Category Archives: Communication

Just Shut the Hell Up

Hello, I’m author Rollo Tomassi.

As one of the 3 ‘R’s of the manosphere, it’s important for me to encourage more men to unplug from the Matrix that is our present feminine-primary social order, but equally important is encouraging more women to sometimes just shut the hell up.

It’s not that men don’t value your thoughts (unsolicited, they often prove our points), it’s just that we don’t value all of them.

The world doesn’t need your opinion on everything. For example, what men should do with their provisioning and catering their lives by ‘Manning Up’ to fit your overblown sense of entitlement after you’ve exhausted your prime fertility window on the Bad Boys and criminals in your 20s. Hush!

Your contrived cries of sexism over the sexiness of who the next popular video game protagonist should be. Zip it!

Whether or not the color of your foundation is called “Sunset Earth” or “Neutral Beige”. Shut Up!

So as a public service I’ve made the following list of things men no longer need to hear women’s opinions on. Please take a moment away from Instagram to jot these down:

  • 50 Shades of Grey
  • Yoga pants
  • The thoroughly disproven 77¢ on the dollar ‘Wage Gap’ lie
  • Giggling about ‘Dad Bods’ being “sexy”
  • Your confusion about where all the good men have gone
  • Fat Acceptance
  • Red Pill Truths
  • ‘Designer cupcakes’ and hand-baked dog treats being examples of ‘female entrepreneurship’
  • Christian patriarchy in an age of feminine assimilation of religion
  • Any sentence that begins with, “As a woman I,…”
  • Pleas for men’s aid in advancing your feminist ideals at the United Nations after claiming not to ‘need’ men
  • Any form of flavored martinis (or boxed wine)
  • 50 Shades of Grey (again)
  • Whether or not your feminine responsibility to engage in traditional Holiday ‘cheer’ is un-feminist
  • And the complete lack of ethics in all forms of journalism

If you can control yourselves and hold back from further expressing your opinions on any of these topics we’ll let you keep weighing in (uh, heh) on important topics like blow job techniques and pole dancing classes for housewives in shape enough to pull it off.

But that’s a huge, big “if”.

Thanks, so much.

The Red Pill Parent


This week I’ll be exploring a new angle in the Red Pill: how parenting and family relations influence and direct the Blue Pill conditioning of a generation, and what Red Pill aware men can do to redirect this. It was encouraging to see fathers and sons together at the Man In Demand conference. I honestly wasn’t expecting this, but it was a humbling experience to see fathers and sons coming to a Red Pill awareness together. I also met with a few men who told me their sons had either turned them on to my books or that they would be required reading for their sons before they got out of their teens.

One of the greatest benefits of the conference was the inspiration and material I got from the men attending. A particular aspect of this was addressing how men might educate and help others to unplug and in that lay a wealth of observations about how these men’s upbringings had brought them to both their Blue Pill idealisms and ultimately their Red Pill awareness.

I’m beginning this series with some of these observations, but I plan to break protocol and be a bit more proscriptive in the last essay with regard to what I think may be beneficial ways to be a Red Pill parent. In The Rational Male – Preventive Medicine I included a chapter which outlined how men are primarily conditioned for lives and ego-investments in a Blue Pill idealism that ultimately prepares them for better serving the Feminine Imperative when their usefulness is necessary to fulfill women’s sexual (and really lifetime) strategies.

That chapter is only available in the book, but if you have it, it might be helpful to review it after you read this.

Reader (and MiD conference attendee) Jeremy had an excellent observation from Solipsism II:


The only thing I take issue with is the advice, from the book that his wife read, which told her to place her husband above her children. Children come first for a mother, and they should for the father too. I’m not advocating to neglect her husband, but he needs to accept some biological facts and not be hurt because of it

What you’re repeating there is actually the first steps of a hostage crisis. That is first-wave-feminism boilerplate response. It is the first redirection in a misdirection perpetuated by women in order to sink any notion that men should have some authority on matters. Think of the children. It’s been repeated for so long, it’s a cliche…

It’s typical crab-basket behavior. Women seek power over their lives and somehow instinctively believe that the only way to achieve power is to take someone else’s power away. So they attack male authority by placing children above the man. This then becomes a stick with which to beat male authority into submission, as the woman is allowed to speak for the needs of the children. This is literally textbook subversion, and plays out on so many levels of human culture it tends to make one consider how boring humanity must look to any alien life that happens to stumble across our unremarkable corner of the universe.

When the children’s needs become the “throne” of the household, and the wife is allowed to speak for the children’s needs, then the authority of the household becomes a rather grotesque combination of immediate child needs and female manipulation. Worse still, the children are now effectively captives of the wife, because at any time she can accuse the husband of anything the law is forced to throw him in handcuffs for, and take away the kids.

What you’re repeating is the first steps in that hostage situation. Equalists will try to convince you of the logic that children come first, that children are the future, that all of that which makes them better is more important than anything else. This is bullshit.

Do you think cavemen sat around in caves all day playing and socially interacting with their babies? Do you think they had some kind of fresh-gazelle-delivery service that allowed him to interact with the children directly? Do you think the mothers were not under exactly the same survival condition, needing to forage for carrots, potatoes, berries, etc, while the men hunted and built structures? Do you think the “children” came first in any other era of humanity? If so, you are very sadly mistaken.

Children are more than capable of getting everything they need to know about how to live simply by watching their parents live a happy life together. This is how humans did things for eons, changing that order and putting the “children first” is frankly perverse and the beginning of the destruction of the family. Children are more than information sponges, they are blank minds that want desperately to be adult. Children want to understand everything that everyone around them understands, which is why a parent telling a child that you’re “disappointed” in them is more effective than a paddling. If you focus on children, you are frankly just spoiling them with attention that they will never receive in the real world. If instead you focus on yourself and your spouse, you will raise children that see you putting yourself as the MPO (as Rollo calls it), and your marriage/partnership as an important part of what you do each day.

Don’t put the children first. That’s essentially like negotiating with a terrorist, they’ll only make more demands on you until the cops storm the plane and lots of people get shot.

Your Mental Point of Origin should never waver from yourself.

American Parenting is Killing American Marriage

Of course, Ayelet Waldman’s blasphemy was not admitting that her kids were less than completely wonderful, only that she loved her husband more than them. This falls into the category of thou-shalt-have-no-other-gods-before-me. As with many religious crimes, judgment is not applied evenly across the sexes. Mothers must devote themselves to their children above anyone or anything else, but many wives would be offended if their husbands said, “You’re pretty great, but my love for you will never hold a candle to the love I have for John Junior.”

Mothers are also holy in a way that fathers are not expected to be. Mothers live in a clean, cheerful world filled with primary colors and children’s songs, and they don’t think about sex. A father could admit to desiring his wife without seeming like a distracted parent, but society is not as willing to cut Ms. Waldman that same slack. It is unseemly for a mother to enjoy pleasures that don’t involve her children.
There are doubtless benefits that come from elevating parenthood to the status of a religion, but there are obvious pitfalls as well. Parents who do not feel free to express their feelings honestly are less likely to resolve problems at home. Children who are raised to believe that they are the center of the universe have a tough time when their special status erodes as they approach adulthood. Most troubling of all, couples who live entirely child-centric lives can lose touch with one another to the point where they have nothing left to say to one another when the kids leave home.
In the 21st century, most Americans marry for love. We choose partners who we hope will be our soulmates for life. When children come along, we believe that we can press pause on the soulmate narrative, because parenthood has become our new priority and religion. We raise our children as best we can, and we know that we have succeeded if they leave us, going out into the world to find partners and have children of their own. Once our gods have left us, we try to pick up the pieces of our long neglected marriages and find new purpose. Is it surprising that divorce rates are rising fastest for new empty nesters? Perhaps it is time that we gave the parenthood religion a second thought.

I think these quotes outline the dynamic rather well; a method of control women can use to distract and defer away from Beta husbands is a simple appeal to their children’s interests as being the tantamount to their own or their husbands. If the child sits at the top of that love hierarchy and that child’s wellbeing and best interests can be defined by the mother, the father/husband is relegated to subservience to both the child and the mother.

This gets back to the preternatural Empathy myth that women, by virtue of just being a woman, has some instinctual, empathetic insight about placing that child above all else. That child becomes a failsafe and a buffer against having to entertain a real relationship with the father/husband and really consider his position in her Hypergamous estimate of him.

If that man isn’t what her Hypergamous instinct estimates him being as optimal (he’s the unfortunate Beta), then “she’s tolerating his presence for the kids’ sake.” Jeremy was responding to a comment made by Capper about an incident where a woman was being encouraged to put her husband before her kids in that love hierarchy priority. The fact that this is so unnatural for a woman that it would need to be something necessary to train a woman to speaks volumes about the facility with which women presume that their default priority ought to be for her kids.

Most men buy into this prioritization as well. It seems deductively logical that a woman would necessarily need to put her child’s attention priorities well above her husband’s. What’s counterintuitive to both parents is that it’s the health of their relationship (or lack) that defines and exemplifies the complementary gender understanding of the child. Women default to using their children as cats paws to assume primary authority of the family, and men are already preconditioned to accept this as the normative frame for the family.

As with all your relations with women, establishing a strong Frame is essential. The problem for men with even the strongest initial Frame with their wives is that they cede that Frame to their kids. Most men want the very best for their children; or there may be a Promise Keepers dynamic that guy is dealing with an makes every effort to outdo, and make up for, the sins of his father by sacrificing everything, but in so doing he loses sight of creating and maintaining a dominant Frame for not just his wife, but the state of his family.

It’s important to bear in mind that when you set the Frame of your relationship, whether it’s a first night lay or a marriage prospect, women enter your reality and your frame – the same needs to apply to any children within that relationship. Far too many fathers are afraid to embody that strong authority and expect their wives (and children) to recognize what should be his primary place in the family.

The fear is that by assuming this position they become the typical asshole father they hoped to avoid for most of their formative years. Even for men with strong masculine role models in their lives, the hesitation comes from a culture that ridicules fathers, or presumes they are potentially violent towards children. Thus the abdication of fatherly authority, in as positive a tense as possible, is abdicated before that child is even born.


At the Man in Demand conference last weekend I had a young guy ask me what my thoughts were about a man’s being interested in becoming a single parent of his own accord. I had this same question posed to me during my second interview with Christian McQueen and essentially it breaks down to a man supplying his own sperm, buying a suitable woman’s viable ovum to fertilize himself, and, I presume, hire a surrogate mother to carry that child to term. Thereupon he takes custody of that child and raises it himself as a single father.

In theory this arrangement should work out to something similar to a woman heading off the the sperm bank to (once again Hypergamously) select a suitable sperm donor and become a single parent of her own accord. It’s interesting that we have institutions and facilities like sperm banks to ensure women’s Hypergamy, but men, much less heterosexual men, must have exceptional strength of purpose and determination to do so.

Despite dealing with the very likely inability of the surrogate mother to disentangle her emotional investment in giving birth to a child she will never raise (hormones predispose women to this) a man must be very determined financially and legally to become a single father by choice. In principle I understand the sentiment of Red Pill men wanting to raise a child on their own. The idea is to do so free from the (at least direct) influence of the Feminine Imperative. However, I think this is in error.

My feelings on this are two part. First, being a complementarian, it is my belief that a child requires two healthy adult parents, male and female, with a firm, mature grasp of the importance, strengths and weaknesses of their respective gender roles (based on biological and evolutionary standards). Ideally they should exemplify and demonstrate those roles in a healthy fashion so as a boy or a girl can learn about masculinity and femininity from their respective parents’ examples.

Several generations after the sexual revolution, and after several generations of venerating feminine social primacy, we’ve arrived at a default collective belief that single mothers can perform the function of modeling and shaping masculinity in boys as well as femininity in girls equally well. The underlying social message in that is that women/mothers can be a one woman show with regard to parenting and thus men, fathers or the buffoons mainstream culture portrays them as, are superfluous to parenting – nice to have around, but not vital. This belief also finds fertile ground in the notion that men are obsolete.

Secondly, for all the equalist emphasis of Jungian gender theories about anima/animus and balancing feminine and masculine personality interests, it is evidence of an agenda to suggest that a woman is equally efficient in teaching and modeling masculine aspects to children as well as any positively masculine man. With that in mind, I think the reverse would be true for a deliberately single father – even with the best of initial intents.

Thus, I think a father might serve as a poor substitute for a woman when it comes to exemplifying a feminine ideal. The argument then of course is that, courtesy of a feminine-centric social order, women have so divorced themselves of conventional femininity that perhaps a father might teach a daughter (if not demonstrate for her) a better feminine ideal than a woman. Conventional, complementary femininity is so lost on a majority of women it certainly seems like logic for a man to teach his daughter how to recapture it.

Raising Betas

This was the trap that 3rd wave feminism fell into; the belief that they knew how best to raise a boy into their disempowered and emasculated ideal of their redefined masculinity. Teach that boy a default deference and sublimation to feminine authority, redefine it as respect, teach him to pee sitting down and share in his part of the choreplay, and well, the world is bound to be a better more cooperative place right?

So it is for these reason I think that the evolved, conventional, two-parent heterosexual model serves best for raising a child. I cannot endorse single parenthood for either sex. Parenting should be as collaborative and as complementary a partnership as is reflected in the complementary relationship between a mother and father.

It’s the height of gender-supremacism to be so arrogantly self-convinced as to deliberately choose to birth a child and attempt to raise it into the contrived ideal of what that “parent” believes the other gender’s role ought to be.

This should put the institutionalized social engineering agenda of the Feminine Imperative into stark contrast for anyone considering intentional single parenthood. Now consider that sperm banks and feminine-specific fertility institutions have been part of normalized society for over 60 years and you can see that Hypergamy has dictated the course of parenting for some time now. This is the definition of social engineering.

I’ll admit that when I got the question of single fatherhood I was a bit incredulous of the mechanics of it. Naturally it would be an expense most men couldn’t entertain. However, as promised, I did my homework on it, and found out that ectogenesis was yet another science-fiction-come-reality that feminists have already considered and have planned for:

Prominent feminists and activists, including Andrea Dworkin and Janice Raymond, have concluded that not only will women be further marginalized and oppressed by this eventuality, but they will become obsolete.

Fertility, and the ability to be the species’ reproductive engine, are virtually the only resources that women collectively control, they argue. And, although women do have other “value” in a patriarchal society–child rearing, for example–gestation remains, worldwide, the most important.  Even in the most female-denigrating cultures women are prized, if only, for their childbearing. If you take that away, then what? This technology becomes another form of violence.

Women already have the power to eliminate men and in their collective wisdom have decided to keep them. The real question now is, will men, once the artificial womb is perfected, want to keep women around?

[…]“We may find ourselves without a product of any kind with which to bargain,” she writes. “We have to ask, if that last power is taken and controlled by men, what role is envisaged for women in the new world? Will women become obsolete?”

This was a great article and it came at an auspicious time – the time we find women sweating about having their sexual market leverage with men potentially being undercut by sex-bots and/or immersive virtual sex substitutes.

Solipsism II


A comment from Truman gets us started today:

Rollo, it would be great if you could provide some evidence for female solipsism beyond a few examples. From my own experience I could name a few solipsistic women, but I could do the same for men as well, and I’m far from convinced that the trait is universal in women, or even that it’s more prevalent in women than in men.

I will admit that the main reason I split this post into two was because I anticipated this example-seeking. And to their credit my more vocal female commenters didn’t disappoint me with (sometimes over the top) illustrations. If you haven’t had enough of the hamster spinning goodness yet feel free to sift through the comment thread from part one.

However, to begin to work out Truman’s request Voverk from the TRP forum had this example:

One of the most eye opening of the solipsistic world of females was when a plate of mine was giving me directions on where to pick her up. It went something like this:

Her: “When you come to that traffic light, turn over to me.”

Me: “What do you mean?”

Her: “Just turn here towards me.”

Me: “How the hell am I supposed to know which way is that? Left or right?”

Her: “I don’t know. Just turn my way”

She eventually gave directions, but it amazed me how hard it is for a woman to put herself in someone else’s shoes, even if she wants to.

Women’s mental point of origin (solipsism) presumes the entire world outside of her agrees with her imperative and mutually shares the importance and priorities of it.

Just like The Red Pill Lens, it takes a sensitivity to it, but you will begin to notice instances of that solipsism all around you if you pay attention. An equalists, feminine-primary upbringing and acculturation predisposes men to accept the manifestations of this solipsism as ‘normal’, so we blow it off or nod in agreement without really considering it. Most plugged-in Blue Pill men simply view this as a standard operating condition for women to such a degree that this solipsistic nature is pushed to the peripheries of their awareness.

It’s just how women are and women are more than happy to have men accept their solipsism as intrinsic to their nature. It’s excusable in the same sense that women hold a “woman’s prerogative” – she always reserves the right to change her mind. When your default is to accept this social imperative any greater inconsistencies fall into line behind it.

We are conditioned to accept that what best benefits women’s sexual strategy is necessarily what benefits men. On both a social and personal level women’s solipsistic importance presumes, by default, that what best serves themselves automatically best serves men – even when they refuse to acknowledge it. Remember, nothing outside the female existential imperative has any more significance than an individual women will allow it. So, perceptually to women, if a man suits a purpose in her self-primary requirements he must also mutually share in that awareness of his purpose. Thus, she maintains that his imperatives are the same as her own.

Societal Reinforcement

Social reinforcement of women’s solipsistic nature is a self-perpetuating cycle. A feminine-primary social order reflects in itself, and then sustains, female solipsism. For most Red Pill aware men this cycle is apparent in women’s overblown self-entitlements, but there’s far more to it than this.

When men accept and reinforce this socially, we feed and confirm women’s solipsistic natures. When men are steeped in a Blue Pill acceptance of what they believe should be men’s condition, and defend (or ’empower’) women’s solipsistic behaviors or manifestations of it, thats when the cycle of affirmation of this solipsism comes full circle.

Recently I called commenter InsanityBytes to the carpet about her first priority being to defend the Sisterhood when Dalrock published a post critical of a woman’s abortions and another who’d joined Ashley Madison then rationalized it away because she was in a loveless marriage with a man who was in his last days.

This is another instance of solipsism; that a woman’s first directive is to defend her sex’s imperatives even above considerations of religious conviction, marriage vows or espoused personal ideology. That’s the depth and breadth of feminine solipsism, and again, this reinforces a cycle of affirming it in women.


One of the easiest ways to identify women’s solipsistic nature is manifested in their communication style, and as fate would have it I received a fresh comment from a new female commenter on my interview with Niko Choski. I wont bore you with the histrionics of most of it, but her ending comments serve a purpose here:

I’m not lonely, I enjoy solitude…
I am a whole person who needs no other for my own completion.No man, no woman. The qualities identified by different cultures as male and female…are all mine.
Your obsession with division….iis absurd.

I’ve dug into women’s communication styles on more occasions than I can account on this blog, and with regard to how women defer to their solipsistic nature there is no better way to identify it than in the priorities they give to communicating with men and other women.

From Duplicity:

It’s endlessly entertaining (and predictable) to see how often women’s (and feminized men’s) default response to anything they disagree with in regards to gender dynamics is met with a personalization to the contrary. It’s always the “not-in-my-case” story about how their personal anecdotal, exceptional experience categorically proves a universal opposite. By order of degrees, women have a natural tendency for solipsism – any dynamic is interpreted in terms of how it applies to themselves first, and then the greater whole of humanity.

Men tend to draw upon the larger, rational, more empirical meta-observations whether they agree or not, but a woman will almost universally rely upon her isolated personal experience and cling to it as gospel. If it’s true for her, it’s true for everyone, and experience and data that contradict her self-estimations? Those have no bearing because ‘she’s’ not like that.

This personalization is the first order of any argument proffered by women just coming into an awareness of long standing conversations and discussion in the manosphere. It is so predictable it’s now cliché, and each woman’s first retort invariably responds with personalized anecdotes they think trumps any objective, observable evidence to the contrary.

It might be entertaining for Red Pill men to count the instances of personalization in a woman’s rebuttal comment, but it’s not about how many “I”s or “me”s a woman brings to any counterargument – it’s that her first inclination for a counterargument is to use her personal experience and expect it to be accepted as a valid, universal truth by whomever she is presenting it to.

I’s, Me’s and Myself’s are simply the vehicle and manifestation of women’s first directive – a solipsistic mental point of origin; any challenge to that self-importance is invalidated by her personal self-primacy. This mental origin is so automatic and ingrained to such a limbic degree that consideration of it is never an afterthought for her.

This is common to feminine communication preferences (and men who’ve been conditioned to opt into a feminine-primary communication mode). Women focus primarily on the context of the communication (how it makes them feel while communicating), while men focus primarily on the content (the importance of the information being communicated). This isn’t to exclude men from using personal experiences to help illustrate a point, but the intent comes from a different motive. That motive is an attempt to better understand the content and information of that issue, not an exercise in self-affirmation that feminine solipsism requires to preserve a woman’s ego-investments (usually her solipsistic mental point of origin).

The most visible manifestation of women’s rudimentary solipsism is the priority with which they expect their personal, existential, experience to be considered the most valid, legitimate and universal truth apparent in any debate.

Middle of the Story Syndrome

One thing I’ve been frustrated with by virtually every woman I’ve ever known in my life is their tendency to begin a conversation in the middle of a story; all the while expecting men to understand every nuance and be familiar with minute ‘feely’ detail that made up the backstory that’s never forthcoming.

I swear, every woman I’ve known has done this with me at some time. The presumption is that their story is of such importance that bothering with any pretext, or outlining and describing the events and information that led up to that mid-way vitally important element that made them feel a certain way is all that  should matter to a listener.

Women have an uncanny way of accepting this when they relate stories among themselves; gleaning incidental details of the backstory as the teller goes on.

There’s an ironic feminine-operative social convention that complains that “men aren’t good listeners” or “men don’t listen” to what women are telling them. This convention is really another manifestation of a solipsistic mindset with regard to communication.

It isn’t that men don’t listen, it’s that our communication styles focus on content information, not the contextual ‘feel’ of what’s being communicated by women. Women, above all else, hate to repeat themselves. Not because of the inconvenience, but because men ‘not listening’ and requiring a repetition of that information conflicts with her own self-primary solipsism.

The want for a ‘good listener’ is really the want for a man who affirms her self-priority by not needing to be told something that confirms that priority more than once. And this confirmation should never require explanation or and understanding of the backstory of events that made it feel important to her.

Women have an inherent pretext in communication that always begins with themselves. In fact, most are so sure of their solipsistic, personal truth that glaring objectivity never enters their minds; at least not initially. As I mentioned in the first installment, women are entirely capable of applying reason, rationality and pragmatism as well as men, it’s just that this isn’t their first mental order when confronted with a need for it. Just as a girl can be taught to throw an object as well as it comes naturally to a boy, a reasoned transcendence above her solipsism, one that considers the individuated existences of others’ experiences takes a learned effort.

Ladies First

Luxocrat had a great illustration as well:

I asked my ex that last month, if her kids came first or if I did. She paused and said “I really don’t know. That’s a hard one.” I replied “Then it’s your kids.” I recall my ex-wife reading one of those save your marriage books right after I made it clear I was leaving. She read me a line in it and said she sees how she was wrong. The line went something like this: “If you want to have a strong marriage, you need to understand your husband comes first, even before your children. They must be taught by you, their mother, that he is head of the household and respect must be given. The only way they’ll see that is by your demostrating by your actions that this is so.”

I still left though.

The irony in this instance is that for all of the humble deference this seemingly good advice promotes, it still presumes a woman is already the primary source of authority who ‘allows’ her husband to be “the man”. I’ve heard similar advice espoused by evangelical pastors making Pollyanna attempts at ‘granting headship’ to husbands and fathers from their reluctant wives. The inherent flaw is that these men already begin from a perspective that women are in a position of unquestioned primacy and require their permission to be ‘men’.

In a way they are unwittingly acknowledging women’s solipsism (and perpetuating the cycle) as a default source of authority. That a woman would need to be taught to defer authority to her husband belies two things; first, her solipsistic mental point of origin and second, that her man isn’t a man who inspires that deference.

It’s easy to see how a Beta man wouldn’t be someone that would naturally prompt a woman to go against her natural solipsism, but in Luxocrats position (I presume Alpha since he walked) there is a conflict women have to confront in themselves.

In a social order that reinforces the entitlements presumed by women’s solipsism there develops an internal conflict between the need for an optimized Hypergamy and the ego-investments a woman’s solipsism demands to preserve it. As a woman progresses towards the Wall and a lessened capacity to optimize both sides (AF/BB) of Hypergamy this conflict comes to a head. The necessities of long term provisioning war with the self-importance of solipsism at the risk of her losing out on preserving both (and having a guy like Luxocrat simply walk away from her).


Interview with Niko Choski

I did about an hour and a half interview with Niko Choski this weekend. Niko is a great guy and he treated me very well. His podcast is rooted in the MGTOW side of things and as I’ve said before I’m not really an adherent of that lifestyle obviously, but I do understand and appreciate the motivation behind it.

Just to reiterate it again I don’t subscribe to PUA, MRA, MGTOW or any other tenets in full. I have issues with all the various branches of the manophere and I think all of them have something to positively contribute to a better understanding of intersexual dynamics. It’s my take on the MGTOW side of things that the one common thread these guys share is putting themselves as their own mental point of origin,and I go into that a bit in this interview.

Not all MGTOWs are cut from the same cloth. As I understand it Niko puts himself out there to engage women, but his perspective is one of ROI and making himself the primary frame setter when he does. As I stated before, my main concern is men isolating themselves socially and I think that taken to its extreme MGOTW can lead men to a self imposed isolation. Niko and I discussed this a bit too, as well as covering the true forced loneliness groups.

That said I think there’s more Red Pill common ground in the mindset. Yeah, I get that any man’s wife is empowered by the state to essentially be the deciding factor in how that guy will live his life. I’m not advocating for marriage, and certainly not in the hostile social state it’s in today – but you don’t have to marry or even entertain monogamy to engage with women. Regardless of how you go about it, becoming Red Pill aware will necessitate that a man ‘goes his own way’ in some respect. Applying Red Pill knowledge may mean you learn Game or it may mean you simply decided to recuse yourself from it, but that awareness will require you to put yourself first.

So, have a listen and let me know what you think.


In other news the Man in Demand conference is down to the last 4 or 5 tickets by my last count. It will sell out soon, so if you’re still on the fence now’s the time to get your reservations set.

Men In Demand


Well, I think I’ve teased it long enough now. If you’ve been watching my Twitter posts or you’ve payed close attention in my comment threads you already know I’m the confirmed ‘featured guest’ speaker at the first annual Man In Demand seminar on September 12th, 2015 in Las Vegas, Nevada.

I’ll be speaking and doing a Q&A along with Christian McQueen, Tanner Guzy and Goldmund. We’re doing this collectively at our own initial expense and the venue is amazing (literally on the strip across from the Bellagio). “Seminar” doesn’t begin to do this meet up justice, it’s really a well rounded Red Pill TED conference with each of us covering our respective aspects of Game, style, life applications and of course theory and Red Pill awareness.

While I’m flattered by the response thus far (the VIP tickets are already sold out), it’s not just about me – the idea we had was to give readers / attendees a collaborative all-day experience that they can benefit from on many levels. We’ve made every effort to make this meet up as affordable as possible for guys too ($47). Trust me, I know better than most how expensive a trip to Vegas can be.

You will be impressed by this venue. As you might expect, this is legitimately high-end, not a rented Elks Club hall or a La Quinta conference room.

Needless to say this event is my first (and certainly only for this year) in-person appearance. Just to allay some fears, I have no plans for ‘going public’ in the foreseeable future, so with that said, let me assure the men considering attending that we all place our highest priority on your anonymity and personal privacy. I can personally assure you there will be no media (invited or uninvited) allowed, no surprise interviews of attendees, no video recorded (and certainly not any of the attendees), and no undercover Huffington Post bloggers posing as a hostess will be hired – keep in mind this is Vegas, not Montreal (*wink*).

I know everyone always states this, but tickets really are limited and we expect a pretty full house since Vegas is a premier destination. Each one of us is very accessible and very approachable so it’s highly likely we’ll have some (not on the schedule) social gathering or club crawl after the conference too. I’ll be signing books and if you’re lucky I’ll have a bit of one of my whisky brands left for you to have a taste of too.

So, if you’re going or not, let me know what you think about this. If you have questions I’ll answer them in the comment thread over the weekend. Also, I’m doing the outline of my talk right now so if you have some suggestion about what you think I should cover let me know. I should add too that I have at least one scheduled podcast interview between now and the conference.

Hopefully I’ll see you in Vegas.

Interview Two


Just a quick update here: the latest interview I did with Christian McQueen on my birthday (April 2nd) is now available for download.

We went for a solid 2 hours and 20 minutes, so settle in or download it and listen at your leisure. I’m going to make this post’s comment thread an open one for questions or comments regarding the show. The response to the last one was overwhelming and is still the most listened to podcast on Christian’s old format so I’ll stay active in this comment thread for a bit to answer anything you may want to ask me.

I’ll be back to regular posting on Monday.

We’ll Do It Live,..again,..


A quick heads up, I’ll be a guest on Christian McQueen’s new podcast, Man in Demand Radio, Thursday, April 2nd (my birthday no less). I’ll be on with Christian at 12 noon PST. We’ll be discussing topics from my latest book, Preventive Medicine – which published this month – as well as questions from readers, the red pill subreddit forum and twitter.

If there’s something you’re wanting to ask me please leave it in the comments here or over at Christian’s thread. You can always tweet me or Christian too.

The last show was the most downloaded stream of Christian’s old shows. This new one promises to be a bit different however, it’ll be more informative and less banter. Christian is taking a new tact with this show – I promise to watch my “uhms” and Christian promises to limit the expletives. We plan to go for about 2 hours (maybe more) this time.

Just a footnote: We do plan to discuss the Germanwings tragedy for a bit rather than me doing a post about it.

Father Knows Best


I received the following from Mark Minter in this week’s comment thread. Regardless of what your or my opinion of Minter is, I will admit this is an area I haven’t explored before:

I have a request for a post. It is for a rework of a Rational Male post sometime back about sons of divorce that try to be “better than dad”.

I would think you might have more to say on the topic since a couple of years have passed since you posted it.

Or perhaps how a newly red pill divorced father might approach his son, especially if there has been a period of estrangement.

I have a “date” for a phone call with my son after quite a long period. You might imagine my relationship with my “old family” is sort of “interesting”, to put it euphemistically. My daughter has dropped my last name from social media accounts. My son calls himself “Younger Minter” and his assumed “middle name” is “Fucking”. Sort of a throwback to mine back in the day, but he seems quite pissed though.

I have been told these things can be quite emotional, and then a flurry of contact, but then a “backsliding” away from contact. Inevitably and probably rightfully so, he has innate loyalty to his mother. And he grew up in one of places that is so liberal it is often referred to as “The People’s Republic of …”

So the question is “How to bring him along?”

If by “bring him along” you mean convince him you’re not the asshole he’s convinced you are, that’s really subjective to your personal history and how amenable he is to listening to your side of the story. That said, there’s a world aligned against you that’s likely conditioned your son not just to hate you, but to loath his own sex by association with your past decisions and circumstances.

My intent with this weekend’s discussion isn’t to run Minter up the flagpole, but rather delve into a tough Red Pill area – reestablishing a lost or misguided connection with a son or daughter, from a post-Red Pill awareness perspective.

The post Mark is referencing was Promise Keepers. In that post I hit this situation from the opposite side:

Slay the Father

One common theme I’ve encountered amongst the more zealous beta White Knights I’ve counseled over the years has been this determination, bordering on fanaticism, with outdoing the life-performance of their asshole fathers. Before I go on further, many of them had legitimately rotten, alcoholic dads, who were abusive to them and their mothers. Others had the perception of their fathers colored for them either by their ‘strong independent®’ single mothers, or by watching their fathers resolve their own beta tendencies in a post-divorce life. Whatever the case, each of these guys had a mission – to be a better man than their father was, protect their mothers, and by extension the future mother their girlfriends and wives would become for them. His father’s personal failings would be his personal triumphs.

Being the father in this scenario and attempting to reestablish an after-the-fact, positive connection with a son is a very tall order. It’s almost easier to address the particulars of a daughter with ‘daddy issues’ who’s absent father contributed to her ‘victim status’ condition than it is to consider the upbringing and feminine conditioning a boy receives in his father’s relative absence.

The difficulty being that a son will have every negative perception of his father reinforced for him by a feminine-primary social order. Even in the rare instances when an insightful mother doesn’t resentfully color her son’s negative perceptions of his father during his formative years, there is an entire world of feminine social conventions pressing and affirming that impression into him.

From Daddy Issues:

Matrix Fathers

Have a look at postsecret this week. It’ll all be gone by Sunday so have a look while it lasts. This week’s thread is the usual fare for Father’s Day, a hearty “Fuck You Dad!” or “You’re the reason I’m so fucked up!” interspersed with a couple ‘good dad’ sentiments so as not to entirely degrade the feminized ideal of fatherhood – wouldn’t want to discourage men’s perpetual ‘living up’ to the qualifications set by the feminine imperative. There has to be a little cheese in the maze or else the rat wont perform as desired.

I always see a marked difference in attitude between mother’s day and father’s day, especially now that I’ve been one for 14 years. I was listening to a local talk radio show on the ride home Friday that was opening lines for callers to express their ‘gratitude‘ for their fathers, as they’d done the previously in May for mother’s day. Damn near every caller had the same “fuck you dad!” story about how shitty their lives were because of their father’s influence or his lack thereof. One girl had called in to bleat out her story about how her dad had left her mother 30 years ago and for the last 10 years she’d sent him a father’s day card with a big ‘FU’ on it to tell him she’d never forgive him. Another guy called in to say how horrible his dad was for leaving his mom and how he sends her a father’s day card because he thinks she fulfilled a masculine role for him that he owes some gratitude for.

Father’s Day is a slap in the face for me now – not because my wife and daughter don’t appreciate me as a father, but because it’s become a big “fuck you” Mr. Man. It’s now a reminder (as if we needed a special occasion) that masculinity, even in as positive a light as the Matrix might muster, is devalued and debased, and we ought to just take it like a man and get over it.

It’s a difficult task to unplug a man who’s a friend and open his eyes to Red Pill awareness. That guy has to be seeking answers to really be open to having his ego-investments in his conditioning challenged and realigned – you can’t really make a man Red Pill aware, he’s got to come to it in some fashion. This is a very important distinction to make when the man you’re attempting to unplug is your own son.

A father in this predicament has the double jeopardy of clearing his name as a father and as a representative of masculinity – the representation of all the negative aspects the Feminine Imperative has ever embedded into him about the taint of his own masculinity. As I mentioned in Promise Keepers, some of the most ardent anti-conventional-masculinity crusaders I’ve ever encountered all had the common denominator of a ‘bad dad’. There are no ‘deadbeat mothers’.

Minter’s not the first father to ask me for advice about this. One of the more painful aspects of waking up and accepting Red Pill truths is coming to terms with the consequences of basing your past decisions on a Blue Pill paradigm. I can empathize with younger unplugged Betas getting angry with themselves for having wasted part of their lives with the effort of chasing after the carrot of Blue Pill goals, but it’s an entirely different anger older men feel after coming to realize that their lives and the lives of their children (the only reason to get married, remember?) are the results of their Blue Pill decision making.

Fortunately I had my Red Pill awakening prior to my daughter being born and had the foresight to live by example. However I know enough men in similar straights as Minter to see what an impossible task it is to untangle the past Blue Pill version of themselves with the Red Pill aware men they’ve become. I do not envy them.

I think the questions for the weekend are obvious:

I understand that Mark is seeking reconciliation here, and it may not even be warranted, but what would advise you men in a similar situation?

Attempting to unplug a friend, even one in a trauma that makes him ready to hear Red Pill truths, is a difficult task, but when that man is your own son how do you go about it?

Bear in mind I do understand that raising your son by a Red Pill example would be ideal. I’ve written about it before. What I’m asking is how to approach a young man already steeped in a Blue Pill feminized conditioning for the better part of his life and make him Red Pill aware? That kid may be a son who’s made it his life’s mission to be a “better man” than you based on the definition of a feminine social doctrine that’s taught him to hate you, his own sex, or at the very least would prefer he remain confused about masculinity until after he’s committed himself to useful Beta provisioning when a woman needs it most from him.

I’ll give my own response in the comments.

Dreams of the Future Past


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 9,564 other followers