The Feminine Imperative – Circa 1300

chivalry

A lot of shit got slung at me last week about making comparisons of chivalry being an antiquated social extension of the Feminine Imperative. I’ve written about the concept of chivalry and its impact on the intergender landscape of today, but as I read through certain select comments in Sanitizing the Imperative and after reading the misconception about chivalry on other blogs I felt the idea of chivalry deserved a bit more attention.

Over the course of my travails in the manosphere one common misperception I read a lot coming from well meaning red pill men, as well as the predictable blue pill white knight is this broken and romanticized notion of what chivalry means to them and should mean for everyone else expected to “play by the rules.” I originally touched upon the convenient use the modern Feminine Imperative has made in making appeals to anachronistic idealisms like chivalry and honor in The Honor System. I then revisited this in a bit more detail after the Concordia shipwreck with the women and children first debate even staunch jezebelers couldn’t resist in Chivalry vs. Altruism:

Chivalry is simply one of many ideologies that was subsumed by westernized romanticism. Chivalry also applied toward things such as not hitting a man while he wasn’t looking or attacking a blatantly undefendable, inferior or even a respected foe. It was originally intended as a code of etheics determined by the Roman Catholic church to control the otherwise lawless and violent natures of soldiers and knights who, understandably, had a tendency for brigandism in the middle ages. What passes for most people’s understanding of chivalry is actually a classic interpretation and bastardization of western romanticisim and the ideologies of ‘courtly love’, which ironically enough was also an effort by the women of the period intended to better control the men of the early and high Renaissance. Essentially it amounted to a taming of the over-dominating masculine influence of the time by laying out a system of prescribed appropriate conditions necessary to satisfy a womans access to her intimacy.

You’ll have to forgive me for indulging in a history lesson for today’s post, but it is necessary. What I find most common in men’s interpretation of chivalry is an almost Disneyesque mental return to knightly virtues of the past that only ever existed in films like Excalibur. My first amazement is that concept of romanticized chivalry have endured as long as they have. This is not due to some provable merit, but rather that the expectations of the more useful aspects of chivalry have benefitted the Feminine Imperative for so long that they’ve become ubiquitous expectations of men – even while coexisting beside a feminism that actively derides them.

So  bear with me while we return to the foggy days of medieval Western Europe to search for the true roots of chivalry.

Origins of Chivalry

The year is around 1060 and over the last 100 years or so (i.e. the ‘dark ages’) a feudal system of moneyed landowners and their personal militias have made a mess of things. In spite of the best efforts of containment and control by the Holy Roman Empire, constant violence and sporadic wars amongst these small states have led to a breakdown in the fabric of society. Brigandism and outright barbarism are common amongst these militias – what they lacked was a common enemy, and what the church lacked was resources.

The Holy Roman Empire would provide that common enemy in the form of the Muslim (Moors) infidels to the south and a series of bloody crusades ensued. The Moors of course possessed the resources the church was desirous of, but the church lacked a cohesive social / religious order under which to unite the various militias they needed to process their crusades. Thus was born the code of chivalry.

This code appealed well to the martial pride of the evolving noble class, but further cemented the ideology into the commoners by pairing it with the religious doctrine of the era. The code was thus described as the Ten Commandments of chivalry:

  • Believe the Church’s teachings and observe all the Church’s directions.
  • Defend the Church.
  • Respect and defend all weaknesses.
  • Love your country.
  • Do not recoil before an enemy.
  • Show no mercy to the Infidel. Do not hesitate to make war with them.
  • Perform all duties that agree with the laws of God.
  • Never lie or go back on one’s word.
  • Be generous to everyone.
  • Always and everywhere be right and good against evil and injustice.

Not a bad code of ethics under which to unite factions who previously had little better to do than smash each other with maces and steal each other’s resources. It’s a difficult task to get a man to die for another man, but give him an ideology, and that he’ll die for.

The chivalric code worked surprisingly well for over three centuries and was instrumental in consolidating most of the countries that evolved into the Western Europe we know today. However, as with most ‘well intentioned’ social contracts, what originated as a simplistic set of absolute rules was progressively distorted by countervailing influences as time, affluence and imperatives shifted and jockeyed for control.

Courtly Love

For all of the influence that the church exerted in using chivalry as a social contract, it was primarily a contract played out amongst men. With the notable exceptions of a few select Queens and Jeanne d’Arc, it was only men who had any true social input either publicly or privately during this time. It wasn’t until the mid-thirteenth century that (noble) women would insert their own imperative into the concept of chivalry.

At the time, chivalry was a mans’ club, and unless she was a widow, women were more or less insignificant in the scope of chivalry. A nobleman might take a wife, but rarely were these marriages romantic in nature. Rather they served as political alliances between states (and often consolidating church control) and a man’s romantic and sexual interests were served by mistresses or the spoils of his conquests. In fidelity was expected in noble marriages.

Enter the French noblewomen Eleanor of Aquitaine and Marie de Champagne. Both of these Ladys were instrumental in attaching the concept of courtly love and romance to the chivalric code that we (somewhat) know today. The wealth and affluence that Western Europe enjoyed from the late medieval to the high renaissance provided the perfect environment into which high-born women were feeling more comfortable inserting their imperative.

Both of these noble women had a love for the traveling troubadours of the time, espousing acts of love and devotion as merits for a new aristocracy. Originally courtly love was a much more pagan ideal, but like the church had done centuries before, when ideologically fused to the chivalric code it gradually proved to be an amazingly effective source of social control over men.

In it’s earliest form, courtly love was much more salacious than the socially controlling device it evolved into:

Properly applied, the phrase l’amour courtois identified an extravagantly artificial and stylized relationship–a forbidden affair that was characterized by five main attributes. In essence, the relationship was

  • Aristocratic. As its name implies, courtly love was practiced by noble lords and ladies; its proper milieu was the royal palace or court.
  • Ritualistic. Couples engaged in a courtly relationship conventionally exchanged gifts and tokens of their affair. The lady was wooed according to elaborate conventions of etiquette (cf. “courtship” and “courtesy”) and was the constant recipient of songs, poems, bouquets, sweet favors, and ceremonial gestures. For all these gentle and painstaking attentions on the part of her lover, she need only return a short hint of approval, a mere shadow of affection. After all, she was the exalted domina–the commanding “mistress” of the affair; he was but her servus–a lowly but faithful servant.
  • Secret. Courtly lovers were pledged to strict secrecy. The foundation for their affair–indeed the source of its special aura and electricity–was that the rest of the world (except for a few confidantes or go-betweens) was excluded. In effect, the lovers composed a universe unto themselves–a special world with its own places (e.g., the secret rendezvous), rules, codes, and commandments.
  • Adulterous. “Fine love”–almost by definition–was extramarital. Indeed one of its principle attractions was that it offered an escape from the dull routines and boring confinements of noble marriage (which was typically little more than a political or economic alliance for the purpose of producing royal offspring). The troubadours themselves scoffed at marriage, regarding it as a glorified religious swindle. In its place they exalted their own ideal of a disciplined and decorous carnal relationship whose ultimate objective was not crude physical satisfaction, but a sublime and sensual intimacy.
  • Literary. Before it established itself as a popular real-life activity, courtly love first gained attention as a subject and theme in imaginative literature. Ardent knights, that is to say, and their passionately adored ladies were already popular figures in song and fable before they began spawning a host of real-life imitators in the palace halls and boudoirs of medieval Europe. (Note: Even the word “romance”–from Old French romanz–began life as the name for a narrative poem about chivalric heroes. Only later was the term applied to the distinctive  love relationship commonly featured in such poems.)

Last week Dalrock had an outstanding summation of romantic love – Feral Love – that got lost amongst his other posts. This is unfortunate because virtually every thing he brings to light here finds its roots in exactly the romanticized courtly love rituals outlined above. What we consider acts of romance today, what we consider our chivalric duties to uphold in their regard, are all the results of a 13th century feminine imperative’s attempts to better effect women’s innate (and socially repressed) hypergamy. When we think of noble acts of self-sacrifice for women this is where the origins are. One of the more cruel acts of devotion a ‘lover’ may ask of her paramours was to bleed themselves for her; capturing the blood in a vessel after slicing his foram and comparing the amount therein.

In the doldrums of a well provided-for existence, women will actively create the elusive indignation they need to feel alive. The women of the early courts were effectively perfecting the art of maintaining a bullpen of beta orbiters willing to address all of her unmet emotionalism while being fucked raw by their badboy knights to sire royal Alpha children when they returned from campaigns. The courtly love practices of the 13th century served the same purpose for women as Facebook does today –attention – balancing the Alpha seed with the beta need.

Feminism 1.0

As I wrote in last week’s installment, while the Feminine Imperative remains the same, its social extensions for exerting itself change with conditions and environment it finds itself in. There’s been some recent discussion in the manosphere that feminism can only exist in an affluent society that provides sufficient internal social controls to protect the extensions of the Feminine Imperative. For instance, while Slut Walks may be encouraged in Sweden, there are very few in Egypt at the moment. One socioeconomic environment supports the expresion of the imperative, the other does not.

The concept of chivalry, in its original, intent was the result of a social control in an otherwise lawless environment. Later, when affluence accumulated and an upper class evolved, so too do the social extensions of the Feminine Imperative.

Fusing the philosophy and rituals of courtly love with the chivalric code was one such extension of the time – and a more enduring one I’ll add. The major failing most White Knights and moralistically leaning red pill men have today is understanding that the modern concept of chivalry, and all their feel-good Arthurian idealism bastardized for the last millennia, sprang from the want of a  more exercisable hypergamy for the women of the era.

It should then come as no shock that the old model of romanticized chivalry would conflict with the more overt social extension of today’s feminism. A want for that old, socially coerced, masculine devotion clashes with the ‘do-it-yourself’ feminism of today.


104 responses to “The Feminine Imperative – Circa 1300

  • YOHAMI

    Didnt know any of that. Mind blowing.

  • taterearl

    Intersting…chivarly was another male club the females wanted to get into.

    Although I do notice if you do something “nice” for a guy, you usually get acknowledged for it. Most men have manners enough to say thank you…it’s usually unexpected and as such you don’t feel entitled to it.

    Also I usually have no problem helping a guy with a project…most guys are cool enough to give you a pizza and a beer out of the exchange. Plus when you ask that same guy for help he remembers that you did it for him too. Help a lady with a project and most of the time there will be little to no reward.

    I don’t see the degree of selfishness between guys as I do when it’s between guys and gals.

  • MMA

    At one point in Western History, the “rule of thumb” was considered liberal bullshit…

  • Unchained

    Love the picture.

    Awareness is critical to prevent this sort of thing. What happened to chivalry cannot be allowed to happen to the red pill. Also:

    http://jodiariasisinnocent.com/

    Would love to hear some manosphere input on this.

  • Ras Al Ghul

    It is about time someone finally said what chivalry was really about and how what is calld chivalry today is nothing of the sort.

  • furiousferrett

    Feminism got what it wanted by killing Chivalry.

    Women should get to keep this ‘victory’.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    I don’t believe chivalry (in the feminized sense) is dead at all. In fact I think a great many blue pill men would love nothing more than an earned appreciation for complying with the tenets of romanticized chivalry.

    What they come to discover is that women see chivalry as a tool for control.

    They find out, much to their anger, that women who have no immediate need for chivalrous behavior or the mindset view the men exhibiting it as ‘nice guys in sheep’s clothing’. When they have no flat tires to fix and no need for an escort across a late night parking lot, women see chivalry as a form of duplicity on the part of men who’d use it as an obligation to getting into their panties.

  • Anonymous Reader

    Rollo, over the years I have changed a few tires for women in various places, and not once did I ever find myself helping a feminist. Yes, there are no feminists with flat tires. A remarkable thing, given the number of feminist women in the world, isn’t it?

  • Revo Luzione

    Excellent post, Rollo. Taking this information into context, the modern obsession with romantic love becomes clear for the chimera that it is.

    For charismatic men, understanding the manifestation of the female imperative in all its forms is a prerequisite, followed closely by acceptance of it.

    Once a man has understood and accepted the existence and operation of the various female imperatives, he can, if he chooses, utilize this knowledge as a way to infiltrate the female mind, heart, and soul so as to maximize the masculine imperative, that is to say, maintain healthy relationships with women, with deep bonding experiences and positive exchange of emotion, while limiting exposure to the more damaging aspects of the feminine imperative.

    Or, to put it more succinctly, well-chosen acts of chivalry are DHV’s, cost next to nothing, and don’t expose a man to the dangers of overwrought feminism.

  • Alpha Mission

    Chivalry was a Catholic church power grab (what’s new?), and the feminine imperative took it as an ideal opportunity to introduce disturbing, immoral pagan rituals that made every noble woman a Diana. Damn, talk about ugly truths.

  • Nas

    Rollo,

    “In the doldrums of a well provided-for existence, women will actively create the elusive indignation they need to feel alive.”

    I am unclear on this. Are you saying they always do this? To get even more out of their men?

  • Drama

    I few months back I read a book called ‘The Normans’ by Timothy Baker. It was pretty good overall, but a section stands out in my mind that I can’t quite remember unfortunately.
    What I can generalize about remembering however is that women back then actually did have assurances of property and certain rights despite what today’s university professors would have us think.

  • Anonymous Reader

    Nas, when I was studying artificial intelligence one topic was the neural network,an attempt to model a few neurons in software. There are a number of aspects to training a multi layer neural net to classify inputs into “good” and “bad” that seem to apply to humans (lots of repetition, for example).

    One of the interesting aspects of some neural networks is this: they sometimes do not perform as well as they should with a signal that is clean. That is to say, neural networks perform best in the presence of some noise – “static” on the inputs.

    Women seem to need some amount of “noise” in their life to perform best. If there is not enough “noise” then they will generate it themselves. If life is too comfortable and predictable, they will make it less comfortable and predictable. Or a man can make some change that performs the same function.

    “Choose the form of the destroyer…”

  • Pechorin

    In other words, Reader, women need something to bitch about. Priceless.

  • krauserpua

    I’ve just finished reading The Three Muskateers and it’s relavant as a romanticisation of the era. Some thoughts:

    1. There were high standards for a lady to be worthy of chivalrous attentions. Women who acted like vile cunts (i.e. the villainess Mi’Lady) were hanged, beheaded or throttled. No pretense of “never hit a woman”. They faced consequences to their actions.

    2. It’s much easier to pedastalise a woman when she (i) lives by the code of honor (ii) is a virgin (iii) will bind herself to you till death (iv) is half your age. Even the landlord Bonancieux is fifty and has a comely wench of 25.

    3. Men of that era had literally twice the testosterone of modern men. Probably quadruple a hipster. No wonder they duel at the drop of a hat and go gaga for the slightest whiff of pussy – which can’t be easily obtained.

    Yes its fiction but very interesting to see what is passed off as normal then. And the muskateers are their era’s version of rock stars.

  • Johnycomelately

    I like the historical context, the old empire trying to bring into line the new conquering upstarts using shame and honor. Very accurate, just check out the Donation of Constantine, Papal infallibility and the crowning of Charlemagne.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Sorry Nick, not to go all renaissance festival on you, but the stories of the Musketeers were all set in the mid to late 17th century, lierally 500+ years after the advent of chivalry and courtly love.

    That’s a long time to bastardize an ideology.

  • Dillon

    Problem with ideologies is that some people actually start to believe in them.

    The losers (taxpayers, white knights, betas, religious, soldiers) are the ones who keep practicing an ideology even when its hurting them at present and/or the benefit is supposed to be at a later date or for the good of the whole.

    Unconditional chivalry is foolish. It should be practiced only when the benefit is guaranteed. I don’t mind helping out a chick if I make sure I get something in return right away.

    Selfishness is not the problem, its the solution.

  • Walt

    This weekend, my LTR of six months expressed a desire (and therefore entitlement) for civalry and gentlemanly behavior on my part. This being a subject of the Manosphere recently, I was ready with a response. So I asked her what reciprocal behaviors I could expect in return. All she thought about it for a while and responded “To accept your chivalry gracefully.” This really wasn’t too bad, considering my low expectations of women. Yet I probed further and suggested that perpaps behaving like a lady might be one behavior I could expect. This was simply too much. Her solipsism kicked in. She physically recoiled and accused me of judging of her as something less than a lady.

    “Next!”

  • Dillon

    Rollo:
    It should then come as no shock that the old model of romanticized chivalry would conflict with the more overt social extension of today’s feminism. A want for that old, socially coerced, masculine devotion clashes with the ‘do-it-yourself’ feminism of today.

    I think there’s no conflict. Romanticized chilvalry made feminism possible.

    Today’s mandatory chivalry enforced by the state through taxes and welfare programs is just the more potent form of the old romantic chivalry.

    Woman demands “I want to feel that I can do it all”.
    Man invents systems and products so that she can feel that way.

    Feminism and Chivalry (Male enforced gynocracy) are one and the same.

  • krauserpua

    @Rollo. Agreed, TTM begins in 1625. What I mean is even at such a late juncture chivalry was far from a what it is idealised as now by the likes of Kingdom of Heaven

  • Erudite Knight

    ‘The women of the early courts were effectively perfecting the art of maintaining a bullpen of beta orbiters willing to address all of her unmet emotionalism while being fucked raw by their badboy knights to sire royal Alpha children when they returned from campaigns.’

    Exactly, knights WERE the badboys back then. Not in terms of being a street thug, but that they represented the most desireable of males around, here was a male that fought (and fighting is a huge aprohdiasic) had money, and basicly top of the social ladder.

    It is sad to see what the term ‘knight’ has become now.

  • Karen

    Eleanor was a noblewoman of Norman descent who left her pious, dull first husband, King of France for Henry II. She was a favored child of her family (of Alpha males) from her first days. Everything I’ve ever read about her indicates that Eleanor actively went after Henry (she was 28 and he was 19 when they were married) using her position as Duchess of Aquitaine and supposedly considerable beauty to get him to marry her. She was wealthier and increased Henry’s power by marrying him, but he was probably one of the few men in her social circle capable of subduing her.
    Long story short, she left a Beta for an Alpha male.

  • Martel

    Much of the feminized version of the code was solidified with Don Quixote who looked back on a bygone era with reverence, always questing for his Dulcinea. It’s debatable whether or not Cervantes thought this was a good thing, but the FI has taken the book out of context to help us remember chivalry the way they want us to.

    Also, I remember reading a book for Christian men in which it described our inherent natures as reflected in chivalry. Little girls want to be princesses (still true) and little boys want to be knights and heroes rescuing the princess.

    Problem is, as I look back on my childhood, we sure as hell played like we were knights or soldiers, but we were training to kick ass for its own sake. Rescuing princesses had nothing to do with it.

    Women want to be rescued (at least sort of, depending on the context, when there’s actual danger), so the supposed perfect masculine instinct is that we’re wired to rescue them.

    The problem is that this is a lie. Most of our action heroes who get the chick had some other mission and just happened to get the chick along the way (Han Solo and John Matrix spring to mind, but there are countless others).

    To make the woman your quest is being the White Knight Don Quixote, chasing windmills and coming home alone. Chicks dig dudes who fight real danger. Guys who have to make up a mission don’t really have one, and that’s terribly unattractive.

  • El Marqués

    With the monarchic tradition absent in the American mind, chivalry has morphed into something of a linguistic con of feminists.

    The church, Rollo, might have to do with the propagation of chivalry in other parts of Europe (certainly Spain), but for the region of its origin, today’s Germany, that’s simply not true.

    Changing from the english wikipedia page to other languages will reveal that little fact.

    In essence, chivalry was a self imposed code of honor and conduct for members of the ranks of lower nobility who were expected to defend their country as armoured horsemen in the case of war. Christian values influenced the code, no doubt, but the church as political actor didn’t. You have to understand it as the lower ranks playing the holier – in this case nobler -than you game with high ranks in order to justify their existence.

    The closest concept of the English language is that of “fairness”. The original code of virtues for a franco-germanic knight included:

    Maze [ma ː sə]: moderation in life, moderation
    Zuht [tsʊxt]: discipline, decency, good manners
    Ere [e ː rə]: honor, reputation
    triuwe [trywə]: fidelity
    high muot [hohɐ mu.ɔt]: spiritual elation, being of high spirits
    höveschkeit: Höfischkeit, politeness, court-like behaviour
    diemüete: humility
    milte: generosity, grace
    werdekeit: dignity
    staete: resistance, strength
    güete: friendliness
    manheit: bravery

  • Boys Night Out

    “In the doldrums of a well provided-for existence, women will actively create the elusive indignation they need to feel alive. The women of the early courts were effectively perfecting the art of maintaining a bullpen of beta orbiters willing to address all of her unmet emotionalism while being fucked raw by their badboy knights to sire royal Alpha children when they returned from campaigns. ”

    So their husbands were alpha bad boy knights who they nevertheless cheated on with their chivalrous and clandestine courtly beta lovers who brought them flowers and bled for them into vials without any expectation of reciprocation? Or were the bad boy alpha knights who fucked them raw also amongst their harem of clandestine lovers? So they were rotating two sets of lovers that they were cheating on their husbands with or what? Am I missing something? Where do the bad-boy-knight-raw-fuckers come in?

  • Retrenched

    @ BNO

    The way I understood it, Rollo was saying that the guys who bled into vials for the “ladies” and the guys who got to fuck the living shit out of the “ladies” were two separate and distinct groups of men. Alpha fuckers and beta suckers… some things never change I guess.

    Maybe today’s beta orbiters should be grateful that all they’re (usually) expected to provide is a shoulder to cry on.

  • walawala

    It would seem to me that chivalry as practiced in the Middle Ages was aligned with the “Leader of Men” and “Protector of Women and Children” aspects of Evolutionary Psychology in sparking attraction.

    Neither of those two aspects is about supplication.

  • Boys Night Out

    Yeah but its confusing the way Rollo portrays it – the courtly suitors were definitely supplicators and sex wasn’t even necessarily on the table. This was all about poetry and “romance”. So where do the alpha raw fuckers come in? And who where the husbands of this aristocratic ladies? Leaders of men? Where they the supplicators and vial bleeders to another set of women? Its all so confusing. Today’s untermenschen sexual market is so much easier to navigate.

  • Mucius scaevola

    The history of this subject is enlightening but I am most interested in its modern application for game aware men. I have to second revo’s analysis here. If you can set an alpha frame and then invert modern chivalric notions it can strengthen any type of relationship you have. It can set up the idea that you’ll act like a gentleman if and when she acts like a lady. I have no problem lifting heavy shit for girls or opening doors ( It also affords me the opportunity to get a look at that backyard) it doesn’t work unless you do it what you want to and it also sets up the type of ” putting her on a pedestal” that stingray has been talking about, which is actually where you want her if you think about it. She thinks she earned it and is appreciative. Furthermore, the manosphere is constantly talking about finding ‘morpheus.’ the man who eventually becomes this mythical leader of men is will have internalized game, but also female social conventions with the goal of internalizing them and inverting them for the benefit of the masculine imperative. Maybe the ” rarely do both qualities exist in one man” meme becomes less rare, or could with work. It could also be the step beyond pua on the red pill journey ( paging King A…)

  • Trolls Night Out

    Isn’t this the same culture that popularized MGM (male genital mutilation) amongst gentiles and christians in an effort to “curb the evil of male masturbation” and taught husbands and wives that any other position besides missionary was an “evil sin” and claimed women had “hysteria” when all they needed was to be able to flick their bean guilt free or have their hubbies lick it?

    A pretty damned sick and frustrated bunch of repressed perverts. And they gave us so called “Western Civilization”?

    I’ll take the jungle over that mess any day.

  • BC

    Before it established itself as a popular real-life activity, courtly love first gained attention as a subject and theme in imaginative literature.

    Fascinating. So imaginative literature based on a courtly love bastardization of the original chivalry – that is to say potentially violent monsters vying for the hands of fair maidens – was the original Twilight. I bet if you searched through the literature you could find references to chivalric heroes appearing to “shine” (sparkle lol) in the moonlight.

    Thank you for posting this history, Rollo.

  • xsplat

    Exactly, knights WERE the badboys back then. Not in terms of being a street thug,

    I don’t know much about it, but I thought that knights were basically mafiosa, enforcers, and tax collectors. The entire aristocracy was basically a big mafia operation. No?

  • Hey There

    Boys Night Out-The hysteria thing wasn’t till the 19th century also the missionary thing wasn’t till much later either. The male mutilation i.e. circumcision (I think that’s what your referring to) I’m not so sure about either. The age Rollo is talking about is an age of cruelty, short life spans (peasant’s were lucky to live to 30), and huge inequality between the lords and commoners.

    Boys Night Out-Your kind of missing the point. It was much more of a “jungle” back then than it is in today’s America. I agree that I’ll take today over then for sure, but that’s just because I am self-employed, young, and have lived in Eastern Europe (and I’m going back soon YAY!). If I was forced to live in America my whole life I would probably choose back then.

    Boys Night Out-You are obviously a woman and you really didn’t read the article or try to understand what Rollo is saying. The alpha raw fuckers were the knights and lords who would kill anyone who denied them their pleasure.

    Boys Night Out- There really is a huge difference in how the same guy is treated in one culture and in another one. My experience in my 22 years of life has been this: I am treated with contempt in America and in Central Europe I have the respect, admiration, and love from a young and beautiful woman AND her friends and family. That’s the problem with women invading this manosphere blogs and try to mock them. You can’t take away my life experiences. You can’t take away the fact that I know your full of shit when you say “dating is so easy to navigate in the states, your just not going for the RIGHT girls” or “not all girls are like that!” Go back to Jezebel.

  • furiousferrett

    Boys Night Out = Sexual Marxism = Indian Culture Troll

  • taterearl

    “Today’s mandatory chivalry enforced by the state through taxes and welfare programs is just the more potent form of the old romantic chivalry.”

    Which is why it’s better not to marry. I only pay around 10% of my funds to women and their bastard children…instead of 10% plus whatever else gets robbed of me from one woman.

  • Magister Ludi

    Troubadour poetry came into being in the person of Guillaume IX of Acquitaine in the late eleventh century, when feudalism in Europe was reaching a peak with the Norman Conquest of Britain in 1066. But we need to understand the geographic and historical context of Aquitaine; the geographic area in which the troubadours flourished, the conquering Muslim forces, which swept north through Spain in 711 CE, also crossed the Pyrenees in 732 to fight Charles Martel’s Franks at Poitou, the future home of one of Duke Guillaume IX. The Arabs occupied Spain for seven hundred and eighty years. The sheer length of time that Muslims remained and held significant territory within Spanish borders seems clear evi- dence of the likelihood of some form of commerce between Muslim and Christian. Now the Muslims kept the Greek erotic poems such as can be found in the Palatine Anthology and through them greek pedophilia. Most of the classic greek poetry was addressed to young pre teens boys, but as Plato himself writes in his symposium this love was more about pedestalizing the young boy than, erm, buggering him. Which did occur often, however. This institution of courting young boys called Paideia was an upper class thing (we have no idea what the average Ancient Greek thought of it) and it was transmitted to the Arabs through Byzantium. The Muslims living in Spain continued to read those poems and even wrote some of their own like this from Abu ’l-Walid al-Waqqasi (b. 1017 CE), comparing his beloved’s qualities to those of wine:

    The odor of his breath, the sweetness of his kiss,
    The inebriating sugar of his looks,
    The brightness of his face, the redness of his cheeks… Yet, after all, wine is forbidden for me, as he
    Forbids me to cull kisses from his lips!

    This homoerotic poetry was adopted by the Christian troubadours and they basically just changed the sex of the “beloved” thus beginning what would be called “L’amour gallant”.

  • dumasworld

    This is great, I knew of the aspects of this due to David Hume and others. Though I would go back even further to the rise of the Franks under Charlemagne as the start of chivalry. Immortalised by this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland

  • dumasworld

    Ah beaten by minutes by the Magister!

  • Matt Forney

    Off-topic, but what’s your email Rollo? I need to send you something. Get me at:

    therealmattforney [at] gmail [dot] com

  • getironic

    “There is no such thing as “Chivalry vs. Altruism”, the second is the cause of the first. And the first has two forms: self-sacrifice (Chivalry 1.0) and other-sacrifice (Chivalry 2.0), in the same way that conservatives’ “good old days” was a form of”self-sacrifice” and the entitlement state is the resultant “other sacrifice”. It is not that “well-intentioned altruism” was “distorted”, it is that altruism is doing what altruism does.”.

    http://getironic.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-motive-power-of-feminine-imperative.html

  • Coy

    The Imperative taking over …… See it with your own eyes gentlemen

    http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/rape-and-the-crisis-of-indian-masculinity/article4214267.ece

    Thanks to Rollo I will be the one of the first guys poolside.

  • 3rd Millenium Men

    @Revo Luzione

    A well said comment. I particularly like this part: “Or, to put it more succinctly, well-chosen acts of chivalry are DHV’s, cost next to nothing, and don’t expose a man to the dangers of overwrought feminism.”

    As always, you do it as part of who you are, not to suck up to or placate women. You’re doing it as a matter of fact, e.g. http://3rdmilleniummen.wordpress.com/2012/11/24/manosphere-sex/

    Keep it up Dalrock!

  • 3rd Millenium Men

    *That was meant to be keep it up Rollo, I had just re-read the impressive ‘Feral love’ post by Dalrock. So keep it up the both of you, two of the three I have always labelled “Best of the Manosphere!”

  • Case

    Walt,

    I know I’m just seconding what you’d already said you’d do, but …

    NEXT that chick.

    Seriously. WTF.
    she, on her ownsome, takes it upon herself to solicit more “romance” from you, but is puzzled, taken off guard, that you ask the reciprocity?

    Actually though … my sense of justice, as it does too often, is interferring with my dispassionate analysis.

    You are in rights to correctly understand this as a shit test. It is a nonverbal message from her hindbrain to you. Apart from dropping her ass, which you are wholly justified so doing, you can also agree and escalate “yeah, you be grateful to your next supplicating boyfriend”, or agree, eacalate and drop her ass all the same … but in so doing you will be letting her hindbrain know you are higher status and of high reproductive fitness so odds are good she’ll experience and attitudinal improvement in which case you are in rights to keep spinning her plate.

    If you do though and the hindbrain doesn’t stay pacified for a goodly while its just not worth it. Next.

  • Boys Night Out

    Coy, India is a completely different environment than the West and its one of the worst countries on the planet for women.

    Hey There, its great that you’ve found love and respect in a foreign country. Whenever I travel I also elicit idealization, romanticization and exotification from the local natives. A saint is never appreciated in his own town.

  • L.V.X.

    Don’t mean to spam, but in reply to the post above about the Indian gang rape, why not pay some tribute to our wonderful American gang-rape story; I posted a video I found of one of the supposed friends immediately after the Steubenville (sp?) event: http://projectedmayhem.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/this-is-fucked-up/

  • Matthew King (King A)

    Fusing the philosophy and rituals of courtly love with the chivalric code was one such extension of the time – and a more enduring one I’ll add. The major failing most White Knights and moralistically leaning red pill men have today is understanding that the modern concept of chivalry, and all their feel-good Arthurian idealism bastardized for the last millennia, sprang from the want of a more exercisable hypergamy for the women of the era.

    Feh. You skip over a thousand years of history. Could something have happened between the origins of the chivalric code and feminism?

    The notion of chivalry, for example, as an exaggerated respect for women (later women and children) is unique to the Western tradition and has no counterpart in other honor cultures. But, West or East, honor has always included the idea, raised to a first principle, that men must be jealous of their reputation for courage and women of their reputation for chastity, or fidelity. Imputations against either are “fighting words.” If you don’t believe it, try calling a man a wimp or a woman a slut. The insults demand a response in a way that their opposites do not. There’s no comparable shame to a woman in being a wimp, nor to a man in being a slut.

    Of course there was once, generations ago, much more to the Western honor culture than this. The Victorian idea of the gentleman was a sophisticated if unstable amalgam of elements of primitive honor, social class-consciousness, classical history and literature, medieval legends of chivalry and their Romantic imitators and Christian ethics. But that honor culture began to unravel in the wake of the traumatic experience of the European powers in World War I. Among the social forces at work in the dismantling of the Western honor culture have been feminism and psychotherapy. Their collaboration is what has ultimately produced the headline to an article about the Zidane affair by Mary Ann Sieghart in The Times of London: “Walking away from insults isn’t wussy, it’s mature.”

    This is the classic feminine response to all that masculine nonsense about trying to look tough, whether by competition (violent or otherwise) with other men or by refusing to show emotion. Now that response has come to be the unisex, default point of view for post-honor society. The trouble is that at some level we men still feel that it’s both wussy and mature — and that the maturity of a non-violent response never quite wipes out the wussiness of it.

    For every man, deep in his heart, feels that it is shameful not to reply with force to imputations against his own courage (or truthfulness), or against the chastity or fidelity of his wife, mother or sister. Because this is only a reflexive reaction and unschooled by the now-moribund honor culture — and because fighting is scary and often leads to injury or legal consequences — he will normally swallow it and congratulate himself on his “maturity.” But he will also feel terrible about this, and secretly regard himself as less of a man for showing such weakness. This secret masculine shame — and the additional shame of feeling it in spite of the culturally imposed acceptance of its “immaturity” — is invisible to women. Yet it lies at the root of many of the phenomena of post-honor society, from sporting conflicts to the decisions of our leaders about how to respond to an enemy’s attacks.

    James Bowman [emph. added]

    There is much more to the origins of chivalry and how the idea of came down to us than a recapitulation of courtiers and codes from the 11th century. You are engaged in a project of finding secret feminism in the warp and woof of history, like Dan Brown sniffing out selective evidence of conspiracy theories in the Vatican Library.

    How did the “feminine imperative” — this “biological” directive coursing through an entire sex — manifest itself outside of the West and before the second millennium? How was such a force made invisible before chivalry became its plaything? Are there important differences between medieval chivalry and Victorian chivalry?

    The turn of events you are looking for did not happen in the 11th century. It happened when 19th-century Victorians decided it wasn’t chivalrous to treat women as though they weren’t peers, which metastasized into the 20th-century idea that they must not be treated differently.

    We already have a word for that historical shift: feminism. There is no such thing as a “feminine imperative” wending its way through the currents of history like an eel. There is a female nature, to be sure, but the “imperatives” (necessities, demands, inescapable directives) of that nature are limited to some very basic stuff: a man and woman must combine to make life; a woman must incubate new children; a man must penetrate, a woman must be penetrated.

    By contrast, a woman does not have to be smaller in size. She does not have to be submissive by disposition. She does not have to be hypergamous. She does not have to be a mother. These are secondary traits that you (and several other excitable bloggers lately) imagine make up an “imperative” social force. They may be influential components of our nature, even overwhelmingly persuasive influences which distinguish our understanding of the feminine. But truly, NAWALT. The only thing that characterizes a woman per se is her reproductive parts. Everything else is a suggestion.

    To prove this, consider feminism itself. If men and women contained the kind of insuperable imperatives you assume, feminism could not have happened. One by one the feminist project denied and inverted every one of those secondary effects with great success. But because you are focused on the “red-pill” discovery of hypergamy, you assume it must be one of those “imperatives” of women like having a vagina.

    It is simply not the case — and proof against it is chivalry itself. Chivalry was a component of honor which mastered hypergamy for a millennium before it devolved into such deference that feminism became possible, hypergamy became deniable, and the female id was unleashed unchecked. There was no state-of-nature sluttery that we are experiencing today in the post-honor culture. Twenty percent of men weren’t impregnating 80% of women. The sexual exchange was orderly and regulated strictly by code and tradition.

    So what else can your interpretation of chivalry be except revisionist history to fit a set of predetermined conclusions about biology and imperatives and game? You tease out the bits and pieces that sound like a conspiracy to install female advantage despite the much larger and more inarguable evidence of female disadvantage indicative of the period. Read krauserpua’s comment above. Read more Bowman:

    In my book, Honor, A History, I wrote of Lord Herbert of Cherbury who, shipwrecked at Dover in 1609, commandeered the only rescue boat and, with his drawn sword, kept anyone else [including women and children] off of it and on the sinking ship except Sir Thomas Lucy. He later mentioned the incident in his autobiography without any apparent sense of shame. The point was to show that the Victorian notion of chivalry was not, as is often thought, medieval in origin but an invention of the late modern era. When a hundred years ago this April the gentlemen on board the Titanic made way with remarkable unanimity for “women and children first” on the doomed vessel’s lifeboats, they must have had a strong sense not only that they were behaving honorably and chivalrously but that such notions of honor and chivalry were the most up-to-date and progressive ones available and not some throwback to a more primitive era.

    http://www.jamesbowman.net/diaryDetail.asp?hpID=528 [emph. added]

    This amounts to a major blind-spot deep in your thinking — a fatalism that accepts the female condition as unchangeable and unmanageable, which requires a policy of detente, manipulation, or resignation rather than broad cultural rollback.

    Matt

  • Hey There

    I actually lived there…and am returning. I’m no saint either.

  • Lib Arts Major Making $31k a Year at an Office Job

    Skimmed it.

    Just like we don’t study dead languages, I don’t see why we should study chivalry.

    It’s dead. Anyone who tries to speak it to me, male or female, might as well be speaking Sanskrit.

  • L.V.X.

    King A for the win.

    I now have no need to write an article in response to this.

    I will add too, that the Marquis de Sade is a great reminder of just how pure those Victorian times were. Chivalry may have been a gentlemen’s code, but it certainly didn’t prevent nor postpone the continual debasement of both men & women’s sexuality – or enlightenment, depending upon the manner in which one accepts the facts. No one would know Sade lest his 50 Shades of 120 Day’s of Sodom were popular in some way. Just sayin’, the moral code has always been monitored by certain Knight’s in Silver & Gold’s purchased armor, hence his imprisonment, though it’s never proven effective in preventing the masses from purchasing what Evil circulates. Nor has it changed the fact that it being in circulation tends to produce a civil acceptance of it’s ethically manufactured smut.

    One reason I’m tending toward Biblical Truth nowadays. There’s a history I don’t need to verify. It’s God’s Word. Seems to testify all that’s necessary. However I fear I’ll become seen as an apostate despite my defiant adherence to such obligatory rituals as tithing.

    I could be wrong though. Maybe history is just a bunch of stories the last generation made up, that our government and some secret society’s teaching us. After all, the Grand Lodge’s are built by Goat’s – and that’s something only few will understand, figuratively speaking, don’t take it literally. For all North Korea knew while taught it, their leader wrote Opera’s while fighting valiantly in a war. And had his name prophetically carved into a thousand trees or something ridiculous like that. We’re a doomed to live breed of ever-adapting permutations & deviations from the prescient norm.

  • Sanskritist

    “It’s dead. Anyone who tries to speak it to me, male or female, might as well be speaking Sanskrit.”

    Ever been to South Asia? Sanskrit is by no means dead. Its alive in both its classical form and in all of the currently spoken languages of India, Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.

  • J.M.

    Trolls Night Out

    Such ignorance can only be from a troll LOL. By the way, Circumcision was practice popularize in Protestant America, in Catholic Europe of that time, only Jews went for it.

  • Mucius scaevola

    King a I’m certainly no genius, but if you’re willing to, please clarify a few things. I got the gist of what you’re trying to say, I think. Perhaps rollo is reaching trying to find evidence of the feminine imperative that is not there in the last 1000 years of western history, but does that deny that it ever existed or is any less insidious than he claims it is today? In my estimation humans began living in packs to help the alpha hunt and he kept all the women. We expanded to tribes which evolved male hierarchy and access to women based on rank. We get marriage somewhere out of that. You write great stuff but put it in dum dum terms for us…
    I’m having a hard time figuring out what you’re actually advocating. Are men and women biologically different or not? Surely there is more to a woman’s biological difference from a man than her reproductive parts. Sure, nawalt, but don’t exceptions prove the rule? Is awalt or at least awcblt an appropriate description for today’s modern women in light of the pill, feminism, psychotherapy, nuclear weapons etc. or is the hypergamy we know a modern permutation? Did women ever fuck betas in the age before marriage, assuming that in a survival scenario of the ancient past ” beta provider” skills and best genetic stock were found in one and the same man? Or was the world created 7000 years ago?
    Maybe my comment doesn’t deserve reply and I’m probably reaching logically but you don’t make it very easy to understand. Ill read some of your links and probably eat my words but help a brotha out! Or is that beneath you? All I know is most men are taking the red pill as gospel because it helps make sense of things, but what you have to say is another rabbit hole entirely. We all think we’re smart because we think we all uncovered the red pill conspiracy theory. all red pill men are conspiracy theorists if the rabbit hole goes deeper I need to know about it. I want easier not harder, but maybe that’s a silver platter I don’t deserve

  • Mucius scaevola

    Actually, I might have to retract my need to know based on comments in the too hot thread. I’m not new to the manosphere but I am new to paying attention to your comments. Why so shamey and Judgy towards men? Explain your endgame of you would. How is what you know a more reliable indicator or source of knowledge than fucking a lot of women. I’m at 27 and I’m 24 and all rollo is doing is confirming and fleshing out what I already know. You’re just confusing me.

  • AD

    Some material for you to write about.. maybe?

    “These women are done. They say they aren’t happy. They say they aren’t in love with their husbands (or any other man — they aren’t having affairs). They say they simply wish they were no longer married to him. They aren’t fulfilled. They wonder if this is how they are doomed to live the rest of their lives (and God-willing, most of them have another 40+ years ahead of them). … The common factor amongst all of these women is that they say that their husbands are really solid, good, nice men … they just don’t want to be married to them anymore because they have fallen out of love.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vicki-larson/are-middleaged-women-done_b_2297847.html

  • michaeltx

    Great write up Rollo

    thanks again

  • Matthew King (King A)

    Mucius scaevola wrote:

    Perhaps Rollo is reaching trying to find evidence of the feminine imperative that is not there in the last 1000 years of western history, but does that deny that it ever existed or is any less insidious than he claims it is today?

    He is attempting to deconstruct a salutary social practice, and in the process he injects a permanent (“biological”) enmity between the sexes. Not only is that historically, provably false, the idea prevents rapprochement by denying that a permanent settlement is possible.

    All I know is most men are taking the red pill as gospel because it helps make sense of things, but what you have to say is another rabbit hole entirely. We all think we’re smart because we think we all uncovered the red pill conspiracy theory. All red pill men are conspiracy theorists[. I]f the rabbit hole goes deeper I need to know about it. I want easier not harder, but maybe that’s a silver platter I don’t deserve.

    “If the rabbit hole goes deeper I need to know about it” vs. “I want easier not harder.” Which is it?

    Rollo is trying to build foundations here. If they aren’t inspected for load-bearing capacity, it won’t matter what pretty architecture anyone constructs on top. If his work is solid, he should invite testing.

    Are we programmed by our nature or our “biology” or our “imperatives,” or are we not? Does volition have anything to say in the matter, or is our behavior predetermined? Even if we retain personal volition, are broad cultural phenomena sketched out to us by fate? When you get into the weeds of fundamental imperatives, you have to consider these questions.

    By casually overestimating the power of, say, hypergamy, one formally characterizes the practical application of theory all the way down the line. We are excited to rediscover this truth about women! But in our excitement we regard the attempt to control such subterranean forces as impossible, and therefore our actions in the face of it must be fatalistic. Women can’t help but fuck the alpha male. Adjust accordingly. Women unconsciously seek advantages for their sex through every social institution. Deal with it.

    This approach infantalizes women and makes them seem to be slaves to their nature. Thus, discipline is impossible. That is a tempting reaction in this age of feminism, where the opposite is absurdly shoved down our throats. And yet, it is not the basis for a lasting solution.

    But you know what is the basis for a lasting (thousand-year) solution? Chivalry. Chivalry is an acknowledgment of the influential power of woman’s nature. It is also the acknowledgment that nature can be controlled through custom and culture. Rollo is implicitly denying that latter possibility, despite the proof of a better part of a millennium. So he must further deconstruct that proof as illusory, that women have always, successfully if covertly, bent outward powers to their own advantage — if only you look hard enough. It is indeed true that chivalry devolved unto its own destruction during The Lost Generation hundreds of years later, but that calls our attention to the need for vigilance rather than abandonment.

    put it in dum dum terms for us… I’m having a hard time figuring out … Why so shamey and Judgy towards men? … How is what you know a more reliable indicator or source of knowledge than fucking a lot of women?

    Who said they were mutually exclusive? And where did I say I knew “a more reliable indicator”? Indeed, my very presence here shouts the opposite: the only people with access to that “source of knowledge” seem to be the men who have “fuck[ed] a lot of women.” These men are my brothers. They have seen, so they know what lies are otherwise swallowed whole by males of only superficial experience with women.

    There are no “dumb-dumb” terms at this level. You have to become conversant. You have to become better. Emulate Rollo, who is methodically bringing his life experience to a higher theoretical level by thinking in broader terms than what will get him fucked a lot.

    But don’t get binary on me: I’m not saying getting fucked a lot has no place in the grand mission. In fact, that outcome is what will motivate men to de-wimpify themselves. The smaller and unimaginative minds in places like these concentrate all their resentment and energy on seeking difference with their brothers, rather than noting what we hold in common and pursuing it together. Such are the wages of pride. Men don’t want truth and liberation from tyranny so much as they want credit and glory; so it’s a problem. They fantasize they can be the tyrant rather than rebuilding the institutions to prevent tyranny.

    What’s my endgame? My endgame is right here. You have to become a thinker like Rollo, rise to his level, and challenge him with every talent at your disposal. He is one of the few who understand that this war will be won in the investigations, abstractions, assumptions, and strategies which direct our practical choices. Either improve yourself and make a genuine contribution to that conversation, or get out of the way and allow better men to speak in your behalf. That is the “endgame” — where the best men seize the vehicles of leadership and throw off the yoke of sniveling, pansified, femme/betamale inertia which has taken the place of true command, to allow freedom for all who can handle it.

    As you might imagine, trix to pick-up chix is but a small part of that greater struggle. As you almost certainly don’t imagine, that “small part” is also an indispensable element of the struggle. This war begins and ends looking into the soft face of the feminine and coaxing/forcing her back to the comforting accommodations of her nature:

    I can’t fight it anymore. I ran away from you once. I can’t do it again. Oh, I don’t know what’s right any longer! You have to think for both of us. For all of us.

    Here’s looking at you, kid.

    “Why so shamey and Judgy towards men?” Do not use the enemy’s tongue among men. You sound like a dipshit valley girl.

    Matt

  • Matthew King (King A)

    @ grey_whiskers: I’m not familiar with Lewis’s Allegory of Love. I am familiar with his Four Loves book, which, for the right kind of smart woman, is better porn than Fifty Shades of Grey.

    Why don’t you give us a précis?

  • 1 Woman's View

    I’m a woman and the above outline of the imperative does not appeal to me at all. I showed it to 4 other females and we all felt the same, though we all did have varying ideas about what a good Feminine Imperative looks like.

    Mine is one of two.

    1. Stay single and childless my whole life while globe trot and discover the world and all the cultural wonders it has to offer, while simultaneously engaging in delectable romances with exotic foreign men from time to time (but not ALL the time), writing books and supporting myself off their profits. A location independent career and lifestyle. With each passing year I would age but the men I liasoned with would not. In other words, at about 35 I’d become a cougar.

    2. Dating a number of extremely handsome men in my early 20, both foreign and domestic, and then settling down with my Dream Man at around the age of 25-27 and starting a family with him and possibly living over seas. This includes life long fidelity and marital bliss. Growing old together and enjoying our grandchildren.

  • furiousferrett

    Number 2 is pretty much the template for modern women.

    The issue is you damn well better be an 8+ to even think about achieving the marrying the Dream Man part and that requires a little bit of girl game and luck. However being a fucktoy for handsome men in your early 20s, that’s a realistic option.

  • OlioOx

    I am going to make some assertions here but they will be supported by references to science at the end of this comment.

    I’m not sure if Rollo believes that there is a

    permanent (“biological”) enmity between the sexes

    as Matthew King (King A) states in his comment above, but there certainly are biologically-based
    differences between men and women in terms of sexual psychology
    . Unfortunately the differences are not so clear cut as in so-called “tournament” species of animals versus “pair-bonding” species. Humans are somewhere in-between.

    A purely tournament species is where ALPHA TAKES ALL, so to speak. Think of lions: The males compete, they wish to sire as many offspring as possible and make no effort to care for them, etc. Tournament males are also much larger than females (sexual dimorphism, that is, different shape/form/size between males and females.)

    But in a purely pair-bonding species, the degree of dimorphism is typically very small, males mate permanently and monogamously with females, and both contribute to the raising of offspring. (Even so, there is still some degree of mating selection going on.)

    Humans are genetically in between these two extremes. The following is an excellent wording, from a random blogger who I won’t even bother to identify, of the standard scientific version of things nowadays (‘standard view’ source given at end):

    Humans exhibit a medium degree of sexual dimorphism, with the males being on average somewhat larger and stronger than the females. Humans also have an intermediate number of imprinted genes between clearly tournament and clearly pair-bonding species. Even leaving all observed human behaviors aside, these two clear biological markers indicate that humans use both (or some mixture of) pair bonding and tournament mating strategies.

    Please reflect on this for a while — and don’t forget to consider the range of individual human differences. The truth which we must all keep firmly and constantly in mind, lit up in our consciousness with a harsh and buzzing spotlight, is that we can expect to see a full range of behaviors, from almost purely ‘tournament’ to almost purely ‘pair-bonding’, in humans, if we consider all recorded, historical, reconstructed, observed, and experienced human behavior across the world. What pushes actual human behavior in one direction or the other? It is the environment, one aspect of which is culture.

    Therefore, King A is perfectly correct that ‘chivalry’ is indeed one historical proof “that nature can be controlled through custom and culture.” (And, of course, the most extreme alpha-cad-badboy behaviors we are seeing today, such as in the black ghettos in the USA and among the white British underclass, are also results of very different “custom and culture.”)

    But it is worth asking, how effective was the control exercised by chivalry? Did it really do the job, so to speak? And if so, for how long was it effective? I don’t know. King A clearly believes it was highly effective for some considerable period of time and is therefore worthy of our attention. He’s probably correct; that does not strain the rational imagination at all. In any case, it didn’t last forever, because the culture changed.

    Another King A belief (my emphasis):

    [Rollo posits] a permanent (“biological”) enmity between the sexes. Not only is that historically, provably false, the idea prevents rapprochement by denying that a permanent settlement is possible.

    Consider how any kind of a sexual-behavioral ‘settlement’ amongst humans — a species of animal which is genetically intermediate and wishy-washy between pair-bonding and tournament extremes — could possibly be permanent. It could only be done by the institution of a permanent, unchanging ENVIRONMENT. It really means only one thing: In order to shape and mold human behavior into a permanent and unchanging pattern, which is what King A wants, a permanent, unchanging, and all-powerful culture would have to be imposed.

    It IS possible to create highly uniform human behavior by means of powerfully-applied culture. Well-run prisons do it all the time; so do well-run armed forces. North Korea is also worth mentioning in this regard, as are the Mormons, certain Islamic societies, various cults, perhaps the Jesuits, and so on. But any kind of “permanent settlement” where human behavior is concerned must imply permanent loss of at least some kinds of FREEDOM. We can mostly live with this on certain things: for example, I think that few people today regret the loss of the freedom to own slaves, which was simply taken for granted throughout most of human history. We are also mostly comfortable with the fact that we do not have the personal freedom to kill our enemies without LEGAL consequence, etc. This is all the kind of thing that must be deeply considered when there is any talk of “permanent settlements” regarding mass human behavior in societies.

    What kinds of freedoms would men and women have to give up NOW in order to create (or re-create) the kind of society King A is depicting? It’s not hard to imagine. But let’s be generous: Assume that men and women would, on average, be much happier once they were living in a King A society. In that case, all you have to do is get everyone to give it a try, right? They’ll see for themselves that it’s a better way. Fine; how do you convince the majority (and it has to be a majority; currently, we have small numbers living and advocating for the King A way, and they are seen as marginal by mainstream society, and their influence is not increasing) to ‘give it a try’? Not just to entertain the idea, but to actually adopt the King A lifestyle for at least half a generation?

    I can think of at least one freedom which women would absolutely have to give up in order to move society towards anything like what King A envisions, and to keep it there: the freedom to vote.

    (Scientific source for the human genetic stuff above: Start with the available online lectures of Dr. Robert Sapolsky of Stanford University, such as “Human Behavioral Biology” — specifically, Lectures 2 and 3, “Behavioral Evolution” and “Behavioral Evolution II”:
    http://bit.ly/VJyLpx )

  • Mucius scaevola

    @king a thanks for your reply I appreciate it. Olioox’s response to you was more helpful tho. I should stop trying to have a debate writing on an iTouch tho. It’s bad punctuation, no quotations and poorly formed thoughts.

    Idk about your larger point that chivalry helped contain animal natures effectively. It could work for a time, even 1000 years, but never forever. I don’t think we can take environment and culture and overcome our base instincts. To be sure, I believe in self improvement. In the past year I stopped smoking and drinking, my powerlifting numbers are getting stupid high, finances are right, I’m dangerously close to my first amateur mms fight, gettin it in with bad bitches etc. but all of this is not making me more moral in a conventional sense, it’s making me say ftw and live by my own rules. the philosophical rub is, just because I know better and can recognize altruism in an abstract sense does this mean I act against my own interests? The flip side is visiting my brother and his wife in their church compound and her telling me I have nice arms. Good luck incentivizing all of society to play by your rules.

    You’re very erudite and I can appreciate that, but at the end of the day women don’t, and neither do the men you berate. You’d prolly deny it but your out for the glory too as you say others are. I can ignore you calling me a dipshit valley girl because 1. I prolly fuck more valley girls than anyone but ya really 2. Your helping me learn a few things but to be honest, you do sound shamey and Judgy, bitter your whole life that people get better results than you and aren’t playing by the rules. humans pair bond, engage each other tournament style, little bit of both who cares. I want the rabbit hole as deep as it goes but I don’t need the Internet for that tbo.

  • Matthew King (King A)

    @ OlioOx: My takeaway from your critique is that I should have avoided the word “permanent.” Fair enough, I even debated editing it out myself. But I wasn’t saying there is a once-for-all solution that would allow us to transcend biology/nature forever so much as a permanently available solution we could always tap into, should we (freely) choose to.

    In order to shape and mold human behavior into a permanent and unchanging pattern, which is what King A wants, a permanent, unchanging, and all-powerful culture would have to be imposed.

    You slipped too quickly into totalitarianism by assuming the worst about cultural reform. Yes indeed it has been done badly! But bottom-up “revivals” and “awakenings” — proposing rather than imposing — have been accomplished regularly throughout history without threatening a society’s capacity for freedom.

    But any kind of “permanent settlement” where human behavior is concerned must imply permanent loss of at least some kinds of FREEDOM. … This is all the kind of thing that must be deeply considered when there is any talk of “permanent settlements” regarding mass human behavior in societies.

    If you are going to bring this up, then you will have to dive deeper with me for the proper answer.

    There is no liberty without law. You say reform implies “permanent loss of at least some kinds of FREEDOM,” but freedom itself requires a loss of freedom. Unlimited liberty is called “license”: do what thou wilt without regard for the liberties of people beyond yourself. Also known as: rule of the strongest, the law of the jungle, and might makes right.

    The social contract requires us to defer our preferences and circumscribe our rights — even the right to life, in the case of conscription and war! (cf. Hobbes) — so that freedom can flourish in general. If individuals are only concerned with maximizing their license (hello, libertardianism), not only can there be no peace, there can be no liberty either.

    In steps custom. When men have the character to police themselves against license, liberty is most possible. The culture trains, shames, cajoles, and subtly influences men into contributing to the “domestic tranquility,” because otherwise it would require the very police state you fear, the solution you think I surreptitiously advocate, and the tyranny that is already coming the day after tomorrow.

    Look at the testimony of Mucius scaevola above. This licentious, Me-Myself-and-I understanding of his place in the civitas is what eventually necessitates the legal crackdown: a society cannot long endure with no one contributing to, and everyone taking from, the commonweal. The reformers step in and impose a solution.

    I do not advocate imposition. I have dedicated my “life, fortune, and sacred honor” against the very idea of imposition. I advocate persuasive generational reform — the sons of the next generation performing slightly better than we, and their sons slightly better than they. But make no mistake, fail to persuade and we will be looking down the barrel of draconianism as a matter of survival. We are close to that point now.

    Assume that men and women would, on average, be much happier once they were living in a King A society. In that case, all you have to do is get everyone to give it a try, right? They’ll see for themselves that it’s a better way. Fine; how do you convince the majority (and it has to be a majority; currently, we have small numbers living and advocating for the King A way, and they are seen as marginal by mainstream society, and their influence is not increasing) to ‘give it a try’? Not just to entertain the idea, but to actually adopt the King A lifestyle for at least half a generation?

    Your incredulity is a non-starter. I encounter this all the time. Because you cannot personally imagine a certain situation (since you’ve been marinating in it your entire life), you assume the situation unattainable, even in small measures, even over the long march of a century — the very method through which feminism came to supremacy. One man with courage makes his majority.

    Second, majorities are not necessary. What matters is leadership. We are not ruled by plebiscite. We are a liberal constitutional republic that governs itself by deliberation and persuasion. We were founded on 30% approval ratings, with a third loyal to the crown and the final third neutral towards the revolution. There is a massive middle population which goes along to get along, who are feminists by default because that is the official line. They are not unmovable. The path simply has to be made easier for them to do the right thing. In a citizenry of 50% voter turnout, most do not give a shit about the conversation that will determine their kids’ future. And the politicians?

    I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or it they try, they will shortly be out of office.

    — Milton Friedman

    Which leads to, third, the flexibility between generations. Children today are growing up in a very different world than you. All kinds of things that are simply unimaginable to you have yet to be imprinted in them. Sure, they may be subject to propaganda, but words and directives are nothing compared to biological imperatives (remember?) and life experience. Youth is by definition eminently persuadable, as they have not yet developed fully formed minds.

    Fourth, dire consequence is persuasive. So long as we live off the enormous stock of capital bequeathed us, we can pretend, even at absurd lengths, to ignore the sexual difference. But a half-century of declining birth rates creating a pension crisis, and the eradication of the family creating existential social dystopia and pathology (see fatherless black culture), focuses the civic mind. Loud and proud women stop pretending they can fireman-carry people out of the World Trade Center when they see the bodies hitting the pavement. Do not underestimate the power of contrast when the consequences come a cropper.

    I can think of at least one freedom which women would absolutely have to give up in order to move society towards anything like what King A envisions, and to keep it there: the freedom to vote.

    Good. And keep “think[ing] of” it. This idea will not scandalize future generations the way it scandalizes you, who live in a moribund culture with a closed horizon.

    Matt

  • 1 Woman's View

    Number 2 is pretty much the template for modern women.

    The issue is you damn well better be an 8+ to even think about achieving the marrying the Dream Man part and that requires a little bit of girl game and luck. However being a fucktoy for handsome men in your early 20s, that’s a realistic option.”

    Ferret, obviously this is an ideal. Concerning ideals men never think, “oh well I’d like to marry the chubby Plain Jane around the block”. No, they have an ideal of a beautiful fantasy woman. So do women.

    In real life we take what we can get. Ordinary people are finding love in each other every day, and there’s nothing wrong with that either. But before meeting each other and falling in love, I bet they all had “ideal images” of future mates in their mind.

  • furiousferrett

    @1 Woman’s View

    I understand that it’s an ideal. However, for some many women they are able to do being a fucktoy part without realizing that the second act isn’t ever going to come and have ruined their chances of actually marrying a guy that has decent value because they lived out fucktoy fantasy.

  • Mucius scaevola

    Matt I agree with a lot of your points. We can’t ride alpha off into civilization’s sunset. I think pua is only the first step in game awareness. i may get married one day, i want kids, i also think i have what it takes to make her haaaapy. but i also know that im not going to do any of that ‘just cuz.’ it will come after ive reached a poosy saturation point. maybe not. That said, I don’t appreciate the insinuations that I’m selfish. I’m contributing to society in ways you may not have thought of. I run a lair of sorts in Madison wi. I’ve gathered around me a group of like minded game aware young men. We’re not the aspy type of RSD approach all the time dudes. We’re a mutual support network dedicated to various types of self improvement. For the last year we’ve also perpetually had a dude on the couch. It has now been 4 in succession. These are blue pill dudes down on their luck that I’ve turned red pill and try to help improve themselves. I agree with your larger point that society should limit my baser urges to keep itself afloat. I also think I should contribute to society. My question to you is what are YOU doing about it? You’re smart and have great ideas but everything you write is a mile long. I’m too lazy to go back and look and I also don’t want to put words In your mouth but when I asked you about your endgame, it seems to me it boiled down to “being here and debating” to me that just reeks of keyboard jockeying. even if your right. I guess I’m In the ya really camp. Ill be spending my 20s tagging lots of ass and contemplating whether or not I should pull a roosh or not.

  • OlioOx

    [Sorry Rollo I screwed up the blockquotes again by trying something new... please delete immediate post, I'm sure I've got it straight now, must use blockquote tag instead of fancy shit]

    @King A “Permanently available solution[s] we could always tap into” — much more reasonable.
    But:

    If you are going to bring this up [that is, questions of freedom vs. licence vs. liberty etc.], then you will have to dive deeper with me for the proper answer.

    There IS no “proper answer” to this type of question unless you believe in revealed religion, or unless you believe it is possible for human beings to create rules for themselves which are 100% based on utterly accurate knowledge of material reality, including biological and psychological reality (just consider how far we have yet to go). Your “proper answer” is merely another production of human thinking, merely another competing human-made solution, no matter what you believe is its ultimate source. In human affairs, there are no “proper” answers, but some answers are certainly better than others.

    But I’m not suggesting that any proposals you offer be rejected immediately because they include a religious agenda; I just like to see everything clearly on the table. For what it’s worth, there seems to be a lot of very very good evidence that people with strong religious beliefs have, on average, better mental health than us atheists, and the amount and quality of this evidence is enough to convince me that it’s true. I’m not the militant kind of atheist, I have no agenda, I am quite happy simply to observe and discuss; the search for truth is nothing more than my recreation. What St. Luke said of the Greeks perfectly applies to me:

    For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.

    Let me try to show further why there is no “proper” answer, but only a mess of possible answers which must be dealt with by fallible human minds (my emphases).

    There is no liberty without law. You say reform implies “permanent loss of at least some kinds of FREEDOM,” but freedom itself requires a loss of freedom. Unlimited liberty is called “license”: do what thou wilt without regard for the liberties of people beyond yourself. Also known as: rule of the strongest, the law of the jungle, and might makes right.

    What do all those words and phrases really mean? (I know, I started this by my unthinking and unclarified use of the word ‘freedom.’) Their meanings are not clear and simple, like 2+2=4. They are all complex, debatable, differing according to philosophy, culture, personal interpretation, etc. — even “rule of the strongest”! What constitutes strength? Physical strength? Mental strength? Superior numbers? (I think an excellent case could be made that depending on how one chooses to define “rule” and “strongest”, rule by the strongest is in fact always the inescapable default, if you think about it. Who REALLY runs things wherever there is anything to be run?)

    What such words end up actually “meaning” is simply what groups of people — from pairs of partners to entire societies — agree on — and what the real holders of power want them to mean. And you continue, with things like:
    social contract (yes, I’m aware of the sources)
    rights
    right to life
    custom
    character

    …and so on, all things which mean different things to different people and different societies. There is no right or wrong here; there can only be convention and the result of agreements. Look at the concept of rights, for example, even the “right to life.” There IS no such thing. “Rights” are just a creation of the human mind — probably one of our better ideas, but something that has no more existence than unicorns.

    I can recognize and support the positive social utility of such concepts without believing that there is any non-human foundation to them. Perhaps it’s true that a certain kind of person tips towards anarchy and violence once he loses his belief in the divine basis of an idea like the “right to life.” Perhaps then the Noble Lie is a good idea — wherein the less educated masses are taught various myths for the good of society, whereas the elites are trusted with the truth. It’s all fine with me. (But I’d bet that 99 out of 100 Americans convicted of murder or manslaughter, if asked if they accepted the idea of a basic right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” would firmly say yes — except, perhaps, where that bastard they killed was concerned.)

    This sort of thing is all for you moral-guardians-of-society types to figure out and legislate — you’ll get no interference from me except for some philosophical blathering from the sidelines if I think you’re up to no good. If you’re determined and energetic, whereas I am simply on the sidelines watching, then you are the strong and I am the weak; and you will win not because you are right, but because you show up. More power to you!

    Finally, the idea of the right to vote being taken away from women doesn’t scandalize me at all; I’m indifferent. It would be an interesting experiment.

  • Matthew King (King A)

    There IS no “proper answer” to this type of question unless …

    This is an assertion. How do you know you know it to be the case?

    Our difference is epistemological. There is no space here to hash out that difference. I would be satisfied knowing you understood there was an alternative to your postmodern existentialism (“There IS no ‘proper answer’…”).

    Your scare quotes around the words “proper” and “meaning” and any other subject you gave up examining indicate an abbreviated exploration into first principles. I cannot help you there, and I’ve done my time, wasting years of my youth debating with question-begging relativists. All I can say is dig deeper. All I can recommend is you begin with the Socratic foundation: “The only thing I know is I know nothing.” But then posit the assumption that it is possible to know something. You will avoid the absurdities of the 20th century philosophasters — a disposition you inherited — by meditating on those two cornerstones philosophy.

    Your faith (or, your assertion of the proper) that there is no such thing as proper cannot be asserted as proof against my faith in the opposite. You are attempting to posit “There are no ultimately true statements … except the statement ‘there are no ultimately true statements.'” Sometimes a presentation of that paradox works to wake a postmodern fellow like you out of his dogmatic slumber. Most of the time it does not, though, and because of this founding error we will constantly talk past each other in different languages.

    Matt

  • Matthew King (King A)

    Mucius scaevola wrote:

    I run a lair of sorts in Madison wi. I’ve gathered around me a group of like minded game aware young men. We’re not the aspy type of RSD approach all the time dudes. We’re a mutual support network dedicated to various types of self improvement.

    That is admirable. Particularly the “I run a lair” and “I’ve gathered around me” leadership frame. You would do this community a great service by publishing your exploits, both the positive and the negative. You are the future of the sexual marketplace. You, and for that matter YaReally, are the 21st century equivalent of Burke’s “little platoons” of civil society. Godspeed, brother.

    To be attached to the subdivision, to love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of public affections. It is the first link in the series by which we proceed towards a love to our country, and to mankind.

    — Edmund Burke, Reflections on the French Revolution

    This is the application of principle. Some men are best suited for application rather than elucidation of principle, which is what éminences grise like Rollo are attempting to do. Of course some find these difficult higher-order inquiries “a mile long” and therefore not worth the slog:

    You’re smart and have great ideas but everything you write is a mile long. I’m too lazy to go back and look and I also don’t want to put words In your mouth but when I asked you about your endgame, it seems to me it boiled down to “being here and debating” to me that just reeks of keyboard jockeying. even if your right. I guess I’m In the ya really camp. Ill be spending my 20s tagging lots of ass and contemplating whether or not I should pull a roosh or not.

    I didn’t say “it [all] boiled down to,” and “being here and debating” is a false quotation I never wrote. I said that is the endgame. Without men above your paygrade establishing the frame around your activities, there would be no possibility for uniting disparate forces. And without coordinating our efforts, we are isolated, divided, and conquerable.

    If you weren’t admittedly “too lazy to go back and look,” you’d notice I encouraged your shopping spree through Young Pussy-Mart. More power to you. But take the time to compare notes and learn from your peers online. See your effort as something more than a simple satisfaction of desire — place it within the context of your red-pill brothers who are attempting similar projects through trial and error, the very “lair” you brag about above.

    First things first: you have to get over yourself. There are too many binary-minded fools who think smart observation is evidence of “keyboard jockeying.” You excel in the application of other men’s ideas even as you are discomfited when those men are discussing those ideas. There is a such thing as both/and.

    I find “field reports” boring because I have bigger fish to fry and because women and female behavior are boring. They all fall into the same essential narrative, just switch around a couple details. That amounts to an exchange of irrelevant detail you can find in a hundred places in the “manosphere,” if that’s your thing. It is not my thing. If you can’t detect my simpatico by my demeanor and wisdom, I don’t have time to set you straight. There are plenty of excellent bloggers who can encourage men at your stage of development with tales of derring-do. I prefer the higher-order discussions because 1) I am capable of participating in that kind of talk, and 2) there isn’t enough of it.

    If that’s not your bag, son, live and let live. A certain kind of insecurity seeks refuge in enmity, even paranoia, as though to prove the worth of your life in this moment requires validation from others, particularly from those who confirm the validity of your choices by living the same life. That said, I have my thrill of the chase. It is pure sport for me now.

    The next step isn’t one more blog to add to the heap of knowledge. The next step is concordance, distillation, aggregation, and unified movement. Nobody is more consciously or diligently pursuing that goal than Rollo himself, though Krauserpua and Return of Kings are beginning to rise to the need. The MRA- and MGTOW-types diagnosed the problem but brought inadequate weapons to the fight. PUA street wisdom about female nature is the adequate weapon for the fight.

    Which is why I praise your Wisconsin “lair” to the heavens. I even like the name. You are not a lone PUA, getting fat on easy lays and wounded strays from the herd. You have focused on brotherhood first (see the picture at the top of this post), you are rebuilding the pack, yes, for the pursuit of pussy, but also independent of it. Talk to your brothers across the country about this experience — if you have the talent for communication. You are the future.

    My question to you is what are YOU doing about it?

    I haven’t decided. I am in reconnaissance, trying to gauge the scope of the battle and the length of the war. I have found plenty of dormant manliness eager to find expression in these parts, and yet there is little capacity for self-initiated discipline among the childish manboys who brag about how awesome they are — a hangover from the self-esteem movement. That can only lead to short-lived flash mobs full of angst, seeking release, then quick dissipation.

    I will never be a part of a “clanging cymbal” brigade, which is what we have now. But if enough men still persevere under the harpies’ radar, I will devote my life, fortune, and sacred honor to them, kill and die for them, to overthrow the forced femininity our culture hardly detects anymore. It is the cause of this age.

    Matt

  • OlioOx

    @ King A In human life, it is not necessary to worry too much over the ultimate truth-value of certain kinds of statements and ideas, because if we spent all our time trying to prove or disprove truth to the ultimate degree, we’d never get anything done. People of all different cultures have been debating the meaning of things like justice, rights, the meaning and purpose of life, ethics, etc. for thousands of years, and the results of these debates are ongoing and in constant flux over time. Yet we need working definitions of these things in order to run societies. At some point we need to stop the debating, adopt working definitions, and create institutions — which of course can and should be revised from time to time with fresh debate, in continuing efforts toward refinement. That’s the best we can do in a secular world. In the religious way of things, the ongoing process is (or should be) one of interpretation and re-interpretation of the writings or of the tradition.

    Clearly, nobody on earth is yet in possession of the ultimate truths on certain things such as the ideas we are raising here, though many are convinced they are. But the mere existence of such a multiplicity of entities — that is, in the scholastic sense of possible explanations for given phenomena — after all these centuries of worldwide human culture and debate, is sufficient proof, at least to the non-religious, that the ultimate truths have not been found.

    But this is not quite the case in all fields of enquiry. Look at the sciences. Nowadays there is not a wide variety of explanations for such things as the origin of species (note I did not say the origin of life), the nature, structure, and function of proteins, the nature of visible light, and so on. In other words, the truth of such matters has been sufficiently well established for almost all practical and theoretical matters. Do we possess the ultimate truth of, say, the nature of the electromagnetic spectrum? No, but we are much closer to it than we are to the ultimate truth of a question like, “what are the true roles, if any, of human males and females?” or “What is the nature of male-female relationship that is most just and most conducive to happiness?”

    Ultimate truth, provable as such, only exists in fields which are quite divorced from human reality, such as pure mathematics. Geometric figures, such as circles and triangles, can be defined such that their definitions must result in perfection; but it is not possible to create, in the real world, an actual circle that is perfect — but only good enough to do its job as a bicycle wheel or whatever. So too, concepts such as justice, the true natures of males and females, etc. can be posited and defined such that they seem to express perfect truth; but it all breaks down in the real world if you demand perfect, ultimate definitions. Even many people who have never heard the word “postmodernist” understand this sort of thing instinctively nowadays.

    So I do have an alternative to extreme postmodernist relativism: That alternative is, we humans are perfectly capable of creating practical, workable definitions for ourselves of any difficult concepts, such as justice and freedom, without fretting over their ‘ultimate truth.’ It happens all the time. It’s not at all necessary to be convinced of the ‘ultimate truth’ of any metaphysical assertions in the American Constitution in order to recognize that it’s worked extremely well as a set of foundational (even practical) principles for over two centuries.

    That’s why I listen to what you have to say. It’s true that I enjoy pointing out the mythological bases of your agenda, but there may be applicable value in your program. I would advise anyone to approach the advice of King A in the same way I approach the American Constitution: It makes ridiculous and unprovable assertions — such as the existence of “rights” to anything — but as a template for good government it’s well worth looking at. (Secular) philosophers may roll their eyes at such things as “rights” but the institutionalized concept, no matter how shaky, seems to at least stimulate and organize real efforts to protect the weak from the strong. (You won’t catch this amateur pomo calling for the jettisoning of “rights” just because they’re basically a myth.)

  • xsplat

    I wish the blog had an upvote function. So many good comments show up here, but I don’t want to clog up for forum with empty “Great comment!” posts.

    Olio, you are more than articulate, more than organized in your thinking, more than insightful and creative, you are also remarkably patient. There must be a way to earn income from that remarkable talent. Politics? Teaching?

  • Matthew King (King A)

    Take two:

    Clearly, nobody on earth is yet in possession of the ultimate truths…

    Ultimate truth, provable as such, only exists…

    … the mythological bases of your agenda… [rights] are basically a myth.

    How specifically do you know these three statements?

    Do you not recognize these three assumptions as themselves assertions in the absence of evidence?

    This is what I meant when I said “you will have to dive deeper with me for the proper answer.” Postmodernism refutes itself. The best postmodernists understood this self-evident absurdity. You seem unaware of it. You can continue making foundational assertions all you want, but that is where you and I stop our dialectic.

    I am the agnostic here. You are the dogmatist, unaware of the dogmatic nature of your assertions. But, much worse, you combine your dogma with this fatal conclusion:

    … it is not necessary to worry too much over the ultimate truth-value of certain kinds of statements and ideas …

    And where did you get that dogma? This is evidence you have inherited your postmodern dogmatism and have no ability to defend it at the “ultimate” level. Why would you even try to learn that skill? Your teachers told you, and you credulously accepted, that “it is not necessary.”

    I am prepared to defend my position down to first principles. I am aware of precisely which principles rely on faith (or what you call “working definitions”) — such as, we may rely on reason to elucidate truth — and this foundation-up knowledge allows me access to agnosticism when superficial pomo braggarts like you come along to tell me what’s “really” true behind the Platonic “noble lies.”

    Matt

  • Djeed

    I bumped into this last day. What the hell is going on with women in the States? I thought they were secretly attracted to masculine traits…

  • OlioOx

    [As usual I fucked up blockquotes in previous post. The part I tried to quote was the first paragraph, by xsplat. The rest was me, OlioOx, responding to it.]

    @King A About our pomo vs. (erm. whatever you call your point of view? Traditional analytic? Western rational tradition? Anglo-american school? Catholic philosophy?) spat —

    Indeed I should have said things like, “I believe that nobody on earth is yet in possession of the ultimate truths” and so forth. In fact it is only quite recently that this kind of radical postmodernist relativism is beginning to make sense to me, after many years of being aware of it. I don’t accept or espouse this kind of thinking with total conviction; I’m just rather strongly inclined towards it nowadays. It just increasingly seems to me that believers in revealed eternal religious truths, absolute principles, and all that sort of thing that we disagreed on, don’t really make watertight cases.

    Perhaps I don’t adequately understand the cases. If it is obvious to you that I don’t, then you shouldn’t waste your time with me, unless you want to take the trouble to educate me a little. By that I don’t mean telling me to read certain books or whatever; I want to hear it straight from yourself. I warn you I’m a rotten student however, and I will continue to make fun of you when you display your more obnoxious vices.

    You said, “I am prepared to defend my position down to first principles.” Which first principles are you referring to? Descartes for example? And you also say “I am the agnostic here” and that your “foundation-up knowledge allows me access to agnosticism.” So you’re an agnostic? What’s your ‘position’ then? I thought you were some kind of Christian. Or do you mean you’re an agnostic in the sense of “a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study”? (Clarity, limpidity, and transparency of expression are verbal cleanliness; cleanliness is next to Godliness; so wean yourself off Sir Humphrey Appleby and pick up Steve Sailer, Pat Buchanan, or Malcolm Gladwell as models.)

  • xsplat

    OlioOx: CH has actually deleted some of my past comments, and most things I post never get through nowadays,..

    I keep hearing of that happening, and when it would happen to me I’d try to make a comment on the EDITING and deleting of my comments, but he’d delete those comments.

    I used to enjoy commenting there, but there are cornerstones to his view that I strongly disagree with and believe are pernicious. He would rebut my disagreements with snark and dissimulation before editing them and then deleting my comments altogether. That put me off and I stopped visiting his blog over a year ago. Great writer, useless debater.

    Lately I hear many people have stopped visiting the comments section because it’s gone downhill.

  • OlioOx

    @xsplat

    You strongly disagree with some CH positions and find them pernicious? I need to hear all about this, and I seriously hope to hear Rollo’s opinon too. Would you care to elaborate, here or at any other place of your choice? And Rollo, come to think of it, do you yourself have any fundamental differences from the CH outlook?

  • xsplat

    Very briefly, I disagree with his emphasis on being aloof, and his meta view that all attractive traits in the end boil down to or can be replaced by confidence.

    I’ve written several blog posts on both points.

  • xsplat

    Very briefly, I disagree with his emphasis on being aloof, and his meta view that all attractive traits in the end boil down to or can be replaced by confidence.

    I’ve written several blog posts on both points.

    The views are pernicious because being aloof is not a core fundamental of game, it is a style of game. Some of us have an emotionally open style that can work at least as well. Teaching principles of pathology to non-dark triad men doesn’t lead to an integrated, congruent, attractive personality. As men we need to incorporate our knowledge of women into our own, personal styles of attraction. Aloof is not a one size fits all shoe. So he’s harming some guys with that.

    The other view is pernicious because it leads men to neglect their careers and other methods of long term self improvement. It places an irrational faith on irrational self confidence, at the expense of a long, slow, laborious path to greatness.

  • Demarcated Values

    In response to someone above, CH has deleted/ not approved MANY of my comments. He picks and chooses which ones fit for his purpose. I’ve even seen a few of my long essay-like comments days later (after being denied) morphed into entire posts of his – by all appearances from my end. And, where my comment that acted as muse went…who knows. I’ve actually read quite a few people have had similar things happen.

    What bothersome about CH sometimes as well, is when people over there adopt your pseudonym or will take a comment you’ve made in the past, and write it as their own. Seen it happen many times before. Which is why I try to stick to Rollo. He at least seems to present his own ideas, as his own, and gives credit where credit’s due. However, I’m finding more and more often that commenting with effort can seem at times futile, unless you are established in the blog-realm already.

    This isn’t meant to say CH isn’t valuable for certain purposes – especially as a starting point for those new to this “Red Pill” stuff, as he does write many quality articles that make ones heart drop and grin simultaneously in his style of presentation. The problem is how, where, and why CH is able to espouse SO MUCH, SO QUICKLY – for those of us that have experienced our comments disappearing into the netherworld and an article popping up appraised by his many acolytes, where were it to be posted by us, would be dismissed as our comment was in the first place. I assume there are multiple writers, and that many of the commentators on CH are people who write for the site as well. Such is the internet, I guess.

    And as for the aloof thing, I think you’re right xplat. I wish there were a simple and definitive guideline for those new to Red Pill wisdom that would guide them toward the core knowledge & skills one need embrace without steering many down too dark of a path, leading them away from what matters and into the murky depths of the female mind – I went through a brief phase which felt like an eternity following exclusively Dark Triad traits as I understood them (which worked to my advantage and disadvantage simultaneously), and it certainly got me pussy, but also caused me to lose sight of who I was, and where I originally wanted to go, as well as what I even wanted out of life beyond being somehow becoming what I had let myself become – Dark Game incarnate, and were you to see my smile then compared to now, you’d see a completely different person, and an entirely different smirk. I try to steer clear from those who in any way, shape, or form attempt to make money from their writings beyond perhaps a paypal donate button somewhere unimposing on their site. Otherwise I just assume it’s snake-oil.

  • Demarcated Values

    Wow, I just read Olio & King A’s dialogue up there, and that’s some excellent reading. Anyone who sees this, just skip up and read what they wrote.

  • OlioOx

    xsplat, could you point me to those particular blog posts of yours?

    Indeed CH is written by a brotherhood of contributers, they are quite open about it although it’s only rarely mentioned. Perhaps they are putting their ‘dark triad’ principles into practice in how they run their blog, as a way of maintaining the principles as generalized mental habits.

    So in good old CH style, I’d like to agree with Demarcated Value’s exact words above: “Wow, I just read Olio’s words up there, and that’s some excellent reading. Anyone who sees this, just skip up and read what he wrote.” =)

  • xsplat

    @Olio, it would take me as much time to find the posts as you, I think. Try the search function on xplat.wordpress.com for the keyword aloof, or on google site:xsplat.wordpress.com “don’t be aloof” or “being aloof is not game” . For all attractive traits not boiling down to confidence, try your google foo with the term confidence, or google “xsplat boil down to confidence” (without quotes this time) or xsplat venn diagram.

    No one really knows how many contributors write at the heartiste site. Years back before it changed sites, Roissy had alluded to having the help of an editor, and I conjectured that the political posts were written in full by his editor. That post got deleted. I still think that might have been as good as guess as any, and that perhaps it’s his original editor who has taken a more active role.

    I also used to remark how amazing it was for a writer to have such an incredibly long hot streak. Usually writers have only a few brilliant years in them – but he was on a roll for an astoundingly long time. He may have just succumbed to what happens to most artists – how many of the best musicians of the 60s and 70s went on to have long productive careers where they maintained their quality of output? Some people only get 1 or 2 really great years.

  • xsplat

    Also, power corrupts, and his was a very powerful voice. That may have been enough to get his head stuck up his ass.

  • xsplat

    Oh, and also, he only started talking about there being more than one writer during the time that Lady Rain outed his identity. That’s the same moment he switched blog addresses. So that could just be a way to maintain some sort of unaccountability for the blog to his now known identity.

  • OlioOx

    Got it xsplat, i found the ‘don’t be aloof’ stuff — i think i’m going to start visiting your blog. I just watched that ‘reality hits you hard bro’ for the first time, i’d never heard of it before; yes i suppose this guy dominates his environment but he’s the kind of guy i’d pay a few dollars to entertain at a party and then leave, if you know what I mean… (even though I behave that way myself sometimes when I’m drunk.)

  • xsplat

    I’m not sure of what value I’d get from associating with CH in real life. Judging by his snarky dissimulation in the comments section, no, he’s not a guy I’d invite to a party. But that’s just me – I’m picky about little things like emotional openness and intellectual honesty in men. People with tits get a pass. Genuine dark triad traits are not seductive to me, and I want to avoid ties with sociopaths and narcissists.

    Maybe that’s just missing an opportunity to use people effectively, but the question is – can such people be used effectively for personal ends? Dangerous, no?

  • Gilligan

    Chivalry is dead. A man may employ it to get a date, but when used in that vein, chivalry is merely another tool to get what he wants. The purest form of chivalry would be to extend special privileges to a women he has no interest in. That brand of chivalry, rightly, has been dead for quite awhile. What’s left is simple good manners directed to your fellow man, regardless of sex. Of course, that has faded as well. Women have tried, somewhat desperately and often hilariously, to keep their special privileges, but that boat sailed a long time ago.

  • Hail to the V |

    [...] are cultural engineerings of the feminine imperative. I delved into the history of chivalry in The Feminine Imperative – Circa 1300 and made my best attempt to outline the history of chivalry, the feminine bastardization of it and [...]

  • Simon the peacemaker

    Great article, tho I’m not sure about the assumptions of female hypergamy. Many of the troubadours were into what they called “fin’ amors,” which meant non-sexual or “true love” which wouldnt necessarily chime with the hypothesis of sexual hypergamy.

    There’s a new article on A voice for Men on this entire subject which may be of interest: http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/chivalry/the-rise-of-chivalric-love-or-the-power-of-shame/

  • Why Romance Died | Alpha Is Assumed

    [...] the Romantic Era, over-the-top romantic praise was the order of the day.  I’m aware that the Feminine Imperative played a role, but somehow praising women to high hell used to get men [...]

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 5,419 other followers

%d bloggers like this: