The Bitter Taste of the Red Pill

A lot gets made of the Dark Triad or the Dark Side of Game where a skillful player can sadistically use his newly learned red-pill super powers for evil instead of for the greater good of mankind. Game-aware women – the ones who have been forcibly exhausted of all pretense of maintaing the illusion that Game is a lie – feel as though it’s owed to them, in their concession of Game’s reality, that Men should use Game to women’s benefit. Even to the last effort women still cling to the tools of a feminized acculturation;

“Yeah, OK, you got us, Game is really what women want, hypergamy is the law of womankind, but now it’s your responsibility that you use it for the better benefit of society by molding a new breed of improved Betas to accommodate fem-centric monogamy. You owe us our security for having admitted to the grand illusion that’s kept you in thrall for so long.”

It’s an indictment of Game-aware women, and sympathizing men, that they should feel a need to delineate some aspects of Game into good camps (pro woman, pro feminized monogamy) and bad camps (manipulative, polygynous, male-centered). Even in the admission of the truth that Game has enlightened Men of, the feminine imperative still seeks to categorize the application of Game to its own end. That Men might have some means of access to their own sexual strategy is too terrible a Threat; Game must be colored good or bad as it concerns the imperatives of women and a fem-centric societal norm.

As the default, socially correct and virtuous concern, women have an easier time of this. As Game becomes increasingly more difficult to deny or misdirect for the feminine, the natural next step in accepting it becomes qualifying its acceptable uses. While hypergamy is an ugly truth, the characterization of it becomes “just how women are” –an unfortunate legacy of their evolution. However for Men, the characterizations of the harsher aspects of Game in its rawest form  (contingencies for hypergamy) are dubbed “the dark arts”.

Myth of the Dark Arts

According to common definition, the Dark Triad is a group of three personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy, all of which are interpersonally aversive. Depending upon context, that may be a convenient assessment of a sociopathic personality, but it is hardly an accurate assessment of Game as a whole. In its desperation to come to terms with a more widespread acceptance of Game, the feminine imperative had to make some effort to disuade the common man (see Beta) from embracing the means to his release from the feminine Matrix. Associating Game with Dark Triad personality traits makes this qualification process much easier, since the feminine imperative owns the definition authority of what is social and what is anti-social.

The problem then becomes one of defining what acceptable use of Game is social and anti-social. Predictably Game-accepting women will want to cast Game into terms that suit them individually and accommodating for their own personal conditions as well as the priorities of their particular phase of life. However, because of such diverse conditions, consequently there is a lot of disagreement amongst Game-accepting women about what contextually constitutes appropriate use, thus a pick-and-pull form of rationalization about aspects of Game gets thrown about in their internal debates.

For feminized men this is a very confusing debate. It’s difficult enough for them to accept that women love Jerks (despite being told the contrary for half their lives by women), but for the Game-accepting women they still think are ‘quality’ it’s a bitter pill to swallow when these women debate the aspects of acceptable, lovable Jerk-like qualities and the evil, user, manipulative, ‘dark art’ Jerk that only contextually misaligns with their present conditions and priorities. For both the plugged-in and the freshly unplugged this is an incongruency that they have a tough time reconciling against the ideals of moralism that a fem-centric society has unwittingly convinced them of.

While a broader understanding of hypergamy and Game make for useful tools for enlightened single men, the Game-accepting Beta plug-in will still see it strictly as a means to satisfying the female imperative – long-term provisional monogamy. Any deviation from this narrative, any guy using Game for personal gain, personal pleasure or to enact his own sexual strategy is guilty of crimes against (feminized) society. Since the societal Greater Good has been defined by the feminine imperative, anything counter to it is definitively evil, counterproductive, anti-social and manipulative sociopathy.

The Bitter Taste of the Red Pill

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

There are no “Dark Arts”, this is simply one last desperate effort of the feminine imperative to drag you back into the Matrix. There is only Game and the degree to which you accept it and are comfortable in using it in the context that YOU define. If that context is under the auspices of a mutually beneficial, mutually loving, mutually respecting LTR monogamy of YOUR choosing, know that it’s the fundaments of Game that are at the root of its success or failure. If that context is in terms of spinning multiple plates, liberating the affections of women from other men, and enjoying a love life based on your personal satisfactions, also understand that it lives and dies based on your understanding the fundaments of Game.

Just as Alpha is not inherently nobel or deplorable, Game is neither inherently good nor evil – the Devil is in the details and whomever’s defined context in which you use it. In the introduction section of the 48 Laws of Power, author Robert Greene explains the same about power. Power is neither good nor evil, it simply is, and your capacity to use power, your comfort in using it, doesn’t invalidate the principles of power. Likewise, your discomfort or inability to accept those principles does not excuse you from the consequence of having that power used upon you.

The unwritten, 49th Law of Power, is denying the utility of power itself, or demonizing its use both moralistically and socially. With the wide dispersion of Game theory this has been the reactionary tact of the feminine imperative; appeal to the deeply conditioned moral, ethical, honorable, virtuous ideals engrammatically planted in men by a fem-centric society, while redefining the acceptable use of the same Game the imperative demonizes for its own purposes.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

114 comments on “The Bitter Taste of the Red Pill

  1. Please define the feminine imperative and where and when it came from. Most of our moral code and, I think, monogamy stems from Christianity and the Church. The Church, at one point, was inherently male. I understand where the feminine imperative is coming from in recent history, but that recent history does not seem to stem from women, but from men.

      1. So, you are writing about modern times and the society that the majority of us grew up in, not time immortal, correct?

          1. Ok, but the two articles you linked to clash a bit. The first talks more about things in recent history, since the 1960’s. In that case specifically birth control, but that has had a large influence on today’s fem centrism.

            While that may have some merit I would argue that the perpetuation of this notion better serves the new feminine reality in promoting a need for recognition of victim status and thus a need for restitution.

            You talk in this article about the new feminine reality and since the 1960″s. In the next article you linked it seemed to be time long past. While both time past and recent past are the feminine imperative, most of our long time past morals were implemented by the Church. Many argue to reign hypergamy and men’s urge to simply spread their seed. Basically, it is for the children (heh). This does boil down the the female imperative as the children are our domain. So, I get it now, I think. But it helps to understand what you are writing above if there is a clarification between long time past and the feminine imperative and today’s feminine imperative. Long time past appears to be focused on the family/children which can arguably aid men (though not being their imperative) while today’s is simply the feminine princess complex.

          2. Disregard. I should have read all the comments before I posted this. I get it now.

  2. I’d wonder if you had anyone particular in mind when you wrote this post, especially the first half, but it’s pretty easy to guess.

    Another excellent post, and I think we can add a sixth stage to the five stages of feminist grief over game: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance and… Subversion

  3. I’ve read the 48 laws of power, the 50th law, and the art of seduction. Yet, even Robert Greene warns in the books that people who live these types of lives eventually become alone, isolated, killed and an outcast–especially if caught. He gave examples of the consequences of implementing each law and how MOST individuals condemn manipulation; nobody likes playing the fool. I think we’ve all played that part one time in our lives; didn’t feel good, did it?

    I understand that game has no good or evil; that the person implementing it dictates that. Yet, does a man truly have to be a horrible person to get laid? A man can be confident, a leader, flirtatious, an oak tree, and virtuous; yet still get laid. One does not equal the other.

    I say this as a warning. I’m not a religious guy, just a decent human being. I understand that all humans are connected in one way or another; that my actions can ripple through individuals in a destructive or constructive way. I just despise suffering. Playing the dark side of game will only lead you to hard times. You have to be smart. Even Tyler Durden has illigetamite children that he has to pay for. The women won anyways.

    I don’t believe in marriage, but I also don’t believe in screwing other people over–man or woman. I can get pussy without being deceitful.

    Please understand Rollo, this is not directed towards you personally, just the males beggining to delve into the game right now. Be careful with the power you wield. It works, no doubt. I’ve used the same things this forum has listed many times, but you must not loose your soul in the process. That is more important than pussy.

    Focus on your career, your body/health, your family, and your brothers. Women should be second priority. If you truly live your life this way, you will get laid regardless, but also be able to live with yourself and others will want to be around you for the long run.

    Getting laid is nice, but too much of anything is bad. Live life in moderation. Tread lightly.

    1. Somewhat agree. Here’s the bottom line. Men have a primal drive for sex that 99.999% of women simply cannot grok. I’ve often half-joked the only women who “get it” are competitive bodybuilders who juice and pump themselves full of male hormones. If you’ve been in these parts long enough, you’ll see the desperation of guys who have been incel for years. Heck, I didn’t lose my virginity until 22. I remember 16-22 quite well.

      At the core, what we have is a power struggle. I think many men including myself want to decouple sex from monogamous relationships. If you meet a relationship worthy woman, great, but if you don’t you can still get your sexual needs met without having to “commit” to a woman who frankly isn’t commitment worthy. The femcentric reality and its supporters want to keep sexual access within the confines of “committed monogamy”. It really is the age old exchange of sex for committed relationship. What many want is for beta type guys to learn “just enough” Game so that they are attractive enough to fulfill that hypergamy requirement for a relationship instead of being a LJBF candidate, but not “too much” where they have real power and choice and options amongst women.

      In the Highlander, “There can be only one”. I’d say the relationship corollary to that is only one person can be the prize to be won over. I think many women have a sort of love-hate dynamic with the idea of the guy being the prize. They want to win the prize, but it makes them insecure if the guy is fully aware of his status as the prize.

      1. I love your insight.

        Just remember that I am not an advocate of marriage. I’ve seen my father get screwed over by the process. I’m just saying that you can be a successful bachelor without making pussy your number one priority or being a manipulator. Most naturals I’ve met don’t need to be decietful; they get women by being brutally honest.

        1. Mostly agree. “Manipulate” is one of those tricky words that is very loaded so my first question to someone is always give me a crystal clear example of “manipulation”.

          That said, I don’t think deceit is necessary at all. I can think of examples where I either got sexual or sealed the deal very fast, and one FWB arrangement, and I never had to lie or mislead a single time.

          If you come in with really high value and flipe those right attraction switches, I think many women will get sexual quickly without you having to tell a single lie (about your career or “intentions”).

      2. Sex confined to “committed monogamy” might actually work, so long as the following conditions were met:

        1. Once you marry, you’re locked in and you can’t get out absent very specific conditions: Adultery. Real physical abuse.

        2. Abolition of “no fault divorce”. No alimony under any circumstances. Overhauled and limited child support but only with accountability and the money actually used to support the child of a failed relationship/marriage.

        3. Prosecution of those who make false claims of DV or rape.

        4. Repeal of VAWA.

        5. Serial monogamy? OK, but women have no grounds for complaining or sour grapes if he decides to move on. If women can withdraw the sex anytime they want, men can withdraw the commitment anytime they want. No strings attached means exactly that — for both parties. And for this reason, let’s all formally recognize that “serial monogamy” isn’t really “committed monogamy” — it’s just an extended hookup.

    2. Your comment caught my attention for multiple reasons.

      The main reason though is that you seem to have a ideas that I personally believe are absurd. You seem to have rejected the red pill in favor of a more comfortable and familiar reality.

      Your diatrabe has some strange conclusions that I will address.

      Paragraph 1:”I’ve read the 48 laws of power…”

      People who live what kind of lives?

      In paragraph 1 the implication is that implying the techniques listed within those text is inherently “wrong” and anyone practicing these “wrong” deeds will meet some sort of cosmic “justice”.

      Even if you were to personally bring one Casanova to justice for being “horrible” imagine how many millions are going around without any form of consequence.

      Just world fallacy perhaps?

      Paragraph 2: “Yet, does a man truly have to be a horrible person to get laid?”

      Quantify horrible person. Are naturals horrible people? Are Men who practice game horrible people. I’m curious as to how you’re equivocating being a horrible person to getting laid?

      Paragraph 3: I just despise suffering. Playing the dark side of game will only lead you to hard times.

      Just world fallacy, again. This seems to be trying to convince anyone practicing game that they will meet some sort of cosmic “justice”. You can despise suffering all you want, Everyone is guilty of making someone “suffer” unless of course they are perfect or an “angel”.

      Paragraph 4: “but I also don’t believe in screwing other people over–man or woman.”

      Game = Screwing women over? Ridiculous notion, how was that conclusion drawn?

      Paragraph 5: “but you must not loose your soul in the process”

      How does practicing game equal losing your “soul”.

      Losing ones soul seems to be code for “Don’t remove yourself from the feminine matrix”

      Paragraph 6: “but also be able to live with yourself”

      Equivocating game with evil.

  4. great post, as an man currently removing my self from the matrix, i can only describe the relaisations as soul destroying, the years of inculcated metal scehemas and indocrinated beliefs have a profound effect on a young man. I ve tried to speak to male friends on matters of dynamics in the SMP and tried to illuminate them about meat market economics but sadly most just cling to their ideological uptopian idela of the disney land fairy tail “soul mate” & “good girls” ideals. Any one hazard a guess at the percentage of men plugged into the matrix??

  5. The great paradox for Game-aware women is that the alpha qualities they are hoping betas will acquire through Game are the very same qualities that make it less likely that those Game-enhanced betas will stay faithful to them. Hence the need to erect artificial taxonomies addressing the non-existent moral currency of Game.

    This post doesn’t reference Susan Walsh directly, but as far as I’m aware she’s the biggest culprit for this—the doyenne of this particular flavor of “man up”.

    You come down pretty hard on the culturally ingrained gynocentrism—and with good reason. But I think it necessary to point out that all successful human civilizations are gynocentric—by which I mean women are regarded as having inherent value, while men have only earned value. Indeed, it’s not obvious that any civilization could have survived without this.

    1. The problem with this era is that gynocentrism ONLY values the feminine, and will readily reinterpret and reinvent its own system to affirm that valuation.

      1. Yes—but to my mind this is more an indictment of the people wielding authority in this particular gynocentric civilization, rather than a mark against gynocentrism itself.

        Patriarchal civilizations were gynocentric—but they balanced the all-encompassing gynocentric imperative with father-headed families and male-headed political entities. Modern civilizations aren’t necessarily any more gynocentric than patriarchies but with women and feminized men running the show, it sure feels like it.

    2. I’ll have to disagree. Traditionally women have also been expected to earn value by signalling potential and willingness to become mothers and wives. Women who refused to do so had pretty much zero social status.

  6. Females will not get Game to work in their favor to the extent they want until they make some major concessions, which they will not willingly make, as a whole.

    It involves submission and deference. Until females come clean and offer this up, they have only discovered a fraction of the truth. Power is rarely surrendered willingly. As a society, we will only see the full revelation of what Game is about when the matriarchy crumbles entirely.

    You cannot have everything the way you want it, girls.

  7. Here’s a theory for you. What if the bar has been moved so high that the concession women are now giving by acknowledging the utility of game means little because these days it is almost necessary that a man practice “dark” game in order to bed attractive women?

    These days it is almost a requirement that you go nuclear on chicks. And it only makes sense- if most women are chasing a few men, you absolutely MUST conduct yourself in a manner that says “high value”, which usually means doing shit that women are repulsed by on the surface yet attracted to when it is done to them.

  8. Well said, Rollo, concise, articulate, and insightful.

    I would follow-up by reminding you Gentlemen that the Red Pill is designed to give YOU the power over yourself, first and foremost. Go Wolf or Bull, married or single, Patriarch or Puerarch, the choice is yours, and any good Red Pill dude is going to respect you for it. But taking the Red Pill is an acknowledgement that femininity no longer has the power to dictate SHIT to you, and any use of Game for your benefit is just that: for YOUR benefit.

    Women have flaunted their control of sexuality right up to the point of the Great Porn Inundation, and only now are realizing that while they might control sexual access, WE control the commitment they think they want so desperately. Our knowledge of their hypergamy, and how to manage their own sexual responses to our benefit, gives us tremendous power over them. The few women who are aware of Game are rightly fearful of its implications: if all those Betas in the Puerarchy start acting like Alphas, how will they know which are the “good” ones? How can they pursue their fictionally idealized portrayal of romantic love when every potential Prince Charming is just another frog with good Game?

    Attempting to attach the Dark Triad to all Game is the feminist equivalent of “slut shaming” men. Since they can’t convince us that fucking a lot of women is bad, they want to convince us that “using our powers for (their) good” is the only noble thing to do, and that’s just utterly self-serving on their part. Women are no more the keepers of our moral destiny than we are keepers of their chastity. Invoking “chivalry” without understanding the term, or intangibles like “decency” and “polite” and “civil” and “productive” are merely other ways they try to re-gain control of the sexual initiative.

    Nor is Single Game the only place they have to fear. Now they have to worry about getting gamed by their Beta husbands who discover the Red Pill, depriving them of their matronly prerogative to maintain control even after the wedding bells have silenced. In ten years, if a woman doesn’t watch herself she may well find she’s married to a virile Beta Gamer who is keeping her so sexually preoccupied and involved in her own relationship that things like career and hypergamy just take too much of her energy.

    The Dark Triad male is the feminist equivalent of the femme fatale, the James Bond who whisks you away sans panties and leaves you emotionally bleeding on your walk of shame. But the fact is, Game isn’t the Dark Triad – the majority of us just don’t have the chops for it. And that’s fine. But the majority of us DO have the chops for the Red Pill and Game, and that makes us every bit as dangerous to the feminine matrix as any handsome, heartless Casanova.

    Keep it up, Gentlemen.

  9. I think Rollo’s greatest contribution to the manosphere has been clarifying the concept of femcentrism and exposing that horrible woman at Slutting up Smart and her ilk for their gynocentric anti male agenda.

    1. Sorry I missed this challenge. I was going to comment separately on the photo alone. Rollo’s “greatest contribution to the manosphere” (supra) hasn’t been this or that philosophy. It has been his always spot-on visual cues at the top of every post. That is an unusual talent of underappreciated importance.

      Angel Heart is one of the great films of all time. Completely overlooked gem. Mickey Rourke at his zenith, which was once quite a height. Unbeatably atmospheric, first in mid-century NYC, then N’awlins. Fantastic climax that could have been gimmicky if it hadn’t been concealed so well. DeNiro was chewing the scenery a bit, but that’s forgivable in what is otherwise a masterpiece.


      P.S. Robert Greene is a bad photocopy of a photocopy. His book(s) are good for directing you to the primary sources of the masters and nothing else. I suppose he is better than nothing, but the “laws of power” and “laws of seduction” do not lend themselves to semi-studied snippets sharpied onto index cards. And insofar as they lead to praising the devil … y-a-w-n. At least go to Machiavelli if that sort of thing still titillates you. The 48 Laws of Power is one iteration more sophisticated than Anton LeVay’s unintentionally hilarious comic book, The Satanic Bible.

  10. To begin with I am pro-Game (basically in the direction of however it’s defined), and I’m not a beta/white-knight, and I don’t hate women (usually I like looking at and interacting with most women, as I now have self-mastery even stuck-up women don’t affect my inner calmness while in any situation). What I think this is saying (if I recall correctly from the other day when a post might have said it was not a fan of the Dark Triad) is that there is women out there (although I personally haven’t heard any) who say something like that Game IS the “Dark Triad” therefore Game is bad, but maybe this post is saying that no the “Dark Triad” is not (or is not completely/or is not the only) definition of Game. I would think (almost any definition and application of) Game is actually beneficial to women and therefore good. Some people may have read a magazine article a few years ago about the “Dark Triad” and thus they want to be James Bond, but no one told them sorry buddy you don’t have the bankroll to be Bond in the real world. Even before, but now with more people into the D.T.,” no other person can be trusted, thus this an era of no TRUST.
    As others have said, who were the Matrix-Makers? Who made earlier societies, marriage institution, educational system, enforcers of jail, monetary system, chemicals in foods, the framework of the beta-society matrix? Maybe it was beta-males (with beta being feminine, like revenge of the nerds). How many men are still plugged into this beta/feminized-system (it would be easy to guess that around over 95% still are). How many men know about (and then accept and then apply at least some of) Game? How many women know about Game? (Probably more women have by now heard of Game, then men who know about and then practice some Game concepts). I sort-of think that many more men want monogamy than women these days (by what some guys say even on Game sites). Many men still seem to prefer being a beta provider (I’m not bashing those who want to) in a monogamous marriage (even after they may here about Game).
    Game seemed to start out teaching guys (such as, overcoming Approach Anxiety, etc) how to meet women, then Game seemed to evolve into Alpha/Beta personality traits (then some got into OTHER traits such as, the “DT,” etc). With the lenses in the unplugged glasses (that I put in myself and I make my own definitions) for how I live I don’t have to be miserable, I don’t have to treat others like garbage, I can be a bad a*s when I go out for fun and to meet women for fun, I can be an Alpha Man with a positive attitude, other people (especially women) are attracted to me, I can enjoy life with the few years that might be left, have inner-strength (I have social proof such as, I was a captain of a football team), I think for myself and I make my own decisions, no one tells me what to do, I don’t care what others may think or say about me, and I have no FEAR (especially of women) because in not many more years it ends in death. Might as well have some fun before then.

  11. Upon initially seeing the title, it sounded as if it was a bitter taste to men new to Game. Then, on second thought it seemed that maybe it was saying that it was bitter to some of the women who happen to know about some Game (with their view of Game being the DT).
    I now have decided instead of Red Pill to (for ease of terms) just call it Game. When I first heard about Game probably because I was receptive to the liberation of it, it was not bitter, but it was more of a surprise and a relief. Grades (trying to please female/butch teachers plus the few male-flakey teachers) don’t mean anything in the real freaking world, that most of the occupations in the beta-society are pointless, that boring dinners are not a good first “date”/being sensitive and verbalizing your sentimental feelings is not going to attract women, I don’t have to be in a LTR if I don’t want to/etc. I like this Game paradigm better and as a masculine man Game is a relief.

  12. From Build a Better Beta

    The overarching point is to create a more acceptable man for a female defined goal, NOT to truly empower any man

    If men became truly empowered, if our society became male centric, what would society look like?

    1. Read history. Any era before 20th century and/or outside the feminized west will demonstrate “what … society [would] look like.”

      The failure to teach our kids history is now biting us in the ass. We are all grown up now and saddled with completely impoverished imaginations.

      By the way, “empowered” is a passive nancyboy term. And “-centric” is a queer suffix for sniffling, sunken-chested, untenured post-docs in ____ Studies (you fill in the Victim Group).

      Men have only lost power nominally and superficially — which has been quite devastating to the culture, no doubt, but it hasn’t been a rout, and some men are quite enjoying the power with none of the responsibility. (Cf. all blogs like these.)

      It can’t be a rout:

      Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque revenit.” — Horace


      1. I don’t think that history portrays a truly male society, but rather both male and female. The balance that is so blatantly missing today. I was wondering what a society would look like balanced the opposite from what it is today.

        No, I don’t think it can be a rout either. The pendulum will swing back in the other direction, I guess I just wonder how far. Burkahs do not look very comfortable.

    2. The feminine imperative – if I got it right – is basically serial monogamy with alpha males, which may or may not be accompanied by cuckoldry of beta males, where relationships are started and ended only on women’s terms, plus pregnancies are also started and ended only on women’s terms. Women have all the rights and none of the responsibility.

      The masculine imperative is basically anything that satisfies the male drive for a) sexual variety b) paternal certainty (for those who want to become fathers and husbands in the first place) with minimal cost and risk. This can happen in the form of polygamy, soft harems or lifelong monogamy where male infidelity is silently tolerated and swept under the rug. Women have no legal ability to screw men over by false rape charges, divorce theft, cuckoldry etc.

      A male-centric society would be one where the masculine imperative is protected and accepted as legitimate.

  13. From Build a Better Beta The overarching point is to create a more acceptable man for a female defined goal, NOT to truly empower any man If men became truly empowered, if our society became male centric, what would society look like?

    I’m actually in agreement that some aspect of serving the feminine imperative is necessary to modern society. On some level, ALL of modern society, the fact that you can flip a switch and have lights, the fact that you can travel 1000 miles in 24 hours by car, the fact that you can sit in a 67 degree room on a 95 degree day is due to beta males at least partially serving the feminine imperative. Of course, there was a tradeoff there in that female hypergamy had to be repressed.

    Here’s the problem though now. All that has been completely underappreciated…..that men essentially build for their own kingdoms….otherwise why bother?

    I’m reminded of the classic scene in A Few Good Men with Jack Nicholson on the stand, and he is trying to impress the importance and danger of the guarding duty he and his men have. And it isn’t that he minds the guarding, he sees it as duty, but it is clear what pisses him off is the ingratitude and total lack of respect and appreciation for what is done. If I recall the scene correctly, he says something along the lines of a thank you and be on your merry way would be nice.

    I actually think many men really wouldn’t have a problem and don’t have a problem with serving the feminine imperative (committed monogamy, dedicated provisioning to children) if you could just subtract out the sense of entitlement that seems to be pervasive. The various “Man Up” and where have all the good men gone articles reek of the premise that it is simply a man’s duty to be a husband and father to some woman who decides she now wants that.

    1. ‘Committed monogamy’ isn’t the feminine imperative. The feminine imperative, in my estimate, is serial monogamy where female commitment is completely optional i.e. only women decide when relationships begin and end.

  14. This is awesome man. The beginning gasps of a feminine system that is beginning to see its own demise, doing its best to spin the subject. Way to call them out. Insightful stuff.

  15. if you could just subtract out the sense of entitlement that seems to be pervasive

    I agree with you, the whole post. I think the quoted part above drives much of this home. I never thought about it before I read Rollo’s article today, but I agree with him. We do live in an extremely fem-centric society (which is obvious) and really always have (Which I was confused about, but now makes sense). It is necessary for the family. However, what at one time hovered around 49% male and 51% female society is now skewed so far female that no one is happy. Females while becoming more educated are stupider than ever before and men are screwed in nearly everything they do. Hence the Dark Triad. It is really the only logical conclusion to all of this and I really can’t blame any guy that goes this route. He may not get everything he wanted out of life but he is getting a hell of a lot more than most men and is happy doing it. I don’t like it, but I understand it and even think some of it is necessary to the turn around.

    What kills me is that when men sacrificed for women and women sacrificed for men, both sides seems much more content and happy with the world. Too far in either direction is chaos. MGTOW, and the Dark Triad are the logical conclusions to women being in power too long. It is the only way to bring back the balance. Game is the tool to be used for men to get what they want and need. Women are going to need to suck it up and accept this. I worry for my kids though.

    1. Thanks Sting for getting it, and Mike for clearly explaining it.

      The thing is, lots of men don’t mind sacrificing for women, as we are born with an innate need to provide and protect. I can deal without being thanked, and I can handle not even being acknowledged. But when it crosses over into ridicule, is when things go bad. That’s the point that men will simply withdraw.

      Every time a woman utters a phrase like “kitchen bitch” and gets this contempt expressed in mainstream media, imagine 10 men getting their testicles and going dark on all women.

      Go read HUS and count how many women actually appreciate men’s sacrifice IN THE ABSTRACT — not specific men in their life who do stuff for the.

      1. Women can’t see the abstract like you all can. We can’t appreciate the guy who invented and installed the air conditioning and who put the breaks in our cars. If we didn’t see it happen, it is just a machine that works for us when we need it. We can however, sincerely thank the man that comese to fix the air and the man who repairs our cars. Christ, how many even do that any more?

        What’s more we can CERTAINLY profusely thank our husbands and our men for what they do for us everyday. Even the women who work can do this easily, but instead choose to deride their husband for the entertainment of their friends (Kitchen bitch? Really?!) Cooking, cleaning, doting, these are not difficult things. When done right, they can be incredibly enjoyable (Exept cleaning, there’s just no getting around that 😉 )

        1. Stingray wrote:

          Cooking, cleaning, doting, these are not difficult things. When done right, they can be incredibly enjoyable.

          I present to you the Gospel according to Woman, or The Bible, Distaff Translation. Written by a feminist-apostate lawyer-professor who struggled half her life to deny her nature and finally found peace in submitting to it.

          And, you have proclaimed some tremendous wisdom in the following:

          Women can’t see the abstract like you all can. We can’t appreciate the guy who invented and installed the air conditioning and who put the br[ake]s in our cars. If we didn’t see it happen, it is just a machine that works for us when we need it.

          I don’t have time to trace the precise provenance of this idea, but it explains THE decisive spiritual-intellectual difference between men and women. Women naturally regard ideas concretely, in the immediate and in the practical. Women prefer love of their own to love of the good (“my man, right or wrong”).

          Men, in contrast, excel at conceptual and abstract thinking, the view from 50,000 feet, in the universal and comprehensive. Men love the good before loving their own (truth above kinship).

          This difference is somehow bound up in the maternal instinct, to put one’s precious children above one’s own life, whereas freewheeling polyamorous men are more psychologically prepared to float their allegiances, like Alcibiades.

          Harvey Mansfield in his book Manliness touches on this idea, if I recall. Why the Gospel according to St. Harvey isn’t required reading in these circles, I have no idea. Granted, it is somewhat less accessible than The Mystery Method. But we’re the sex disposed to abstract thinking, aren’t we? Mansfield should be tackled, at least by those who put themselves out as the idea men of the community.


  16. The existence of powerful men who can do whatever they want and get away with it drives the girly-world overmind batshit.

    But one on one with any member of girly world, well… they don’t hold the line too well do they?

    Actions over words. Don’t Aunt Giggles and her ilk talk you out of being the man you want to be

  17. Right on, Mikec.

    I can tell you from firsthand experience that it isn’t about being a disposable cog in the machine, it is about playing that role without the potential for a payoff in the form of a loving, faithful and feminine wife.

    I just turned 40 and have proven to myself that I can get pussy, but when I start thinking about settling down and having a family reality slaps me in the face and I am forced to realize that even if I do find a girl who hasn’t been fully corrupted the deck is still stacked against me to the point where it just isn’t worth the risk.

    And that is the real problem here. We don’t mind playing the game, we simply aren’t willing to play for a beat up, worn out trophy, especially if the game is rigged against us.

    You are going to see a lot more talk about this in the next five years as the red pill player age out of the numbers game and start to look for something more long term. Guys don’t pay a whole lot of attention to it when they aren’t looking to settle down but that all changes when they get older.

  18. Legal and open prostitution is the answer.

    never forget that the church and their current heirs the BANKS make a LOT OF MONEY from institutions that shackle men and put a toll tax on their access to the vagina.

    women are the beneficiary pawns in this endeavor.

  19. The Dark vs. Light angle of Game is nonexistent. What one man chooses to do with this knowledge is up to the individual. If he wants to bed numerous women or maintain and “upgrade” his LTR with his woman, the choice is all his. I’ve been studying The Crimson Arts for six years now and what I love about it the most is that Game improves all aspects of a man’s life, not just his sex life. Women should never be priority #1. Inner Game must be developed first, and everything externally comes second.

    There is one aspect of learning Game that is frustrating, which Rollo somewhat mentioned. And that is discussing Game with blue pill Betas, many of which happen to be close friends and family members. Let’s be honest…I would guess that 93% of all men are Betas. 5% represent the Naturals, with the following 2% being red pill men. When I finally embraced Game in its totality, I wanted to share this information with as many male friends that I could (the ones with potential). And what I realized is that the majority of them don’t want to here it. They have bought the feminine explanation that it’s “misogynistic”. Along with this, they can sabotage an encounter when you are out-and-about with them. They know, whether consciously or not, that the knowledge you possess concerning Game does work. It is just too much for some of these men to let go of the bill of goods they have been sold.

  20. @Sam
    “I would guess that 93% of all men are Betas. 5% represent the Naturals, with the following 2% being red pill men”
    I know its a widespread indoctrination but do you really think that the numbers are that high?? most men i know have never heard of female hypergamy let alone the rest, after trying to speak about it to friends it just becomes a futile exercise and these are all smart men,who work out and live active lives, thet all come fully equipped with degree’s in various academic disciplines. Any chance we could get the central statistics office to do the research for us?? maybe thats just plato’s talked about ideal.

  21. I think there is another side to the same coin. These women don’t just want to build a better beta, they want to tame the alpha. In fact, I think the former is just another way they are trying to approach the latter. They want to take an inherrently unsafe activity and make it safe. They want to submit to a man without having to submit; they want a man who can tame their feral self. They want him to trip their danger signals. Even better if he is a stranger from a strange land.

    They wan’t this all to happen without giving up their freedom; they want to play this out in the context of serial monogamy, so they can feel loved while also claiming their promiscuity is moral. They want to lose controll to a string of strangers who have all of the hallmarks of very dangerous men, and they want a promise that this will always end well.

    They want to know that this will be safe, without it losing the excitement of it feeling unsafe. They are telling men to build a sort of serial monogamy amusement park where they can ride the roller coaster and experience the fear of falling or crashing, while knowing that just behind the scenes grown ups are actually in charge and are responsible for them safely feeling unsafe.

    One more thing. As I mentioned above they don’t want to be hemmed in. So instead of building an actuall amusement park, they want roller coasters to spring up randomly in the same exact circumstances where the real danger they mimik would appear. They want to be driving their car on the freeway one instant, and the next experience the fear of careening out of controll the next. They want to impulsively jump off the edge of the Grand Canyon and have a parachute appear and deploy at the last minute. And all they ask is your guarantee that all of this will be safe.

    1. perhaps if women are chronically this stupid they should be put back into enslavement (their societal place for millenia) where they are no longer a danger to themselves or others!

  22. You might already be aware, but the term “game theory”, as used in the above post already has an established definition different from what you no doubt meant (it’s the study of strategic decision making). The meaning you intend is clear enough from the context, but if used elsewhere it could confuse those now to this topic and unfamiliar with game. Given that the language you have used above is so precise I thought it might be worth pointing this out to you just in case you didn’t realize this double meaning.

  23. Pingback: Year One «
  24. Rollo, I agree with the fact that Game is amoral. But if every single man would act as an complete alpha, society would become a chaos (no rules, no authority, no order, less efficiency). How does all this conciliate?

  25. “It’s an indictment of Game-aware women, and sympathizing men, that they should feel a need to delineate some aspects of Game into good camps (pro woman, pro feminized monogamy) and bad camps (manipulative, polygynous, male-centered).”

    These people are not “pro-woman” they are pro-children. If you are unmarried without kids then spinning plates is fine as long as all parties involved are told the honest truth. But once you have kids, within wedlock or without, you have to completely revamp your life and mold it around the child that you CHOSE to have.

    And every man who does not have a vasectomy or use condoms every time has CHOSEN to have that child.

    1. Your feminine-conditioned devotion to a feminine-primary social frame is causing you to miss the point of what I’m getting at here.

      The biological motivations for women to have children IS pro-woman by default. What serves children, necessarily serves children by association.

      The larger point that you’re blinded to is that Game (even in an LTR purview) has to be sanitized and repurposed by those subscribing to the feminine social narrative to fit into that narrative. Thus any aspect of Game that agrees with that frame is ‘good’ and any aspect that conflicts with it is ‘bad’.

  26. Somebody please rephrase the following abstract for me. I spent much time on it, asked several teachers for help but still can’t get your idea.

    It’s difficult enough for them to accept that women love Jerks (despite being told the contrary for half their lives by women), but for the Game-accepting women they still think are ‘quality’ it’s a bitter pill to swallow when these women debate the aspects of acceptable, lovable Jerk-like qualities and the evil, user, manipulative, ‘dark art’ Jerk that only contextually misaligns with their present conditions and priorities.

  27. Pingback: Fear and Freedom |
  28. Here’s my general take: Christianity, seen through this lens, has to be considered a prototypical castration myth. Mary Magdalene is the mother of Game, and Game is the castrative force that makes civilization possible. Awareness of Game is its negation. When the Whore of Babylon becomes too obnoxious to tolerate, she’ll give birth to the beast, and the beast will devour the mother as well as all of her brood of betas. Then we return to the long period of barbarism and masculine honor.

  29. Pingback: Artificial Joy |
  30. I felt pretty suprised after reading this post, I never knew that men were afraid of women and femininity this much. “Feminine matrix”, do you guys really believe that paranoid science fiction? If you insist on a movie analogy, I prefer Star Wars. I think all Players and PUAs are more like Dart Waders, who can’t forget an Alpha Female or “Padme”. After loosing their Padme, they become like a Dart Wader, who desperately clings to the “Game” or a heavy Mask to protect themselves from the evils and perils of womanhood and that’s why they hate the feminists that much (i.e. men with mommy issues).

    I feel truly sorry for the players and their wannabes (i.e. PUAs) who fear women this much and who will suffer and die alone like Darth Wader (the lord of fear) unless they become Jedis who are the true Alphas, and the protectors of the feminine principle of love. For me Alpha doesn’t mean a man whore. True players actually is a man whore and know that women use him and while the PUAs who doesn’t know this fact, are the guys who want to be like man whores. Don’t you realize that the gatekeepers of sex do actually use the players for sex while they marry the good guys? True alphas are the guys who have the courage for love, even if they have burnt before.

    Here is the red pill for you guys: Women who doesn’t want to be in a relationship (even if she says otherwise) and don’t want to hurt the good guys use Players for drama, excitement and sex and true players already know that. If you don’t believe me call the girls after sex and try to spend some “quality time” with them. If you were good in bed and kind person they might be willing to have sex with you again, but they won’t be willing to spend quality time with you because most of them are not that into the guys who wanted to sleep them on the first night and they agreed on easily just because they didn’t care about the guy (Most girls prefer to wait if they really like the guy and if they see him like a boyfriend material. If she agrees to have sex too easily it means either she’s not that into you or she’s not ready for a committed relationship, even if she says otherwise. Deep inside most men know this fact and they feel a resentment towards the girls who were too easy (i.e. not into them).

  31. Pingback: The Severing |
  32. @Ashley: [girls] won’t be willing to spend quality time with you because most of them are not that into the guys who wanted to sleep them on the first night.

    Girls will sleep with you but they really don’t want to spend “quality time” with you? Cuz girls just want to pump and dump? Da players are missing out by ‘just’ getting the sex and not the “quality time.”

    Your serious?

  33. “Please define the feminine imperative and where and when it came from.”
    The feminine imperative is: “acquire resources, have offspring”, or more succinctly: “breed”.
    It came from biology.

  34. I guess the absolute importance of the family to human society is too obvious a thing to mention here? What with all the sophisticated ninnery about mating strategies and the like. If family is just fem-centric brainwashing, then . . . .? Male headship just a ruse? Kingship an illusion? Priesthood a sham? Patriarchy just a hoax? Being a *son* just ephemera? I guess seeing fem-centrism behind *every* bush (as opposed to behind most) reaches a point of ridiculousness.

  35. Pingback: A New Hope |
  36. Pingback: Attitude Sells |
  37. Is there anything written about how to live your life as a man with the reality of hypergamy? I see a lot written about the way it is, but I don’t see anything about how to now deal with it.

    The only thing I have come up with is just don’t get married.

    By the way, I’m not talking about this blog not having anything about that, I’m talking about everywhere.

  38. Pingback: Ghosting |

Leave a Reply to Kids R Us Cancel reply

%d bloggers like this: