Random Xpat Rantings

Contemplative dominance for the modern man

The invisible hand of masculinity; not a socialist movement

Posted by xsplat on November 29, 2012

I hear people talk that men should band together co-operatively and overthrow the femtocracy. Although it makes perfect sense and is the intuitive response, I’m not sure that this is either realistic or constructive.

Let’s look at what it is that makes men men. Is it our co-operative nature? Yes, that can be part of it – we work well within organizations, especially hierarchical organizations devoted to a purpose. But one way that we do that is through individual will to personal power. The invisible hand of selfish desire motivates each of us to rise within the organization to our maximum position of power, balanced with our needs for our favorite level of responsibility and free time. The top dogs in our organizations often have an abundance of want for power and responsibility.

So it isn’t our co-operative nature that gives power to men, after all. It is our individual drives. Some of us express that drive as rogue entrepreneurs, who follow no ones rules and the only team we are beholden to are the teams that we create – teams of employees working for us. Some of us are tradesmen – a unit of labor with no one above or below us. And some of us attach our will to organizations, specializing in a small niche of a greater whole, and by symbiosis becoming greater through association.

But it isn’t co-operation that is the core of how men succeed. It is the will to power. To individual power. We use systems not because systems are in and of themselves good. Is IBM good? Is General Foods Good? Is Nasa good? We use systems because being an engineer at Nasa is a high prestige job with good pay that we find fun and challenging and that supports our lifestyle. In the best cases we’ll also be invested in the outcome of what our group does. It’s a feeling of achievement to watch a high tech Tonka truck play around in the sand box of mars, even if we are only an IT guy in the financial department. But that’s not why we took the job.

And so it is with men re-capturing their rightful masculinity socially. It’s not a social affair. You don’t need to send editorial replies to Ms. Magazine. You don’t need see see your masculinity reflected in the popular main stream. You don’t need feminists or females to understand you. You don’t even ultimately need male friendly divorce and child support laws. All you need is the invisible hand. Your own personal will to power. Capitalism works through motivation to the individual, and from there we see group social movements. It’s not top down, it’s bottom up. The masculine imperative is a lonely, personal, individual journey. An individual will to power and freedom and control over ones world.

Each individual adapting in his best way possible is the men’s movement. We don’t have to overthrow anyone or anything.

For instance my personal solution is to create my own income. From that springs individuation from social pressures – there is no HR office watching over my facebook profiles and blogging activities. I don’t marry. I have a passport. I keep my identity and finances as anonymous as possible. My assets and income are portable and protected. I’ve isolated myself from the negative effects of the system I was born into, and yet I can still interact with it to whatever depth and degree that I want. I’m not swimming in the influence of others, I’ve created a bubble of my own intent, and live life as I want to.

If more men, in their own way, manage something similar, then who cares what feministing publishes? Who cares what are the divorce laws if you aren’t even going to marry in the first place? Who cares what child-supplimony laws are if you are snipped, or if you have a passport and a portable income? The system doesn’t even need to be fought. It just needs to be avoided. And for the talented, it can also be subverted and exploited.

There’s your masculine imperative.

And if you are a family man – you still have to adapt. You aren’t going to get a social movement going that provides you with all the right conditions in which to plant your seed. Take responsibility and invent your own conditions. Invent your own personal homestead, or plant seeds widely. A social movement is not going to work, so why bother investing mental energy into creating one? Invest your time and attention towards what you can influence. Your environment, through personal power; and your women, through mesmerism and voodoo and sex and wily charismatic charms.

Identify and break down the problems into manageable parts and come up with solutions that work for you personally. Having children tough what with hoes running off with the pool boy after he wins the lottery? Learn how to create and maintain intense, reverential passion. You want the tax breaks that come with marriage but don’t want to be married? Earn more money. Or find other solutions to the tax man. Any problem has a solution – and it is often the case – no, it is USUALLY the case, that the act of looking for a solution is the creation of a new opportunity.

Now I’ve mentioned before that I believe that there is an instinct among some men to control the groups sexuality, enforcing a socialist distribution of the resource of pussy. That’s a hard coded instinct in a lot of men. If that’s you, then this will be hard news to hear. Forget it. Those instincts are now maladaptive. They don’t work. Do this work by yourself.

About these ads

16 Responses to “The invisible hand of masculinity; not a socialist movement”

  1. Hero said

    Amen brother.

    I really like your solution oriented, self reliant approach.

    I find that when I am preoccupied with how others are not fulfilling my needs that there is something I’m missing in myself. When I switch my mindset to finding that resource within myself it resolves quickly.

  2. Revo Luzione said

    “I’m not swimming in the influence of others, I’ve created a bubble of my own intent, and live life as I want to.”

    This is the money quote from this posting, the mantra that sticks with me. Onward, upwards.

  3. Solomon said

    Sorry but you are completely wrong.

    This is how feminism arose – individual men putting women above their brothers to downgrade other men in quest for power and pussy.

    The mans will to power exists just to satisfy the feminine imperative – the will for the most powerful alfa male. The power is just proxy for pussy. Take pussy away and men would rather entertain themselves by going fishing and playing geeky board-computer games.

    Man need to band together. The mans strength and imperative lies precisely in banding together without stabbing each other in back. When they do stab themselves in back it is always because of women either directly or undirectly. This is different from women who would stab themselves in back without any reason unless they have a powerful masculine authority that tames and unites them.

    Man could stab each other in back and play for power all this long history because the world was not global yet and there were new places to discover and restart. Now there is nowhere to run and men will need either to band together or suffer alone.

    • xsplat said

      The will to power exists to satisfy the feminine imperative? I thought it existed so that a guy could live like Hugh Hefner. Is Hue satisfying the feminine imperative?

      The masculine imperative includes dating as many women as you want, under your own terms. The feminine imperative includes flirting with beta orbiters in order to have a small army of supporters and servants, fucking the bad boys to get pregnant, and duping some chump into supporting her and her bastards for life. It’s about monogamous enslavement of others and personal sexual freedom.

      Please help me envision what your idea of freedom is. Freedom to gain 40 pounds of cheeto-fat and play video games with your fat buddies on your cheeto stained couch? Freedom from any of those nasty social expectations that are synonymous with being attractive? You say “Take pussy away and men would rather entertain themselves by going fishing and playing geeky board-computer games.” and that’s true. Without the need or desire to be attractive, men won’t work to be desirable or attractive. But is that a good thing? The motivation for pussy leads a guy to stay fit; pursue attractive hobbies, such as music; remain socially active; increase his wealth, and on and on. Much of what makes a man attractive to women also makes him admirable to other men. It’s not a complete overlap, to be sure, but there is quite a lot of overlap. Men tend to not value gluttony and sloth any more than women do – but take away the motivation of pussy and you get a lot more of it.

      Without the capitalist motivation to personal power, why are men going to band together? To what ends?

      Women biologically are programmed to view their sex as the in-group. Men are less so. Women tend to fund women’s oriented political and social campaigns, and organize and spend tonnes of time and attention to their causes. Men are never going to match women’s efforts that way. Because men inherently and biologcially tend towards individuation. We are not one big borg.

      So I’m suggesting that reality is to be described accurately, worked with, and adapted to. Never mind what should be – what is realistic and what can you actually do with your time and energy. Why tilt at windmills? Just go around them.

      If your life strategy is to get men to work for some common purpose and not try to compete with each other for pussy, then your life strategy is created in order to fail life. Aint going to happen. We are not disembodied brains – we are a product of evolution, and competition for females is built in, through millions of years of genetic mutations, right into the neuronal fabric of how we think and act. No idealistic movement is going to change that. Do you literally want to fail at life? Then why choose a losing strategy?

      • Solomon said

        You are right in almost everything you wrote above, but the thing is – this strategy worked in past, but will have ever diminishing results from now on. The reason for that is as I have said – that the world has become global. Few people really comprehend the game changing effect this makes. Actually you can see that politicians and economists do not understand how to operate under these rules and the great civilization built on the capitalist race for power slowly crumbles and declines.

        Whenever a man steps over corpses to further his will for power at the expense of others he creates a hostile environment around him – he creates feminism and slavery to oppress other men, he creates wars, broken families, polluted environment e.t.c. Eventually the society and environment becomes hostile to him too, sorry but even powerful men today can be sued for rape by some common waitress and that is rather disgusting and will become even worse.

        Look at what the capitalist capital – America has become. The women are fat and obnoxious. And yes you can sleep with a ton of them. And then there are more conservative societies where women are not that easy, but they are more pleasant at the same time. Basically there is a choice between striving to be a king in hell or being a regular guy in paradise. But you can have only one of these.

        Obviously in an animal society you must strive be the biggest and strongest animal that devours others if you want any success or sometimes just to survive. However this is not how cultures, values and pleasant environments are created. They are created when a group of men gather and unite under some common values that make them collaborate and respect the laws of marriage that is the property rights of other men over women. This means that every man must have a wife under this setup, that basically leads to monogamy, or minimal polygamy if women exceed number of men. However under this setup every women would have to women up and become thin and pleasant in character, because her husband is her lord and no one else.

        And yes Huge Hefner does help female imperative, because female imperative requires alfa fucks even above beta bucks. Every player is vital to female imperative. And if men would just refuse to sleep with women who are not their devoted wives the female imperative would be truly fucked, while men would gain loyalty, be sure of paternity and have many children as helpers not financial drains.

        The alfa who donates sperm and tingles to females helps female imperative just as much as a beta who donates money and time.

        The male imperative is as many children as possible with a sure paternity. Paradox but this is easier to achieve in a stable close-to-monogamous society.

      • xsplat said

        I understand and appreciate your sexual and social strategy here. I just think that it is misguided to believe that men have much influence over each other or women to promote marriage.

        I understand many of the reasons why people would want to – for both social and personal reasons. And I believe I understand the biological underpinnings that make such a motivation a hard wired instinct. And you can’t argue with hard wired instinct.

        I just think that if we look at the situation dispassionately and take in all the facts and organize them as congruently as possible, we’ll see that what really motivates us socially is not shame, nor even social pressures. It is opportunity. And technology has dramatically changed what our opportunities now are. What with anonymous urban living, the service economy, birth control, the internet, and ease of travel, our sexual opportunities have far different rewards and consequences than in the past, and that affects our motivations and decisions.

        It’s not effective to try to alter the communities sexual mores socially. Even if there is good reason and good instinct to wanting to try.

      • Solomon said

        You are also right that woman have the upper hand by having a more developed in-group mentality then men. This is a biological reality. And the fact is that monogamous societies that benefited men have existed mainly under religious values that superimposed spiritual values over biological realities. Yes maybe God is imagined, but if so then females are the superior race. Basically this is the conclusion the world has come to since rejecting God. That females are the superior sex and the more secular the society the more you see this female superiority promoted.

        So you can choose whatever you want to believe. Either you do believe that there is a God as silly as it may sound to you or you logically conclude that female imperative the highest force. Maybe its worth subscribing to irrational beliefs if they help you more then the biological reality.

      • xsplat said

        Women are born with the upper hand. They have the higher value of their womb, and are the sexual choosers, and they use this value to extract maximum benefit.

        That’s not the end of the story. Over time the experienced man learns to gain the upper hand over women. He can turn the tables.

        But that’s on an individual level. It doesn’t happen to the whole group of men. Most men aren’t going to do that.

        On an individual level, a capable man can learn to have hand over women, even though the default condition is for women to have hand over men.

        I contend that the tools of becoming a man with hand over women are the social revolution that you yearn for. A bottom up revolution taken individually. It is in the spirit of capitalism and masculine individualism more than in the spirit of socialism and feminine in-group co-operation. That very individualistic spirit, that seems to be our weakness and led you to even call men inferior, is in fact our greatest strength.

  4. Solomon said

    Yes opportunity is a powerful force indeed, it was used to be called temptation too.
    The only way how humans can and possibly even only way they should resist opportunity is by clearly seeing a cause and effect chain that shows that by taking an egocentric opportunity now, that will create a negative impact on the whole society and create harm to every individual in it including him.

    This will happen now when the world has become global. You see in past you could shit in one place and then move to a clean place where no human has ever set his foot. Now this becomes less so with every minute. The world tightens. Surveillance is everywhere. Feminism spreads to all corners of the world. Every piece of land has an owner. The humans will either have to overcome their innate biological egoism or the life will turn into shit for everyone.

    • xsplat said

      So you are saying that idealism is futile, but if only everyone would agree with you to become idealistic, then we could all work together and find a lasting heaven on earth?

      It is not going to happen. It isn’t. It just isn’t. Let it sink in until you accept it. It. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.

      Now what?

      • Solomon said

        You know I took a break to do some things, but thought about my response to you. I made many large arguments, but decided to withhold them, because I remembered that men have little hamsters too.

        Its not that it’s not going to happen. It’s that you don’t want it to happen.

      • xsplat said

        Some people hold a pre-rational worldview, where their beliefs and prayers directly affect reality. Don’t believe the wrong thing, or the world will turn out wrong! If you believe the right thing, the world will turn out that way!

        I’m not sure if you understand the difference between holding accurate views of reality and utopian views. You seem to imply that holding a utopian ideal is some sort of pragmatic social activism.

        What is it that you believe is going to happen, and how are you playing your part to make that happen?

  5. asdf said

    What your talking about isn’t new. It’s nihilism. The belief that nothing really matters. That the purpose of life, to the extent one even exists, is to maximize the amount of dopamine your brain releases over the course of your lifetime. Then when you life ends there is simply the void.

    The reason people can’t accept that is because it doesn’t exist. Nihilism isn’t true. That is why people won’t accept your premises. You believe you are stating reality, but people don’t agree with your nihilistic reality.

    There was a movie awhile back called “Children of Men”. In it humanity loses the ability to have children. The movie opens with the youngest person alive, somewhere in his 20s, being killed. People all across the world weep, knowing that the end of man is coming soon.

    According to your philosophy why should they? I mean who cares about the posterity of mankind, it doesn’t effect you. You can still maximize your fun. In fact some in the movie do so. However, its an intensely sad society. Hope is gone. It becomes incredibly dysfunctional. There is something wrong about it, something more then the maximization of dopamine.

    Your philosophy goes beyond just relations with women. Its the entire me first philosophy. It’s the same attitude I encountered on wall street when I watched people wreck the entire world economy for personal greed. It’s sin, pride, narcissism, nihilism. And its a philosophy that doesn’t scale. If everyone tried to live the way you do then your life would collapse. It implicitly relies on the idea that lots of people don’t start acting like you. That lots of people allow you to be a parasite on them. Being able to function as an “independent” person precisely because of the institutions and conditions civilized society has built.

    People implicitly understand there are greater existential values then dopamine release. My own ancestors fought for Irish independence. They didn’t expect this would help maximize dopamine. They made sacrifices for their people’s freedom because it was morally righteous. My grandfather organized unions in the industrial era to get workers basic rights. He fought strike breakers. He had the ability and opportunity to do for himself, but instead he sacrificed for others. He believed that to do so was morally right, that it had existential meaning that no amount of dopamine can match. There is a difference between happiness and meaning. A qualitative difference no nihilist can understand.

    • xsplat said

      It doesn’t seem to me like you”ve read that deeply into my philosophies here. I’m not sure why you’d call me a nihilist, unless you assume that anyone who isn’t focused on children and a monogamous family unit is therefore a nihilist.

      Also, what’s with the “parasite” epithet? You come across as a radical fundamentalist. You don’t even know what my job is. For all you know I save lives every day. I have to read between the lines what you might mean, and again it seems to come down to some us vs them mentality of anyone who is not a married and monogamous family man is all around evil. Nihilistic society destroying parasites! Selfish narcissists!

      I’m glad I don’t live in your mental world.

      I bet you’d love to see a bachelor tax, wouldn’t you?

  6. xsplat said

    And ASDF, you’ve kind of side-stepped what my whole point was. I’m not telling anyone to avoid marriage nor am I denying that some men find purpose and meaning in having kids. Go for it, if that’s what works for you.

    I’m talking here about the likelyhood of convincing other men to follow the same path.

    I understand that for you it’s important to feel a part in a greater whole, and without that life lacks meaning. I personally believe that it’s a failure of imagination and the resulting arrogance of solipsism that fails to see that other people might find meaning and satisfaction outside of family life. I don’t think it does you or your argument any favors to casually toss around the term nihilist at those who have lifestyles that you don’t want to emulate.

    But whethere your favorite lifestyle is the best or not has nothing to do with what I’m saying in this post. I’m saying that men and women are barely affected by the shaming tactics such as you are using here. Do you expect me to change my lifestyle because of your comment? Has anyone ever emailed you and said “wow, thank so much, you changed my worldview, and now I’m going to think about settling down and having kids and getting married?”

    We can debate it, and I could be wrong – but if we are going to debate something it would be good to at least agree on what we are debating. All I’m saying here is that the effort to get men and women who we are not intimately involved with to conform to social and sexual standards is futile. I’m not making any comment on the value and validity of those standards. I’m just saying making that effort is a useless waste of time.

    And at the very least, it won’t give the individual the hand he needs in his relationships. That will only come from individual effort.

    I’ll drop this quote from Iknowexactly from the RooshVForum here:

    As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, everyone has different proclivity for pair-bonding and it’s important to know your own level, so slobs can find sluts and “betas” like me can find good girls.

    Where people go wrong is assuming their own view is the only one.

    For instance, some players think no one can be happy in a 1:1 relationship, and some betas think sluts and slobs are monsters.

    Back, back, back to the wisdom of the ancient oracle: Know thyself.

    Also, you often talk about dopamine. Some of us are more about the oxytocin. You strike me as more of axytocin kind of a guy. People get oxytocin rushes when they watch close family members get married, or when they perform charity, or when they are with their closest loved ones – be they grandchildren or fresh young lovers.

    I think you’ll find you understand what other people are saying with greater comprehension if you allow that your view is not the only possibility – not all of us can find life satisfaction in the way that works best for you. Some of us would be absolutely misearable working towards what you consider is a “greater good”.

    People have varied socio-sexual scores, and you can’t argue people out of one tendency towards another. The human condition is a condition of castes, and no matter how much you value the family man caste, evolution says that all niches will be filled, as nature abhors a vacuum.

    And again – back to my main point. REGARDLESS of the value of your favored caste, it NO LONGER works to have it as the male strategy to lets-all-band-together-and-promote-lifetime-monogamy-where-the-girls-marry-young. It is not working now, and is not going to start working in the future.

    Describing reality as it is a whole different game than talking about what would be a nice thing to aim for. If the aim is unrealistic, then all the talk of utopia is just a sidetrack from enjoying this real reality the best we can.

    And if you are getting in the way of enjoying this real reality, you are diminishing the quality of life for yourself and others. Which is the opposite of what you are trying to accomplish.

    • J.M. said

      It was an interesting discussion, a pity I got late. Unlike many of you, I think that the default state is the dominance of men in the house as well as in the outer world. Otherwise nothing great can be achieved. And I think we are witnessing the results of women dominance, in the home as well as in the outer world (stagnation, decline). This male dominance concept must have been realized by our ancestors thousands of years ago and most likely is one of the pillars of many monotheistic religions, amongst other things was the establishment of a society that could channel all of its men efforts and guaranteeing tangible rewards (a virgin bride who can at least assure the first born not to be a bastard) etc. as well as a greater social status for all men over women, thus satisfying hypergamous women.

      In this regard I have to agree with asdf, whether the patriarchal religions of yore are a lie, they have been the greatest and most useful tool in order to keep dominance. It’s a pity the knowledge of our ancestors was not passed from generation and generation and this disconnect allowed feminine imperative to worm its way into society again (from the bastardization of chivalry to the appearance of female rights advocates and the terminal idiocy to grant the vote for them).Based on all of this it’s almost as if the ancient men knew that women had to be controlled, even if violence required, otherwise they could kiss goodbye to their people and rights. And guess what, they were right.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 135 other followers

%d bloggers like this: