In the past I’ve covered in various detail the utility of instilling dread in a woman both pre and post monogamy. It’s been one of the more contentious principles I’ve endorsed, with women tending to revile me for having brought men to the awareness of dread’s uses, and men concurring with, but often hesitant in applying dread for fear of the backlash for having used dread conspicuously.

In Dread Games I made an attempt to clear up the real inevitability of dread in any average relationship. Dread is going to be a factor in any relationship due to the Cardinal Rule of Relationships:

In any relationship, the one with the most power is the one who cares the least.

As Roissy and many legitimate psychologists will tell you, the most secure relationships generally result from about a 1-2 point SMV imbalance favoring the Man in the relationship. In this imbalance, the actual strength  of that secure feminine attachment to the man (both in and out of a monogamous commitment) can be expressed as a soft, or passive form of dread. This expression of dread is still rooted in a woman’s imagination of emotional, physical and provisional loss, but just as the application of that dread is passive, so too is a woman’s progressive realization of that dread.

Soft Dread

Mrs. Tomassi and I were recently talking with a woman of about 49. She’s the ever-present front desk host at our gym and a casual acquaintance and friend. She’s not particularly unattractive for her age, reasonably good shape from a body perspective – I can tell she used to enjoy a lot of male attention in her 20s and maybe 30′s – but now just this side of 50 she’s moved not so much into a regret stage, but rather a hopeful sense of well post-Wall self-remorse. That might sound odd, but she’s at least optimistic about her ‘chances’ of getting with a “good man” in the near future.

She’s quite upfront and honest about the Alpha Bad Boy Jerks she’s dated, married one and then divorced from her past. In fact she’s one of the more lucid women I’ve encountered about her present state and how she came to it. Although she’s the typical result of a hypergamous life prolonged past the “eating her cake too” phase, she owns her mistakes.

Although we generally hit Gold’s at different times, occasionally  the wife and I go together in the mornings. It was on one of these mornings, and our friend at the counter stopped us to say,

“I love you guys, I really do. I see a lot of people pass through here but when I see you both together it gives me hope that I can have a good relationship like you two. You’re such a team, I really hope I can meet a guy I can connect with like that.”

We were on our way out, and she always has something else to say about her personal life so, while I guess I was somewhat flattered, I didn’t pay it much mind. That is until our ride back home when Mrs. Tomassi looked me square in the face and said, “I am so glad I didn’t end up like that!” I was actually kind of surprised at the tone of her voice. “Thank God that’s not me, how horrible to be in that position at her age.” I nodded my head because I knew she was expecting my usually analyzations of post-Wall women and the beds they make. Then, with a hint of a tear in her eye, she gave me one of the best compliments I’ve ever heard from her, “I hope Bebé finds and marries a Man just like you.”

That made me feel really good, and what I’m about to type here sound really shitty. After not a small swell of pride, I thought, while it’s nice to be appreciated in this respect, would this realization have come without the influence of our friend and her state of life?

You see, what I experienced that morning was a sort of de fact association of social proof. Granted, I’m not taking anything away from the love and solidity upon which my marriage and our relationship is founded on, but was I just the right guy in the right place for this realization to come to awareness? What I had just participated in was a form of soft dread. A dread that needs no emphasis or prompting from a Man, simply the occasion for it to come to the surface to be actualized.

When a Man’s status is long established it’s easy to take his qualities for granted by women. It takes another woman’s lack to bring that status into focus for her. In the same vein that women will pre-approve or pre-qualify you for another woman’s intimacy, likewise the personal state of other women will serve as a benchmark of social proof for a Man’s wife or LTR. I realize this has the potential to cut the other way for women who are more well off than others, but the dynamic is real. I’ve written in the past that women fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate the sacrifices Men must make to facilitate their feminine reality, but if they ever come close to this appreciation it’s only at the prompting of women outside the relationship who can recognize it in the Men committed to other women.

Progressive Dread

The admittedly very rough graph I created to illustrate the contemporary sexual marketplace (SMP) is almost a manosphere link staple now. However, I’m going to reuse it once more here to illustrate another point:

When I wrote Navigating the SMP it was in response to a need for visualization of how men and women’s respective sexual market value (SMV) differentiate at different phases of their lives. Using this model it’s not too far a stretch to illustrate how dread plays a factor in women’s self, and relational awareness.

At their SMV peak, adjusting for the mean average, women’s potential for experiencing dread is as low as it will be in a lifetime. During this phase the potential for replacing a respective mate (or STR lover) is almost a nonissue. Even in emotionally invested relationships during this phase, the subliminal presence of a basic, unprompted, dread of loss is pushed into unawareness for women.

That dread of loss is replaced with the dread of insecurity as a woman ages toward the Wall. Before I continue here, it’s important to remember that security comes in many different forms – financial, emotional, psychological, spiritual and even self-esteem play a part in the totality of women’s security needs.

During the height of a woman’s SMV, men are scarcely aware of their potential value to a woman in the long term. Men’s recognition of dread is much more heightened when a woman’s SMV is peaking, while his is on a slow ascendency toward his late 20′s and early 30′s. He doesn’t want to miss his “dream girl” and she doesn’t want to sell herself short in the hypergamy gamble she’s playing.

As a woman ages to the Wall and beyond, and while a Man’s SMV accumulates into his 30′s, the role soft dread plays in the relationship is reversed. As women’s primary physical attraction decays, the subliminal dread of loss, and an ever decreasing ability to recreate her security, increases in her psyche. It may not be on the surface of her awareness, but there will be more reminders of her state with each passing year.

It seems unduly cruel to remind women of this dread; that’s not my intent with today’s post. In fact, just because I’m aware of the subtle reminders of soft dread women experience, I may play my relationship Game with a bit more sensitivity. That being the case, there’s no ignoring the reality of this dynamic and the utility it represents for a man aware of the state of women in various phases of their lives.

When I wrote Navigating the SMP the operative intent behind it was to make men more conscious of the predictability of women’s motives and behaviors at various phases of life – and plan their Game according to the signs they were seeing. In the case of soft dread, this realization may at first come as a hint of appreciation to the Man who’s dutifully persevered through his woman’s dominant frame for most of his LTR  Marriage. It may come as a comfort for a guy who’s unused to sentimental declarations of appreciation, but it’s important to remember the why in that declaration, rather than the who in that declaration.

A little over two weeks ago Washington state Governor Jay Inslee signed off on the final installment of a six-year effort to make language in the state’s copious laws gender-neutral. The sponsor of the bill, Senator Jeannie Kohl-Welles’ (hyphenated surname noted) reasoning for initiating the six-year endeavor was,

“It brings us to modern times, to contemporary times, why should we have in statute anything that could be viewed as biased or stereotypical or reflecting any discrimination?”

Thus words such as ‘freshmen’, ‘fireman’, ‘fisherman’ and even ‘penmanship’ are neutralized to ‘first year student’, ‘fireperson’, ‘fisher’ and ‘writing skill’. Perhaps the easiest way to grasp the process the committee used in their six-year effort is to presume that any noun or verb with the successive letters of ‘m-a-n’ in its syntax was replaced with ‘person’ or a substitution for a term that excluded the offending ‘m-a-n’ letters.

This hasn’t been the only effort to geld the English language under the guise of a want for avoiding legal repercussions. The University of North Carolina has initiated a similar effort in their school’s by-laws. Kent Law, Marquette and virtually every state college in the union, while not mandating the ‘manless’ language, has made efforts to encourage linguistic androgyny.

The Washington state initiative is really just the next predictable progression in this gelding, however the six-year effort represents something more endemically hostile; the Feminine Imperative, in its unconsolable insecurity, would reengineer the very language society uses in order to feel more secure.

Now granted, this is English, the second most commonly spoken language in the world, but in order to fully appreciate the scope of the Feminine Imperative and the lengths to which it will go unhindered to assuage the need for feminine-security, a red-pill man has to recognize the importance language represents to the human race as well as the removal of male, not masculine, influence from that language.

In all Latin-based languages there are gender associations with definitive articles. Nouns (and many adjectives) are specifically feminine or masculine as part of their intrinsic qualities. In Spanish ‘La Casa’, the home, is a feminine association. ‘El Toro’, the bull, is a masculine association. Anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of a Latin-based language understands that millennia ago the Latin culture found gender differentiation so important that it attached gender associations to the words, written and spoken, that represented the ideas and articles each word meant.

This might seem like a remedial review of language and society, but it’s important to understand what it is the Feminine Imperative hopes to undo, and the magnitude of its insecurities. The six-year effort of gender-abridgment in the Washington state law is really an illustration of the lengths to which the Feminine Imperative would reengineer society; from the very foundations of human communication, language, by eliminating masculine associations with any article or quality. The Feminine Imperative, that is dependent upon men being Men when convenient, simultaneously makes herculean efforts to remove men from its idealized environment and society.

Be a Man

There used to be a time when some cultures had a rite of passage into manhood or a passing into adult responsibility and masculine respect. In Latin cultures a young woman becomes a woman on here quinceñera – her fifteenth birthday. Jewish boys have a Bar Mitzvah, certain Native American tribes had similar traditions, etc. I think that if there’s a modern social complaint about men remaining perpetually juvenile this is the root of it – we don’t respect Manhood enough to define what’s expected and when that adult, masculine respect is due.

A lot has been written on this blog and many others about the ceaseless efforts of the feminine to marginalize and ridicule anything masculine. It’s easy to find consistent examples of this in the past 50 years of popular media, movies, TV sit-coms, music, etc. While masculinity is ridiculed, there’s more to it than this. It’s not simple masculine ridicule, because the same masculine attributes and qualities that make women ‘strong’ are the same that make men strong. The difference is in the application – it wasn’t enough to implant the seeds of masculine self-doubt into men, the Feminine Imperative had to make men, not necessarily masculinity, the problem to be solved.

In all of the examples of masculine gender reversal in popular culture, men are the unique problem, to which only women have the resources, wisdom and intuition to correct. The men of today are characterized as the Lucy Ricardos of the 50′s, requiring women’s guidance to avoid, often mutually destructive, disasters. However, the key to solving those problems, characterized as uniquely male, still require masculine-associated, mindsets, skills and applications.

Guys vs. Men

I was participating in a conversation just recently with a young woman of 26 and a young man of 18. The conversation itself wasn’t important, but at one point the young man referred to himself as a ‘Man’. He said something to the effect of, “Well I’m a man, and men do,..” At the word ‘man’ she cut him off with the unconscious snigger that’s resulted from years of feminine ridicule conditioning. Just the mention of a man self-referencing as a “man” is enough to inspire feminine ridicule. It’s laughable for a man to consider himself a man.

This exchange got me to wondering about the turning point at which I began to self-reference as a “Man”. In the face of a constant conditioned ridicule, it’s almost an uncomfortable recognition to distinguish yourself as a Man. It’s too easy to just think of yourself as a ‘guy’ and never be so presumptuous as to insist upon your manhood. In girl-world, to claim to be a Man is to admit to arrogance – it’s to embrace a flawed nature.

It’s important to note here that in embracing your status as a Man, instead of ‘just a guy’, you are passing a meta-shit test. By embracing self-referenced manhood, you are rejecting what a world aligned against you would like you to believe about yourself. You’re endorsing yourself as a Man with self-assurance despite the self-doubt the Feminine Imperative relies upon men believing about themselves, masculinity and the dubious state of manhood as a whole. By flagrantly referring to yourself as a Man you are passing the meta-shit test – you’re overtly stating you’re a Man, but you you’re covertly stating “I Just Get It.”

Remove the Man

As I addressed earlier, the Feminine Imperative perceives your Manhood as a Threat. By endorsing yourself as a Man, on some level, whether you’re cognizant of it or not, you’re alluding that you have an inkling of your own personal value as a Man. You’re expressing  a self-awareness that is both attractive and terrorizing for women, but due to the constant influence of feminine primacy you’re perceived as arrogant, self-serving and prideful. Even in the most innocuous context, insisting upon your status as a Man is inherently sexist to a world defined by the Feminine Imperative.

But the imperative needs masculinity. To insure its (temporary) satisfaction of security a masculine element is required. Strength, confidence, determination, a capacity for risk taking, dominance and the comfort that women naturally derive from those masculine attributes are necessities of a healthy, secure, existence for women and the feminine.

However, brutish, ridiculous and stupid men can’t be trusted to universally provide this masculine security that every woman deserves irrespective of attractiveness or merit according to the Feminine Imperative. So Men must be removed from masculinity.

No longer are Men allowed a monopoly on masculinity. Domineering women as a default status in heterosexual relationships pushes masculinity into her domain. Dominant masculine partners in sexually fluid relationships are similarly, unironically, re-characterized.

These are the easy examples. Volumes have been written in the manopshere about how feminine-primary government assumes the masculine providership role in modern relationships, thus freeing an already unhindered hypergamy even more so, but the effort to remove the Man goes far beyond this obvious institution. The fundamental restructuring of gender reference in our very language – as illustrated by the Washington state legislature – attempts to, literally, remove the Man from the equation.

Masculine Security

I can remember an instance at a former workplace where some coworkers were organizing a team to run in a Breast Cancer awareness walk/run. At one point a particularly mangina coworker suggested we all wear the prerequisite pink color at the event, and needless to say I arrived in a black T-Shirt amongst a sea of pink. The predictable accusation of my sexual security came up: “What, aren’t you secure enough in your manhood to wear pink?…herp..derp!” to which I answered “I’m secure enough in my Manhood not to wear pink.”

What the mangina was obliviously parroting back is the same social tool that’s been used by the Feminine Imperative for the past 60 years; inspire self-doubt in male-specific masculinity. By making compliance with the Feminine Imperative a qualification of masculinity, men assign the power to define masculinity to the Feminine Imperative. My answer to him was simply taking that power of definition back into a male-controlled frame – “I’ll tell you what manhood is, your grasp of manhood doesn’t qualify you to tell me.”

This power of defining the masculine isn’t limited just to snarky, subconscious referencing; it’s simply one aspect of a greater effort to remove men from masculinity. While the efforts of certain women bloggers and psychologists (both within and without the manosphere) to build better betas seems ennobling to white knights, the unifying purpose behind their efforts is really one of portioning or rationing masculine authority to men in as convenient a way as would satisfy their immediate needs for those masculine aspects. Be Alpha as needed, but beta for the greater part so as to allow for fem-masculine dominance and primacy.

I’ve explained this previously as the Male Catch 22, but it’s important to understand that this Catch isn’t some unfortunate byproduct of male inheritance; it’s a careful, calculated feminine social dynamic with the latent purpose of making men accountable for masculine responsibilities while simultaneously making them shamed and guilty of ‘male privilege’ when that masculinity conflicts with the dictates of the Feminine Imperative. That’s the crux of the dynamic, but the mechanics of it are still rooted in specifically male masculine self-doubt.

For the Feminine Imperative to sustain itself men can never be trusted with masculinity, solution: remove men from being the definers of masculinity and apportion them only enough authority of it that would benefit the Feminine Imperative as necessary.

EastWind from the SoSuave forum has come to the existential conflict of the bitter taste of the red pill:

So, after reading through the most prominent articles of Rollo’s, Roissy’s and some of Dalrock’s, alongside this comment and this comment by Mark Minter, I’ve reached a point of depression and giddiness at the same time.

Their take on the female imperative, female behavior, marriage, relationships and everything else rings so true to me, it’s unbelievable. I find it impossible that any guy could read these posts, then go back outside and compare what he sees and what he has experienced and is experiencing to what he has read and not see the truth in it. Maybe the reason this understanding comes naturally to me is because I’ve seen and experienced enough (emotional) pain at the hands of fellow humans to know for damn certain a human being is capable of just about anything given the right circumstances, and maybe it’s because I’ve dabbled in this “game” and “manosphere” stuff for near to ten years now, ever since I was 15, so I am actually an example of someone who was, in a way, brought up with it.

And I see the divorce rate and the cock carousel riders and my friends who get knocked around by their girls and my colleague who announced he’s going to be a daddy and he’s so happy and, isn’t life full of miracles, both methods of contraception they were using failed at the same time, what a coincidence, and he’s an engineer who deals with fail rates, no less. So now he’s going to be a daddy on a PhD salary because his girl will stay at home and, what do you know, the baby’s due two months after she’s getting her degree, another happy coincidence.

And I’m starting to wake up, not from the dream of happy equal relationships, I had forgotten that years ago, but from everything, and I realize:

The true red pill doesn’t tell you, as a man, that women are sh1t-testing you, it makes you see that everything and everyone in your life and society is grooming you up to be a provider, to be someone who does work for other people’s benefits, to give your money and LIFE for some cause that is not your own.

It’s enough to seriously depress a man. This had been creeping up in the back of my head for some time now, Rollo and co. just had the words to give it a shape; that most of what we do is utterly pointless if we let go of trying to obtain women. Suddenly nothing matters much anymore.

I’m supposed to get a good education, a steady job, a comfortable apartment, for what? Other people tell me it’s so I can take care of a family, but now the only reason for me to do so is for mysecurity and convenience, I find myself planning out my life without a woman, with a comfortable minimum of expenditures and “furnitures” and a maximum of free time and enjoyable activities, with a job that provides me with enough cash to live, do the things I like and put some on the side in case I do get old.

But it’s scary. It’s fucking scary, believe me. Suddenly the questions everybody is asking, here and in real life, i.e. “how can I get a girlfriend?”, “how can I get laid?”, “what will I do/what will become of my family if I lose my job?”, they lose all their importance. I find myself wondering why I should have to head to some place everyday, whether I want to or not, whether it’s interesting or not, when I could be doing more enjoyable things, and no matter how much you love your work, there’s always more enjoyable things than work. My PhD topic is somewhat interesting, but I’m pissed off by the “office politics” going on at my institute, even though it’s a bloody university, and you know what? If I leave, or am made to leave, it doesn’t matter because I only have myself to take care of.

So a side effect of realizing that you will never find a woman who will be thankful for the sacrifices you make for her is utter and total freedom. And freedom is huge, and it’s scary. And I can’t handle it. I’m sticking with my position because, well, it’s somewhat interesting, but mainly because I don’t know what else to do. I’ve never been prepared for this, never been told that dreams can be reached, how to reach them.

And another thing is, and this is for you, Rollo, well, what about women now? I’m 25, I’m eligible, and every woman my age, even the nice, kind, beautiful, sweet, intelligent ones, who gives me serious attention creeps me out because I know what she’s really after.

The Red Pill makes you see that the only people who love you for who you truly are is your parents, if you’re lucky, and every other person in this world is going to expect something from an association with you, with women expecting your life for it. And this is why we cry so miserably when our parents die (I did when my mom died), it’s the subconscious knowledge that no-one will love us like they did, be there for us like they were, without expecting anything in return, simply because it was us.

All my friends and family tell me, well, yes, bad things could happen to you, but you just have to find the RIGHT girl, and in my eyes all of them are insane. This isn’t like having to take the right street in a peaceful German town or you’ll get mugged, this is like walking around Johannesburg blindfolded.

I’m not trying to fight the concepts, I see their truth. But I can bloody well be disgusted at the way the world works.

So what about the “giddiness” I talked about up there? Well, feeling free makes you giddy. It makes you VERY giddy. The feeling that your life isn’t planned out or that there’s only one true possible path is positively exhilarating. But it’s also extremely scary.

Eastwind finds himself on the cusp of something great, but at the same time scary. He’s the first of a generation of Game aware men who were ‘raised’ in a post red pill internet culture. He’s part of a generation of men coming to terms with the very disturbing realities the still evolving manosphere has presented for him, but he’s still in a position of choosing how he will use that awareness to plan his future life.

There are going to be more men like Eastwind in the coming decades. Men asking ‘what’s the point?’ as they move into the primes of their lives. These are the guys who will truly be men going their own way; unmotivated by life plans that were presented to him, but rather men reimagining those plans according to the unplugged reality they’re now aware of.

These are the Men that the feminine imperative is threatened by – a vanguard of men who are aware of their real value to women and society, and can make life impacting choices free from the influence of the imperative. I understand the ‘giddiness’ in that freedom, but I also understand the hostility that will be leveled at them by a feminized social mindset which can’t afford to have these Men making other men aware of their servitude by exemplifying red-pill awareness in their life choices.

The system will fight Eastwind in every arena; psychological, familial, sociological, financial, political, every feminized aspect that can pull the crab back into the barrel will be used against him. The primary weapon of the feminine imperative is male self-doubt. Doubt that he’ll be able to craft a life by his plan, doubt that he’s wrong about the machinations of the imperative, doubt in the certainty of his new awareness, doubt that he’ll ever experience love in his own context. Because once he doubts his certainty of purpose, once he doubts his power to direct his own course, that is when the imperative welcomes him to its comfortable reality.

The anxiety and fear you feel is the the result of being cut away from a system that’s already established for you. The giddiness is from the potential to create a new system for yourself.

This comment from Deti in the Evolution of Game was too epic not to make a post of. He leaves out Aunt Giggles Iscariot, the betrayer, but he is forgiven:

THE GENESIS

In the beginning was Game. And the game was with the natural alpha, and the Game was alpha. And the natural alphas created the world of pickup, and they saw that it was good.

And they said, “Let us make men in our own image.” And took they some words and swagger and attitude and nuking shit tests, and formed they men; and breathed into their nostrils the breath of cocky-funny, and they created men.

And alpha placed men into the world and told them to dress and keep it; and they did.

And alpha looked upon the men, and said “It is not good for the Men to be alone. I will make him a companion and a helper.” And alpha caused the man to become drunk with wine, and caused him to fall into a deep slumber, and while he was out cold, alpha created women of all shapes and sizes, colors and hair styles. And alpha presented the females to the men, and they said “Whoa, man!” And so this is how women were named, and it is so to this very day.

And the men and the women were together. And alpha looked upon them and said, be fruitful, bang, and multiply. And they did, with great gusto and enthusiasm.

And one day the women were walking in the garden, and a serpent with the face of Betty Friedan slithered up to them, and said; “Did alpha really say to you never to eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Feminine Mystique? For he knows that in the day you eat of it, you will become like alpha and men, knowing men and women.”

And the women did eat, and they found that it was pleasant to the taste. And then they offered some to their men; and the men said “but alpha told us never to eat from the Tree. What is this you have done?” And the women said “The Friedanosaurus offered the fruit to me, and I ate, and it was good.” And the men ate.

And then alpha saw the men and said “where are you? what have you done?” And the men answered “We were hiding, because you said not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Feminine Mystique, But the women, whom you gave to us, they tasted the fruit, and gave it to us, and we also ate.”

And alpha said to the men: “Because of this thing you have done, cursed is the ground you will walk on. You will no longer be able to pass shit tests. You will become beta pussyboys. No longer will you be permitted to tend the world; for the women whom I gave you have taken it from you. Your women will become unhaaaaaaappy and will divorce you or marry you nevermore.”

And to the women alpha said: “From this day on you will be miserably unhappy, for there are none to lead you and tell you no. You will do what is right in your own eyes, and satisfaction you shall never know all the days of your lives.”

THE EXODUS AND THE PROPHETS

But came then the prophets, and they were named Ross Jeffries, David DeAngelo, Mystery, and Neil Strauss. And they foretold of a saviour. They told of the way to the woman’s heart and mind. And they did many signs and wonders with women in the taverns and the bar bathrooms and the meeting places and the bedrooms of the land.

And they wrote down the words which the alpha did give them, and it was “The Game”. And “The Game” was read by many men, who marveled at the words that were written, and said “who are these men that even the women spread their legs for them?”

THE GOSPEL OF ROISSY

And the time came for the saviour to come. And he was indeed brought forth, in the City of George and Abraham and Ronaldus Maximus, and alpha decreed that he should be called Roissy. And in the City of George, Roissy began a blog. And men began to hear of the Man Roissy; and they said “Rejoice, for unto us this day has been given in the City of Ronaldus Maximus a guru, who is Roissy the PUA.”

And so it was that Roissy began his public ministry.

And Roissy ascended to the top of Mons Veneris, and took he with him his wives and concubines. And he was absent for a time. And when he returned, written with the finger of alpha and inscribed in pixels on the Blog were the Law, given by alpha, the Sixteen Commandments of Poon. And Roissy gave the Law and the Commandments to the men; and he commanded them: “You shall learn these words and the Law and the Commandments which alpha and which I have this day given to you. You shall write them in your minds, and you shall learn them when you rise up and when you lie down; you shall know them when you eat and when you walk by the way; and you shall teach them to your sons and daughters; and you shall keep them in your mind forever.

“And you shall put these Commandments which I have this day given you into practice. Every day you shall do them, and take care to see that you keep them in spirit and in letter.

“And if you do these things which I have commanded you; then I will bless you with more sex from your women than you can shake a stick at. But if you do not do these things which I have this day commanded you, then woe be unto you men and your sons and your sons’ sons, even to the third and fourth generation; for I have given to you the Law and the Commandments for you and for your good. If my men will turn from their beta ways and will follow my Law and Commandments, then will alpha come to give advice, and will heal your relationships and marriages.”

And Roissy went into his wives and concubines, and he knew them, some more than once in a night. And Roissy came, and came, and came again, and he had many sons and daughters. And these are the sons and daughters of Roissy:

Dalrock of the Metroplex, who brought forth the Doctrine of Serial Monogamy and the Lovestruck Principle, and who sought to bestow marriage and monogamy upon his tribe; and the Dalrock also brought forth many charts and graphs and learned treatises with which to teach his sons and daughters;

Roosh V of the City of Ronaldus Maximus; (also known as the son whom Roissy loved), whose words and deeds are written in the Chronicles of Bang

Keoni of Kamehameha, who brought forth Married Game; and Keoni begat his son Athol the Kiwi who then begat MarriedManSexLife

Rollo Tomassi of the Land of Sunshine, who said “let us reason together” and brought forth The Rational Male

dannyfrom504, the one who said “If I can slay the poon, anyone can”, and he became a great Teacher and was renowned throughout the land

Vox the Genius, who wrote of the men, the politics and the Game

The Badger, who became a scrivener and thinker

The Private Man, the oldest of Roissy’s sons, promoting Charisma “for men of a certain age”

Stingray, who wrote of the true condition

SunshineMary, who taught the women about the Law

And Roissy had many many more sons and daughters who are counted like grains of sand on the beach and stars in the sky.

And Roissy’s sons and daughters themselves had many sons and daughters, each of them talking to one another and learning from one another.

And Roissy gathered his sons and daughters unto him. And Roissy said to them “you will not always have me with you; for soon I will return to alpha. It is good that I will go, because if I do not go, the Manosphere will not come. But when I go, I will send the Manosphere. It will guide you into the facts of male female relationships. It will remind you of all I have taught you. It will comfort you and cause you to waste endless hours in front of a screen learning of men and woman.

“Remember that the world, and many female bloggers with chips on their shoulders, hated me; and they will also hate you. If you suffer for Game’s sake, remember that I am with you. And remember that neither shit tests, nor breakups, nor flaking, nor snowflaking, nor batshit crazy, can ever keep you from your confident and dominant frames.

“But you have seen that which I have done, and read the words I have written unto you and given unto you. And I tell you that these and greater things all of you will do, for the sake of male female love, long lasting marriages, and intact families. I tell you that you will write greater and more insightful things than I, and the Game will reach even to the ends of the earth.

“But this I command you: Go forth and tell all the world of the good news. Go forth and make disciples of the Manosphere. Go forth and teach them all that I have taught you.”

And they saw Roissy ascend to Mons Veneris from whence he came; and they marveled at his words and what they had seen. And they resolved to minister to the beta, the omega, and the feminists who suffered for lack of good relationships and good sex. And they taught the men and women of all that Roissy had said, and of the Law and the Commandments; and many were saved from unhaaaaappy marriages and sluthood and involuntary celibacy.

If you ever need a reminder as to how you came to a particular belief or set of beliefs, the best way to consider (or reconsider) that process is to write a book about it. As most of my readers are aware I’m in the process of publishing my first book based on the writing of the past ten years of my involvement in the manosphere. It wasn’t even known as the ‘manosphere’ back then.

For the men (and women) who’ve read my ideas since the inception of the SoSuave forum almost 12 years ago, I expect they’ll find the book kind of remedial – like going back over old classics they’d internalized and take for granted now. If I make a reference to Hypergamy or the Feminine Imperative, for most, there’s a standard level of pre-understanding about the elements associated to each of these and many other concepts. However, a problem of familiarity arises when I, or anyone else familiar with red-pill awareness makes an attempt to educate the unfamiliar. The Red Pill reddit community makes a good effort of this, but after going through 2 revisions of my book it’s become evident to myself and my editor that familiarizing the uninitiated is a major obstacle to reaching the men who’ll benefit most from unplugging (yet another manosphere term).

Familiarity

The majority of the requests I’ve received over the years for a comprehensive book of Rational Male ideology has come from readers expressing the desire for a condensed version in book form which they can give to family and friends (mostly male) in the hopes that they’ll better understand their need for emancipation from their fem-centric mental models. Of course that’s always been my goal from day one, but it presumes that a large part of those reading will be unfamiliar with common terms and concepts I, or familiar readers, will already have a grasp of.

Another issue I often run into is the presumption that readers new to my blog or commenters on other blogs have a familiarity with my work. I often find myself having to link back to articles where I covered a specific topic that a critic or an inquisitive reader might want to take me to task about. For the most part I make a conscious effort not to repeat something I’ve addressed, sometimes years, before, but that’s simply a part of this medium. For convenience I’ve recently added a new page to the top of the blog with all the relevant links I think cover most of my basics from the Year One post.

It’s a difficult enough proposal to unplug men from their blue pill conditioning, but leading them to an understanding of principles they mentally have a resistance or aversion to is a particular challenge. My editor is only peripherally familiar with these principles which is kind of a blessing and a curse. In one sense it requires me to revise old posts and concepts to be more ‘noob friendly’, but it also challenges me to review how those concepts evolved over the years to be what I and other red pillers now consider common foundations. For instance, while I might rigorously debate the Feminine Imperative with those familiar with it on Dalrock’s blog, I had to spend over an hour defining it further with my editor after he’d read my seminal posts about it.

Game

Of these concepts the one I return to the most frequently is that of Game. My editor asks, “Just what is Game?” Throughout the upcoming book, this blog, and virtually every major manosphere writer’s blog there’s a constant presumption that readers will know exactly what Game is when it’s referred to. Game has been lifted up to an almost mythical state; like some panacea for the common guy struggling with achieving women’s attentions and intimacy. It’s gotten to the point where familiarity with Game has become a flippant aside for manosphere bloggers – we have varieties of Game, we have internalized Game, we have ‘natural’ Game, direct Game, Beta Game etc., but defining the term ‘Game’ for someone unfamiliar with the very involved intricacies, behaviors and the underlying psychological principles on which Game is founded is really tough for the uninitiated to wrap their heads around in the beginning.

For the unfamiliar, just the word ‘Game’ seems to infer deception or manipulation. You’re not being real if you’re playing a Game, so from the outset we’re starting off from a disadvantage of perception. This is further compounded when attempting to explain Game concepts to a guy who’s only ever been conditioned to ‘just be himself‘ with women and how women allegedly hate guys “who play games” with them. As bad as that sounds, it’s really in the explanation of how Game is more than the common perception that prompts the discussion for the new reader to have it explained for them.

At its root level Game is a series of behavioral modifications to life skills based on psychological and sociological principles to facilitate intersexual relations between genders.

Early Game

In its humble beginnings, Game was a set of behaviors, learned, adapted and modified with the express purpose of bettering a guy’s prospective sexual ‘success’ with the women he had only limited (if any) access to. Game was defined as a series of behavioral skills and techniques observationally experimented with, and developed by the burgeoning PUA culture of the early 2000′s. While there was a peripheral acknowledgement given to the psychology that made these behavior sets effective, the purpose was more about the result and less about the head-mechanics that made the result possible.

This introduction was many of the current manosphere’s first contact with ‘formalized’ Game. The quality of the Art in pick up artistry was (and still is) really left up to the practitioner’s capacity to understand the basics of behavioral psychology (with regards to women) and refining a deft ability to adapt and react to his target’s changing behavioral cues on a given environment and/or context..

If this were the only extent of Game it would understandably be very short sighted and limited in scope. In the beginning Game had a utility in that it helped a majority of men lacking the social intelligence to approach and develop a real, intimate rapport with women they fundamentally lacked. The problem was that beyond Game’s “in-field” uses it wasn’t really developed past the point of ‘getting the girl’, and left even the most socially adept PUAs unprepared to deal with the real psychology motivating women on a greater whole. It was just this feminine meta-psychology that drove men, unaccustomed to enjoying and then losing the affections of women formerly “out of their league”, to depression and suicide.

Game was a wondrous tool set of skills, but without the insight and foresight to deal with what these tools could build, it was potentially like giving children dynamite.

Evolving Game

From the earliest inception Game was more or less viewed as a solution to a problem. Game has been described as a logical social reaction to the women that the past 60+ years of feminism, social feminization and feminine primacy has created for the men of today. Courtesy of modern connectivity, the internet and collectivized social media, evolving Game or some variation of it was inevitable for men.  Despite the public social stigma and ridicule attached to men attempting to understand the psychologies of women, privately the internet facilitated a global consortium of men comparing experiences, relating observations and testing theories.

The behavioral psychology that led to Game which prompted the desired reactions in women began to take on more import for men. Sure, the now classic Game techniques like being Cocky & Funny, Amused Mastery, Agree & Amplify, Neg Hits, Peacocking, etc. were effective in their own artfully used contexts, but the latent psychology that made those behavior sets work prompted the questions of why they worked.

The psychological aspects of effective (and ineffective) Game began to take on a new importance. Through this broader exploration of the role biological, psychological and sociological factors affected Game sprang new ideas, theories and experimentative models leading to new behavioral sets and the abandonment of less effective ones.

As connectivity grew, so did the knowledge base of the Game community. No longer was Game exclusive to the PUA pioneers; Game was expanding to accommodate the interests and influences of men who’d never heard of the earlier version of Game, or would’ve rejected it outright just years before due to their feminine conditioning. Married men wondered if aspects of Game could reignite the sexual interests of their frigid or overbearing wives. Divorced men embraced the Game ridiculed when married to improve their potential for new sexual interests, but also to relate their experiences and contribute to that Game knowledge base. Men, not just in western culture, but from a globalizing interest began to awaken with each new contribution not only about how women were,  but why women were. Game was making the unknowable woman knowable. The enigmatic feminine mystique began unraveling with each new contribution to the Game knowledge base.

Game was becoming something more. Men could now see the code in the Matrix: we knew the medium was the message, we began to see the  feminine social conventions used to control us, we began to see the overarching reach of the feminine imperative and fem-centrism, and we came to realize the insidious, but naturalistic, influence feminine hypergamy had wrought in both men and women. Game was prompting Men to push back the iron veil of feminine primacy and see what made her tick.

Predictably, fem-centric society sought to cast the rise, and expansion of Game as a modern version of the ridiculous macho archetypes of the 50′s-70′s. The threat of an evolving, more intellectually valid form of Game had to be ridiculed and shamed like anything else masculine, so the association with its infamous PUA forerunners was the obvious choice for the feminine imperative. The feminine standard appeal to the Masculine Catch 22 was the first recourse: any man who desired to learn Game was less than a man for that desire, but also less of a man for not already knowing Game (as approved by the feminine imperative). Any guy actually paying for, or personally invested in, Game was associated with the PUA culture that was characterized as a throw back to the ‘Leisure Suit Larrys’ of the 70′s.

Contemporary Game

For all its marginal efforts to shame Game back into obscurity, the feminine imperative found that the Game movement wasn’t being cowed as easily as it might have been in the mid 1990′s. The Imperative was falling back on the reliable tropes and social conventions that had always pushed the masculine back into compliance. At the apex of fem-centrism in the 90′s these social constructs worked well on an isolated, shamed and ignorant masculine imperative, but with the evolution of the internet, by the late 2000′s Game was snowballing into a threat that required new feminine operative conventions.

Game evolved beyond the behavioral sets, and beyond the psychological and sociological mechanics that underlined women’s psyches and larger socializations. While still encompassing all that prior evolution, Game was becoming aware of the larger social meta-scale of the feminine imperative. Game began to move beyond the questions of why women are the way they are, and into piecing together how the intergender acculturations we experience today are what they are. Game asked how did we come to this?

Game branched into specific areas of interest in its scope to answer these broader questions and solve more expansive problems. While we still have all of the prior iterations of Game, we have expanded into christianized Game, married Game, divorced Game, socialized Game, high school Game, etc.

However, underpinning all of these areas of specialization was still the need to internalize and personalize Game in a Man’s life. Game was the path to male re-empowerment; an empowerment that even women today still feel men should Man-back-Up to. Game required a reinterpretation of masculinity towards something positive, beneficial and competent – something entirely apart from the negative, shameful and ridiculous archetypes 60 years of feminization had convinced women and men of. Call it Alpha, call it Positive Masculinity, but Game necessitates the reimagining of the importance of the masculine imperative. Game needs Men to change their minds about themselves.

Needless to say, even in its most positive of contexts, the male re-empowerment that Game led to was a Threat too great for the feminine imperative to allow. Controlling the intrinsic insecurities that the feminine imperative is founded upon has alway depended on men’s ignorance of their true value, and true necessity to women. Men have to remain necessitous to women in order for their insecurity to be insured against, and the feminine imperatives control to be insured of.

The well of knowledge and awareness that Game represented had to be poisoned. The social conventions the feminine imperative had relied on for decades was no longer effective. The continued expansion of Game into the social, psychological, evolutionary and biological realms was evidence that Game was something those old convention couldn’t contain, so the imperative evolved new tacts while reinventing old ones.

Shaming and ridicule were (and still are) the rudimentary tactics that the less intellectual of the feminine imperative would resort to, but the expansiveness of Game needed something more distorting. Proponents of the feminine imperative began to concede certain universal points that Game had long asserted about feminine nature (and the FI had long rejected) in an effort to co-opt the social momentum Game had taken over a decade to develop.

The Feminine Imperative couldn’t argue with the extensive validity of the tenets of Game, so it sought to reengineer Game from within and modify it to its own purpose. The Feminne Imperative wants just enough male empowerment to return men to an improved (really an older) state of usefulness to its ends, but not so much that true male emancipation from the imperative would threaten its dominance. In co-opting Game and conceding to the truths it finds less threatening the imperative hopes to build better betas – men who believe they are empowered by Game, but are still beholden to the Feminine Imperative.

True emancipation from the imperative threatens its dominance, so Men with the vision to see past this are labeled Dark, Sociopathic and Deviant by the imperative. It wasn’t enough just to infiltrate Game and sanitize it fot its benefit, the Feminine Imperative had to categorize Game for itself – Evil vs. Good Game. The good of course being characterized with whatever aspects benefitted the imperative and the bad being whatever ‘selfishly’ benefited the masculine. The Feminine Imperative doesn’t care about the various branchings of Game – natural, internalized, marriage, etc. – it only concerns itself with what aspects can be distorted to its advantage and what aspects cannot.

This brings us to Game as we know it today. Game is still evolving, and had I the prescience to see where it will go next, I would veture that it will come to a real emancipation with the FI. Not an emancipation from women, but an emancipation from their imperative. Not a ‘men going their own way’ negligence of women in the hope that they’ll come around to behaving as men would like being given no other choice, but a true Game driven emancipation from the control that fem-centrism has maintained for so long.

Make no mistake, the Feminine Imperative needs men to be necessitous of it, and it will always be hostile to the Men attempting to free other men from that necessity. In this respect, any Game, even the co-opted Game the imperative will use itself, is by definition sexist. Anything that may benefit Men, even when it associatively benefits women, is sexist. Freeing men from the Matrix, breaking their conditioning and encouraging them to reimagine themselves and their personalities for their own betterment is sexist.

Encouraging men to be better Men is sexist.

Evan12 on the SoSuave forum has an interesting observation:

I’ve noticed in many lesbian couples the submissive woman in the relationship is not embarrassed from that , and she showed her love and submissiveness to her partner without shame. For example they write on their facebook “I want to worship you” or “you are my goddess ” etc.

Also in real life they took some clear orders from their dominant partner, that if a man would’ve ordered a woman in-front of others they would consider it degrading to them .

In the workplace, I find women submit to other female managers very easily and sometimes even voluntarily, but when a man is manager they play a lot of power games to challenge/question his authority.

Is this because of public shaming from the figure of woman following a man, so women feel more free to show her submissive side when it is toward a woman and not a man ?

The inimitable Burroughs (who is cordially invited to comment more on this blog) then picks up the next salient point:

The next time you switch on the television, count how many programs have the token ‘stupid boyfriend’ or ‘abusive husband’ or ‘paedophilic father’ figure.

Switch over to a children’s channel / time window and watch how many cartoons or programs reflect ‘silly daddy’ characters or ‘bullying big brother’.

Don’t forget, of course, nearly all the women in these same programs will be smart, sexy, sassy and full of beans, capable of juggling a career lifestyle with children, a husband and a social circle

– let’s not forget that she’s undoubtedly a wonderful cook and always remembers everybody’s birthdays.

If these images are being constantly spread out over our airwaves, what does that tell our children who are growing up watching & learning daily, hourly, that men are just so stupid, abusive and … well, useless?

I addressed a good portion of Evan’s observation in Sexual Fluidity:

Ironically—or not, as some might argue—it is certain “masculine” qualities that draw many straight-labeled women to female partners; that, in combination with emotional connection, intimacy, and intensity.

“Men can’t understand why I want to be with Jack, a lesbian, when I could be with a biological man,” says Gomez-Barris. “And at first I thought it would be threatening, but I have a rebellious spirit. He’s powerful, accomplished, and appealing. And in some ways, the experience is better than in heterosexual sex.

So what are we seeing here? Heterosexual women, still crave the masculine dominance that men cannot or will not provide her. Thus, we see condition dictate response.

Burroughs accurately notes the social symptoms of the dynamic. It’s not difficult to outline how the institutionalized social feminization (via mass media ridicule and shaming of masculinity) of men over the past 60 years has greatly contributed to men uncomfortable in their innate masculine predispositions. However, by the same means, the other side of the story is women’s fem-centric conditioning predisposes them not to expect masculinity to be anything other than negative when coming from a human being born with a penis. Masculinity paired with a vagina however is the only legitimate form of masculinity acknowledged.

It takes a feminized society of millions and half a lifetime of institutionalized feminization conditioning to repress the male definition of masculinity in a man. As I’ve noted before, feminization seeks to redefine masculinity to better fit with an egalitarian equalist doctrine, but what thwarts the effort is men’s biological, and in-born psychological, bent to manifest a uniquely male defined masculinity.

Hypergamy’s Doms & Subs

This is only one half of the dynamic though. The other half being women’s innate desire, through natural hypergamy, to be submissive to that male-defined masculinity; but only to the man who is dominant enough to satisfy a woman’s hypergamy.

In an era when Hypergamy has been given free reign, it is no longer men’s provisioning that dictates her predisposition to want to be a submissive partner in their relationships. To an increasingly larger degree women no longer depend upon men for the provisioning, security and emotional support that used to insure against their innate Hypergamous impulses. What’s left is a society of women using the satisfaction of Hypergamy as their only benchmark for relational gratification.

Men with the (Alpha) capacity to meet the raw, feral, demands of women’s Hypergamy are increasingly rare, and thanks to the incessant progress of feminization are being further pushed to marginalization. The demand for Men who meet women’s increasingly over-estimated sense of Hypergamic worth makes the men women could submit to a precious commodity, and increases further stress the modern sexual market place.

But women want to be submissive –preferably to the dominant Man qualified to quell her Hypergamy, but in his absence (thanks to mass feminization) substitutes needed to be created. One of the most important points doubters of the Feminine Imperative need to understand is that every social dynamic must work to the benefit of the feminine. When we observe modern social variances on traditional themes, understand that these are modification intended to ‘re-provide’ women with a previous benefit lost due to the distortion of feminine primacy. No men around to provide that masculine dominance? Turn women into men.

Enter the Hyenas

One thing you’ll notice amongst the majority of homosexual couples is an inherent hierarchy of dominance. With all the debate about gay marriage and civil rights these days, I find it fascinating that a subculture founded on non-traditional values, to the point of  subverting them, would demand with such fervor to participate in one of “traditional society’s” most traditional institutions – marriage. Even homosexuals want that heterosexual, interpersonal social structure.

For all of the sermonizing about the want for egalitarian equality, the observable establishing dynamic is still one of a dominant and a submissive partner in a monogamous framework. As our collective gender identities become more homogenized, the role of whom will play the part of dom and sub becomes based upon who better has the stronger personality to live that role out.

Combine this with a collective social consciousness that, by default, puts men into a position of masculine ridicule, and you get the now stereotypical ‘whipped’ husband seeking his dominant wife’s permission as part of his internalized sense of identity. You also see the homosexual woman ‘worshiping’ her dominant partner – a partner more hypergamy-satisfyingly masculine than any man she’s ever encountered, or ever had the capacity to attract. We see the ‘tough bitch’ fearlessly making demands of her female (and male) subordinates that would be grounds for harassment were a man to issue them.

The Meta-Shit Test

We have a society based on presupposed male incompetence, but women still want the hypergamic satisfaction of submissiveness that men should provide for them. It’s in their fantasies. Women’s literature from classical antiquity to modernity is characterized by a want for masculine dominance.

This is the great social shit test of our time. In spite of a world arrayed against him, a Man needs the fearlessness of purpose to pass what has become a meta-scale test of hypergamy. The provisioning, support, emotional investment, and security a man could establish that used to buffer Hypergamy are all ancillary to satisfying Hypergamy now. Feminization has seen to it that in defying its purpose you are identified as being less than a man, but still challenges men to be Men by defying it.

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.

For women, nothing is both as frightening and arousing than a Man aware of his own value.

[In light of Aunt Giggles recently going off her meds and clamoring for her weekend bender of attention, I've decided to re-post this from December of 2011. Considering the hostility lobbed at the manosphere lately I thought it was quite prophetic.]

________________________________________________

I got a metric ton of feedback with regards to my Mrs. Doubtfire post and the notion of Game being co-opted to serve the feminine imperative. This sparked an interesting exchange on more than a few blogs and forums. All of this led me to do a bit of research into how Game principles, not necessarily Game in practice, is being subverted to address feminine-centric mandates. Even the idea of ‘false flag‘ blogging in the manosphere has been suggested as a means to more effectively establish a male-specific popular perspective that might be considered more legitimate.

The problem intrinsic to all of that is that masculinity is now so ridiculed and delegitimized in our feminine-centric reality that any (lame) attempts at subterfuge only make the manosphere look even more like the boys club in the treehouse shooting spitwads at the “mature” girls below. It’s going to come off as game-playing and juvenile, and only serve to make any legitimate point or appeals to logic appear self-serving. That said, I do understand the necessity to be covert in expressing the principles behind Game from a pro-masculine perspective. Men blogging in the manosphere, whether it’s Game theory, PUA, MRA or MGTOW, all assume a horrible risk for publicly expressing their views that a proponent of feminism would rarely need to consider. Professionally, personally, and to an extent, even physically, manosphere bloggers paint a big target on themselves that very few people would sympathize with their being damaged for their outspokenness. If it looks like patriarchy, it’s OK to set their home on fire, and a feminized world of angry women and their identifier mangina sycophants will line up with torches to do so.

Building a Better Beta

None of this is really even a concern for the proponents of a fem-centric culture; they can rest comfortably in a self-affirming, social echo chamber without any real fear of persecution or risk to their career or reputations. However, the utility of exploiting Game in theory (not in practice) to better serve that female centrism hasn’t gone unnoticed. This has given rise to what might be called “sanitized Game” – take the primary elements of Game to build a better Beta. With such an overwhelming social undercurrent for men to ‘Man-Up’ today it’s really simple pragmatism to reinterpret Game to serve the expectations and entitlements inherent in fem-centrism. Thus we see Game concepts being co-opted by social conservatives, so-called female manosphere sympathizers and christo-religious revisionists all blogging in disclaimered agreement with Game principles insofar as it serves their particular delusion. What they fail to recognize is that, for all of their efforts to contort Game into their personal agenda’s boxes, they’re still living in and fostering a feminine-centric imperative. If there’s a definition of the Matrix, this is it.

I would argue that most, if not all, are unaware that this is the latent purpose they’re serving. The overarching  point is to create a more acceptable man for a female defined goal, NOT to truly empower any man. There is no feminine opposite to this; there is no counter effort to make women more acceptable to men – in fact this is actively resisted and cast as a form of slavish subservience. This is the extent of the feminine reality; it’s so instaurating that men, with the aid of  ”concerned women”, will spend lifetimes seeking ways to better qualify themselves for feminine approval. That’s the better Beta they hope to create. One who will Man-Up and be the Alpha as situations and use would warrant, but Beta enough to be subservient to the feminine imperative. They seek a man to be proud of, one who’s association reflects a statement of their own quality, yet one they still have implicit control over.

Whether the reasonings are moral, entitlement or ‘honor bound’ in nature the end result is still feminine primacy. The sales pitch is one of manning up to benefit yourself, but the latent purpose is one of better qualifying for normalized feminine acceptance. What they cannot reconcile is that the same benefits that are inherent in becoming more Alpha (however you choose to define that) are the same traits that threaten his necessary position of subservience as a Beta. This is precisely why ‘real’ Game, and truly unplugging, cannot be sanitized. This social element wants to keep you plugged in; more Alpha, more confidence, more awareness, is a threat to fem-centrism. It’s great that all this Game stuff has finally got you standing up for yourself, but remember who’s got the vagina.

The Evolution of Game

In the beginning, Game was about little more than racking up lay-counts. For some guys this will never change; you can’t ignore the purely seductionist intent of the origins of Game. Game was (is) for getting laid, and along with that now comes a sort of stigma of the Player. It’s against the interests of the feminine imperative that a man might conceivably have some kind of secret, learned system that bypasses her (mythological) feminine intuitions and natural reservations. That’s a power that men have sought for millennia. Some might realize it to a degree through power, fame or fortune, but to distribute this figurative ability en masse would be a power shift that would put women at men’s mercy. With great power, should come great responsibility. This is the fear that Game represents to the feminine – even the concept of men ‘understanding’ women’s natures must necessarily be ridiculed and shamed even in the attempt. When women are knowable they lose the power of their only actionable agency over men.

Game has evolved into much more than just a set of replicable behaviors for PUAs to ply their craft and get laid. Somewhere along the way a man wondered why these behavior provoked the responses they do in women. What were the core elements that these behaviors and attitudes were operating on in women? Game is still about getting laid, but it’s progressed beyond just the practical. Game is really a catch-all term now for lack of a better one. It’s moved on to the theory, the principle and the psychology that makes us better Men, and makes women knowable. It’s very important that the vision you have of being a “better Man” originates with YOU, not with the idealisms of a plugged in moralist or women so fearful of your new awareness that they’ll make concerted efforts to supplant it with what makes you a better servant of their insecure imperative. Resist the idea of becoming a better Beta in girl-world and focus on being that Alpha Man as you define it.