The Problem Is Us, Not Them

What are your complaints?  Instability of marriage?  Poor quality women?  Can't find a girlfriend?  Lack of trustworthy friends?  Mainstream Culture?  Quality of life?

Who do you blame?  Feminists?  Liberals?  Politicians?  The masses?

Co-alpha males succeed by cooperating.  When we fail to cooperate, we do not succeed.  All of the complaints listed above could be solved by a small group of cooperating co-alphas.  Cooperation doesn't mean chatting on the internet.  Cooperation means living in the same place and working together to solve the problems that we complain about.

There is nothing to stop co-alpha males from cooperating.  None of the blame candidates listed above would stop us.  The only thing stopping us is ourselves.  We have no one else to blame.

What I have written here would not appeal to the MRAs and MGTOW.  These men aren't interested in solutions.  They only want to complain.

The question is, how many men are there who want to solve the problems and are willing to cooperate to do so?  The problem is that the return for the effort is proportional to the number of other men already cooperating.  In other words, the first few men who get together to cooperate will get very little return for a lot of effort.  But this sacrifice is the only way to get things started.

Truth be told,  

I do believe some people are innately more trustworthy and given to honesty and less likely to screw over their friends than others (so I guess, more 'Coalpha') - but truth be told I dont know if this is enough. The divisions are (too?) deep.

fschmidt wrote

I personally would like to know if this cooperation is likely to happen.  If there are some who are really committed to moving together, then I would support this.  But if there aren't, then I would rather just focus on my own life, like all the other selfish members of mainstream society.

As I said the divisions are deep. Personally, if I remain in the west, I wouldnt mind moving anywhere within it. But thats not decided for now.

I've always admired your self-criticism fschmidt, even when I qualify as the subject of criticism directly or indirectly. If it wasn't for your sense of urgency and directness, I'd never of signed on.

That said, let's wake up to reality. Idealism is the last thing on my checklist when it comes to living anywhere. My first priority is a roof over my head and a stable financial circumstance. I'm not willing to live in poverty for pure idealism. I think it's asking a lot to put idealism before basic necessities. Having a job and a house to live in is more important to me than living close to people I agree with. Money is my only obstacle. I may be able to overcome this obstacle in the future, I may not, I don't know.

Other CoAlpha communities like Orthdox Jews, Amish, Hutterites, have it easier. They either live communally or have a robust job network. This is why they survive.

It takes a rare individual indeed willing to cooperate and be self-sacrificial on the level that something like the CoAlpha Brotherhood requires to get rolling.

I, too, have been frustrated for a long time with the MRA/MGTOW/MRM culture and their lack of initiative. Indeed, they are beginning to mirror the feminist culture they've come so much to hate - increasingly closed-minded echo chambers steadily more intolerant of any constructive criticism.

When it comes to getting something done, I think we would need a specific plan with some sort of end goal, belief in that plan from all members contributing towards it, and direct action towards that plan from all members contributing towards it. So far as I can tell we don't have much of any of these things - we have a mission statement, but that's not really a plan. We've tossed out a few tentative ideas (dating service, group for boys) but haven't developed them too much.

This could be because we are waiting for membership to grow so we can identify people who can contribute. But I think that even with 3 solid and committed men, we could start something.

I think the best first step is just to organize a meeting where we can discuss these things in person.  Do you agree?

I definitely think a face to face CoAlpha meeting would be helpful. When and where do you propose such a meeting? I'll be in Boston from March 8th to March 14th and my cash flow may be a bit strapped for a few months after that, as I'll be moving into and furnishing a new apartment.

I think San Diego is a good place to meet, so it's up to you to schedule this when you are ready.  I don't think you need cash for the meeting.

Bump.  I wrote this over 3 years ago.  What has changed?  Only that I realize that religion is the only solution.  Religion means that the following is not true:

fschmidt wrote

Cooperation doesn't mean chatting on the internet.  Cooperation means living in the same place and working together to solve the problems that we complain about.

With religion, one can cooperate through the internet, so moving to the same place, while desirable, isn't required.

This is a bit of a change of heart as the whole forum has the general theme of developing a breakaway culture. I know that you are religious but the reality here is that Science is really supporting our beliefs. So where feminists believe in equality (at least one section of them), Science disagrees and show evidence for differences. Where the brain is wired differently for males and females, that science supports gender roles. Where you have gender roles there is the probability of superiority and science will eventually show that.

You have said that a new religion would be difficult to develop. I would like to suggest that you adopt Science as your religion. Firstly it supports our views directly with factual evidence. Secondly this means that followers do not need to have belief, just data. Thirdly it avoids all criticism and political hostility. You could then apply Science in religious ways for example with a credo much like the creed of the apostles. That's difficult to construct as it can't be merely invented but here's what I mean:


The Creed of the Male.

1. We take Science to be our religion.
2. We believe Science when it tells us that males and females are not the same.
3. All men must be united against females who intrude into male areas.
4. All females must accept gender and gender roles as indicated by Science.
5.   -
6.   -
7.   -
8.   -
9.   -
10. -
11. -
12. -

Obviously rewrite as you choose, in vague language that everybody (every male in the world) can accept. Then in applying this the believer would pursue the aspects of belief in a scientific way. Females in mens roles would encounter men who would politely point out to them that they are doing a mans job and should consider doing something else instead. After 20 or 30 such suggestions they would get the message.

The consequence is that the male would be described as being a 'male chauvinistic pig' (some one who believes that men are superior to women) but in my experience such men are well liked by women and the outcome would mostly likely be positive. If the creed could be skilfully written it could perhaps become widely popular and distributed (via the internet), and you could use science to overthrow feminism.

Read this:

http://www.scripturist.org/God-for-Atheists-tp4652221.html

I define God as scientific law, so my religion is science.  But to make science alone a religion without the support of proven (effective) religious texts is cultural/religious suicide since most people are too stupid to understand science.  For proof, consider the fact that most people who claim to support science are feminists.

There is absolutely no conflict between science and the Old Testament.  The Old Testament contains the core moral principles that society requires, and that tiny fraction of humanity capable of understanding science can understand how science supports the morals of the Old Testament.

By the way, I tried posting to a science forum and I was quickly banned for my anti-feminist views.  Just try it yourself.

Hello,

As I've stated before, science is not the answer to every single thing.  Emotion is also something that has to be accounted for in all parts of life, since we've been bestowed by God this special gift that many other lower life-forms don't have.  It is one of the reasons that p**-marital re*ations are wrong.  There is not so much 'science' and 'logic' for the reason for not having p**-marital relations and for keeping females properly attired as emotional reason.  Similarly, feminism {(which leads to both p**-marital re*ations and improperly dressed females)} also has mostly feelings as reasons for being very wrong.

[~} Consider the point of being rude to someone.  We are not rude mostly because we say 'It is impolite to be rude to others in society'.  This became a platitude but we were taught by our father in child-hood that it's wrong to be rude to strangers because it harms their feelings.  The logic is that it harms the person's feelings but the REASON is emotion-based.  There are many examples like this if one thinks about this ~ eating {(taste stimulation)} and admiring art.  Man is fortunate enough to be bestowed with emotions and they are probably the main reason for mankind's existence.    

[~} Man is actually a very emotional creature but because of recent societal conditioning the previous 30 years, he's been 'tamed' and females are the ones screaming 10 times louder than the men in many nations now.  For 4,000 years it was reversed, because the females were taught that being feminine means being lady-like.  Being lady-like means they need to not be so aggressively display their feelings, especially at sporting-events and other physical events.  This is VERY important and VERY necessary for healthy males!  If males and females display the same amount of feelings all the time, then the male dominance-exhibition {(again necessary for healthy males)} is lost.  This again is logical but the reason is once again steeped in feelings.

You are both correct. Science has made it's gains by rejecting religion and it's morality, and also by vigorously excluding human emotions and biases. In this way Science has uncovered factual data.

It's clear that science has made it's progress by ignoring morality and double blind testing shows that it tries to remove human intervention or opposition. Science is cold emotionless and immoral, but it's success has been based on this. Although it does have the data that supports us you are right in saying that this data is being ignored (it's not just lack of understanding).

The interesting feature here is the emotional humanistic stuff (psychology? sociology?). While science does clearly reject religion as shown by history it's also rejecting this other 'thing':

               Religion
Science <
               Humanistic?

It's this humanistic item that is perhaps needed, not religion. That seems to be what the feminists are responding to? Although most of our progress has been made by science it isn't the answer as you guys point out. Clearly there is some kind of humanistic emotional area that is not religious, and this is where the answer may perhaps be found.

This area is an area that science identifies as a source of error. The placebo effect is one of it's powers for example. Although less functional than science it can clearly have short term functionality. Clearly something more than the animals have and something that science tries to remove. I am qualified enough to say that it isn't magic, but more investigation will be required.

The difficulty here is that whatever it is will be difficult to pin down as it's not scientific or religious but has something to do with superstition (or psychological warfare). It may also have been rejected by religion, so religious texts may give some indication.

ShaunS, please define religion.

To NOT answer your request, here's the definition from the Apple Dictionary:

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science and religion.

and so on...

I did read your well written article. The hypothetical gravity god was well put.

To answer your question is a tall order, but science doesn't even bother. Science simply classifies it as untrue, a form of wishful thinking, an error in reasoning. In contrast we have Science excluding the human influence over their experiments. They are not excluding religious influence, because they are confident that there isn't any, but they are excluding human influence because they have evidence for it.

My greater interest in this regard lies with the Christian Saints may of whom were persecuted for their beliefs. Were their miracles personally achieved or the product of their religion?

A person can produce an influence upon the world. Perhaps this is a gift from God as suggested by Anatol. This personal power is limited. Many forces can persist for about 2 weeks after which what little power is present collapses. Hence the 14 day payment protection guarantee (or what ever) as capitalism has some of this influence. This is not religion. The placebo and nocebo effects may be based on this. The emotional speeches of Adolf Hitler are not seen as political - he was doing something. A lot can be done in two weeks of time, with this limited effect. Perhaps feminism is being promoted in this way? I suggest this because clearly their views are not Scientific, or Religious, or magical, or factual. The stupidity of their arguments is very severe. It's not female logic.

Religion is an external force. My view is that it evolved from magic (in human understanding) as a byproduct of the realisation that all of the magical practices were drawing energy from the same source. So religion does not depend on humans and can exist independently (or in other creatures). One of the Rabbi's suggested three former existences prior to our own (thus Dinosaurs, Birds and Angels, not to mention Satan as a reptile). A God may be present as an aspect of the laws of Physics. Science therefore embraces religion in the context of taking these physical forces into consideration. The God Jehovah is seen as a local god of the Earth (due to physical placement). Death is seen as the God of the particle universe (our particular universe). The picture is fairly complex.

While science may account for the forces of religion as the observed forces of the world around it, it never-the-less has to then exclude the separate force of the observer/experimenter as a separate independent influence capable of deflecting these existing forces often through subconscious interference.

I seem to recall an instance of a meteorite with an abundance of titanium. Not sure I remember that correctly. It was later found that the lab assistant who was using the spectrum analyser was wearing a titanium ring, and had accidentally contaminated the sample. So the wrong answer was given due to human influence.

So I'm indicating the possibility of feminists doing something like this. Because religion and science are not impacting on them. This other method is required to block them using their own techniques. Fighting fire with fire.
 

Please forgive me for not giving time for anyone to respond.

Consider this website (apologies for this, cos it's awful):
http://changefromwithin.org/2014/05/21/against-patriarchy-tools-for-men-to-further-feminist-revolution/

This bit's mine: "Just like any other effort to win and create another world,"

This bit's yours:

 10. Practice noticing who’s in the room at meetings and events: How many cisgender men? How many cisgender women? How many transgender people? How many White people? How many people of Color? Is it majority heterosexual? Are there out Queer people? What are people’s class backgrounds? Don’t assume to know people, but also work at becoming more aware. Listen to people and pick up on how they identify themselves. Talk with people one-on-one who you work with and get to know them. Learn about the various ways that people identify and express their gender and explore what it means to be transgender, genderqueer, and gender non-conforming.


Now I studied the suffragette movement and they were very unsuccessful despite their hostile methods. Women in the UK got the vote because they worked in factories during WW1. They gained public support and during this time ceased all hostilities. Without WW1 women would not have been given the vote!

Contrast that to the feminism above. What I have been suggesting may not be powerful enough to achieve the results achieved by American feminists who are so much more successful than the British suffragettes.

If Jehovah appeared to me and gave me paragraph 10 above as an encouragement to become a feminist... I would become a Buddhist instead (despite the 'Or else' concept). So a feminist is more powerful and persuasive than a God? Clearly the problem is deeper than expected.

There is a significant difference between the Suffragette movement and the Feminist movement. If that is an external psychogenic effect then clearly the effect is stronger in America than the UK. It has been suggested than Sweden has also been a centre for feminism (if I recall correctly). Perhaps it is a form of hostility designed to attack the nation (if not the world)?

ShaunS wrote

Perhaps it is a form of hostility designed to attack the nation (if not the world)?

Hello,

I am from Spain originally and the above statement is what I tell all the Spanish men I talk with ~ that feminism is endorsed by the modern Western man because he has been forced to live with that 80% male/20% child 'thing' in a female's body.  Hence, the modern Western man cannot bear to see any other men living with feminine, NORMAL women.  After all, if someone has gold in his hand and one has dirt in his own hand, he will naturally try to at least get the other man to drop the gold!  He may not have dirt to sully his hand like the man with dirt in his hand, but he doesn't have the gold either now!  It's human nature to bring others down.

The foolish Spaniards accepted his proposition and let go of the gold {(our patriarchal culture)} and they think.............this is progress!!  Ha ha ha ha, poor fools.