The Plan

the_plan

For the longest time I never had a plan. Oh, I knew what I wanted to do in life; something artistic, publicly recognizable, flamboyant, but the path to get to that reality was never really concrete for the 17-19 year old mind. First and foremost I wanted to get laid. I had aspirations and I recognized my innate talents, but I really had no plan.

At first I did what most conditioned Betas do at 17 and followed the ‘official’ script approved by the feminine imperative – nice guy > rapport > comfort > commitment > monogamy > and if magical predestined sex happened to be graced upon me at one of these stages then it was all the confirmation of process any Beta required. But still I had no plan. It felt like a plan, but it never quite played out as a plan once that plan came together.

Serial monogamy with a ONEitis girlfriend seemed like a plan. That’s what the imperative had always reinforced and it seemed logical. Man, did I ever hate the guys who had the capacity (ability) to entertain multiple women concurrently. How could the women so enthralled by these ‘players’ not see their deviation from the ‘official’ approved script of the feminine imperative? Didn’t they know they were wrong in their deviation? Why did women reward them with sex and intimacy, and why did they do so without the prerequisite steps laid out and approved by the imperative’s teachings? The FI had always taught me women were to be treated with default respect – as gender equals, as rationally acting an independent agent as my(equal)self. Could they not rationally conclude, as I did, that they themselves were rewarding the very Men who deviated from the plan that the imperative had set before all of us?

I didn’t realize it at the time, but what I failed to consider is that women’s innate Hypergamy was in conflict with the plan of the feminine imperative. Later in life, the male offspring of the feminine imperative (Betas) would come to realize the true plan of the imperative, and the supporting, provisioning role it conditions them for in raising other men’s genetic legacies, or their own, less than optimal ones. Either by self-realization or self-actualization men, even the most beta men, usually come to realize the plan of the imperative. For some it’s a sad realization, too late to really do much of anything but moderate the impact the plan had. For others, it might be freeing in a post-divorce separation from not just their wives but the plan the imperative convinced them of. And still for others, it’s the relief of having sidestepped the consequences of a life-impacting ideology.

Making a Plan

There’s a clever Jewish saying that goes, “Man plans, God laughs.” It’s kind of endearing in a patrician way, but it really amounts to another saying by the world’s most famous Beta, “Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans.” Or in other words, ‘it is what it is’ and you never really had any influence over the circumstances that have led to your present conditions.

I used to believe this. I used to think that having a plan was more or less irrelevant, because ultimately you’re really never in control of what happens to you. My Mother used to give me grief about being “obsessed” with bodybuilding and staying in shape. She’d say, “you never know what tomorrow will bring, you could get cancer or hit by a bus, and then all that fussing over your body will be a waste.” I remember telling her yes, but this is how I want to look now, I wont care about it in a casket.

Those were always some interesting conversations, but the fact of the matter is I really had no plan for myself of my own creation.

Failing to Plan

Failing to plan is planning to fail. My Marine buddies like this line. In the military I’m sure it was a great mantra, but how many of us allow things to happen to ourselves as the result of not having and sticking to a plan? I’m not saying we ever have a complete control over our circumstances, but when we don’t have a plan the plans of others influence the consequences of our own conditions. As I illustrated above, when a young man has no plan the feminine imperative is already there with its own – ready to fill that void for its own purposes, ready to convince that young man that its plan was really his own concept.

One thing I’ve always advised the high school forum readers on the Sosuave forums is to plan for success when they sarge a girl they like. So many of these young Men get so absorbed in the mechanics and anxieties of asking a girl out, or maneuvering to become intimate with her that they don’t plan for success. I tell them to expect success, so plan for that eventuality, and there’s a foundational reason for this.

Suddenly a girl agrees to go out with him and he has no plan for a date. What this telegraphs to her is she’s agreed to a date, agreed to potential intimacy, agreed to a hypergamic assessment, with a guy who hasn’t thought past the getting a date part. His lack of a plan revealed his Beta essence – he wasn’t expecting to succeed, she detects this on a limbic level, and the context, the frame, of the date becomes one of working back from a Beta presupposition.

An Alpha mindset expects success. One of the key tenets of Game is irrational self-confidence, and while this is a core element of Game, its successful application hinges upon follow through – and follow through requires a plan. Whether that plan is about a PUA on an insta-date after a successful sarge or that plan is about banging the wife you reserved your virginity for on your honeymoon night, the conditionality is the same – Alphas already know what they want and have a concrete plan of where they want to go.

Confidence

One of the more frequent questions I’m asked on the SS forums is,

“Rollo, I understand confidence is the most attractive aspect about men for women, how do I develop confidence?”

Confidence is an interesting concept, not just in it’s application with women, but in a meta-life sense. Confidence has been elevated to this mystical realm so we read,..”The reason you fail is because you don’t believe in yourself enough.” This is a very similar mechanic to the ‘Just Be Yourself‘ line of reasoning. It’s something people say when they don’t know what else to say – “aww man you just need to be confident with her, that’s what the bitchez want, just look at any PoF profile, confidence, confidence, confidence,…” What they’re not explaining is that confidence is derived from past successes and the inherent knowledge that you can repeat those successes again.

I understand the frustation; women say just be yourself, guys say just be confident, both imply some nebulous quality that only those in the know really have a grasp of. I’ve addressed the JBY principle before, but how do you get this confidence women declare is so important in their list of demands?

Confidence is derived from options.

When you know you can repeat your past successes, or you have the resources to repeat concurrent successes already available to you, you have confidence. This is the code women are asking for when they claim to want confidence: “I want a man who has the presence of a man that other men want to be and other women want to fuck.”

The great irony of this is that the male confidence women want, that exceeds a woman’s deserving of that confidence, will always be considered conceit. Why? Because that confidence conflicts with the plan of the feminine imperative. It’s sexy as hell, but it represents too great a Threat to the feminine imperative.

As I stated in my Plate Theory series, it’s much easier to have an ‘I don’t give a fuck’ attitude when you really don’t give a fuck. If you maintain a presence of non-exclusivity with women, and down to each individual woman, the straightjacket of the plan of the feminine imperative begins to loosen. Included in YOUR plan is a sampling, and filtration of, women who have a genuine desire to be with you. Not a mitigated desire, not an obligated desire, but a genuine desire to associate themselves with the potential you represent, confidently, prospectively and sexually. It doesn’t seem like filtration or vetting in this sense that you’re cognitively looking for the perfect mate – the perfect mate presents herself to you.

Too many guys think they can’t spin multiple plates. They think it MUST mean they MUST banging every available woman at their disposal and wanton sex is the ultimate goal. This is the distortion my critics hope to attach to Plate Theory,..

“Rollo says to fuck anything that moves, that’s outrageous!”

No, but the concept of non-exclusivity does fundamentally disagree with the plan of the feminine imperative, which is why the FI and its agents rely upon those distortions to maintain the imperative’s social dominance.

If you have the confidence that comes from having succeeded at a task with predictable regularity in the past, you can say with a reasonable expectation that you are confident to repeat that task in the future. In the context of a career, a sport, a particular social engagement, or maybe a talent or skill we all stand up and applaud that individual’s confidence – they make it look easy. Say you’re confident with women, say you’ve had success in the past with them, and you are a player, even when you are a devoted husband of many supportive years, make this declaration and you are a deluded, typical male.

But confidence is what chicks dig Rollo,..WTF?

It’s not the confidence, it’s the plan. YOUR plan. It’s easy to give illustrations about men having date plans beyond the approaching her, but this is only one example of the overall planning a man must have in his life. Alphas plan. That may be cognitively or not, but their confidence is evolved from a sense of others, of other women recognizing their unspoken plan.

The reason that Frame is the first Iron Rule of Tomassi is that it relies so much upon a man having such a concrete plan that he will exclude others, even potential mates from it if situation warrants it. A Man’s plan needs to supersede his desire for sex, but also includes using sex to effect it.

Full stop.

“My God Rollo, are you suggesting that sex be an inclusive part of a Man’s plan even if he has no intention of long term commitment to her?”

In terms of a plan, yes. That may seem immoral or dehumanizing of me, but stop and think about it. Is it any more immoral or dehumanizing than the plan of the feminine imperative on a personal scale? What about a global, legalistic scale?

Is it beyond the pale of hypergamy?

Begin with the Ending in Mind

But we’re better than that right? We’re the nobel, chivalrous, honorable sex. It’s our commission to ensure that women fall in line because they know not what is right for themselves. (insert Arthurian prose here)

That’s nice prose, but hardly a plan. For all of the control and guidance women really seek (a nice way to say dominance) in a man, it really comes down to the direction of his vision. Is she confident in you? The biggest meta-shit test you will ever face as a Man is in replacing the plan of the feminine imperative with your own. How audacious! How cocky! How dare you?!

Begin with the ending in mind. As per the first Iron Rule of Tomassi, she enters your frame, she enters your reality, she is the curious actor, she is the inquisitive  one, she explores the world you create for her, it’s your friends, family and cohorts she encounters. If you feel the reverse is true in your LTR, you’ve enter her reality, and the narrative, the question of whose plan is in effect is answered for you.


109 responses to “The Plan

  • Leap of a Beta

    Best successes I’ve had with women were following this advice you’ve written here. Have something in mind to invite her to go along with. Best things are either a part of your life already – activities you do on the regular that she can join you in. Hiking, biking, going to museums or art gallery openings, etc. The other is to keep a list of things you want to do but haven’t made time for yet. That trip outside the city to a beach, a tour of a brewery, distillery, vineyard, etc.

    View women as opportunities. Like any opportunity in life, you may not have planned for the specific one to pan out. However, by planning to set up the multiple, specific opportunities you do expect you’ll find yourself more prepared to handle the ones you don’t with a simple reallocation of resources.

    When you view it in this way, the idea of ‘I’m going to take THIS SPECIFIC GIRL out on a date to grab dinner and see a gallery opening’ becomes ‘I’m going to take any of the girls I’m interested in to this gallery opening’. Throw out a few invites all at once and respond as you will. Even a man with little confidence can inspire some competition this way when he turns down four of five women with a simple ‘someone else already claimed your spot’.

  • IJ

    “…..but it really amounts to another saying by the world’s most famous Beta, “Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans”

    John Lennon was the world’s biggest beta? He shagged his way around the world in the Beatles hayday, was a famous rockstar, spent a good proportion of his life off his head on top quality drugs, was recognised worldwide for his immense talent and made a fortune. I can think of bigger betas.

    Good article otherwise but I’m not having that. Yoko was a bad move, but if you’d ingested as much acid your judgement might have been a little off at times too.

  • Ton

    I was all fucked up regarding dating after my divorce. Then one day it dawned on me, planning was planning. If I could plan a patrol I could plan an approach and date and how to get her naked.

  • ‘Reality’ Doug

    Great ending: ” If you feel the reverse is true in your LTR, you’ve enter her reality, and the narrative, the question of whose plan is in effect is answered for you.”

    It makes the abstract of the Female Imperative so concrete. I can feel the nagging, the perfunctory social obligations, the honey-do list. Morality is getting the fuck out of that shit, man. We don’t have the political reins.

  • Xavier

    Great post. Its very positive for a man to read this. Do your thing, have a plan and if she doesnt follow, another will. Once you have spinned plate and tasted diversity, staying in a relationship is very hard. It takes self control. Your women must understand that your exclusivity is your gift to her. Your behavior must reflect this all the time. Just keep doing your stuff. Sport, working out, shopping, going out with the boys. If shes with you and spread her leg every night, youre doin the right thing.

  • A♠

    “There’s a clever Jewish saying that goes, ‘Man plans, God laughs’.”

    Remember, He could be laughing at you.

    Or with you.

    Make plans, of course.

    But be prepared for both their success and failure.

  • Adam

    I shed a few tears at the ‘plates spinning’ part. Bravo. Might as well rename this blog Masculine Imperative.

  • Haniel

    Speaking of plans, when is your book being released? I have a standing order ready for 10+ copies to shove into friends faces.

  • mikec74

    Rollo,

    Outstanding post. This is one of the best you’ve written. It really ties together multiple themes and concepts into a coherent overall “Plan”.

    BTW, you were absolutely right about Susan Walsh from day 1. I’ll admit for a time I really thought she could be a “friend of men” and provide a balanced POV, but ultimately you are correct that she is simply looking to sanitize and co-opt “Game” concepts for the feminine imperative.

  • FuriousFerret

    Men as a whole are simply seen as faceless drones that perform work. When you’re born the only people that really care for you to succeed are your parents and even that is subverted when your parents believe in a system solely designed to exploit them and will unwittingly offer up their kid as sacrifice.

    I think the whole thing is designed to shake loose the wheat from the chaff and the individual man decides his fate. It’s the ultimate shit test. How strong does a guy have to be to see through every bit of social conditioning that has been injected straight into his brain since he was a little kid?

    There are only two categories for a guy. You either a sheep or a wolf. Unfortunately, because we live in an increasing nihilistic society where everybody does what’s right in their own eyes, men are reduced to this binary option.

    It’s hard to go against what everyone tells you is the path to go. So hard in fact, that even though most men will willingly walk right into that slaughter house even though all they see is grounded up meat coming out of it.

    I have heard criticism that’s this sphere is the flip side of feminism and that it’s as extreme as their brand of craziness. I have thought about this and have concluded that it probably is and I stand by it simply because I think it’s right for society but even if it’s not I really don’t give a fuck. I’m not interested in trying to make everybody. That’s simply impossible anyway. The feminists are miserable. At the end of the day, they wanted something that couldn’t happen. They wanted to be model pretty and changed their society chasing after a pipe dream. They would have served themselves better funding plastic surgery and fighting against processed foods.

    What I love about the ‘Rational Male’ is that it doesn’t need to change the world to help the individual. It provides some ground rules to do it yourself. It would be swell if we made the world better for guys, but if we can’t change the attitudes and laws, so what? It’s all good, we can just better ourselves. Feminism couldn’t do that. It relies on creating a vast elaborate system to control others all in attempt for something that futile anyway. At the end of the day they wanted genetically ugly women to each be a Helen of Troy. All that work and destruction to be seen as a pretty.

  • Sex Panther

    why do you say “women reward men with sex and intimacy”

    rewarding has got nothing to do with it, reads like more FI to me, but with sex for her with someone she wants

  • freebird

    It’s a business proposition for women,it’s time men learned to keep the emotions in check and do the same.

    Excellent post,maybe the best yet.
    Simple,yet clear and concise.

  • Marellus

    Sometimes I wish I could see women as dispassionately as I see men.

  • monster221

    dude i love your shit. sometimes i feel you go off with the talking points and catch phrases and such. but its stuff like this that keeps me coming.

    you have a way of clarifying the situation. while others may write well, have points and such, much of the writing is either focused on the many distractions or is directed at crafting a facade.

    you keep focus, and your writing is directed at crafting the man. thank you for existing rollo.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Hehehe, your welcome. I’ll do my best to continue to exist.

  • Danger

    Brilliant.

    For my late teens and early 20′s this was exactly me. If you weren’t a utility to my life plan at the time, you were there to interact and chat with, but otherwise invisible. No matter how hot, flirty, or sexually available she was to me.

    As a result the girls flocked to me, and I couldn’t truly understand why. Nor could my envious friends.

    I constantly heard stories about said girls who thought I was hot, or sexy, or how they would give me “the night of my life”. But I would always just laugh and say “that’s cool”. And here I am, just a 5′ 9″ guy who weighed maybe 165 at the time, with average looks.

    But it was all about the frame I carried with me and my attitude towards life.

    This is probably the best post yet that you have made Rollo. It really hits home.

  • earl

    I look at confidence as what is derived from a male solipistic mindset.

    We learn by doing…once you figure out what works…keep doing it and the confidence increases.

  • deti

    To me, this is the money quote:

    “It’s not the confidence, it’s the plan. YOUR plan.”

    Whose plan are you going to follow? Whose plan will you use?

    Know that everyone around you wants to tack things onto your plan, get you to modify it or excise certain things from it, or even get a new plan. Your woman probably has a plan of her own.

    Am I bashing women here? Not at all. She has her own plan, informed, molded and shaped by the feminine imperative, her ambition, her hope for a husband and children, or any number of other things. She wants you to help her put her plan into effect because it will get her whatever it is she wants or thinks she wants. Is this bad? Not at all. It’s simply an observation of men and women working at cross-purposes.

    YOUR plan. Remember YOUR plan and don’t get sidetracked.

  • Weston

    I could read stuff like this all day every day. Where’s the hell’s the book? Thought you were shooting for a mid – March publication.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    2nd round of final edits. Soon, very soon,..

  • cycnical optimist

    I’ll second that, heh. Will probably need to purchase more copies than i can utilise. A friend who is about to get married to a controlling, jealous woman, but its ok cause he’s “so in love” yes ill see that in a decade. The worst part is the company he is MD of is his fathers who built it from nothing.

  • Jeremy

    I think a better response to:

    Rollo says to fuck anything that moves, that’s outrageous!

    is:

    That’s what young men do, either make yourself their target and enjoy it or stop complaining about the nature of others.

    Yes, that’s a little out of character for me.

  • Joe Blow

    I had exactly this mindset into my earlier 20′s. Then I developed a “next girl up!” mentality. I don’t know what happened but a switch flipped and I just quit giving a damn about them and started thinking about women as being put there for my pleasure, rather than the reverse. If a girl shot me down, I’d try to take her girlfriend home, and frequently succeed. (Occasionally a useful game tactic there, BTW). This resulted in a few fun and mildly depraved years. Eventually I met a really good woman that I thought had long term potential and I married her. She’s proved to be a good wife. Even then, I didn’t have a plan. I just had me, and some audaciousness. If I’d had some stronger game, a real plan for the rest of my life, I’d have married up a bit more… but a brother shouldn’t get greedy, y’know? She gave me her best years, now she’s getting mine, no regrets, I’m leaving the SMV equivalent of Vegas with house money in my pocket. That said, I’m going to teach my son what I’m learning here as we work together to figure this thing out. If I ever catch the little man with less than an 8, I’m going to kick his ass and tell him to aim higher.

  • Ton

    Danger’ s post reminds me of something my father told me. To paraphrase

    Every man must have a mission statement for his life based on his ambitions, talents and desires. It has to be tailored made for each individual man. You cannot borrow it from someone else. And you should not change it on a whim but only when cold hard reality forces you

  • Different T

    This post is meant to be intellectual/moral, and not behavioral/ethical. Remember, “In girl-world, women are the sole arbiters of relationship wisdoms – men are simply foils for their legitimacy, even in the best of pretenses.”

    What I love about the ‘Rational Male’ is that it doesn’t need to change the world to help the individual.

    If this “manosphere” is to make those men capable of being creators and not only exploiters/destroyers, consider:

    1) The current basis is nihilistic in nature, and thus quite easily exploitable.

    From Minter:

    “There is no meaning here. No meaning to Game. There is no grand finish line.”

    CH may be realizing it:

    Although it’s wise for “nurture firsters” to admit the limits of their ideology and concede that the gene determinists have a point and have been heretofore cut off from the national conversation on matters of public policy, the latter have their advocates who also push their theory of everything too far.

    Though this statement indicates it may be a false start (or it could just be marketing):

    You actively incorporate the trappings of alpha male behavior and attitude into your life until it becomes a real part of you, and then you have a gleaming row of sexually aroused women as a reward.

    And this statement from Rollo indicates the lack of a value system.

    That may seem immoral or dehumanizing of me, but stop and think about it. Is it any more immoral or dehumanizing than the plan of the feminine imperative on a personal scale? What about a global, legalistic scale?

    2) A revaluation of hypergamy.

    Hypergamy, as distinct from the feminine imperative, basically states that humans seek to mate across and up hierarchies. Note that the hierarchy type and order are not fixed.

    From Minter:

    “I know longer think that women are about marriage and hard monogamy. They are truly about hypergamy.”

    At face value, this is the equivalent of saying “men desire sex with physically attractive women” or “children want ice cream for every meal.” Without the context of the FI’s influence on the social, economic, political, and cultural beliefs/systems/institutions; the statement holds little diagnostic value.

    Further, the opposite of hypergamy is not hard monogamy. It is a fixed/hard caste system. If you favor this (likely because you erroneously believe you would be at the top), consider the political and economic realities in which this system originated. You may also investigate the long-term costs associated with its implementation.

    3) A re-defining of the “feral” woman.

    They are not feral.

    4) Continued effort to end “white knighting,” especially the subtle and rationalizing strains.

    This is derivative of the nihilism issue.

  • ExMachina

    Rollo, do you know your Myers-Briggs type?

  • gregg

    “The biggest meta-shit test you will ever face as a Man is in replacing the plan of the feminine imperative with your own”

    Brilliant thought! But this one is not easy. What precisely is this “feminine imperative”?

    “Date chicks, do things for chicks, slave to chicks, work for chicks, entertain and sleep with chicks, marry chicks, make children to chicks, protect those children and chicks, think about chicks, LIVE with chicks, die for chicks, derive your manly value from chicks, think what to do to be “worthy” of chicks.” And? Something else?

    Can you tell me which part of feminine imperative you want to replace? And what is your personal replacement precisely? For example – in your life? Married man with child/ren. Your whole life were about…what? You? Or .. chicks and emotions pertained thereto? Has there ever been anything else MORE important to you, than your wife and daughter (feminine imperative and its results), in your life? Honestly? Where is it? What is it?

    Again, this one is not easy ;)

  • Rollo Tomassi

    3) A re-defining of the “feral” woman.

    They are not feral.

    Care to qualify this?

    https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/the-pet/

    Ask the guy married for 18 years with 4 children whose wife leaves him for a greater Alpha for no other reason than her impulse for optimized hypergamy if women have the potential to ‘go feral’.

  • Different T

    @rollo

    Feral: having reverted to the wild state, as from domestication.

  • The Narrator

    Different T,

    While I agree with your criticism that game suffers from a lack of normative ethical standards, faulting men for “nihilism” while denying that women have the same potential makes your bias obvious. “Nihilism” and “going feral” are ethical equivalents.

    This being said, I’m curious as to what your normative standards are.

  • The Narrator

    Oh, and ethics is the philosophical pursuit of morality so your distinction between intellectual/moral and behavioral/ethical is nonsensical.

    What are you trying to do again?

  • Love's Orphan

    Hypergamy and Game are biological tools. Ethics and Morals are social tools. When they go head to head, biology always wins.

  • The Narrator

    @Love’s Orphan

    Agreed, but it could be argued that the formation of cultural norms was biologically and evolutionarily beneficial. In that case, biology and morality are synergistic.

    Inter gender relations, however, resemble a marketplace more than any sort of biological mechanism meaning they are open to just as much exploitation and corruption from both the buy and sell side.

  • Mark Minter

    “You better lock your fucking body up”

    Anyone that’s been to Marine Corp boot camp recognizes this phrase. Come to the position of attention. When a Marine recruit speaks to anyone, and I mean anyone, other than another recruit, he must come to the position of attention. Body straight and erect, feet, touching at the heels, toes at a 45 degree angle, hands curled almost into a fist, thumbs placed along the seams of the trousers, eyes to the front, expressionless face, shoulders back, chest out. And you do not move. For anything.

    Parris Island is notorious for sand fleas that bite. “They look like gnats that bite like a bear”. It is like a needle poking into you that grows in intensity from a slight sting to the point that a man can shake. And you do not move.

    Once my platoon was waiting to enter the mess hall. The sand fleas were so bad, that the over the doors of the mess halls there are turbine fans that blow down to keep the sand fleas out. We stood in formation outside on a wide sidewalk waiting to enter. The whole chow hall ritual It was actually quite a spectacle to see.

    A Marine boot platoon marches faster than most people walk. If I walk at the boot camp marching pace and you walk at your normal typical pace, it would be like you were a car on the freeway doing 55 and I was doing 80. I would blow past you. And the gait, the stride is unlike anything anywhere. It might appear mechanical to an outsider, but to me it was anything but. There is even a difference in the stride of a Marine recruit from San Diego and one from Parris Island, even a difference between the 3 batallions on Parris Island.

    The Mississippi River is the dividing line, those orginally from west of it go to San Diego; those east of it, go to Parris Island. I went in from Texas but at the induction center, they had vacancies for Parris Island, and I got sent there because I popped off to an NCO about this stupid mustache he had grown since I had gone for the physical. He was looking for volunteers for Parris Island and I heard “Minter, how about you, funny guy?”. So I got a date with the Sand fleas.

    And I still think that those assholes from the 2nd and 3rd Battalions on Parris Island are faggots who do not know to march, much less deserve to say they are in my Marine Corps. No, baby I was from the1st Batallion, Parris Island, the fucking first, the real deal, baby, the 1st ever, not no fucking Hollywood Marines like those California movie star Marines but the fucking First, ever, since 1776 kind of ever. The first batallion, if its possible, has sort of an “old money” east coast feel to it.

    In my mind, at that time, in terms of effective fighting men, it was the 1st Batallion Parris Island, then the North Vietnamese regulars, (the NVA), then those faggots in the other Parris Island Battalions. I mean, I ran in combat boots and trousers. The fucking 3rd Battalion ran in these faggoty little red shorts and high top black tennis shoes. What kind of fucking shit is that? I fucking imagine that today the 3rd is probably doing pilates wearing yoga pants and eating fucking vegan. They be writing Jezebel complaining that the 1st batallion called them faggots and are not suitably senstive to their orientation.

    Then continuing down the list of effectiveness of fighting men, the Cub Scouts, any of those Hollywood Marines from San Diego, the Girl Scouts, any girls badmitton team, then the US Army. When we were running and we passed any platoons from the other batallions, the running singing cadence would change “Look to my left and what do I seeeee. Bunch of fucking faggots looking at me. Lefty righta layeft.”

    And half of the recruits on Parris Island are black men pulled from urban ghettos of the east coast, Bed-Sty, Harlem, South Chicago, and the rural states of the south. And fairly rough dudes. Back then, the Marines were sort of the first criminal punishment, jail or Marines. The first night, our Drill Instructors picked us up at a receiving barracks and we went through this hell night. We stood on these yellow lines at attention like the scenes from Full Metal Jacket and they fucked with us. They called out “All my fucking jailbirds take one step forward.” And the half the fucking platoon stepped forward. They walked around asked “What you do?” And it was typical “Grand Theft Auto, Sir”, “Bad Checks, sir”.

    They stopped in front of a guy from Harlem and asked him and he called out “Tax Evasion, sir”. And the DI went fucking nuts, all Ermy style “Tax E-fucking-vasion, Jeezus Fucking Christ. You communist cocksucker, just begin” (exercising). The guy had been a major drug dealer in Harlem at 21 and they couldn’t get a drug bust to stick, so they charged him with the Al Capone law. He turned out to be a super recruit, a natural leader, a platoon favorite. And 2 weeks before graduation, the FBI came for him and charged him with murder. I can remember being on those yellow lines at attention in the barracks and the Drill Instructor came out and told us. And it was a bitter pill for all. The DI went in his office and shut the door. I swear the attitude of the others was, “So fucking what. Big deal. They should have left him in the Marines.”

    And the Marines served as a major melting pot and that uniformity goes both ways. So when the guy to the front of me was black, and the guy to the side of me was also, let’s just say that I got a little glide in my stride. And I still do. The Marines called it a diddybop. The jargon of the Marines is a historical collection of American street slang and foreign words from wherever the Marines have been. “Dee Dee” is “move” or “walk” in Vietnamese and diddybop dereives from that. And it has moved into the American lexicon. Another term I never understood where it came from was “dickskinners” which meant hands, usually germy, nasty hands. That was the whole etiquette lesson prior to the first meal in the chow hall. “Only 1 fucking dickskinner in that tray at a time, Privates.” My ex-wife started using Dickskinner to the kids, usually at the dinner table. It was most funny to me to hear it. “Get your slimmy dickskinners out of that plate. Use utensils like humans.”

    Most of DIs are black also, about 60%, and the cadence they call is a strange soulful, uniquely Marine, uniquely American, mixture of Harry Belefonte, Barry White, Smokey Robinson, and Marvin Gaye. And you watch them walk, and you mimic it. They don’t really diddybob. It is much more alpha then a diddybob.

    To describe it, I could say that once a woman asked me, “Mark, did you ever model?” and I said “No”. She said “Well you walk like one.” And I said “No, that’s 1st Battallion diddybob. Marines don’t walk like models. Models walk like Marines.” And the verb for marching at full stride, for moving anywhere, was “swoop”. Marines don’t “go” somewhere, they “swoop” And when you are in that formation, it seemed most accurate. We swooped.

    So in approaching the chow hall, we swooped, full speed, headed toward the doors, continuing at full speed, the doors getting ever closer, and they would halt the platoon with the front rank literally inches away from the door, from that “80″ miles an hour to a dead stop. Sometimes the nose of the guys in the front would sort rock up against the glass. Then they would give this command, “Form for chow”. The were four columns. The two middle columns would do 4 right or left face movements, doing a 360 spin more or less. And the outside ranks, 1st and 4th, would step up 1 step, do a left or right face, step in front to be in the second or third ranks, then do another left or right face, effectively forming two ranks. It was crisp, bang, bang, bang, bang. And there we stood. With our bodies “locked the fuck up”.

    And it was chow time for the Sand fleas also. It was a much a part of the discipline of boot camp as anything. Men had scars on their forearms from the bites. If it was windy day, you thanked God.

    And if you moved, hell would come down on you. And when 120 men are standing motionless, almost any movement is quite obvious. You would get pulled out of the formation and forced to excercise, bends-and-thrusts baby, squat thrusts to the rest of you. It was an assumed action. “Begin!” needed no further explanation, “Minter, begin”, meant just go on the grass and “bends-and-thrust”, a verb as well as a noun. My favorite was in the barracks when they would say, “Begin until I get fucking tired and I’m sitting in a chair reading a magazine with a coke.” or “Bends and thrusts forever, Begin”. Being a 19 year old boy in Marine boot camp is a wonderful that sucks while you are doing it. I have seen guys do bend-and-thrusts for 30 minutes and then have drill instructor scream, “You better get faster” and they do. And the command for “faster” comes again and they still get faster.

    So “Begin” was hell. You perspired. The sand fleas lived in the grass. Your movement and your perspiration attracted a swarm of them. So you better “lock your body up” outside that chow hall. Marines learned this sly little gradual movement to slowly attempt to rotate your forearm and scrape the sand flea off the skin. I’m sure the DIs probably saw it, but it was part of the exercise, to teach you to move in that manner, when laying in ambush. There is a famous story of a Marine Sniper that took two days to move across a grass field, 500 mts, 5 football fields, and get within range to shoot a North Vietnamese general. He went without food and water, shit and pissed on himself. He was practically in plain sight. There were people around, guards. And he snuck the fuck up on them and shot that motherfucker. When asked how he got out, he said “I dee-deed like a motherfucker”.

    But the spot, the hell spot to get bit was the back of the head. We had on a cover. The army wears hats, Queen fucking Elizabeth wears hats, bitches at the Kentucky Derby wear hats. Marines wear covers, and “covered” mean you had a cover on. So just below the cover on the back of the head was hell if a sand flea bit you there. At the neck and very bottom of the skull you could possibly scrape the flea off with your collar by shrugging, twisting your head slightly. But you could do nothing about the back of the head.

    And one day, the guy in front me in the chow formation got one. And I could see it as plain as day. And after a minute he started to shake and after 2 minutes of watching him shake, visibly shake and could I see him suffer, I reached up and brushed it off. And within 1 second, my Drill Instuctor was in my ear.

    “You love him? Is he your fucking new sweety? Am I gonna come out into the squad bay tonight and find you two in the same rack swapping spit? That is a Goddam Marine Corps sand flea assigned to Parris Island and he is doing his fucking job. And he deserves his chow. Are you about to eat chow? God knows why, but the Commandant of the Marine Corps makes me feed your slimy worthless ass three times a day. How the fuck could you deprive that sand flea of his chow? You fucking let him eat. Nobody gave the fucking order, ‘Minter, go on fucking vacation, did they?’ You lock your fucking body up.”

    Then he walked away. No bends-and-thrusts. I assume it was because I did it to spare someone else. Sometimes it was surprisingly hard to keep a straight face while this ass chewing was going on. That guy was fucking funny. I heard once, and it could be urban lore, they gave aptitude tests to Drill Instructors, and a surprising number came back with the recommendation of “Stand up Comedian”.

    The advice in this post today is not only for young boys. When hell comes into your life. When you get shown the door, by your sweety, when your Suzy Rottencrotch dumps your ass for that Jody motherfucker, (We sang while running, “Ain’t no need in going back, Jody’s got your Cadillac”) and most especially in a divorce,

    Then “you better lock your fucking body up”.

    You get your ass into a spot and “you lock your fucking body up”, in a manner of speaking. You find a cheap room and get in it. Do not go all balls to wall and try to get yourself some playboy pad and try to rush out into the world with some angry attitude of “I’m gonna get me some new pussy.”

    No, “lock the fuck up”, let the fucking sand fleas eat their chow, and you do exactly as this post suggests, you make a plan, exactly as it states.

    As my last comment stated, a loaded gun of stress chemicals just got fired at you. You are not thinking clearly. And you have to clear this stress. My research shows that testosterone is the best and maybe the only way to do so. I made a comment on Dalrock that Testosterone suppresses Cortisol, the stress chemical, and a comment corrected me “No, Testosterone stomps the fuck out of Cortisol”. And in seaching for the best way to create testosterone in your body, all the links came back with “lift heavy weight”, and there many pages online to instruct you. The sooner you build up the testosterone, the sooner the depression leaves, the sooner the pain is over. And every Game writer stresses the importance of lifting in Inner Game.

    Now, the biggest thing for you to understand that you’re fucked. You are fucking corrupt from this point forward. You had your chance at the happy happy little couple and now it is over. If you have to pay $2000 a month, then that $2000 a month is going to take the top $36,000 or more, pretax, off your salary. It has double whammy to it, in that it is the top of your salary, almost like a special tax, that forces you into a higher tax bracket yet you never see the money. So child support and alimoney is effectively taxed at a higher rate than anything else. Say for example if you earn $90,000 dollars and were allowed to transfer that $24,000 a year, pre-tax, right over to your lovely ex-wife, then you would be taxed on $66,000, a far lower tax rate. But you don’t. Your taxed at the higher $90,000 rate.

    So if you think that after divorce, you’re gonna find happily ever after again, you better nderstand that the likelihood of your finding your next permanent “Sweety to share your rack and swap spit” is about slim and none.

    When I first found myself in the street, I would get caught up in this “well, what would work?” Someone with no kids would want kids. And I can’t afford them. And someone with young kids would be busy with them. And someone with older kids is too old. And someone with teen boys would have this oedipal thing, and if they had teen daughters then I expose myself to weird legal shit, and you know what?

    Nothing is going to work.

    The real reality is that you have two choices: MGTOW and Game. It is hard fact, but the reality is that if you are over 45, the former is probably your better bet. But that depends on your own personal situation. I got put out at 48 and that is probably about the worst time to have that happen, child support set at peak income, too old to feasibly do anything other than tread water.

    The reality is that you are going to get old and fucking die. And in setting a plan, in this day and age, you better plan on 50 as being your cut off point. After that everything changes. You become subject to all sorts of discriminations in work and society. Corporations will lay you off just because you over 50 unless you sit in key roles just because the actuarial numbers say they should. When you go for interviews, you won’t get the job just because the people interviewing will assume all kinds of things or “I just didn’t feel him”. So you better plan to be 50 and have some viability at the point, some options other than working in a corporation. Some writers tout the Smith and Wesson Retirement Plan and it is one thing to think of in the abstract, when it is far away, but the closer you get, if you have painted yourself into that corner, it will be a hard pill to swallow, however you decide to pull it off.

    But I hit the street and floundered at doing exactly the wrong thing without a plan. And tried to do everything to get right back with another “sweety”. And I wasted a ton of money on an odyssey that took me into South America, four different city moves, squandered cash, time, and energy until I found Game and realized the futility of it all. I was stuck on the idiotic idea of “We find each other then we build something together” rather than the way this post says to do it.

    Rollo avoids the moral pitfall of directly making amoral recommendation. He kinda does and he kinda doesn’t. I don’t avoid it. Your ass is alone. Don’t nobody give a flying fuck about you. Social capital is incredibly over rated. You know who has true social capital? The guy with real capital. You build your life out of steel and concrete. You take care of you.

    I hear comments about “I try to leave them better than I found them”. Fuck that. Leave a word out.

    “I try to leave better than I found them” And that one word changes the whole sentence.

    Women are just one more organism on this planet trying to gain the resources they want and need. To me, the image, the analogy that best comes to mind is that alien from the Sogourney Weaver movies.

    I was reading “The Arrow of Disease” in Discovery Magazine. The article was talking about how “bugs”, germ, viruses etc spread. It mentioned that the optimum way for an organism to thrive and spread is to get the host to modify its behavior to a manner condusive to the benefit of the organism:

    “For modification of a host’s behavior, though, nothing matches the rabies virus, which not only gets into the saliva of an infected dog but drives the dog into a frenzy of biting and thereby infects many new victims.”

    Basically, the Feminine Imperative is but a slightly different version of this, but involves infecting your head and influencing your behavior.

    So “You lock your fucking body up” and make a plan that contains the words me, myself, and I and lacks a bunch of “you, us, we”. There might not be an “I” in “Love”, but there is in “Financial Integrity”.

  • Different T

    @The Narrator

    While I agree with your criticism that game suffers from a lack of normative ethical standards

    Game is a means for males to get what little value they can in the insanity of a FI dominated environment. It suffers from a desperate rationalization for behavior because it is essentially nihilistic and relies on the FI for its values.

    faulting men for “nihilism” while denying that women have the same potential makes your bias obvious.

    To what does this refer?

    “Nihilism” and “going feral” are ethical equivalents.

    No, they are not. Additionally, They are not feral is a statement about society, i.e. domestication.

    Oh, and ethics is the philosophical pursuit of morality so your distinction between intellectual/moral and behavioral/ethical is nonsensical.

    Might be a semantic issue.

    Morality: individual means of identification and standards regarding value.

    Ethics: standards for interpersonal interaction.

    The distinction regards changes in intellectual understanding/morality not necessarily changing behavior/ethics.

  • Stilicho

    @ Mark Minter: epic post.

    Minter is to King A what filet mignon is to a Big Mac.

    Only gripe: lay off the Army, please…I know the Marines make it a point to belittle the Army every chance they get, but I’d bet that the GI’s who froze to death at Bastogne, or hit the beach at Normandy, know a thing or two about fighting — and about locking up.

    Keep writing, man. You’re a Truth Teller.

  • The Narrator

    Is someone who is feral (or outside of domestication) necessarily a nihilist?
    Seems so.

    Is someone who is a nihilist necessarily feral?
    No.

    But that doesn’t change the fact that both are motivated exclusively by self-interest and uninhibited by the moral boundaries of others.

    Game is the antithesis of the feminine imperative. Game is saying “I am going to do what is in my self interest regardless of what is in the interest of females.” This is why it is perceived as nihilistic. The feminine imperative is also nihilistic. It does what it wants regardless of the interests men have. (It doesn’t seem fair though, since part of the feminine imperative is to keep men unaware of their own.) But this is why I have a real problem drawing any normative conclusions from either side.

    I do, however, believe that an adequate normative standard will come from the work that men are now putting into defining “gender equality.” Carol Gilligan unintentionally eviscerates any type of strictly “female” notion of normativity. Her conclusion is that women favor those they perceive as close to them (very generalized summary). This is a problem for anyone who believes that morality, at its core, provides the same normative standard of treatment between individuals. It’s not that we treat all individuals the same in an egalitarian sense, but that we are all accountable to the same set of standards. The feminine imperative fails this test miserably. I am not saying that women cannot be or even that they are not moral. Rather, that morality from a strictly feminine perspective is inadequate.

    Semantic issue indeed. I think we have it reversed.

    A moral person follows the rules.
    An ethical person understands why they are there.

    But I don’t understand how you can discuss morality without inherently being in the realm of ethics and vice versa.

    http://www.dailywritingtips.com/ethics-vs-morals/

    And I apologize for assuming you we’re a feminist troll. It seemed for a second like you were trying to get the feminine imperative off the hook.

  • Jeff Thomas (@hey_wilber)

    @Different T

    Good god! Smells like cats, dildos, and lonely in here…Wonder how many rpm’s your hamster got up to thinking of all that?

    You seem really self-assured, but I can tell there are times when you struggle with doubt. So…Go grab some Xanax and a bottle of wine…you’ll be fine in the morning.

    ps…feel free to log off the internet at any time.

  • Kate

    Good to read a perspective from beyond the border of 45. Its important for men to think about what lies ahead and realize the best made plans don’t always turn out as expected.

    “The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men / Gang aft agley”- Robert Burns in “To A Mouse” (whose little mouse house was destroyed by a farmer’s plow)

  • Good Luck Chuck

    My, my. How the manosphere has changed. Five years ago I remember being called a pessimist and a misogynist by “manosperians”, and not just those of the “game is god” variety.

    Roosh used to diss just about anything that wasn’t game related. Now every other post or comment is about how shitty america and especially american women have become.

    Nice to see people acknowledging the problems at their source.

  • FuriousFerret

    @A Different T

    We live in a society ruled by nihilism. Nihilism is the law of nature. Nature is amoral and so is a culture that has abandoned religion.

    Religion whether it be God, Buddha, or Allah provides a divine moral code that is supreme. It is to be followed despite it not being entirely beneficial to the individual. When the West switched from Judeo-Christianity to functional atheistism, it became nihilistic by default.

    When the people argue against Game, they aren’t really upset by the amorality of it, they are upset that nature has found the counter to their power grab ideology.

    If you want morals, that’s fine but you have to come under the same law as well. Don’t spread your legs until commitment and obey your husband. Not so fun to not be able to optimize your hypergamy is it?

    However, Pandora’s box is already open and there’s not going back in the foreseeable future, so you can either become a monk or live and thrive in the concrete jungle.

    All you need for the FI to fall apart is take away the top men from the marriage game and it will bring the system to it’s knees. If you can get the message out to the alphas that what they already feel, that marriage is a death sentence and you get the greater betas aboard the Game train, the FI is straight fucked.

  • Immediate

    Minter, how in the hell are you wasting all these amazing posts in a comment section?

    Also, I thought alimony was tax deductible? Not child support obviously.

  • The Narrator

    Good Luck Chuck,

    Some of us don’t have a problem getting sex when we want. We come to the manosphere for intellectual stimulation. It’s the evolution of a movement. Along the same lines as “The Most Interesting Man In the World” comparison. I believe Rollo made the comparison in his post about Roosh’s change in direction. Once a man grows “past” his desire for sex he can do whatever he wants without distraction.

    Then of course, there are those that come for the intellectual stimulation because they have no hope of sex…

  • Keyser Söze

    Holy shit, reading that Minter post is like listening to a long Steven Wright routine without any laughs. That’s one bitter motherfucker!

  • The Narrator

    Furious Ferret,

    Inhibit the optimization of hypergamy by removing the optimal options. I like it. But the feminine imperative is essentially trying to do the same thing to men, namely setting the price as high as possible for attractive women.

    Making the best men harder to reach is going to do nothing to make people happier. I agree that our society is nihilistic, but in admitting that you also admit that it ought NOT be that way. Game ought to be used to make men AND women happy (this notion is reminiscent of Roissy), but it is only of instrumental value. It can also be used for ill-gotten gains. What we need is an agreeable framework separate from religion and feminist critical theory that can articulate the normative standards of inter-gender relations. That is the only way out of this culture war.

  • FuriousFerret

    “What we need is an agreeable framework separate from religion and feminist critical theory that can articulate the normative standards of inter-gender relations. That is the only way out of this culture war.”

    Not possible. No supernatural divine law leads the ultimate logical conclusion of nihilism i.e the law of nature. Without answering to a higher authority than simply nature, all paths lead to will to power.

  • Different T

    @ Narrator

    Is someone who is feral (or outside of domestication) necessarily a nihilist?
    Seems so.

    Huh? Nihilism as the belief in “nothingness” as the ideal? That sounds like the opposite of a “wild state.” It sounds uniquely like something only a socialized human could even be capable of.

    Additionally, it seems you still do not understand the “they are not feral” statement.

    “But that doesn’t change the fact that both are motivated exclusively by self-interest and uninhibited by the moral boundaries of others.”

    So you consider buddhists to be “motivated exclusively by self-interest and uninhibited by the moral boundaries of others?”

    Game is the antithesis of the feminine imperative. Game is saying “I am going to do what is in my self interest regardless of what is in the interest of females.” This is why it is perceived as nihilistic.

    It offers no value system. How can you “do what is my self interest” without a value system? Again, the entire post was in regards to “if this ‘manosphere’ is to make those men capable of being creators and not only exploiters/destroyers,” and is far from presumed.

    The feminine imperative is also nihilistic.

    Of course.

    Semantic issue indeed. I think we have it reversed.

    A moral person follows the rules.
    An ethical person understands why they are there.

    Acknowledged and disagree.

    But I don’t understand how you can discuss morality without inherently being in the realm of ethics and vice versa.

    This indicates that you do:

    It’s not that we treat all individuals the same in an egalitarian sense, but that we are all accountable to the same set of standards.

    and is the point of contention. It may turn out that “manospherians” are the ultimate egalitarians.

    And I apologize for assuming you we’re a feminist troll. It seemed for a second like you were trying to get the feminine imperative off the hook.

    Based on what?

    ————

    Smells like cats, dildos, and lonely in here

    LOL.

    ————

    Nihilism is the law of nature.

    That’s a strange interpretation indeed.

  • The Narrator

    I posted something similar earlier, but I’ll say it again. The laws of nature and morality are not inherently in conflict. Cooperation is generally both morally and evolutionarily beneficial.

    The reason there is inter-gender conflict is because the sexual marketplace necessitates competition (between buyer/buyer buyer/seller and seller/seller). Like any marketplace there are failures. One of those failures is that men do not have enough information about the terms of the social transactions they are making because the feminine imperative seeks to hide the nature of it. The ideal of a “free” sexual market is elusive for men. They do not have perfect information. On the other hand, the restrictions imposed on women by many religions are also antithetical to a free sexual market. Women are forced to set the “price” of sex much higher due to social restrictions and the fear of pregnancy without the option of abortion. I know most men do NOT want the price of sex to be higher.

    Most of the time, good market regulation is the result of more education. The government doesn’t stop you from buying alcohol/tobacco, but they provide warnings about the adverse effects. The justification for these policies is not the will to power or religion, but individual well-being. Game, in its ideal, is an educational tool to provide men with a more equitable sexual marketplace experience, not to exploit people and perpetuate a degenerate society.

  • FuriousFerret

    The game is nihilism in it’s very essence. Make no mistake that when men pump and dump these chicks, a piece of their soul dies and a bitter husk begins to form. But they choose to play. They wanted to enter the in the ‘Game of Alphas’ and that’s the price. You transform from a vibrant woman into some eccentric fembeast. Intense pleasure comes with a big price tag.

    Nihilism is the law of nature. Lions don’t care about the gazelle and they certainly don’t give a fuck about killing other lions or hyenas. The powerful rule for a while and they fade away to the new up and comers.

    Humans won’t simply abide by laws for the sake of each other. They need something bigger to believe in. That’s why religion works. They see their fellow humans and they certainly don’t trust them but they know they are flawed by their nature, however God or the Great Pumpkin, those deities are stable and follow a higher way. Atheism leads to nihilism. No one gives a fuck and follows a law unto their own. They form groups purely for their own power. Their morals are conveniently ones that benefit themselves.

    Women were able to manipulate through collective pussy bargaining to gain powers that they didn’t even really want, however men are waking up and the backlash is not going to be pretty.

    The situation right now is akin to Seigfried and Roy performing with their white tiger. It’s all fun in games for a long time until the tiger realizes it’s a fucking tiger and goes tiger on their asses.

    When men realize that they are men and that women simply are weak minded creatures, it’s going to romantic bloodbath with the broken hearts of used up sluts littering the streets.

  • The Narrator

    It has nothing to do with what nihilism are being feral ARE. It has to do with the associated motivations and inhibitions of both. I think you’ve taken “feral” too literally here.

  • The Narrator

    We are animals, but we are not wild. We are domesticated. We are not feral. But we can be nihilists. The point is that even if we do not accept a higher power, as rational creatures we can acknowledge and respect individual well-being in a way that creatures with lower faculties cannot. You OUGHT NOT be a nihilist because it would mean disowning your rational powers. The “will to power” originates in the brain stem. Ethics and morality come from the frontal lobe, whether it is the study of a religion or some other doctrine.

  • Westcoaster

    Rollo,

    I noticed you write for the high school forum on SoSuave. A big thank you from me. No, I’m far removed from high school, but remember those days as an AFC/Beta deluxe, a personality I carried for much of my life. Perhaps I’m somewhat of one today, but much better thanks to places like this blog.

    A lot of AFC/Betaness happens in a vacume. One is fed the female imperative/societal norms, and you eat it up. Why? That’s all you know, or all you’re taught. The myth-busting that goes on here is tremendous. But major props for helping the youngsters of today, you just might have prevented some bad marriages, worse divorces, and potential suicides. Good job in making the world a better place.

  • The Narrator

    Feral creatures don’t have the cognitive faculties to acknowledge other individuals’ well-being. Nihilists do but disregard them. It is conceivable that a human could be “feral” but their condition would be pathological (probably anti-social personality disorder).

    While I’m sure Heartiste would say that a “feral” man would do well, his success would be short-lived unless he found a really damaged woman to stick around. They’re out there, but do you honestly want to tailor your game to find them?

    Most men AND women would be happier if men adopted a form of game that disavowed the feminine imperative while at the same time acknowledging the well-being of both parties through a mutually beneficial relationship. This is idealistic, but not to an unreasonable degree.

    There are some damaged people out there. Possibly a lot in the wake of feminist indoctrination, But I don’t want my behavior to attract them. And I try hard not to create them.

  • FuriousFerret

    Why do we have to give a fuck? Why?

    Did you ever think that a little bit of nihilism is what we need?

    Our whole lives we live for someone else. We never stop to think ‘Hey maybe their not right, and I’m a tool that’s being used’.

    Just let go and embrace it. It’s not forever. It’s a tool to get there. All this bullshit about mutual beneficial. Fuck that. It’s garbage idealistic unrealistic thinking.

    I say you got two choices, you go with God or you go with the world. You go with the world, buck up and play the game. You go with God, probably be better to sign up as a monk because the church will definitely use you for their own means, as a castrated beta male.

    The thing about this is when you accept the game for what it is, it’s better. You don’t get mad about people fucking you over or trying to. You don’t hate women for doing what they do. It simply is and that’s ok. You are more at peace.

    I’ve had enough of we should have this society built around human enlightenment and everybody should follow the rules. It’s simply a fantasy. I’m tired of how we should be designing ways for everybody to happy. They had a good system for this, it was called the Bible but guess what it’s not fun. You want the pleasure you have to pay for it and there is no way to mitigate the damage.

  • The Narrator

    “We are a generation of men raised by women. I wonder if another woman is really what we need.”

    I appreciate where you are coming from, but in a sense you are admitting defeat. Religion was the counterbalance to the FI that allowed for mutually beneficial inter-gender relationships. It’s gone. It’s not coming back. But seeking social upheaval won’t fix the problem, which is a sexual market wrought with fraud. You don’t fix fraud with more fraud. You need another counterbalance. That would be game. Game, in essence is shirking the FI. It is only of instrumental value, but as a counterbalance it needs a normative standard. Mutual well-being provides that standard.

  • Mark Minter

    Bitter is too harsh a word for how I feel. In 2003,2005, I was really bitter at the divorce. In 2010 I was really pissed at women after 7 years of divorce and dealing with women. Not now. I have regrets. The writings from the Manosphere really in the past couple of years polished the edge off it.

    But over all I’m sort of content on a day to day basis. Kind of a Buddhist sort of contentment. My biggest problem of the day was that I didn’t have enough eggs for a recipe. I had to go back out into rush hour traffic to get some.

    So I’m sort of convinced of two things and both are sort of Buddhist. An absence of pain can actually be quite painless. And being happy is not being unhappy. I don’t really do a lot these days but it seems to take all my time. We’ll see if I get to the end of my life and think “well that was a waste” or “Damn, I wish I would started that “nothing” stuff sooner.”

    Here are a couple of Buddhist jokes.

    A Buddhist phones the monastery and asks the monk “Can you come to do a blessing for my new house?”
    The monk replies “Sorry, I’m busy.”
    “What are you doing? Can I help?”
    “I’m doing nothing”, replied the monk, “Doing nothing is a monk’s core business and you can’t help me with that.”
    So the next day the Buddhist phones again, “Can you please come to my house for a blessing?”
    “Sorry,” said the monk, “I’m busy.”
    “What are you doing?”
    “I’m doing nothing,” replied the monk.
    “But that was what you were doing yesterday!”, said the Buddhist.
    “Correct”, replied the monk, “I’m not finished yet!”
    —-
    Exchange between the Zen master and his student:
    Student: What happens after death?
    Master: I don’t know.
    Student: How can you not know? You are a Zen master.
    Master: Yes, but I’m not a dead one.

  • Andrews

    @FuriousFerret

    Nihilism is anti-nature. Anti-human-nature.

    Human nature is what has been nurtured throughout our evolutionary history, it’s not fixed but constantly, ‘slowly’ evolving over time.

    Hypergamy is part of human female nature, as is motherly love which a woman usually has for her own children. It’s the ‘good’ things AND the ‘bad’ things.
    Same goes for men. Man has sympathies for his friends, his family, those who he shares his essence, his idea(l)s with. He has less sympathy for others. That’s what proved successful.

    Human nature, their heritage, their genetics don’t change as quickly as modern life suggests. There is a huge gap by now between current established morals/ideas and the nature of the individuals living in this modern world.

    The established morals/ideas of what is good and right are influenced by necessity. We have more than 7 billion people on this planet. Nature is tamed and we’ve got some penicillin. Industries are established, machinary is in operation – isn’t life just ducky. There is no need right now for masculine qualities like aggressiveness, making your own way and claiming and taming your part of the world. Feminine qualities are very much in demand – to keep everybody happy, we need to tolerate one another, be patient, being complacent.

    That is why being loving and caring to EVERYBODY is GOOD.
    And being aggressive and taking your own share is BAD.
    Somebody just said so, nothing more nothing less.
    It keeps society in our current situation kind of running though.

    This is not human nature, especially not masculine human nature as it has evolved up to this point.

    So nihilism are all ideas, memes, which are at odds with human nature.
    And right now there is a huge difference between those two things.

    This is nothing new. Nihilism rears its head again and again throughout history. Think about the decline of the roman empire, a time when ‘feminism’ was also quite on vogue. Individuals who are growing up and living in a very protective environment usually lose touch with themselves.

    It is only when things start to get worse that they examine what is happening and out of necessity have to revert back to their human nature which is usually a strong point, psychologically and also eventually in a physical reality. We inherited our wealth from the generations which came before our time. We’ll revert back to morals and ideas which are closer to our human nature – everything else isn’t sustainable in the long run. At least it has been that way up till now.

    Don’t worry, I haven’t written that long post to convince You.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Re: Nihilism. From The Bitter Taste of the Red Pill:

    The Bitter Taste of the Red Pill

    The truth will set you free, but it doesn’t make truth hurt any less, nor does it make truth any prettier, and it certainly doesn’t absolve you of the responsibilities that truth requires. One of the biggest obstacles guys face in unplugging is accepting the hard truths that Game forces upon them. Among these is bearing the burden of realizing what you’ve been conditioned to believe for so long were comfortable ideals and loving expectations are really liabilities. Call them lies if you want, but there’s a certain hopeless nihilism that accompanies categorizing what really amounts to a system that you are now cut away from. It is not that you’re hopeless, it’s that you lack the insight at this point to see that you can create hope in a new system – one in which you have more direct control over.

    From Women in Love:

    Iron Rule of Tomassi #6
    Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved.

    In its simplicity this speaks volumes about about the condition of Men. It accurately expresses a pervasive nihilism that Men must either confront and accept, or be driven insane in denial for the rest of their lives when they fail to come to terms with the disillusionment.

    Women are incapable of loving men in a way that a man idealizes is possible, in a way he thinks she should be capable of.

    From Moral to the Manosphere:

    Although I’m aware that observing a process will change it, it’s my practice not to draw moralistic conclusions in any analysis I make because it adds bias where none is necessary. The problem is that what I (and others in the manosphere) propose is so raw it offends ego-invested sensibilities in people. Offense is really not my intent, but often enough it’s the expected result of dissecting cherished beliefs that seem to contribute to the well being of an individual.

    Let that sink in for a moment; the reason that what I propose seems nihilistic, cynical and conspiratorial is because it’s analytical without the varnish of morality. For example, when I wrote War Brides, it was in response to men’s common complaint of how deftly and relatively unemotionally women could transition into a new relationship after they’d been dumped by a GF or wife. I wanted to explore the reasons how and why this functioned, but from a moralistic perspective it is pretty fucked up that, due to hypergamy, women have an innate capacity to feel little compunction about divesting themselves emotionally from one man and move on to another much more fluidly than men. If I approach the topic in a fashion that starts with, “isn’t it very unjust and / or fucked up that women can move on more easily than men?” not only is my premise biased, but I’d be analyzing the moral implications of the dynamic and not the dynamic itself.

  • Different T

    Feminine qualities are very much in demand – to keep everybody happy, we need to tolerate one another, be patient, being complacent.

    Empirically false. Consider the trends regarding anti-depressant usage, alcohol usage, obesity rates, therapy rates, etc.

    For example, when I wrote War Brides, it was in response to men’s common complaint of how deftly and relatively unemotionally women could transition into a new relationship after they’d been dumped by a GF or wife.

    And when the man does the dumping? Is this really an unbiased view of the “dynamic?”

  • Different T

    @Minter

    Incredibly honest post, free of rationalizations.

    Thank you.

  • Andrews

    @Different T

    The reason why alcohol usage, depressions, therapy and so on are that much on the rise is very much rooted in the dogma of femininity and in general, nihilism in modern societies.

    Feminine qualities ARE very much in demand, they are being rewarded in our society.

    What’s a depression? – it’s aggressiveness turned inwards. Not willing nor capable to express it outwards makes an individual self-destructive over time.

    Alcohol calms people down – it represses the fight or flight mechanism. Again aggressive behaviour is not allowed to be expressed. Neither is it possible to remove oneself from a situation, like a workplace because of financial shackles. No fight and no flight.

    Women or better feminine personalities have a much easier time, psychologically, to accept domination by others. That would be a whole chapter in itself.

  • Danger

    @Narrator

    “Game, in essence is shirking the FI. It is only of instrumental value, but as a counterbalance it needs a normative standard. Mutual well-being provides that standard.”

    In essence, it sounds like you are establishing that men should play by “rules” in a world where women do not.

    I don’t speak that in an effort of “fairness”, but as long as one side holds all of the power cards (supported by .gov), then why would a man not play by the method in which the winner takes all?

    Let me put it another way. When the rules of the system are broken and downward lopsided, do you really make up and follow more rules? No. You seek maximum advantage ruthlessly, as one would in any marketplace. The SMP is no different.

  • Kate

    @Narrator: “…the well-being of both parties through a mutually beneficial relationship. This is idealistic, but not to an unreasonable degree.

    There are some damaged people out there…And I try hard not to create them.”

    Good for you. Look out for your soul. Better to be hurt than the one doing the hurting.

    @Mark: “I don’t really do a lot these days but it seems to take all my time.” I love this line! You are living!

  • Different T

    @Mark: “I don’t really do a lot these days but it seems to take all my time.” I love this line! You are living!

    LOL.

  • Different T

    @Andrews

    Feminine qualities ARE very much in demand, they are being rewarded in our society.

    Acknowledged. Consider they are subsidized because they are NOT in demand (as game testifies).

    Then consider how that statement interacts on a societal level with:

    Women or better feminine personalities have a much easier time, psychologically, to accept domination by others.

  • Tam the Bam

    Andrews: “Alcohol calms people down – it represses the fight or flight mechanism. Again aggressive behaviour is not allowed to be expressed. “
    You’ve never been to Glasgow, have you?

  • Andrews

    @Tam the Bam

    Hahaha – no I have not. I get what you are saying though.
    I was referring to the stress induced alcoholic.

    @ Different T

    I’m not saying I like it that feminine qualities are rewarded while masculine qualities are often dismissed. It’s my observation about what is happening in the workplace and the social sphere, as in daily life – especially when nobody corrects them*.

    Granted.
    Most women are feminine in nature, buried under a lot of modern ideas about what a woman is supposed to be. Yes, they fall for game, especially if it’s not being a performance but has become a part of oneself. Or I guess, better, someone has become aware and dug out that part within.

    *paraphrasing Bill Burr

  • Different T

    I’m not saying I like it that feminine qualities are rewarded while masculine qualities are often dismissed. It’s my observation about what is happening in the workplace and the social sphere, as in daily life – especially when nobody corrects them*.

    There is no disagreement on this. You stated feminine qualities are in demand.

    “Consider they are subsidized because they are NOT in demand (as game testifies)”

  • Andrews

    I’m not sure which perspective you use in this.

    You are saying it’s masculine qualities which created this world of abundance and in the long run it is sustained by those qualities?

  • The Narrator

    Kate,

    I look out for me first. I’ve hurt people. But that doesn’t mean it is my objective.

    Danger,

    I am saying play by your own rules. I am also saying that game is compatible with value systems other than nihilism. Make your own value system. Be accountable to yourself. It feels good.

    It also helps you hold other people accountable, namely the women you are dating. It is no secret here that women like it when men call their shit what it is. It is (at heart) a sincere and honest gesture that exudes confidence. Sure, it’ll make them uncomfortable. That’s the point.

    It doesn’t have to be a lecture. A lot of the time I just ask questions until I get two contradictory answers, then I point it out. They do all the talking. I build frame.
    It could also be more heartiste style, where you make statements like “your father would be so proud” at things he obviously wouldn’t.

    Using this strategy usually works later on, as opposed to a cold approach or first date, but I’ve definitely found that women want a man who they perceive as “knowing what’s right.” Her perception of you as alpha or beta is on a continuum. It is not strictly one or the other at a given time. The “I’m right” attitude, if you’re not too stuffy about it, can help you be perceived as both.

  • Kate

    What’s the LOL for, Different T? There are people fixated on “doing something,” and there are people content to “live.” When you realize “there is nowhere to go and nothing to do,” you exist differently. Om Namah Shivaya :)

  • Nutz

    Confidence is derived from options.

    When you know you can repeat your past successes, or you have the resources to repeat concurrent successes already available to you, you have confidence. This is the code women are asking for when they claim to want confidence: “I want a man who has the presence of a man that other men want to be and other women want to fuck.”

    While I agree with this statement to a degree, I think another way of saying it is that confidence is derived from **competence**. Knowing you can do something because you’ve done it before creates positive reinforcement. Over time this develops confidence in one’s abilities.

  • Different T

    @ Andrews

    This is an object lesson and is not meant maliciously or as specifically regarding you.

    I’m not sure which perspective you use in this.

    Feminine qualities ARE very much in demand, they are being rewarded in our society.

    This was acknowledged. You interpret the situation as “because feminine qualities are in demand, they are rewarded.” The response was:

    “Consider they are subsidized because they are NOT in demand (as game testifies)”

    Instead of addressing this, you respond:

    You are saying it’s masculine qualities which created this world of abundance and in the long run it is sustained by those qualities?

    Game teaches that alphas never apologize or admit they are wrong.

    This goes directly back to:

    [Game] suffers from a desperate rationalization for behavior because it is essentially nihilistic and relies on the FI for its values.

    Practitioners end up maintaining surface and appearance (a FI value), thus imitating the value, instead of actualizing it.

    ———-

    @Rollo

    H/T, especially:

    Confidence has been elevated to this mystical realm so we read,..”The reason you fail is because you don’t believe in yourself enough.” This is a very similar mechanic to the ‘Just Be Yourself‘ line of reasoning. It’s something people say when they don’t know what else to say – “aww man you just need to be confident with her, that’s what the bitchez want, just look at any PoF profile, confidence, confidence, confidence,…” What they’re not explaining is that confidence is derived from past successes and the inherent knowledge that you can repeat those successes again.

  • Andrews

    @Different T

    “Consider they are subsidized because they are NOT in demand (as game testifies)”

    I don’t understand the meaning of that sentence, I can speculate though. That’s why I asked you if you meant:

    “You are saying it’s masculine qualities which created this world of abundance and in the long run it is sustained by those qualities?”

    The (“as game testifies”) line confuses me because when I wrote my sentence

    “Feminine qualities ARE very much in demand, they are being rewarded in our society.”

    , I was not thinking about what women find attractive in a man. It was about the institutions, companies and so on, in modern society, which prefer the feminine personality type employee/citizen.

    Or are you saying that,

    “Consider they are subsidized because they are NOT in demand (as game testifies)”

    in the sense that MEN are not in demand because women are subsidized.
    (I came to that conclusion just now, before I thought you were saying women are not in demand)
    If so, then yes, you could say that.
    Yet for now, I do believe that masculine qualities are dismissed and that with ‘good’ though short sighted reasoning. Things won’t turn around without a severe crisis. Then individuals with masculine qualities are on the rise again.

    I could be mistaken in my interpretation of what you are saying, I don’t know, I gave it my best shot.

    “Game teaches that alphas never apologize or admit they are wrong.”

    I don’t follow that rule. But then again I am no alpha by definition. hah
    Which is kind of strange if you think about it.
    I don’t follow that rule so I am no alpha.
    I follow that rule, I am a follower and therefore I am alpha, a leader.

    Makes my head spin. hehe

    (not really ;)

  • Different T

    It would help if you gave some examples of feminine qualities. You hinted with:

    we need to tolerate one another, be patient, being complacent.

    but a more explicit list would be more useful.

  • The Narrator

    Andrews,

    Your last point is why I think it is important to set your own moral standard. They are your rules and you follow them because they are your own. But It’s not “it’s right because I say it’s right,” or “it’s right because it’s alpha,” and certainly not “it’s right because women want it.” It has to be right by an objective standard – individual well-being for me (but you might have different standards.)

  • Jeff Thomas (@hey_wilber)

    “A man strives to get direct mastery over things either by understanding them or by compulsion. But a woman is always and everywhere driven to indirect mastery, namely through a man; all her direct mastery being limited to him alone. Therefore it lies in woman’s nature to look upon everything only as a means for winning man, and her interest in anything else is always a simulated one, a mere roundabout way to gain her ends, consisting of coquetry and pretense.”

    On Women – Arthur Schopenhauer (1851)

    Men have plans. The older one gets, the more obvious and self-evident Schopenhauer becomes.

  • george capullo

    “When you know you can repeat your past successes, or you have the resources to repeat concurrent successes already available to you, you have confidence. This is the code women are asking for when they claim to want confidence: “I want a man who has the presence of a man that other men want to be and other women want to fuck.”

    -I remember an episode of a commedy serries I watched where it tells the childhood of Chris Rock. The episode where he concluded that:
    THE ONLY WAY TO GET GIRLS, IS TO GET A GIRL

  • tilikum

    this whole thread has devolved into “beta try hard” intellectual masturbation about what….morality and ethics? Morality and ethics are social constructs that limit over consumption by a species (human) that has learned effective tool usage. Everything else is so fucking boring. blah blah blah

    Protip-biomechanics is god.

    boom

  • tilikum

    oh and btw, Different T is clearly a girl with hyper-developed yet quite shallow rational thought and logic training, lest anyone think otherwise. Or a gay guy maybe? but usually they only argue about gay stuff

  • The Narrator

    Do you think morality came from something other than biomechanics? Again, biology and morality are not in conflict. Cooperation is evolutionarily beneficial in many species as well as morally praiseworthy in human society.

    The inter-gender biomechanical conflicts we are witnessing are the result of competition in a sexual marketplace. It wouldn’t be a problem, except that market forces are tilted heavily in favor of women. You can’t articulate a solution to a market failure using just biomechanics.

    Market failure: Men don’t have perfect information because the FI seeks to hide their own masculine imperative from them.

    Your attitude that this is “intellectual masturbation” is not going to help our cause, namely subverting the FI on a massive scale. There are men on here that don’t have a problem getting sex. These men don’t necessarily need to have a conversation about keeping women interested, even if Rollo, Heartiste, Roosh, etc. do an awesome job writing about it. I’d like to think this is the next step for the manosphere.

  • Andrews

    @ Different T

    Sure, honey.
    You see, I sometimes overindulge people. That’s a quick way to reveal more about them.
    I have seen enough.

    @ The Narrator

    Hm, the alpha is an ideal. Nobody can ever be pure alpha – just moving towards it. For me those game ‘rules’ are more a form of advice. Somehow you have to deliver your philosophy.

    To see those rules as absolute and follow them blindly would be feminine. To dismiss them without reasoning would be feminine as well.

    You take those ‘rules’, you apply them in your world, you adapt them, you remember your past and apply them there as well. Then you decide if that philosophy works for you.

    That is depending on who you are…

    @tilikum

    I wouldn’t say it’s clear but very likely.

  • avd

    I have a question for the advanced members of the manosphere (MS), a genuine question that’s been simmering in my thoughts for several years, now. For new initiates, you might be well served to skip this comment altogether; in fact, insofar as you may be predisposed to comment on it, I would prefer that you instead simply skip it.

    This is an unresolved question for me, at present, though I become increasingly resolved in its answer, by the day.

    If females are of a childlike mind—ruled by their emotions, rather than logic—as we proclaim them to be, then what are the implications of that? I’m fully conversant in the IF and M/Wcomplex analysis of the female sex… and have no arguments along those fronts. Females house the eggs of our species, an incredibly important role, by biological standards. I also understand all the bitterness of males who were raised by the FI to believe Disney BS that does not further their individual pursuits, but rather hinders it. Consequently, I also understand the various instinctual responses against said forces.

    I wonder, however, if perhaps, the MS’s reaction to these inequities is in fact the proper “vector of attack” for victory. Fucking wicked females to get back at them is, no doubt, individually fulfilling… but does it achieve the desired long-term ends of the MS?

    What I’m going to question will not be popular in this community, but I’m going to pose the question nonetheless. In the present incarnation of the MS, the MO seems to be to pump and dump, in order to teach females a lesson. No problem for me, except, is it working? This is not a problem for me from a moral standpoint. Rather, is it working? It seems to me that it simply produces more damaged females, which might be emotionally satisfying for the men performing the P&D, but does it produce the desired positive changes? From my vantage, it seems to only create more damaged females and a deeper wedge driven between males and females.

    Perhaps, and I’m just exploring opportunities here, that approach merely drives the wedge deeper. What if, instead of further driving that wedge between genders deeper, the manosphere were to shift its center of balance… to shift toward educating females about the present paradigm in male/female relationships… whence it derives, its goals, its implications? I’m not talking about the feminist-industrial complex, but the ACTUAL females we interact with on a one to one basis.
    As a personal example, I educate all my females on reality. I SCIENTIFICALLY explain to them what their actual position in the pecking order is. Sure, they all shit test for a bit, but they ALL eventually come around and agree with my analysis… and then their behavior begins to take proper shape. Granted, their shift is based more on my energetic forcefulness than the logic itself (game). (Not advocating marriage in Western jurisdictions). But isn’t this, after all, the rightful role of men?
    Every single female that has received my education of the reality of human life ultimately agrees with me, and comports to that reality, as though they simply needed someone strong enough to lead them there, which I believe to be the case. They EASILY fall into the role, and seem genuinely happy with it.

    I guess the ultimate question I’m asking is this: Should we be on the defensive re feminism (game), or the offensive (exerting our manhood)? (I understand it’s a fine line.)

    I suppose what I’m suggesting, humbly, is that the MS, rather than beat women over the head with (true) logic and running game, that the MS give them true reality, as opposed to MSM reality, and then let them behave as they were built to behave.

    I think this subtle shift in approach might just yield tremendous results for the community. And it is subtle. It works for me.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Putting angel’s or devil’s wings on observations hinders real understanding.

    I say that not because I don’t think morality is important in the human experience, but because our interpretations of morality and justice are substantially influenced by the animalistic sides of our natures, and often more than we’re willing to admit to ourselves. Disassociating one’s self from an emotional reaction is difficult enough, but adding layers of moralism to an issue only convolutes a better grasp of breaking it down into its constituent parts. That said, I also understand that emotion and, by degree, a sense of moralism is also characteristic of the human experience, so there needs to be an accounting of this into interpretations of issues that are as complex as the ones debated in the manosphere

  • Kate

    avd: It makes perfect sense to me. A separate peace.

  • buster2209 (@buster2209)

    Maybe because it’s Friday or something, but I am unable to find your e-mail address on this site Rollo. Can you post what it is or place a link to where it is please?

  • Rollo Tomassi

    put your email in a comment on the About page and I’ll reply to it

  • avd

    @Rollo: “Putting angel’s or devil’s wings on observations hinders real understanding.”

    I couldn’t tell if this was in response to my post or not. If it was, you utterly failed to comprehend my post. I EXPLICITLY excluded morality from the discussion. As a matter of fact, I have NEVER made a post anywhere in the MS having anything to do with morality. The above post was explicitly grounded in the matter of effectiveness regarding the long term goals of the MS.

    I repeat, I have never posted a position in the MS that was based on morality (subjective). My posts have only ever been about effective vs. non-effective, thought often with more expansive goals than just getting laid (easy). Young bucks often counter non-morality-based commenters with a morality-based argument. This is a glaring strawman every time it occurs, and I don’t understand why the community tolerates this immature behavior.

  • Matthew King

    avd wrote:

    In the present incarnation of the MS, the MO seems to be to pump and dump, in order to teach females a lesson. No problem for me, except, is it working? This is not a problem for me from a moral standpoint. Rather, is it working?

    The pump-and-dump reintroduces women to the state of nature. A woman’s life is rape once the gentleman is outlawed/discouraged from developing. Pumping and dumping prepares the collective female id for the next stage. It is a plowing under of the weeds in an unmaintained plot so that next year’s crop might be fertilized.

    The problem isn’t the “morality” of a million separate P&D’s; the problem is the separation. We are pulling one weed at a time rather than taking a row of combines to the gnarled, overgrown, poison forest. Men are reconnecting with their state of nature — manliness, forcefulness, domination, rape — and are taking advantage of the many targets of opportunity in front of them. But this will get the culture nowhere: the weeds will just grow back again in those disparate few spots where they were uprooted.

    I couldn’t tell if this was in response to my post or not. If it was, you utterly failed to comprehend my post. I EXPLICITLY excluded morality from the discussion. As a matter of fact, I have NEVER made a post anywhere in the MS having anything to do with morality. The above post was explicitly grounded in the matter of effectiveness regarding the long term goals of the MS.

    Exactly right. When an intellectual dilettante is in over his head, he starts responding to the arguments he can handle rather than the ones presented. You are correct, your observation is a matter of practical tactics, not an unawareness of the “hang ups” that invisibly “control” you, which every third-rate rhetorician wants to disabuse you of. Whenever they do this, it is concealed flailing and the sure sign of their limitation.

    I guess the ultimate question I’m asking is this: Should we be on the defensive re feminism (game), or the offensive (exerting our manhood)? I suppose what I’m suggesting, humbly, is that the MS, rather than beat women over the head with (true) logic. …

    Best defense is a good offense. Logic will not move the female heart, in the abstract or in the concrete, in the general or in the particular. Virtue (from the Latin vir or “man”), consistency, domination, action, example, and force are our tools of persuasion. Rhetoric is only for men — and the few, self-secured men at that (look at how spastic most forums are dealing with dissent). Argumentation is secondary to manly decisiveness, i.e., shoot first and present reasons later. If you can achieve that rare colloquy among men which produces action in concert, then rhetoric before action can be useful, to get all efforts on the same page. Otherwise, it is a perpetual mental circle jerk.

    Because we are engaged in a medium of words, the manosphere puts the cart before the horse. It discusses detail to the nth degree, like mildly-dorky research scientists and/or gossiping old crones, because there is a vacuum of genuine leadership. It’s talk, talk, talk about what we should do, rather than an Alexander hacking through Gordian Knots and showing men how it’s done. The closest this community has to someone like that is Roosh V and Krauser, but they are too self-absorbed and unambitious to inspire followers, and they lack knowledge about how to get from A (private observation/action) to B (conquering army).

    Your discussion of strategy, if not outright correct, is an example of the kind of high-level decisions that must be made before a rag-tag loose affiliation of individuals can mutually support each other toward a common goal. But rather than posing questions and expecting response, act upon your wisdom, show the results of that action, wait for curiosity, and only then present your logic. Then, when they close the distance, “Be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you.”

    Until then, your good questions are seeds planted prematurely on fallow soil.

    Matt

  • rop

    “John Lennon was the world’s biggest beta? He shagged his way around the world in the Beatles hayday, was a famous rockstar, spent a good proportion of his life off his head on top quality drugs, was recognised worldwide for his immense talent and made a fortune. I can think of bigger betas.
    Good article otherwise but I’m not having that. Yoko was a bad move, but if you’d ingested as much acid your judgement might have been a little off at times too.”

    He didn’t say ‘biggest’ he said ‘most famous’. Pay attention.

    And he WAS beta. Guys like John Lennon just go to show how much fame and wealth can make up for a lack of game.

  • Stilicho

    I don’t think I’ve ever read a Matt King post where he hasn’t insulted another commenter.

    If “responding to arguments one can handle instead of the ones presented” is the sign of an “intellectual dilettante” who is “over his head,” what does the constant resort to an ad hominem argument signify?

    Insecurity?

    Arrogance?

    You’re no leader either, Matt. You divide well-meaning people instead of uniting them. I’ll march under Rollo’s banner any day.

  • Matthew King

    At no point did I say I could or wanted to lead anything. You don’t like my posts, pedestrian, don’t read them.

    You mewl about the fact that I don’t suffer fools gladly, and here your example only confirms the wisdom of my policy. You men-o-spheres are a sensitive lot. One untoward word and you clutch your purses to your bosom. It’s no secret why your attempts to organize are like a hundred retards trying to assemble a hundred-piece puzzle.

    Wait. I meant, brilliant riposte, Stillcho. Packed full of incisive commentary and not a trace of bitterness. Everything everyone writes in the manosphere is great, especially the long, deep-think pieces. Can I be in your club now?

    Matt

  • Stilicho

    @ Matt King:

    I love it when Jesuits try to think.

    I also note with interest that you didn’t address my point about your constant ad hominem attacks on the folks who post here, and elsewhere.

    That reminds me of something I read earlier today:

    “When an intellectual dilettante is in over his head, he starts responding to the arguments he can handle rather than the ones presented. ”

    Thanks for proving my point, twerp.

    Now scurry off and intellectually masturbate elsewhere.

  • avd

    @Mathew King: “It’s talk, talk, talk about what we should do, rather than an Alexander hacking through Gordian Knots and showing men how it’s done… [ ] rather than posing questions and expecting response, act upon your wisdom, show the results of that action, wait for curiosity, and only then present your logic…”

    This is my paradox: I want to help these guys, but, as evidenced by their posts, they’re simply NOT worthy. Their whole deal seems to be “to get back at women.” I love women. I would never intentionally damage them. They sometimes damage themselves, but that’s THEIR doing, NOT mine.
    To share my knowledge with these clowns seems to me self-defeating: I’m essentially teaching omegas how to scorch the very earth where I fucking live. For what rational reason would I do that?

    These guys are so damaged that they are a threat to those of us who are NOT so damaged. I want to engage the conversation, but at the same time, I DON’T want to empower dipshits.

    For the record, I consider Rollo to be one of the most intelligent thoughtful commenters in the MS, despite the fact that he epically missed my point in this thread.

    I DON’T want to share my wisdom with these dipshits, because that would reduce the value of my world. For the sincere guys, I would happily load them up with knowledge, but as for the omega losers pretending to be alphas, I don’t want to share with them. Conundrum.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    I couldn’t tell if this was in response to my post or not. If it was, you utterly failed to comprehend my post.

    It was not. I apologize for your confusion, but predictably it drew out Dr. Smith to the discussion.

    In the present incarnation of the MS, the MO seems to be to pump and dump, in order to teach females a lesson.

    While I understand this impression, I don’t think it’s an endemic characteristic of the manosphere. Aunt Giggles would make the argument that anything revelatory about Game that the manosphere has to offer is automatically bitter, misogynistic and adversarial – I disagree.

    https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/is-game-adversarial/

    Read this AVD. I adressed your observations well over a year ago.

  • Matthew King

    avd speculated:

    Their whole deal seems to be “to get back at women.”

    It’s not their whole deal, but it remains a temptation, which they use to rationalize their inadequacies. They aren’t ruining/can’t ruin women; the women are already ruined. Releasing feral nature scours the ruins and gives us an opportunity to rebuild “the value of [our] world.” In the meantime erect high walls and take care none of it touches your estate.

    You make an important point, though. The men who won’t/can’t discipline themselves unite themselves with the enemy’s project. The key is to give them an inspiring alternative rather than trying to address their bitterness directly. Their bitterness is justified.

    But this isn’t on the radar of those who speak to and for “the manosphere.” They aren’t aware of the problem much less have a solution. You give them entirely too much credit. Maybe your deference comes from respect for a host or common courtesy, but I don’t suffer self-regarding fools quite so gladly. The stakes are too high, and they are impervious to humiliation.

    Let’s not waste precious energy attempting to convert the elderly. Look to the next generation of men. And women. They have nothing invested in the wars of their bitter or slutty predecessors. Convert last-century’s losers just enough to convert their children. “The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world.”

    Matt

  • Stilicho

    “Maybe your deference comes from respect for a host or common courtesy, but I don’t suffer self-regarding fools quite so gladly.”

    Well, Rollo, there it is: you have been judged, and found to be a “self-regarding fool.”

    But before you take it too much to heart, consider the source. The sense of biblical self-righteousness just seeps out of this mad Jesuit’s post, right down to the choice of words: “temptation”….”convert…”.

    And let’s leave it to two indisputably self-regarding fools — avd and King A — to convert the next generation of men. And women.

    But don’t expect it to happen anytime soon.

    Meanwhile, the rest of your commentariat will pump and dump, as they deem fit. And more power to them.

  • avd

    @Rollo: First, allow me to state that the question I posted on your blog was not directed at you, but offered for the community at large. Please consider the remainder of this comment to be along the same lines.

    “I addressed your observations well over a year ago.”

    So you did, thanks for the link.

    “…very rarely is it used as a weapon.” I hope you’re right about that. I’ve seen a shift in the MS comments over the past year that seems to indicate otherwise. It seems to me that the younger generation that was raised by hardcore internet porn is now finding game and combining the two in what can only result in a catastrophic tear to the social fabric, beyond the already catastrophic tear caused by decades of feminism. In fact, I have relatives with “good” families that are already experiencing the damage to their tween daughters caused by this caustic alliance—truly shocking shit, and I’m no prude.

    I believe the MS has now reached a level of maturity where it could begin to shift its attack toward the elite MEN who funded feminism, while shifting its attack away from females. In my mind, the females damaged by the male-funded culture war, of which feminism is but ONE front out of many, are casualties, not enemies. Granted, many of them are beyond repair, but at the end of the day, they are OUR females, OUR eggs. Fighting the female victims of the culture war is to hack at branches. Fighting the men who funded the culture war is to hack at the root. And the female casualties know that they are casualties of feminism; they just don’t know who their true enemy is. Hint: it’s NOT the men in their daily lives.

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 5,705 other followers

%d bloggers like this: