So here’s my answer to his oscillation between villain, victim, social engineer, and way too easily amused tool of the nanny state.

Permalink though it’ll probably never get posted because he can’t make up his mind whether he’s trying to be the world’s most underqualified fitness expert, or amuse himself by convincing people they’re going to find the remains of flayed fat chicks in his cellar one day.

Roissy says, “i don’t attack fatties who understand the negative effects their fat has on them.”

Yes you do.

“my sadism is reserved for those fatties, like heather, who wish to claim that their obesity has no deleterious consequences for their lives.”

…and apparently fatties like me who understand the effects and learn to thrive in spite of them…or correct them to the best of our ability without sacrificing our health.

You know, those of us who don’t want to look like the washed up old hoes you think are prettier than the rest of us.

LOL!

To each his own…

“superiority ain’t got nothing to do with it.”

I know that. It’s your *desire* to *believe* that you are superior.

“the facts are enough to put the lie to heather’s claims.”

Her claim of being 5?5? and 185 lbs?

Her exercise regime?

Her doing crafts?

Her not being a miserable wretch just because you want her to be?

Your being ignorant and shallow?

Yes, the facts are quite enough for the both of you.

My response to her would have started something like…If you’re 185 lbs. not bodybuilding or doing serious strength training that might lead to bulking up, and not losing weight, it’s because your vegetarian diet includes way too much cow food and not enough people food.

“namely, that the overwhelming majority of men prefer slender babes.
hth.”

…and we all know that what the “overwhelming majority” likes is the most important pursuit in the hedonist lifestyle.

Must seek the pleasure of the “overwhelming majority”.

This is becoming excruciatingly tedious.

“those are not my goals. i’m here to amuse myself.”

…and yet…

” if my cruelty happens to cause one fatass to drop the chalupa and slim down to a sexy weight, well then i consider that collateral beautification.”

So you find thought policing on behalf of the “overwhelming majority” amusing.

Are they paying you for it?

…because really, I don’t see how anyone who values individualism in any way would actually enjoy licking the USDA and the entire nanny state democratic party’s collective anus, unless they were getting paid for it.

“your other point that shaming is counterproductive is simply false. if it didn’t work, so many people like yourself wouldn’t be up in arms about my advocacy of it as social policy.”

It’s not that it doesn’t work in herding people, albeit chaotically…It’s that well…anybody who’s in pursuit of truth would find it silly outside of a social engineering context.

So if you’re not social engineering, and you’re just doing this for your amusement, then hey.

I apologize for misjudging you.

Just remember that the meanest sheep is still not the shepherd.

At this point, my dad is winning the argument about there not being a cure for stupidity.  He also held a mirror to me that the only reason I even bother with people like Roissy is from boredom.  I write on a variety of subjects I care about, and this is really enough for me to get what I see as “the job” done.

…but then I encounter someone who’s somewhat “off the grid” and attempt to nurture that.  It’s not always received well at first, but usually once they realize I’m a nurturer, not a coddler, they stop freaking out and butch up.

Every once in awhile though, I run into a “Jackie” who is just a mean sheep, not an up and coming shepherd, sheepdog, or wolf type; and he instinctively well, reacts badly.  So rather than laughing to myself, and going my merry way, like I should, I nip at them for kicks, when I’m bored or having writers’ lull.

I can admit this to myself.  Thing is, it’s like playing a video game in “god mode”.  In fact, both my dad and Shai have called me on that.  After awhile, it’s kind of pointless, and I get bored with that too.  Someone has the ability and awareness to break away from the herd, and then control their level of attachment, or they don’t.  That is not something they grow out of, get over, or have an epiphany and rise above.

…and I should really stop messing with their heads when I’m bored.  We all have our role in nature, who is smarter than any of us, no matter our pet megalomanias, social engineering projects or hobbies.

One day, enough people on ancestral or paleo diets will cross the 20 year mark healthier and happier than their peers.  Then the herd will at least stop eating like cattle, and start eating like tribal apes.  Then again, better social engineers than me are making quite a bit of money by convincing people that they should eat like cows, so I don’t know…the information might be suppressed and all the evidence said to be anecdotal or flukes.

Either way, I’m losing weight with no signs of my forehead beginning to resemble my backside, without sagging skin, and without feeling deprived at all.  I feel like I’m aging in reverse.  So who cares what illusions get others through the day?

Outsider

I frequently see on this blog the neat assumption that people in the West have “choice” (frequently voiced by women) while other nations — we poor, unwashed suckers — smart under the absence of that blissful thing.

Note that those most vocal in emphasizing choice (especially in contexts of disowning any responsibility in duping betas) are basically women.

“Choice” is of course a very cute word, indeed. And a synonym for “freedom” — which most refrain from overusing since words that are direct instantly betray the intent behind (like calling killing an unborn baby “terminating an unwanted pregnancy”).

That wymmyn in non-Western societies don’t have much “choice” is generally coupled with another, equally juvenile, assumption that in those societies, since they are mostly ruled by patriarchy, it’s men who “choose.”

What a sociologically unimaginative speculation. A conceptualization of “dominance” totally corrupted by the ultra-affluent West’s natives: dominance equated with having higher number of choices, or — worse — getting “what you want.”

It’s suffers from the same silliness of thinking about individuals atomically, rather than molecularly.

Choice is a very modern, luxury term. It’s been made possible only in the West after generations of heroic Western males broke their backs to create the abundance you are now mired in.

For most of human existence, there was hardly anything like “choice” as an embodiment of the “meaning of life.” Life, as it was understood (pretty sensibly by people who had to fight practically every day of their lives with unrelenting elements), was more or less “fate.”

In patriarchal societies, it’s not men who get whatever they want. Hardly anybody — other than the richest — gets much of anything they want. They’d be lucky if they had the luxury to fantasize about things they want — and therefore develop a sickening addiction to fantasies or “things I want.” Men or women, everyone has to follow the traditional norms — norms that took millennia to evolve, through bitter human experience.

The weak’s survival strategy, as Nietzsche correctly observed, is guilt-tripping and manipulation. No wonder women obsess so much with “choice” because it’s a tacit way of supporting giving individuals more leeway in manipulating others.

Heck, I’d even claim “choice” is a womanly, effeminate concept through and through.

Dominance is not getting what you want. Only pampered American kids can obsess with getting everything you want. Dominance, in traditional societies, is measured in “getting things done” — which is hardly forcing others, with no regard to tradition, religion, morals, norms, etc., to do your bidding. Do you honestly believe, for instance, that a Pashtun warlord can just walk into any Afghani neighborhood, pick up any young and sweet thing, pump her and dump her and go her merry way? Without hell being literally raised as an all out intra-tribal, inter-clanal warfare?

If getting what you want was the measure of dominance, a 10-year old brat raising hell just to get the toys he wants and makes her parents bend to his will would be the most dominant person in the room.

Choice is an effeminate concept since it’s people addicted to their own desires who use it as a tool to achieve ends. It’s a time honored adage what an old (and brave) Roman general said: If I can’t rule myself (my desires, my fears) how can I rule others?

Genuinely dominant people are least obsessed with their “desires.” Every desire is a weakness for a man, a security breach that can easily be exploited to corner him.

Which is why those “alphas” in traditional societies are almost criminally cold and aloof, callous and unrelenting. Exactly because they know that the lives of countless dependents depend on their iron rule which cannot be squandered by fluff like “getting all the women you want.”

Elvis can be an “alpha” only in modern, effeminate West. In Waziristan, they’d hang him by the balls on the nearest tree and unload their AK-47s on him.

In all traditional societies, even in polygamous ones, alpha males and multiple women do not marry just so they can have all the fun they want. That’s sadly the figment of the circumcised modern Western male’s imagination. To the contrary, all marriages are arranged to control social rank/status, to manage scarce economic resources (so that they stay within the family/clan), to make truce and end inter-tribal warfare, etc. Fun is the bottom item on the list.

–

A side note: Every wannabe Western evolutionary psychologist seems to make the assumption that since women are more status conscious, they must have always been *the* agents of choosing. It never seems to occur to anyone that I breathe oxygen not because I choose to but because I have no choice. Same thing for women in all traditional settings.

Which means, throughout the human evolutionary path, women hardly ever chose males. Rather, they were chosen. Which is why the moment the traditional control mechanisms were lifted they run amok and became so creepy. Exactly because unlike men (who, with their “hunters” brain, are way better at “calculated decision making”) their decision-making wiring is defective. Once the traditional mechanisms — which provided safety to everyone — are gone, they started self-destructing by seeking what-they-perceive-to-be the big shots in the room. And they are failing — as you all can see. Miserably. That’s because, in a social environment where traditional structures have disappeared, the biggest shots are Pashtun-like warriors but parasitic dipstick dippers like Elvis — since their success is measured in not how much they can get things done but how many women they can fuck. (End of Detour.)

–

Finally, the saddest thing about this blog is even though Roissy is very realistic debunking modern, liberal myths about women, most discussions don’t even raise the real issue. Almost every poster (but particularly males) is still obsessed with the typically modern Western thing: how to get laid as many times as you can.

What modern liberalism and feminism did wasn’t just that it reduced the fate of betas (the majority of males in every society) to a pathetic state — that’s the issue between men and women. The worst thing it did is IT DESTROYED CAMARADERIE BETWEEN MEN.

The whole purpose of so-called “oppressive” sexual norms is to reduce inter-male rivalry so that they can collaborate more effectively to deal with “hunting” challenges. A society drowning in “affluence” (most of which is masturbatory entertainment created by Keynesian, consumerist, debt-/spending-driven policies that mis-allocate scarce and valuable capital to short-term oriented, unproductive endeavors), one where “choice” rules supreme, is one that inevitably becomes deluded that most men are not needed any more — since under normal weather conditions, choice is a joke, and you need men to fight the elements, a purpose to which intra-gender rivalry of males is fatally detrimental.

Your fathers, many of them such daring and hard-working men, have created this wealth, this illusion that “choice” is your birth-right for you. Nice work you’re doing now, thanking them by eating your corn seed.

There’s one thing you can do to kill a man without so much as pulling the trigger of a gun: reduce him to uselessness/redundancy level. Make him lose his job, productive status, and all else will follow. He’ll first lose his woman, along with her his kids, and… well, that’s all it takes. He’ll find a way to slowly finish the job himself.

The most effective way of creating the atmospheric conditions to destroy ordinary males in a society is corrupting its women.

The civilization wreckers of the West seem to have pulled that off. What a feat.

What they don’t understand, of course, (like those ultra-liberal Jews who support Muslim immigration to the West since they still equate “White” with “Nazi”) is they are wrecking the very system that made their ultra-powerful elite rule possible. When the whole structure becomes so rotten — like a house eaten away by bugs inside out — that it can’t support its weight anymore, it’ll finally hit them what they’ve done with all this liberalism shit the flagship of which is the crap called “wymmyn’s rites” and “choice.”
A Theta male (theta being the “unknown angle” in trig)

One might not agree with it all, but at least the guy is thinking like a man, and not like a sheep.