People are People

One of the most predictably common responses I get when I read comments on other blogs or forums linking back to one of my own articles goes something like this:

“He’s a great writer, but it’s all such bullshit because people are people, everyone is different. We’re all individuals, there is no universal ‘human nature’.”

I will admit there was once a time when I would’ve had the same response. An integral part of our feminized, equalist conditioning teaches us to reject propositions of ‘human nature’ – really even venturing to guess about it – in favor of a blank slate philosophy. Equalism, the religion of feminism, cannot exist in a world predicated upon even a margin of common influence determined by our biology’s, our evolved psychology, or even evidence of the mechanics which account for that collective influence on human beings.

It’s not that most people subscribing to this wont admit to extrinsic influences on the individual when pressed, it’s just that they believe that freewill, conscious effort and determined conviction will lift the individual above their biological limitations and therefore the greater collective. And, in focussed concentration, on a by-person basis they’d probably be right. What they don’t account for is acknowledging the subconscious influence of extrinsic and intrinsic prompts that motivate human beings to hold those convictions in the first place. The evolutionary, innately biological limitations they wish to rise above aren’t “bugs” they’re “features”

The standard rationale fallback of the feminine mindset, NAWALT (“not all women are like that”) finds its roots in the individuated, experiential reasoning of the blank slate, “people are people” equalist reasoning. While I think that a wholesale rejection of individual personality development is an extreme, it’s merely the other side of the extreme coin compared to a wholesale rejection of environmental and biological influences on personal development – then extrapolated to social and cultural extremes. This is where the “people are individuals” mindset flourishes.


When I was in college I was a competitive fencer (Epée and Sabre if you must know), and it was from my fencing coach that I learned a very valuable lesson in psychology. He told me, “When you are facing your opponent, concentrate your vision directly at where his eyes would be behind his face mask. You cannot possibly track the tip of his weapon with your eyes, and neither can you focus enough attention to follow all of his body movements.”  What I learned was that when you apply focus to that central point, your peripheral vision aids your subconscious understanding of what your opponent is doing. It’s in the uniting of this gestalt, peripheral awareness and a focused awareness that makes for the best competitors.

Human beings have an amazing capacity to multi-task, but a real trained focus on multiple sources of stimuli was problematic for us in our evolutionary past. Too much constant stimuli leads to sensory overload and a breakdown in functionality, which then proves fatal if we’re distracted from reacting to a lethal threat. Thus we evolved psychological mechanisms to push less (though still) important information to the peripheries of our conscious awareness, to afford us a mental acuity on information of more importance.

An entire world goes on around us that we are only peripherally aware of, and in some senese only exists in our peripheral consciousness. For instance, at this moment you’re probably focusing your attention on this text on a computer monitor or maybe a mobile device, but in your peripheral vision you interpret and understand that there are other things in the environment with you, pictures on the wall, a cabinet, maybe a nearby printer, etc. You’re reading this text, but you know they’re there. If someone threw a ball at your head right now you’d reflexively react to it by focusing your awareness on the incoming projectile.

Our conscious awareness works much in the same way. We push less pressing information and conditional awarenesses to the peripheries of our awareness and concentrate on more pressing information until such time (if ever) that we choose to adress those issues. Sometimes we call this insight, but it’s really the focused effort of applying our consciousness to conditions, thoughts and self-acknowledgements that we have pushed to our peripheral awareness. For instance, I’m typing and concentrating on what I’m writing here, but in my peripheral awareness I know I have a meeting to attend in a few hours, and deeper than that I know I’m a 44 year old married father and how am I going to make a significant impact on the world in my next 10 years?

One of my personal, foundational theories about psychology is that people are intimately aware of their own conditions.

On some level of consciousness people understand what has influenced them, what has motivated or demotivated them. They may only be peripherally aware of those conditions, they may be more introspective of them, but they understand that those influences exist for them. For as much as a single mother may say she’s not looking for a supportive father figure for her child, she still knows, if only peripherally, the reality of her condition as a single mother. A post-Wall, childless never-married woman of 38 is intimately aware of her condition and the reality that comes from that.

This isn’t to say that people are all-knowing about what creates these conditions, but it is to say that we are aware of them. In fact I’d argue that for the better part most people are unaware of the origins of their conditions until someone or something with a broader perspective can bring them into an awareness of their origins, but they realize the conditions that contribute to their present state.

The Devil Biology Made Me Do It

A large part of the red pill perspective leans on evolutionary psychology. Of course evo-psych isn’t the only factor in red pill awareness, but for the vast majority of Game deniers (people unaware of the origins of their conditions) this poses a problem of convenience. When the revelations of evo-psych agree with our comfortable social models and ego-investments we’re all too happy to embrace the science. But when the science shows us the more uncomfortable truths about evolved human nature, the reaction is to either question the ‘science’ or blame the moral conviction, resolve and character of the person/people expressing that aspect of human nature.

Presently we have an active debate on SoSuave all sparked by a woman decrying the evils of ‘men behaving badly’ (i.e. not in accordance with the feminine imperative), and her presumption that those men find a convenient absolution for that behavior in blaming how nature has made men ‘the way they are.’ This of course is the inconvenient flip side to the War Brides phenomenon, but the basis of her argument is rooted blank slate individuated equalism.

Hypergamy (an evolved species-survival schema) doesn’t care about personal conviction, freewill or definitions of moral behavior, it just is.  So in the interests of perpetuating the best interests of one sex (and by extension the entire species) social and cultural norms fluidly evolve around it to accommodate what’s really an uncomfortable aspect of our humanity. Can Hypergamy be controlled? Can men’s sexual impulses be tempered? Of course, but not without the effort of freewill, conviction and social structures. I know of precious few men who’ve blamed their infidelity or sexual impulsivity solely upon their biological makeup. With the exception of the more natural Alphas, more often than not it was a carefully calculated (Game) and coordinated event.

People don’t like the idea of not being in control of their lives and themselves, and they certainly wont tolerate the uncontrollable extrinsic reasons for other’s behaviors. We like the idea of personal responsibility, because it implies order in an otherwise chaotic world. In fact, due to this, people are far more likely to attribute their failings to their own personal decisions. It may be a confession of a lack of their own control, but it still implies that they once had that same control to lose and can again regain it.

I’ve written in the past that nature trumps conviction, and I still hold to that estimation. People have called me to the carpet over that assertion, but I don’t think they really understand what I mean by it. The nature is the environment in which we live in, the nature is the condition. Conviction, freewill or even notions of morality cannot exist if ‘nature’ isn’t the dominant, operative environment we exist in. It’s not that we can’t rise above our natures, it’s that we should have to in the first place.


  1. ‘People are people’, just like NAWALT, is just a get out of jail free card. It’s unassailable. What I learned through my own decision to take the red pill and that of others throughout the years, is that there’s a series of chronological events that take place:

    1) Vehemently deny what you’re reading. It can’t possibly be true. It would be too big of a blow to one’s ego to admit otherwise. Sadly this is where most people live (blue pill).

    2) Sense cognitive dissonance, but still deny deny deny. Not quite ready to wake up, but noticing one’s own discomfort with ‘reality’, much like Neo prior to meeting Morpheus.

    3) Deny less, usually lurk, fade into the background, and observe. Begin to realize that there’s some truth to all this, even if most of it does still seem like bullshit.

    4) Under guise of curiosity, begin experimenting with some of these principles and realize omg this shit works! It’s true!

    5) Take the red pill. Probably vomit a few times.

  2. Brilliant write up.
    “When the revelations of evo-psych agree with our comfortable social models and ego-investments we’re all too happy to embrace the science. But when the science shows us the more uncomfortable truths about evolved human nature, the reaction is to either question the ‘science’ or blame the moral conviction, resolve and character of the person/people expressing that aspect of human nature.”
    Reminds me of the first time I pulled Roissy’s venerability game on a chick. I couldnt believe the way her eyes widened. As amazing as I felt, it hit me afterwards how I will never be “appreciated” rationally for “being me”.That any two timing bastard could have been there with the exact same line.That was the first time I yearned for the blue pill.The realization of just how much the matrix analogy is apt finally had hit me.

  3. “People don’t like the idea of not being in control of their lives and themselves, and they certainly wont tolerate the uncontrollable extrinsic reasons for other’s behaviors.”

    When you get really deep into pickup, you realize that people are generally like really intricate AI programs. You can boil most people’s behavior down to a series of predictable IF…THEN type situations. If I do this, in this circumstance, given their particular make-up, they will react like such and such. Combine that with a ton of field experience so that your analysis of these situations is instant and your reflexes to them are sharp (much like a martial artist putting in sparring time VS just training in the dojo or reading books) and you’re dangerous.

    In a way it’s fucking scary, you gain an amazing sense of omnipotence. In most social interactions you’re 50 steps ahead of everyone else and you can generally manipulate the situation to get whatever outcome you’re looking for. It works even better on the people who think it doesn’t work. There’s a reason people still fall for con artist schemes.

    As someone who doesn’t believe in a god, this opens up interesting questions. If we’re essentially just really really intricate AI programs, were we created by a godly programmer?

    “We like the idea of personal responsibility, because it implies order in an otherwise chaotic world.”

    Most of what keeps men from fully digesting the red pill is fear. Fear that there is no just balance in the world, fear that there are no consequences for people who’ve wronged us, fear that people can get ahead in life without any consequence (“ohh you’re a PUA, you LOOK like you’re having fun but really you must be dead and lonely inside and lack something…you MUST lack something!” No, sorry, my life is awesome, u mad brah?), and fear that you can just get shit on your entire life with no happy ending whatsoever (“God has a plan!!” Maybe he fucking doesn’t, maybe he doesn’t exist, maybe you are just shit out of luck and have to make do with the hand you were dealt, how about that?), fear that there is no “The One” and there is no madonna and you will have to settle for the same pool of girls that everyone else has to and find a way to make it work.

    It’s terrifying to accept that you have no control and the world owes you nothing. All the pussies whining on game blogs about fairness and how hard they have it and making excuses for why they aren’t out getting a handle on their relationships are still clinging onto the hope that the world owes them and will give them something and make it all better and they’re waiting for someone to fix themselves for them. It’s all bullshit mental masturbation.

    Once you get past that and you fully understand that you have to take action if you want your life to change, you can actually start living the life you want. “You have to know, not fear, KNOW that one day you are going to die. Until you know that, you are useless.”

  4. Good last paragraph, ya really. There are many advantages to life once you fully realizize you’re going to die one day. Urgency of any kind is positive.

  5. Im curious if the same people arguing against the generalizations of human nature would object against the generalizations of the nature of dogs, cats, other animals, or the generalizations about our own bodies, hormones, etc.

    The few times someone has argued that we can rise above our natures I’ve asked for examples. There arent any.

  6. Im curious if the same people arguing against the generalizations of human nature would object against the generalizations of the nature of dogs, cats, other animals,

    Or their opposing political party. . . .

  7. Nature trumps free will because it is not separate from it. Free will is a subset of nature.

    Just like waves are part of the ocean, our consciousness is part of the nature.

    Choice is an illusion because the choice you make is in perfect balance with who you are. Who you are is a product and part of nature which includes those choices.

    Just like my hand thinking it has the free will to pick any finger from the other hand.

  8. Does it also come down to a person’s mind make up and thinking ability and adjustable focus so to speak (zoom in, zoom out or total lack of the ability to do so).
    Being able to swallow the pill might be finding the zoom function within your mind and being able to zoom out to see more of the picture. The details of the wider shot (that was the peripheral or outside the view finder) now changes the information within the previous limited focal point.
    Those that reject it don’t have the capacity within their thinking to change focus. They must have a fixed focal length and discard the notion of anything that isn’t encapsulated within their fixed view port.

  9. “Nature trumps conviction” – aka “the Devil has dominion on Earth”.

    Not much use writing this if all you’re concluding is that these statements are true. Most people know in their hearts this is true, but what can we do about it?

    This is the very purpose of the Bible. It contains precisely the message conveyed in those words “Nature trumps conviction” but goes much further by teaching the winning strategy. We have known this stuff for centuries but we fastidiously ignore it, seeking to know in scientific detail our precise nature. The conclusion is always the same – Man is inherently selfish.

    Why do we need to hear this a thousand times before it sinks in? Because we, in our shallow foolishness don’t like the word “God”. The very solution to our biggest problem is presented in minute detail before us in the Bible and yet we’re stuck on semantics. Why not just change the word, FFS, and get on with the game.

  10. “He’s a great writer, but it’s all such bullshit because people are people, everyone is different. We’re all individuals, there is no universal ‘human nature’.”

    If seen this type of response and interpreted it as a type of cognitive bias. it’s as if people have a hard time understanding the properties of a central tendency–the difference between a statistical MEAN and statistical VARIANCE.

    A person looks at a given generalization (the mean) about human nature–be it about game, gender differences, or anything else–and also observes (sometimes erroneously) that they themselves or someone they know doesn’t perfectly fit that generalization. Therefore, they conclude, the generalization is incorrect. But such fallacious reasoning ignores that most generalizations (the mean) recognize there are indeed individual differences (a variance) and that these differences are merely spread about the mean in a probability density. The generalization (the mean) can still be perfectly true in the face of individual differences (the variance). In fact, in a strict statistical interpretation, it’s theoretically impossible to ever observe anything precisely matching the mean.

    Even worse biases occur when the generalization involves some kind of correlation. For example, one might generalize that when X occurs, it likely indicates Y. The naive observer can easily see a single contrary example (e.g., NAWALT) and conclude that the correlation is incorrect. They forget that one doesn’t need perfect correlation (or perfect inverse correlation) to conclude that X influences (or doesn’t influence) Y. Just because their one single anecdote, their single “sample of one” doesn’t fit, doesn’t mean the generalization doesn’t hold probabilistically or in larger samples.

    Drives me nuts.

  11. @Jimmy, Dillon, MNL: You are using the mathematical and logical intuitions that are innate functions to some of us.

    I believe that some people are born with the capacity to develop an organ of perception; the perception of ideas fitting together congruently; the perception of a logical arrangement of thought. And some are not. Some people think emotionally. Women are known to “think” emotionally, and can at times be incapable of following a logical train of thought or seeing where the logical steps break down. Men also can be that way, but women tend to be that way more so and more often.

    But some of us naturally and instantly notice logical inconsistencies. We wonder why others can’t see them, and so helpfully point them out.

    We are never met with thanks. People not only have difficulty understanding, but it’s much worse. They actively try to not hear. They actively avoid putting together the pictures in their mind that will lead to their having a new, more logically consistent understanding.

    That’s how emotional thinking works. And of course even the logical thinkers are prone to cognitive dissonance, but at least with us we have an innate value for truth as a value in and of itself, and so we can be communicated with – even if it’s at times a slow process. We’d rather take the pain of facing cognitive dissonance while adjusting to truth than not feel that pain and avoiding truth.

    Sometimes lately I’m noticing myself not starting in on an argument, and not even bothering to correct peoples views, when I see that they are heavily ego invested in them. I know from long experience that when that’s the case logic won’t enter into it, and I’ll be wasting every ones time. The person with the inconsistent views will view me as attacking them, and won’t be able to even imagine alternate views, let alone take them on and integrate them into a new way of being.

    I find that MGTOW (men going their own way) guys with a strong bias against intimacy and a strong bias towards being self reliant to the point of being an island onto themselves can be extremely defensive of their emotional stance, and reject the very notion of a positive and fulfilling intimacy – as if on philosophical grounds. They decry “looking for external validation”, or in any way using the people in our environment to find any sort of social or even sexual fulfillment. They deny basic human desires. They worship a LACK of libido. They find freedom in a lack of desire. They see that a less complicated life, where one doesn’t have to struggle for any externally measurable successes is more “free”, rather than seeing a successful life as more fulfilling. They value ease over satisfaction. They take the maxim “be satisfied with little” to absurd extremes, to the point where it is anti-social and anti-human. They avoid pleasures in order to avoid pain. They simplify the funs and joys and heartbreaks of life down to a muted dull grey, and call that “freedom”.

    And when they come across the manosphere notion of making oneself as attractive as possible and heightening testosterone and libido and dealing with and manipulating women successfully in order to gain the many pleasures and satisfactions that come with successfully navigating dealing with women, they only see negatives. They CAN NOT even see, let alone remember, what it was ever like to have a woman be head over heels in love with them and treating them well, and CAN NOT comprehend that as a positive value worth striving for, in order to increase quality of life.

  12. Very few people that can even come close to rising above their innate natures.

    Some Buddhist monks and the monks of Mount Athos in Greece can; after a lifetime of concentrated efforts.

  13. “They may only be peripherally aware of those conditions, they may be more introspective of them, but they understand that those influences exist for them”

    Back when I tried reading Noam Chomsky he made an interesting statement “we live in webs of self-deceit”. I think this is true. We weave our own reality and create our own prison with it. Much of the value of this blog is directing the conscious mind to individual strands of the web. Anything that causes a tremor (the “glitch in the matrix”) lets you glimpse it but only sustained concentrated effort lets you unpick your own web.

    I think mind-altering drugs such as magic mushrooms are a useful tool in this process. By dissolving many of the structures created by the ego, it’s like pouring acid on the web. This is where the “mind-expanding” terms come from. It’s not mind-expanding, it’s just shifting your position so your mind detects movement and from that you can triangulate the new perception with the old, and reconstruct a map of the web that binds you.

  14. Great post.

    This line from the forum had me stitchers.

    “How about women just sucuumb to their nature and only date men with resources? This would result in 20% of the male population getting sex with tons of partners and the other 80% of you rarely getting it.”

    Pretty much sums it up.

  15. Holy solipsism batman!

    Just read the rest of the forum and I hope the girl posting wasn’t you Rollo as she just about validated every single principle you have been writing about.

  16. The sad thing is that sometimes when conviction and morality overcomes nature its often disturbing. Like the eunuch state of the beta orbiter, for example. Although the phenomenon itself is just an expression of badly indoctrinated males trying to mate, while following the rules of what women say they want in spite of what women’s actions betray about what they really want

  17. @xsplat. …We wonder why others can’t see them, and so helpfully point them out….
    Yes I also find its a fools errand to point out such details to people – especially when the motivation for doing so comes from a well intentioned place. I gave up on trying to understand why the reaction these are met with is so negative. Its best just to use this skill for your own benefit.

    The ability to notice and piece together these observations and thoughts I put down to a having a mind that thinks in a lateral way (most people think in a linear way comparing each new obstacle against their conflicting flawed beliefs and punch out a binary 1 or 0, yes or no, good feeling or bad feeling response).
    If you think laterally you can jump across many channels or skip from one related idea, thought and image to another that is almost impossible for some one else to follow if you were to trace it out for them. It allows you to join a series of seemingly unrelated things and come up with a conclusion. I guess flexibility and testing it against reality is key.

  18. “they believe that freewill, conscious effort and determined conviction will lift the individual above their biological limitations and therefore the greater collective.”

    Maybe true for the one in 10,000+ people that actually have the determined conviction and make the conscious effort to not only understand their nature but override it, but most people are lazy, ignorant and more than willing to just go with the flow and enjoy the delusions that are their truths.

  19. Jimmy – ya, lateral thinking. Or massively parallel processing. Or Ken Wilbers “vision logic” stage of mental development. I think Ken has less than 2% of people stably at that stage. He describes it as seeing many perspectives at once, in a panoramic view, but not being blinded to value because of “aperspectival madness”. Even while having many perspectives available, we still value not giving a clitorectomy over giving one.

    I don’t recall if Piaget has an analogous vision logic stage, or if that is stage Wilber added. I think Piaget has it in his system.

    Developmental psychology is often thought of as stages that are available to most of us, depending on experience and training, but I question that. I heard that Chomsky thought of language as an organ – that the brain structures created our capacity for it – and this organ had to go through development during a crucial developmental window or it would never develop. That capacity is thought to be universal to all humans. But I suspect the capacity for vision logic is not universal – no amount of training or stimulus seems to bring it out for most. And yet for others it is inescapable.

  20. This is my analysis of the election. And this is my manifesto.

    Here you had a sitting president that had everything going against him in voter sentiment, ambivalent economic data, if not bad data, a general lack of confidence of his ability to be a significant leader, and still he could not be beaten by his opponent.

    This has been the on going theme of my comments. Women are winning. Women are going to win and impose the changes on society that they wish and there is nothing you can do to stop it.

    The reason Obama won this election and why the Republicans were not able to gain any ground in the legislature was women. Pure and Simply. This election was about women. And the men lost. If the economy had improved even by a few percent more, then the election would never have been this close. Obama appealed to women and would blown Romney away. Romney was only in the race because of his ability to run on the economy and the antipathy that conservative white voters have towards Obama. In the Senate races, Woman won every race except for Maine where an independent candidate won, and the woman came in second. The conservative came in last.

    The forces arrayed against you, socially, economically, and politically are insurmountable. You can scream, whine, blog, comment, whatever, and you will not turn back the march of history. Even if the number of Red Pill aware men increases ten fold in the next few years, it still will not stop the inevitable erosion of the position of men, not only in America, but throughout the rest of the world.

    Now, I am going to tell you in no uncertain terms, if you have a dick then you are on your own and the forces of the world are arrayed against you. You can expect no political support, no social support, no support in the workplace, no support in the courts, with the police. Whether you realize it or not, women are a bigger enemy to you than any Arab, any Iranian, any Chinese.

    Your last chance to even slow this march was just lost. Democrats made a lot of hay about the Clint Eastwood presentation during the Republican convention where he used a chair a prop and addressed a hypothetical Barrack Obama in the chair. It was said that was essence of the Republican party, angry, old white men railing in their anger at a black Democratic president. And more and more of are those old, angry, white men going to die and not be replaced in the pipeline. In 2016 there will be even fewer of them and more and more non-white voters will move onto the voting rolls to replace those white male voters that will die over the next four years. Obama received 93% of the black vote, 69% of the hispanic vote, and 74% of the Asian vote. Romney won 59% of white voters. There will a smaller percentage of white voters in every election cycle from here on out.

    But the real issue was the gender gap. Women favored Obama, 54 percent to 44 percent, while men chose Romney by an almost identical margin, 53 percent to 45 percent. Mothers were more likely to support Obama (55 percent to 45 percent), while fathers sided with Romney (55 percent to 43 percent).

    “Democrats effectively made the case that issues important to women, not just issues like abortion and reproductive rights but economic issues of equal pay and access to jobs, those issues resonated with women,” said Ron Schurin, a political scientist at the University of Connecticut. “The Romney campaign seemed at times to be tone deaf on those issues. They tried to make a case, they just didn’t do it effectively.”

    The key race in the election cycle, the bellweather indicator of things to come, was the race between Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren. Expect this formula to be repeated by Democrats in subsequent elections. Elizabeth Warren was an academic, a law professor from Harvard, with a specialization in Bankrupty. So expect more races where a female former professor without any political baggage or experience will run, and win, on women’s issues that are masked as issues for families, for the “middle class”. It is my opinion that Elizabeth Warren will run for president in 2016 and will become the nominee. And more and more women will move into elected office and those women will push issues favorable to women as their primary agenda masking those issues as “for children”, “for education”, “for families”.

    Also, the story of the next four years will be stagnation on issues involving spending, spending cuts, unless it is a measure that effects women. Then public opinion, the media, and the army of women will coerce the Republican legislature into caving. When there are cuts or spending deals to be made, expect the deal not to cut things would have a more direct effect on women and pushed towards cuts that will affect men. If defense is cut, that effects men, fewer soliders, fewer defense contracts. Expect less stimulus spending on infrastructure, again more jobs for men. Expect this ongoing deal, tax cuts for the wealthy or business in exchange for what women want. Expect head start, health benefits, food stamp progams, education, aid to dependent children to be untouched. Expect more legislation like WAVA and IMBRA. Expect an EEO interpretation that further broadens sexual harrassment and sexual discrimination.

    You all need to understand in no uncertain terms, women despise you, they think little of you. They believe you brutish and violent, bull headed, and fundamentally stupid. The see you as big children that must be controlled and disciplined in order make you useful to them. And if you are not useful to them, if you do not provide those things that they wish from you, actually, more correct to say, those things they need from you, then you will not be a part of their lives.

    And they are earnest and driven in structuring society and the law in such a manner that you are no longer needed.

    They are now avoiding marriage in droves, deferring pregnancy and motherhood, and using men, more and more, as forms of recreation and, less and less, as a necessary partner in the scheme of life as they are defining it. Their job and their female friends are more important to them than you are. They are celebrating and defining single motherhood as the form of child rearing preferrable to a two parent household.

    And you should expect the bad behavior of women in relationships and in social situations to only get worse. There is a massive demographic shift that has been occuring since the end of the birth control. Compare the dearth of child bearing age women against the number of men from 19-55 that chase those women, men that throw deals and enticements at the feet of those women, with the rise in social media mechanisms available today that permit women to be approached and have those deals thrown at their feet, and you have recipe for more trouble ahead for men. Pity the poor boy born in 2007 when there was a birth rate of 4.32 babies born per 1000 people to the birth rate in 2011 of 1.9. There will be no girls for 50% of those boys, given that men tend to pair with younger women. If you wish to see the impact of demographic discrepancy on female behavior, study the history of Wyoming. Men literally had to pay women to have relationships and she shopped for the best offer. She would go a dance with one man and leave with another because she received the better offer.

    So, I say to all of you, on this key date, this moment of national introspection that occurs every 4 years on election night when the character of our society unveils itself in the form of the ballot, we most certainly have entered into a new era of history. I call it the PostModern because I can only define it right now as what it isn’t and I am not yet able to define it for what it is. You can call it Post Industrial. You can call it the Third Wave, the first being agriculture, the second being industrial.

    But you can expect to see the world, society, and the relationships between men and women begin to organize in other means, other forms, other measures, than anything that has ever come before. The Modern Era, for as long as we have any sort of social memory has been organized along the lines of the family and the marriage between men and women. Everything was based on this, from work, to taxes, to even how houses are aligned along steets, neighborhoods are built, and how maps are drawn.

    You need a new paradigm, new thinking about how you filter the information that your senses provide you and what you make of it. You need to question any value, any moral, any religion, your patriotism, your chivalry, your male code of conduct, any generalization, any stereotype, any caricature, anything that is an artifact from the Modern Era. And you need to replace it something, something more PostModern. You can’t look back any fucking. Those days are gone and will never, never return.

    Start with this statement right here and make it the first declaration in who you are, what you will be, and will do, what you won’t be and what you won’t do, and how you judge and think about the world

    “I will be nobody’s fucking slave and nobody’s fool”.

    You owe nobody nothing. You owe women nothing. You owe society nothing. All of those things, those forces, those structures wish to impose a slavery on you and need begin to reject it right now. You need redefine to yourself, “What it means to be a man.” And you need to begin to live that declaration of what it could, should, and would to be a man if you filter that determination with the first filter.

    “I will be nobody’s slave and nobody’s fool”.

    We will stop being men that are useful to women, useful to society and start being men that live life on their terms. You have a power that you give away. We voluntarily let chains be placed on you because we think that is what “The Good Man” does.

    Re-evaluate everything.


    You cannot change where the world and society is going. But you have the power to change your life so that you live it on your own terms. There will no “macro” solution to the angst that you are feeling. There will be no grand social movement to correct the wrongs that you experience in your dealings with women and in how society views and what it expects from men.

    But you have the solution in your hands.


    Not just “Game” as pick-up lines, but “Game” as a way of viewing women, as a way of viewing life, as a way of reconstructing what is right and what is wrong, as a way of reacting to the changes that are beyond your control, as a way of dealing with the structural and social changes that already have come and inevitably are coming.

    Don’t worry about the world, worry about your world.

    “I will be nobody’s slave and nobody’s fool.


    So when future historians look back on this PostModern time and make generalizations of this age, let them say:

    “It was time when the men started being men, free men, that lived free, and no longer accepted the roles as slaves that society and women had imposed on them.”

  21. People are not people. The effect of culture is enormous, and while some essentials can be extracted from all humans at an instinctual, elemental level, culture really matters and it shapes, marks and scars almost all of us. There’s not a tiny little American inside of every gook waiting to break out if only we apply enough military intervention; nor is there a good traditional woman inside of every Sex in the City chick, just waiting for the right man to come along.

  22. Game is a limited to solution the problem you sketch, Mark Minter, because women and the power elite will make you cooperate through force.

  23. @Mark Minter… You’re close but the issue is even more fine-grained than that. It’s not the gender gap per se that’s important but the marriage gap and, furthermore, the extreme views of UNMARRIED WOMEN.

    There’s an interesting collection of posts over at Steve Sailer’s blog that highlights all this. Sure, the gender gap in this election has indeed received a lot of media attention. But it’s a red herring. Whether one is married or not (rather than merely male or female) is a greater discriminant. And the gap is even greatest of all between UNMARRIED WOMEN vs. married women. More specifically, the gap between married women vs. single women (23 points) is greater than it is between men and women (6 points) or even between married men vs. single men (17 points).

    This doesn’t contradict your rant at all. It just makes it more specific. The polarizing outcomes you foresee likely won’t be driven by women per se as much as they’ll be driven by single women.

  24. Haven’t read all the comments yet, but this article is discussing an aspect of “reality” I’ve always found fascinating. YaReally said something interesting above, & I agree with him about being 50 steps ahead in any given social interaction – however that’s simply one’s perspective, as another may feel exactly the same way, & in being outcome independent by depending on one’s perceived created outcome may equally feel that they are ”in control” of the environment they are fabricating – however real it may seem at the time. Else, it really doesn’t matter what set of behaviors or beliefs one [knows] one ascribes to, as a Pre-programmed Intelligence, what matters is how others project what they believe they see on & through You as a conduit for their psychosocial database & phenomenal understanding or comprehension of themselves in a given or chosen interaction. It’s not you who makes a difference, it’s Who’s thinking about you through themselves in relation to what they choose to believe to perceive.

    I am glad that as I read “Game” blogs more & more the discussions are maturing beyond the initial red pill awakening & how to get pussy & heading in a traditionally manlier position – one of philosophy, the soul, logic, politics, etc…

    Boyz2Men (is a band right[?]) again & again – no culture, microbial or naught, nothing’s changed since Moses had Horns & artists depicted his G-d’s fiery bush-talk’s idyll ideal 10 step program to awaken the flock & herd them into a more placated submission.

    For a brief period I thought knowing all the Evo Psych & Game Theory & social dynamic shit mattered, but it all boils down to the most simplest of awakening ideas – if one simply does what one wants according to ones own known abilities then one can expect to get only what one wanted & be given more than one intended on asking for in the first conscious place.

    Here’s my stony ramble of a comment, typed on a phone, as I sit here in my boxers, and —— just left, putting her bra on by having the part that holds her tits on her back, clipping it in front, then turning it around to slide it into its actual place. I’d never seen that done before, like in front of me, in the morning. But it makes sense. Otherwise she’d have to awkwardly reach behind her to clip it after managing to hold it on her chest. Anyway, I am just rambling because of what’s in my system.

    Now I will read what conscious humans have written above, & pretend I did not spend the last 3 minutes or so thumb-text-typing on an iPhone in a comment box on a blog in the semi-mainstream Internet arena.

  25. Holy shit. Congrats to those who commented above. There is a wealth of fine-tuned peripheral understanding. Noumenal’s – that’s what I’ll call us. Third-Wave Men, thrice born, none’s all the same. Nominally Noumenal Gnostic’s of the Noetically Nuanced Nature’s Name-Naming Aeon.

    Really though, one comment above that’s really long (& his ‘manifesto’) is nothing new however holds far greater truths than many are wearily willing to admit knowing.

    Also the mention of men who are lonely islands is a good point too. So caught up in being afraid of the known possibility of being hurt by another that they avoid intimacy as if it were a diseased coon trying to give a bleeding opossum a coincidentia oppisitorum high-five in the dark night of one’s praetor-natural soul’s morale dying besides books by & for & of the gods ourselves.

    Now, there’s a sentence. Good morning, you’re all too damn smart for your own good. That’s what they tell me often, so I’m saying the same for all who frequent this place.

    Why do you think men are alcoholics? Because everything is fucked, and in order to make sense of it one needs remove rationale, logic, & reason, and instead learn to perforce perceive thinking via feeling, as per the tendencies of the masses marching to the new of their gravestone’s dying flower’s hues idea many years away.

    So the good news is, we’re all fucked, and we’ve been fucked over for thousands of years. The bad news – we are hyper-vigilantly aware of the News’s noose-grip on our taught-to-crave oxytocin addicted hormonally & pheremonally eradic decaying operative functional abilities as defined & delineated by who we choose to think we aught be taught by due to Where we see they acquired Authority to admit to themselves their value over Us, as the others who freely listen, engage, indulge, disparage, relay, rely upon, say Nay while playing Yay, & eventually chimerically marry in a chemical wedding of mythopoeic lore, as each of us a Christian Rosenkreutz designs our secret chiefs ancient hidden grave.

    The only truth is in fiction & in dreams. Everything else is a loop.

    I appreciate being able to rant this way, this moment. Doubtful anyone will get anything out of it but myself.

    Free Will is the awareness of not having it.

  26. Equalism is not “the religion of feminism”.
    Feminism is a women’s advocacy movement, and having successfully eliminated social and legal discrimination against women in Western society, it not seeks to maintain social and legal privileges enjoyed by women.
    Equalism is, by definition, gender neutral.
    Feminists are not Equalists.

  27. Not even that. Feminists want neither, though they use outcome-based measurements when it suits their purpose. They want to maintain the set of privileges they enjoy.
    I guess I’m just trying to protect the term “Equalism” from being co-opted by feminists as the word “feminism” becomes more and more tarnished.

  28. Genetic (and neural) manipulation will ‘raise’ us above our biological limitations.

    I am all for becoming a walking, talking, ageless, information processing, euphoric, overachieving transhuman. With relaxed confidence, smart humour, 5-digit IQ and EQ, creativity and having a Greek-God body.

    Living in a world with females engineered to be insatiably horny.

    This might take 3000 years though, until then, all we got is Game.

  29. I agree with you mostly but the thing I have trouble accepting with regards to the red pill or game is that the exact point you are making here applies to everyone, not just women.

    ‘People don’t like to think that they are not in control of their lives.’

    Men who get laid less than others are no exception.

    In fact, game has arisen as an attempt to control this situation.

    You can change your habits and behaviors but you can’t fundamentally change your personality. So game can only ever be a facade. It can only ever be person A trying to act like person B. And that gets to the core moral issue of game.

    It’s always been just another system of control. Just another myth given to people frustrated with reality to give them the illusion of control.

    To act as anything other than what you are is to admit that you are not good enough. It’s an enclosed low self-esteem and inferioirty loop that is impossible to get out of by anyone who subscribes to it.

    It also begs the question: if you’re not being yourself, how can you ever find anyone that loves you?

    No. I can’t play game.

  30. Pingback: Peak Hypergamy |
  31. Pingback: Sugar Babies |

Speak your mind

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s