Some paragraphs in this article have been an eyeopener for me, i’ll think through them… Very interesting

More or less… I got this idea:

Betas of the world should abandon idealism so with the help of Game can morph to Alphas, and after that embrace idealism again. Then, idealism will be an advantage and newborn Alphas will live ignorant of women’s hypergamy without being hurt by it..

I don’t know if I’m going to believe this, but I can see a lot of brilliance here.

Thanks a lot for your blog.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-therapy/201308/what-do-women-really-want

If anyone didn’t have the time to read this survey of what women want, go back and read it.

tl;dr pretty much everything that Rollo has written about for the last 14 years in a updated, referenced evolutionary and behavioral psychology essay. Knowledge backing up experiential knowledge and theory.

@rugby11ljh
March 26th, 2015 at 3:01 pm
Hey rollo this goes to your tweet on Amber and shit testing
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k3hwP8m6NC0
This clip is the end but the story has such good social dynamics on alpha fucks beta bucks and well dealing with craziness.

Rugby: I went home an watched this. It was very narrative-ly and visually appealing. But you have to discriminate “melodrama” from good descriptive fiction. This was just very good melodrama. “Gone Girl” was excellent melodrama but a intelligent forward thinking non-emotional female protagonist with a masculine ability the rationally plan as that woman in the plot is simply not believable. Eye candy. A woman can’t be like the protagonist. But a screenwriter can entertain you.

In the old days it’s analogous to a Thomas Hardy novel (melodrama), compared to a Tolstoy or Dostoyevsky novel. No truths there just entertainment.

Actually what Brendan writes kind of intersects with the underlying concern beneath my post.

I want to speak from experience for a second. Basically: when I’ve gotten a woman attracted to me, and into an LTR, there was always some sort of stereotypically “alpha” thing that I did that was a important part of it. Yet, in those cases, looking back, I also did a rather embarrassingly large number of totally beta things. I mean totally beta. Things that I would be embarrassed to share even anonymously on an internet forum. And these did not dissuade the girls at all.

Why? I think it was because I had already done enough to convince the girl that I was a man of worth; that I had value. And although that value is in part behavioral, it is not entirely so, and it doesn’t have to be proved literally continuously.

I think in the rush to explain the number of things that are going badly in sexual relations, and explaining why, we risk glossing over that sometimes things are not that bad; sometimes, things work.

Above all, I drew the Adorno/Horkheimer comparison because after reading enough of your posts I got an uncannily familiar thought in my head: you were proving, at great length, that it is logically impossible to be happy. (Actually you have said something almost exactly like that in a prior post.) A/H do the same exact thing, and after reading them I spent a long time just accepting that. And then, at some point, I kicked off. Basically I confronted the fact that there were things that did make me happy, and the theory didn’t explain them.

I do think the answer is to be, in some authentic way, the “alpha” that succeeds—in other words to understand what is expected of you as a man and to actually try to live that out. And to do so in a way that is genuine and compatible with your personality, your interests, your desires. Look, I’m a bookish intellectual. I have to accept that I’m never going to be the pinnacle of club-swinging manhood. But I am determined to get as close to real manhood as I can given my personality, interests, career, and the society I live in.

By the way I agree with you and other posters that there is something biological about all this and that makes it different from totalitarianism. Still, it’s also important not to generalize too much from this particular time and place. In other words I hope we don’t fail to appreciate that this particular configuration is a relatively brief and fragile one, as I believe it is. In other words this sexual system contains the seeds of its own collapse in a hundred ways. Even PUA types (and others), including Roosh himself, have commented about how things have gotten worse even over the time that have been in the game. Behavior that would have been outrageous like 10 years ago is now normal. Etc.

For me the real source of hope is the ultimate fact that: the future is decided by those who show up. Stable, traditional families are the best structure for launching a new generation. And, even if only a fraction of our population achieves that, the most successful members of the next generation will disproportionately hail from such a background.

I think the other big problem I see is that, for me, there is more complementarity between man and woman than conflict. Not evidenced in the way we live now, but in our natures. And that accounts for the happy times I have had. Deep down most women do understand that they want leadership and direction from a man. And if you can play that role, they will love you. Yes, everything in society conspires against it. But that’s the project. Getting back to a society where both men and women can play the roles that truly make them happy.

I suppose if I were trapped in the USA, I would probably stay MGTOW, but I’m planning on going to Russia soon, so I’m going to try dating again. My experience is that foreign women treat me nicer than US women, and Russian women have a very good reputation.

“There’s nothing men can do anymore.”

and

” If enough guys unplug and stop playing the game, the whole thing collapses.”

I understand the cause for pessimism, but these are two contradictory statements.

You’ve articulated my position on it perfectly. I don’t see that male and female relations of this sort can even be sustainable in a modern context. The sexual marketplace is a bit like a failed labor market. In a failing economic system, there will always be those gung ho, never-say-die, self described badasses who refuse to give in to what they regard as defeatism, but this has as much to do with their insecurities and unwillingness to make any serious criticism of the system in which they compete and expect to be successful as it does any strength of character they believe they may have. Their courage is really the product of an intellectual cowardice.

In such a system that is failing, one which increasingly shovels obligation upon obligation unto workers competing for jobs and wages, on a long enough timeline there simply is a point where the bar is too high. That is the mark of the system’s failure, not of the individuals who failed to internalize its value system or satisfy its demands for success. At that point, you really have to call the system for what it is and dismantle it in whatever way is possible. It just isn’t realistic to shame yourself and everybody else for failing to “man up” and compete within it.

That’s where we are with the sexual marketplace. It really is a failed culture and society. Women are simply going to have to start recognizing that they can no longer go on relating to men as idealizations and expecting them to go on with the tired song and dance because it’s just no longer possible. We can’t re-engineer society so that everything caters to and is predicated upon their incoherent, contradictory, hunter gatherer baboon sexuality.

There’s nothing men can do anymore. All of this begins and ends with women. That’s why MGTOW makes sense. If enough guys unplug and stop playing the game, the whole thing collapses. It needs to collapse.