15 February 2010

Getting Started on Taking Action

The powers that be have decided that I have gotten a little too personal on the main magazine here of late, and for that I apologize. The only reason I did that is because I now have a grand, long range vision. But I forgot to explain all the important steps along the way.

I wanted to make you all Generals, but I didn't take you through basic training or give you the ability OR opportunity to win battles and campaigns and all that - as I have done. For that I apologize. I got excited and went "too fast." So, I'll slow it down.

This post is for people who want to take action and who want to do something about the problems that are afflicting them in their daily lives - the problems we're all very familiar with. I am going to give you the basic building blocks in this post, and we will combine them in a way which will make sense. In future posts, I will give you tactics to be individually successful. After that, we can talk about groups.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. First, we need to focus on individuals. Consider this "basic training" if you must. The war metaphor is apt but do not take it literally - remember, brothers, this is a completely non-violent approach.

The most important thing you need for this process to work, the fundamental building block, is belief that you can actually do something about any problems you perceive are bothering you - belief in yourself. If you do not have this belief, then everything else I say is going to be meaningless. I have laid out a path for you to acquire this belief. If you already have it, then read on, otherwise, I recommend you go back to these posts and try again. If you do not believe that anything can be done and you're banging your head against my previous posts, then just ignore me from here on out. I probably won't be writing the kinds of articles you would like to read.
  • Control your rage
  • Mitigate your despair
  • Release yourself from the burdens you bear (namely, your rage and despair)
  • Transcend so that you can learn from your past and take action for your future

  • The above process took me 5 years, so it could take you a while. Then again, I had to figure out how to do it on myself - nobody dropped out of the sky (or into my internet machine) to say "hey there you! Do this and it'll work!" Your results may vary.

    Okay, so you have your belief, right? Good. That forms our base. Next, you need a willingness to act on that belief. That should be simple enough - if you believe enough, then the willingness to act will come naturally. You'll gain more confidence to act as you build a record of success in your actions. It will help if you perceive what you might call "losses" as "lessons," as well. After all, what do you really have to "lose" by trying to talk to other people and convince them that they should stop thinking poorly?

    I know what you're going to say. But J. Durden - they can take this and that away from me, because I can be accused of harrassment and rape and all of that! Very true, brother. This is why you have to be careful. Follow my guidance and I'll teach you how to be careful. I suppose you'll just have to trust me on this point, but for right now, focus on believing in yourself.

    So we have two fundamental elements. We need a third element before we can really have anything substantial. That third element is proficiency with human communication skills. This may sound daunting, because there are many different skills to build in the human communication skill set. I want to build confidence so here's what I suggest, if you are apprehensive about your skill set - start mastering the communication method you are most comfortable in. Some people prefer face-to-face as opposed to internet-based; some prefer just the opposite. Don't let anyone tell you which is "best," because what is best in theory isn't best for you.

    Stick to your guns!

    If you think I'm "selling" you a load of bull - consider this. I'm not asking for your money, am I? Nor am I requiring you to do any of the things I suggest you do - I'm freely offering my helpful and experienced advice. It is up to you whether or not you want to believe in it, enough to give it a shot anyway. You don't have to buy my book on "The Game" to start bridging that gap between the genders and to get what you really want - speaking of which, I should write a post on that later.

    In my next post, we'll be putting all these pieces together. Until next time, brothers!

    14 February 2010

    Pithy Observations From an Insignificant Nobody - A Psychedelic Cyberspace Adventure (Now With Hyperlinks!!)

    Greetings all,

    Today I'm bringing you a bit of a "cheap" post. I hope you won't feel too cheated by my approach. I feel like I've been making some good analogies, arguments and observations in various places and I thought I'd collect them all here for your digestion. There may even be a hidden order in the way that I present them! I'll be more or less reproducing them in whole (while adding some applicable additional hyperlinks), while tracing back to the original post. Format for the arguments will be as follows:

    Pompous Title; Originating Web Site


    1. Inevitability is a Logical Fallacy; In Mala Fide

    Just because something is unlikely does not mean it is, strictly speaking, impossible. Inevitability is a useful concept to help people understand complicated phenomenon and accept extremely high probabilities, but it, like most other human concepts, doesn’t exist in nature. As we advance our knowledge of the world, our hard and fast conceptions – long thought to be impervious to cracking – are showing their age. Just take a look at what quantum mechanics [CYBERSPACE EDIT: and how long will it be until quantum mechanics is replaced by a new "absolute truth" system?] tells us – observing experiments fundamentally alters the outcome. What kind of “laws of nature” can we truly believe in as a result of this finding?

    That being said, we cannot say “MRAs succeeding is an impossibility” merely because we perceive the odds of its success to asymptotically approach zero. Have we even proven the odds of success asymptotically approach zero, for instance? And by what metrics and what standards of evidence? Are there any biases present in those metrics and systems of evaluation? As we are now finding out, systems of idolatry centered around the "infallible" powers of mathematics are capable of spectacular catastrophe and spectacular success in relatively equal amounts (if not necessarily probabilities).

    Believe what you want, but I would caution you – and everyone else – to not adopt a system of belief centered on too many absolutes. Adaptability has always been recognized as a key to survival – why not be adaptable in our thinking and believing, as well? [CYBERSPACE EDIT: This is not an advocacy of "anything goes." Just to be clear.]

    2. Study Under Many Masters Until You Are The Master (of Yourself); The Spearhead

    In response to this, I offer:

    Unfortunately I don’t have the time to analyze for more strategies/tactics. I have plenty to offer already to those who have none, but no time to devote to acquiring more. Mine are finely honed as well and you could say I have yet to be defeated.

    No harm in studying under several masters – synthesizing is an excellent skill to employ and true mastery comes from selecting/perfecting a technique that is perfect to your own sensibilities; not endlessly trying to mirror another’s.

    3. The Man in the Burning House Analogy, or, Why Exiling Women May Be Poor Long-Range Thinking; tooting my own horn yet again on The Spearhead

    In response to Connie Chastain, who said this:

    I’m a woman and I’m an ally. I’m a boomer and I’ve been opposed to feminism since I first became aware of it in the late 1960s. I was opposed to it years before I ever knew of the MRM. If you don’t like the idea of allies who are women, maybe you’ll feel more comfortable thinking of antifeminist women as the enemy of your enemy…. In any case, I don’t foresee ever moderating my opposition to feminism.

    Connie, I just wanted to be sure to pick this out and promote it. As I’ve outlined elsewhere, feminism is an idea, not a person or group of people. Anyone can be a feminist, regardless of biological sex, “race,” age, or any other discriminating factor you can think of. Therefore, we cannot expect to defeat feminism with ineffective tactics like blocking off all women.

    I don’t think many here are ready to think about it or really hear this message, but feminism isn’t even, necessarily, the root cause. If humanity were a man, this is the situation that man finds himself in:

    Someone has broken into his home, stolen his most valuable possession (a possession of incalculable value, primarily due to sentimental value), grievously wounded his family, lit his house on fire and left him bleeding out on the floor from a gut stab. Furthermore, that man has lost his phone and the nearest medical aid is several minutes away – rather significant in this sort of situation.

    What problem do you tackle first? In what order do you undo the wrongs? What things do you allow to decay? You can’t sit around and think about this sort of thing forever – or the house will burn down, your family will die from their injuries, and you yourself will perish by bleeding out.

    Feminism, in this analogy, is only one of the things we have to worry about.

    4. The Root Cause; The Lady's Lair

    The root factor in nearly all human difficulties seems to be tied to language facilities; specifically, language ideologies have had a major and largely unnoticed impact. Ever get the sense that you’re talking to a wall when you should be talking to another human being? That’s probably the work of a language ideology – either one that you hold, or one that the person you’re talking to holds. If you both have the same language ideology, then there’s no problem, and in fact, efficient ability to communicate is increased. Competing language ideologies, however, absolutely destroy the ability to communicate. One step to eliminate this is to agree to speak the same language – whatever form that language may take. If you can’t agree on the language, then there’s no point in talking!

    Here are some communication fundamentals a lot of people don’t think about.

    5. Equality That Makes Sense, Not Same; self-promoting on The Spearhead

    In reply to this:

    Women are equal, but they’re not the same. It’s a slight distinction, but a powerful one.

    This is the kind of thinking that got us to our present situation. It is far better to simply state that men and women are not the same, or to add a caveat that women are perhaps of “equal worth” or worthy of “equal consideration.” Stating that they are simply equal to men implies that there are no significant differences, and, furthermore, through repeated use (see also language ideologies) erases important and meaningful differences from public consciousness.

    Honorable mention goes to Stark, who probably said the above in a much more concise way: Worthy of treatment as equals – not equal treatment.

    6. The Public Credentialing System (With/As An Assist From/To Anti-feminist Tech); more shameless self promotion from The Spearhead

    Anti-feminist tech wrote:

    Since we know that they didn’t receive an education, a new word is needed to describe the process of going to school, receiving a degree without gaining any real knowledge or education. I propose, credentialation.

    Clearly, great minds think alike. I have been proposing the same exact idea – and even terms! – in my private life. I encourage everyone to consider this model for understanding the public education system (from hereafter, the public credentialing system) and apply it to your everyday life. The worst thing that could happen by adopting this new phrase ("the public credentialing system") is that people won’t know what you’re talking about – but that’s already happening anyway. The best thing that could happen is you open a new channel of communication and thus break new ground for reaching understanding with other people. Most likely, they will ask you to explain what you mean. If you go about explaining carefully and respectfully enough, you may even persuade them to adopt the term themselves!

    Consider this another set of marching orders if you must; it is certainly a good idea.

    7. Promoting Justice With/As An Assist To/From False Rape Society; piggybacking off of Zed at The Spearhead

    I think we should reject legal institutions that tolerate even one innocent man going punished – even if that means ten guilty men walk free. Mustn't this be the case, brother?

    8. I'll Believe In Spirituality The Same Way I Believe In Gravity; fighting illogic with logic in The Lady's Lair

    Lady Snow disagrees with The Root Cause (see point 4):

    I think the “root” goes deeper than that. I think at the root of all of this is a SPIRITUAL dysfunction.

    Hey, if you can tell me about a way I can reliably and independently verify spiritual phenomenon much in the same way you can reliably and independently verify scientific phenomenon (need to know if gravity is still working? Grab something and then let it go. Did the object you were holding appear to accelerate towards the center of the earth? If so, congratulations – you just helped build evidence for the theory of gravity!), I’ll be happy to help you prove your theory.

    Until then, however, I’ll remain skeptical.

    9. Meet The New Boss, Same As The Old Boss; inciting criticism and ruining my reputation at The Spearhead

    Crella -

    I feel bad for women like you, because you get it from both sides. You take flak from women for disagreeing with feminism and then you take flak from very angry men for merely being a woman. I'm hoping to change the perceptions and get things more balanced, but ultimately I am one man, and what I say may have very little impact.

    One of the worst things that could happen is we end up replacing the language ideology which idolizes female superiority despite clear scientific evidence with one that idolizes male superiority despite good common sense (and perhaps some more of that clear scientific evidence). Another way of saying this is "meet the new boss; same as the old boss."

    10. The Revolution Will Be Synthesized And All You Have to Do Is Divide By Zero; No Really, I'm Not Kidding (or am I?)

    The Organization of "God"

    Not sure how/if this will be on the Spearhead, so I've unlocked comments.

    First off, Happy Valentine's Day 2010, everyone.

    It is pointless for me to try and assume credit for this idea, because, logically speaking, credit for it will be irrelevant if it actually works. However, if you must know, I feel confident enough in this idea that I will reveal to you all my "secret identity." Some of you may find it ironic (or perhaps not so ironic) that I was once a Baptist, but I do not consider myself personally religious these days. Nevertheless, stories help people understand concepts, hence, the biblical allegories. Adopt this system and it will literally resolve almost any logomachy non-violently. If you accept the premises, you must accept my conclusion.

    Whether or not you want to understand this idea is up to you, whether or not you understand why this is the case. Keep that in mind.

    This "ideology" is non-competitive with other ideologies in the sense that it is designed to persuade, if the possibility of persuasion exists. If not, it seeks to distance itself as far as possible from sources of conflict. Period. It can tolerate multiple copies of itself (ie, a "Christian" grouping, a "Muslim" grouping, and a "Jewish" grouping - different flavors of the same truth) without trying to destroy itself.

    Don't call me John the Baptist just yet. And please. Do not freak out looking for Jesus. "John the Baptist" and "Jesus" are, after all, just "ideas" we use to help us structure our reality - specifically, the part of our reality that understands how societies are made. I believe I have realistically wedded belief with science and the result is mind-expanding.

    Let me get right down to it. When it comes to understanding this post, there are three basic guidelines I'd remind you of:

    1) You must not get lost in the details. If you do not believe in the system, it will not work for you. Period. Belief is like fuel for the engine, here. In other words, you must submit to the system in order for the system to protect you. "God's Plan."

    2) Trust the system, and it will trust you. "Free will."

    3) Belief is synergistic. "Love one another."

    This is a process, which means it occurs in a sequence. You might say, you have to start at Alpha, in order to get to your perfect Omega. In other words, you must be at 0. The good news is, dividing by zero is a valid way to arrive at zero from any input instantaneously. Try it out for yourself if you are not yet at zero.

    If you believe that you are part of the "war" - you will be part of the "war."

    Genesis: In The Beginning, God Made Adam

    When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens - and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

    Start at step 0, and go from there.

    A, B, and C obviously represent the three core ideals which would make the theoretically-ideal human. I could tell you what I think the ideals would be, but the whole point of the system is that, given a long enough time frame - it will guarantee the "ideal" traits work themselves out, so it's irrelevant to speculate as to what these traits might end up being. If you do not have enough of any one of these traits, you do not have enough "tools" to begin building "the form." Here's the kicker - all you need is the bare minimum to get started, and then you can start unlocking your P value, or, your maximum potential. Belief provides fuel for this engine. But you don't have to believe me - you just have to believe yourself.

    Here's one advantage to this conceptualization - any group could define these values as they would like to, for the purposes of that group. For example, a nation may say that an ideal citizen would have "respect for life" (A), "respect for liberty" (B), and "respect for the pursuit of happiness" (C). A military force, such as the Marine Corps, may define those values as Honor (A), Courage (B) and Commitment (C). If I were to make my own group (call it the Transcendentalists), I would define A as "human communication skills," B as "belief in oneself" and C as "willingness to act on that belief."

    But now we're starting to break my first guideline - getting lost in the details - because in theory, there exists the literal "perfect" person who can thrive in any context (or group, or nation, or job, or organization...). This does not mean that every person can be the perfect person, but any person may in fact be the perfect person (though the odds of any one person being perfect are, obviously, quite low).

    But Adam Needed Help

    So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man."

    The ideal grouping for most humans is probably the "nuclear" family - man, woman, and child. I am not advocating that this grouping be structured in any specific way - I am merely saying it is important. Certainly people will take this idea and do stupid things - treating either the man or the woman as subhuman, neglecting the child and all the other "evils" humans are capable of - but just because the premises of an argument form are false (the contents of the family are jacked up), that does not refute the validity of the form (the structure of the family is still valid).

    Try as hard as you might, but it is an (un)fortunate probability of human existence that at some point, you will have to deal with other people. However, it is known that if you find people "like yourself," your odds of getting along are increased. This logical model shows the best way to be compatible with people - be of the same "form" if not necessarily the same "contents." This is like a logical syllogism, where any argument you make using the 8 valid forms is "valid" even if the premises that make up the argument are false - so long as the form is correct, the contents are irrelevant. (Of course, a "sound" argument is both valid and "true," but that's neither here nor there.) And how better to "combine" than to attempt to combine into a form that is representative of all the individuals yet greater than any of them?

    Even though we are now dealing with a group, the concept is the exact same as above - a group can be formed for any number of purposes and be placed into any number of contexts, and in theory, there is the perfect group that can adapt and thrive in any situation. For example, in the Marine Corps, a unit may be formed to serve an Air Wing mission, an Infantry mission, or a Maintenance mission - but there may also be an ideal group structure that could adapt to any of those missions and thrive. A group is not limited to being composed of only three members, but a group cannot be formed (ideally) without three members - and it is entirely possible to have less than ideal group structures (where the total group does not retain the outline of a triangle, or worse still, where you take two triangles to make one shape, an instance of more is less! 1 + 1 = 1).

    The ability to be a "triangle" or ideal form is not determined by such silly factors as race, biological sex, age, or any other external factor. It comes from within.

    What Happens When We Believe In "The Plan"

    For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope... "I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will guide you with My eye..." A man’s heart plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps.

    This idea is unstoppable if you are a logical person. Spreading it, however, will take work and expertise. Some people will be more capable of others than spreading it, but ultimately that is irrelevant. It will spread - I have already "spread" it to many more people than I would have thought possible, in my private life. Each new person I spread it to makes me believe in the idea more and increases my efficiency in spreading it. Belief is synergistic and contagious.

    I have developed several conceptual models of how to spread this idea, which I will now share with you.

    This is what true, solo "Game" looks like at its most basic, functional components. You have a person who believes in an idea, and that person may be alone, "against a group." But so long as the group has the ability to believe in the idea, using proper technique, it will be possible to convince them of the validity of the idea. Through effective technique, those people will be convinced. The stronger the triangle's belief in his or herself in this context, the larger the halo effect of their belief (modeled by red circle), which is in competition with the combined "halo of belief" of the "opposition." I have modeled someone strong in belief and with good technique, and we can see that three people are at disadvantage against one "true believer." It is, however, possible that you will encounter opposition that refuses to budge in their beliefs, for whatever reason. For all effective purposes, they are incapable of believing in triangle. What to do? Here's the model:

    I made the belief dominance even more obvious in this picture. Here the believer isolates those who can never agree, and engages in one way communication - after all, being "heard" is a privilege, and not a right, furthermore, if you cannot speak the same language (agree on important terms, such as "rape," "marriage," "patriarchy" to name a few) then why bother angering yourself or the other person? Respond as you must to be civil and respectful, but that's about it. Focus on those who you can help, and help them.

    What happens when you "roll three deep in the club," or otherwise go out with your friends and encounter a group of people that may need some convincing? Here's what happens:

    This is even easier than going it alone. After all, the group of believers has the advantage of numbers (1 + 1 + 1 = 5 versus 1 + 1 + 1 = 1. Don't believe me yet? Then you may never. Which is fine! You don't have to believe me.). The tactics are fundamentally the same as when going it alone, though obviously the details will change. But remember the first guideline? You can't get lost in the details. If you understand the concept, the details will handle themselves for you. What happens when you are out-gunned? See below.

    Same tactics apply in the individual setting. Here we have a group strength of five (1 + 1 + 1 = 5) against a combined group strength of three. Here's how three well organized, true "believers" can out gun 17 ineffectually organized non-believers, using math:
    • (1 + 1 + 1 = 5)
    • vs.
    • (1 + 1 + 1 = 1) + (1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 1) + (1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 1) = 3
    • Because 5 > 3, 5 wins.
    This is the power of organizational efficiency fueled by belief. Three "good triangles" can handily and nonviolently deal with seventeen "good (any shape except a triangle)." Do you believe yet?

    The New Face of "Warfare," What Massive Nonviolent Conflict Resolution "Looks Like;" Do You Believe?

    This is what "war" will look like. This is a model for "evolution" too. More on that in a second, actually. In any case, the best part of this is that violence is absolutely unnecessary for this to succeed, except in self-defense. Ideally, we would hope our opposition would not seek violent action against us, but we must be prepared for that grim alternative. This is an idea for which I can live and die - is it an idea for which you can live and die, too?

    And don't worry, brothers (and sisters). Even if I (or anyone else who believes!) should die, the idea will live on:


    I have the details. But it would be a waste of my time to talk about them if you do not believe in the idea. There is no question that this idea works - the only question is how fast it will work and whether you will be a triangle or whether you will be any other shape of your choosing. You do not have to be a triangle, you do not have to play my "game." But I am fairly convinced that my game will be a lot more fun to play (result in synergized happiness and contentment) than any other game. Of course, shitty games come out every day, and people still buy them. And nobody cares about my opinion when it comes to games.

    The only question at this point that truly matters is - do you believe? If you do, just leave a simple comment... "I believe."

    If you are having trouble believing, you may not be at step zero. If that is the case, I have three simple suggestions for you to be able to get to step zero:

    1) Transcend your personal problems. Follow the conceptual process of rage, despair, release, and transcendence when it comes to doing this.

    2) Transcend your organizational (family, job, nation, etc) problems. Follow the conceptual process of rage, despair, release, and transcendence when it comes to doing this.

    3) Figure out how to divide by zero.

    After that, make your own choice - one of those choices could be to believe. I suggest you try it, but remember, you don't have to. Just don't force your beliefs on me. Thanks! Here's what I think the world looks like, by the way:

    12 February 2010

    I just divided by zero.

    This means I may have to stop blogging.

    Maybe not.

    We'll see what happens - the universe still appears to be here!

    10 February 2010

    ATTENTION EVERYONE: JJDURDEN is just here for the traffic, and because he writes he is a rapist.

    Just noticed the comment below in the thread I outlined in this post:

    ATTENTION EVERYONE! JJ DURDEN is just here for blog hits and he writes for The Spearhead (so he’s a rapist and abuser too).

    His blog is a failing shit hole of misogyny and now he has dedicated a post to JUST my comments section here and apparently my many “big lies” and my lack in “intellect”!

    LOL….god he wishes he were in my intellectual league for even one day.

    So, anyway….he’s trolling to get blog info for himself and for the psychos at The Spearhead.

    What? Did they run out of murdered females and abused wives to celebrate?

    Ugh, they are the most low-class humans ALIVE.

    That's right, folks. An attempt to engage a fellow human being in intelligent conversation is, apparently, a lowly attempt to self-promote and gain traffic on a blog I could care less about. Furthermore, writing for the Spearhead automatically makes a person a rapist and an abuser. I remember in "the good old days" when you had to actually have sex with someone to be a rapist - thank goodness the modern era is much more convenient and allows virgins like myself the privilege of raping and abusing people by encoding binary data over an ethernet cable for the digestion of the internet audience!

    I don't remember celebrating any murdered females or abused wives here or at The Spearhead - can anybody quote a post where I did that to jog my memory? If so, I'll gladly turn myself into the brig authorities and serve some jail time.

    At least she said one thing that was factual - men currently ARE the most low-class humans alive. This is an injustice and inequality I hope to help fix!

    As always LR, thanks for the entertainment (mostly through your ad hominems).

    09 February 2010

    For Your Amusement indeed

    Lady Raine has a blog post entitled "For Your Amusement" which is basically a misandrist dig at The Spearhead (which I now write for). I didn't read the entire comment thread because I couldn't be bothered, but I picked up on one of her most recent comments and tried to engage her in intelligent discussion. She demonstrated her true colors immediately. Therefore, I submit my comment (and all the comments that follow, obviously) "for your amusement."

    Here's a fun game to play while following the thread - keep track of all the logical fallacies LR commits, with special attention paid to ad hominems! Aren't we all so glad we decided to let women run the nation?