rights Activists), who are people who want equal rights for men, with the high cost of making men feel that they are victims.

Your average PUA, equal righter, or false rape accusation watcher fits into this category. They buy into the narrative of our feminist-dominated society, and demand a feminism for men. We’re rape victims too!

This psychologically unhealthy approach has not surprisingly never caught on with healthy men. They have zero need for it. In fact, they view it as somewhat distasteful, like a man on a camping trip who cannot fall sleep without the pink stuff bunny he used to hug as a child.

To such men, the men’s rights movement seems to be full of what are playfully called “betas”: not the winners, but the also-rans who also dropped out, and are doing their own thing independent of society.

Let me be frank. I don’t like this society much at all, because I know that it is collapsing. It’s dying because its values are bad and it forgot how to think proactively. I don’t support the notion that grabbing power within this society will make you more of a man, or more of a winner. But I also don’t support the people who are using that logic as an excuse for their own failings and most importantly, their inability to find anything in life they like doing enough to get good at it. This is bigger than career, marriage or money. This is your choice of how to spend your one mortal life (if you are religious, add “in this incarnation” to that sentence).

As a result, many of the betas in the mens’ rights movement are beta because they have chosen to be beta: to back away from finding purpose in life, to flee from competition, to withdraw into a shell of hobbies and compensations, and to possibly “take revenge” on life by indulging in pick-up artistry or even “activism” to invent an alternative feminism for men.

Another take on it:

We live in a society which has tamed most men into betas. Does that mean every man is a natural born beta? Nope. Does that mean men cant explore and develop leadership / dominant traits? nope.

I dont even know if there is a “beta gene”. I think most men can develop alphaness to a certain degree, just like most people can learn to sing. I think its about interest and drive, and of course natural potential. But most men are so, so far from what they would be naturally be doing if they hadnt been brainwashed into forced betaness, that just a couple of touches here and there can go a long way.

So, its not that Game changes the DNA of beta guys. Its that society is molding guys in dissonance with their own DNA, and something is needed to realign those guys into properly displaying their genotype and use what they have got for their own benefit. – Yohami

He takes an extreme “nurture” approach, which assumes that all humans are basically biologically the same and that social conditioning determines their outlook. Others would take an extreme “nature” approach and argue that you are born a beta, or not. I take a middle path.

Some are born less able than others. We do not have to trot out the Down’s syndrome kids to prove this; just look at the relative intelligence of people in daily life. Some people are born to sweep floors for minimum wage, others to have middle-of-the-road jobs, and some to have high-paying high-stress jobs.

However, our society encourages beta-ness because it is afraid of strong leadership, and by extension afraid of men. When your sole purpose for existing is to make everyone equal, the last thing you want is people who rise above. So you try to hobble them, first individually and then by group, such as favored genders (men, the stronger) and favored races (Jews, North Asians, Europeans) in addition to the usual divisions like social class (richer people are statistically/demographically smarter) and place of residence.

The point is that you may be born to sweep floors, but how you choose to spend your time in life determines what you’re going to get out of what is accessible to you. A beta turns tail and runs away from the biggest challenge, which is “What is your purpose in life?” A healthier person does not.

Betas are basically dissatisfied geeks, nerds and underlings of the type you find crowding around twee internet sites like Fark, Reddit and Facebook. They tend to like leftist politics, because those politics identify with the underdog, which all betas want to see themselves as, instead of using the more direct terms drop-out, burn-out or loser.

In fact, most men are this way, because the herd hates those who rise above, and loves to smash them, especially with its media that praises the beta and knocks down the alpha. Our society controls us not with truncheons, but with media images and social shame, knowing the judging eyes of the world are upon us.

In other words, betas don’t do anything “in spite of” adversity. They see adversity, and they slowly back away. They hide in the basements of the world, or in dingy apartments with entry-level jobs. But being a beta means that you give up on all of your own potential.

Yohami’s essay should be required reading because it encourages men to act up to their full potential. So your highest performance level is as a plumber; so what? You’ll have enough money, and a comfortable time of it, if you just man up and face your fears, and find a purpose in life in spite of them.

Men, when you go out into this world, you must keep an eye out for the parasites. You will find them in every form and every place (although in different degrees, perhaps: you’ll find more in ghettoes, the third world, prisons, criminal haunts and government offices).

A drone is someone who cannot defer gratification. They prefer a result right now, even if they could get one that is twice as good just a few days or hours later. They are ruled by their pursuit of pleasure and leisure, or at least so Plato tells us in his Republic.

This mentality more than anything else defines the drone. When they win a lottery, they waste it. When put in charge of something big, they wreck it. And if you marry one, she’ll do nothing but bleed you dry and then suddenly turn into a weeping victim who will use the kindness of others to steal from you.

So, what are prostitutes planning?

Usually, they have no plan, except to find a rich foreign guy willing to support them. They live day to day. They don’t make much effort to think proactively. They just follow and react to others in their environment, passive.

If they have a plan, then it is to sit at home and watch TV all day, gossip with their friends, and go shopping.

If you expect them to cook special food for you or do other considerate things — for them to put out the same level of effort for you that you put out for them — then you’re usually setting yourself up for disappointment. In fact, you will be lucky if they can even manage the maid and gain the respect of one for long. – “Good guys trying to help often get burned,” by Mark Evan Prado

He might as well have written, “so what are drones planning?”

The answer: nothing.

They have no plan, and no intention to make one. They only care about doing what they want and not doing anything else. When that doesn’t work and they end up broke, they will embark on a series of scams and possibly self-sale. Drones become prostitutes in one form or another.

If you meet a woman who has prostitute-like tendencies, including those toward casual sex or using her sexuality to manipulate others, watch out. You have found yourself a parasite-becoming-prostitute. She knows nothing except her own desires. You have now become the person to pay for those desires.

When you notice what’s going on and stop paying, her only thought is for herself. How do I make the money come back? The answer is that our society is full of sad saps who hate their miserable lives and love to “white knight” to distract themselves from their own lack of meaning.

These white knight saps will immediately rush to her aid, whether in a courtroom or elsewhere, and create a narrative — like a movie script, but told through gossip. In it, she is assumed to be the innocent victim and you, since you have the money, take the role of evil oppressor.

These well-intentioned useful idiots will promptly hand her all of your money and/or throw you in jail as their form of “moral” repair to the situation. In a sense, you deserve it. No good man will settle for a whore or something that acts like one.

If a man’s ego is so beaten he needs to feel like a hero by adopting and supporting some neo-prostitute, he is probably headed for the ripoff bin either way. Parasites outnumber honest people because societies breed parasites through that well-intentioned stuff I mentioned above.

Be careful when you meet women. If they like drugs, drink and casual sex more than studying, working, learning, and long-term romance, you’ve probably run into a drone. Once you allow her to attach, she will become a parasite-prostitute and drain you of money in addition to your fluids.