The Second Set of Books

books

One of the cornerstones of red pill truth is in men coming to terms with what amounts to (in most cases) half a lifetime of feminine conditioning. It’s interesting to consider that there was a time (pre-sexual revolution) when a man wasn’t in someway socialized and acculturated in his upbringing to give deference to the feminine or to become more feminine-identifying. There are plenty of other manosphere bloggers who’ll run down in detail all of the many ways boys are now raised and educated to be what a feminine-primary world would like them to be, but at the heart of it is a presumption that boys should be raised and conditioned to be more like girls; conditioned from their earliest memories to be better providers for what women believe they will eventually want them to be as adult ‘men’.

For men who’ve become aware of this conditioning through some trauma or personal crisis that prompted him to seek answers for his condition, we call this period our blue pill days. I think it’s important to make a distinction about this time – whether or not a man is Alpha or Beta doesn’t necessarily exclude him from the consequences of a blue pill conditioning. That isn’t to say that a more natural Alpha Man can’t see the world in a red pill perspective by his own means, but rather that his feminine-primary upbringing doesn’t necessarily make a man Alpha or Beta.

The Blue Pill Alpha

I’m making this distinction because there is school of thought that being blue pill (unaware of one’s conditioning) necessitates him being more Beta. To be sure, feminine-primary conditioning would raise a boy into a more feminine-pliable man – ready to serve as the good Beta provider when a woman’s SMV declines and she’s less able to compete with her younger sexual competitors.

However, there exist more Alpha Men also conditioned to be servants of the Feminine Imperative. These men make for some of the most self-evincing White Knights you’ll ever meet and are usually the first men to “defend the honor” of the feminine and women for whom they lack a real awareness of. Binary absolutism and an upbringing steeped in feminization makes for a potent sense of self-righteousness. Blue pill Alphas live for the opportunity to defend everything their conditioning has taught them. To the blue pill Alpha all women are victims by default, all women share a common historic suffrage and any man (his sexual competitors) critical of the feminine are simply an opportunity to prove his worth to any woman in earshot who might at all find his zealousness attractive.

The Second Set of Books

On June 15th, 2011, Thomas Ball set himself on fire in front of Cheshire Superior Court in New Hampshire. While I strongly disagree with his decision to self-immolate, I understand his sentiment. In last week’s Possession, Living Tree attempted to call me to the carpet about how a man might come to the conclusion of suicide or murder once he’d become confronted with a total loss of all his personal and emotional investment in life:

But Rollo, you just justified murder as “logical”, by illustrating that insecurity is the prime motivator for this man’s life (and many others, I’d imagine). The decision may have be understandable in an empathetic sense, and he might have seen it as logical at the time, but there is nothing logical about it. You are making extreme beta-ism seem more and more like a mental disorder.

Just for the record, I’d argue that ONEitis, however extreme, is in fact a mental disorder.

I haven’t justified anything, murder or suicide, I’ve simply outlined the deductive process men use when confronting the actualized loss of their most important investment (or perceptually so) in life. They are convinced and conditioned to believe that women are playing by a set of rules and will honor the terms of those rules, only to find that after ego-investing themselves for a lifetime in the correctness and appropriateness of those rules does he discover in cruel and harsh terms that women are playing by another set of rules and wonder at how stupid he could be to have ever believed in the rules he was conditioned to expect everyone would abide by.

Suicide or murder is certainly a deductive and pragmatic end for some men, but by no means is it justified. Thomas Ball, for all of his due diligence in uncovering the ugly processes of the American divorce industry, was far more useful alive than dead in some symbolic suicide. He wasn’t the martyr he probably expected he’d be, he’s just a footnote.

For all of that, Thomas Ball and his last message to humanity serves as an excellent illustration of a man coming to terms with his own conditioning. In his message Ball makes a very important observation about his legal ordeals. He comes to understand that there are two sets of books rather than the one he’d been lead to believe that everyone understood as ‘the rules’ everyone should play by.

The confusion you have with them is you both are using different sets of books. You are using the old First Set of Books- the Constitution, the general laws or statutes and the court ruling sometime call Common Law. They are using the newer Second Set of Books. That is the collection of the policy, procedures and protocols. Once you know what set of books everyone is using, then everything they do looks logical and upright.

Ball was of course making a political statement in his account of going through the legal system and the cruel education he got in the process, but when men transition from their comfortable blue pill perspective into the harsh reality that the red pill represents, the experience is a lot like Ball discovering that the set of books (the set of rules) he’d believed everyone was using wasn’t so. Likewise, men who’ve been conditioned since birth to believe that women were using a common set of rules – a set where certain expectations and mutual exchange were understood – were in fact using their own set. Furthermore these men ‘just didn’t get it’ that they should’ve known all along that women, as well as men’s feminization conditioning, were founded in a second set of books.

In and of itself, this is a difficult lesson for young men to learn and disabuse themselves of before they’ve invested their most productive years into what their blue pill conditioning has convinced them they can expect from life and women. However, when a mature man, who’s based the better part of his life and invested his future into the hope that the first set of books is actually legitimate set is disenfranchised by the second set of books, by the actual set of rules he’s been playing with, that’s when all of the equity he believed he’d established under the first set of books counts for nothing. Literally his life (up to that point) counted for nothing.

When faced with the prospect of rebuilding himself after living so long under false pretenses, after having all he believed he was building turn up to be a lifetime of wasted effort, he’s faced with two real options. Recreate himself or destroy himself. Needless to say suicide statistics among men are a strong indication that the majority of men (Betas) simply don’t have the personal strength to recreate themselves. Thomas Ball didn’t.

There’s usually a lot of disillusionment that comes with making the transition to Red Pill awareness. I’ve written more than a few posts about the stages of grief and acceptance that come along with that transition. Guy’s get upset that what they now see was really there all along, but it’s not so much the harshness of seeing red pill dynamics in women or a feminized society play out with such predictability, it’s the loss of investment that cause the real sense of nihilism. When I wrote Anger Management, the overarching reason most men experienced what they called a righteous anger, wasn’t at how the second set of books had been dictating their lives for so long, but rather it was anger at having invested so much of themselves in the first set of books and losing that very long term investment.

The good news is you can rebuild yourself. A lot gets written about how nihilistic the red pill is, but this is for a lack of understanding that you can recreate yourself for the positive with the knowledge of both sets of rules. One common thread I see come up often on the Red Pill Reddit forum is how Game-awareness has completely destroyed a guy’s world view. I get it, I realize it’s a hard realization, but their depression is only for a lack of realizing that they can become even better in this new understanding than they were in their blue pill ignorance.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

372 comments on “The Second Set of Books

  1. An existential need does not constitute a valid claim against the life of another.

    Why would anyone care what you consider a “valid claim?” Why would anyone care that you think you have a “valid claim” to your own life?

  2. The baby requires someone, (or something, children raised by animals in the wild have been documented after all, they even grow a thin coat of fur, something or other to do with persistent near-malnourishment) to be responsible for it, otherwise it will die, but that on it’s own does not make it inherently someone’s responsibility. Just because someone or something has needs does not guarantee nor compel that they will be met, which is implied in the statement “A baby simply is someone’s responsibility.”

    For a baby to continue being a baby and not a dead pile flesh, it “requires someone to be responsible for it.” You admit a differentiating characteristic between a “baby” and “dead pile of flesh” is that a “baby” is someone’s responsibility.

  3. In the blue pill days, I found it satisfying to be a “white knight” of sorts, helping out, being an altruistic good guy. I now think this came from an underlying belief in “social equity” like Rollo’s “relationship equity” — thinking that it was a long-term investment in institutions and society.

    Of course, it was bound for the same sort of disappointment as can be found in a relationship, because the expected reciprocity is not there (anymore?). Your reward for a life of toil in the service of what’s good and true is to be taken behind the shed by your cold eyed woman, shot and ground into pet food. Likewise, expecting reciprocity for your putative investment in society is pointless, since the institutions have their manuals which are written with a vast cool indifference to such ideas or, for that matter, your fate.

  4. “Why would anyone care what you consider a ‘valid claim?’ Why would anyone care that you think you have a ‘valid claim’ to your own life?”

    I haven’t a damn for what others care about. If others seek to enforce a claim against my life, well then as the T-shirt says “molon labe.”

    I’d be rather more content with, and much less hostile toward, a good faith effort to negotiate my “at will” cooperation.

  5. “Chigurh prior to killing Wells asks “If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?””

    The rejoinder is, “Your actions here are utterly meaningless, simply some patterns of a few electrons for a short time in a vast, unending sea of them; whether you kill me or not, you will be utterly forgotten along with all your deeds; by leading this life, you are merely showing that you are clinging to some futile, indeed banal, idea of power and significance.”

  6. From Anthem:

    “I am. I think. I will.

    My hands . . . My spirit . . . My sky . . . My forest . . . This earth of mine. . . .

    What must I say besides? These are the words. This is the answer.

    I stand here on the summit of the mountain. I lift my head and I spread my arms. This, my body and spirit, this is the end of the quest. I wished to know the meaning of things. I am the meaning. I wished to find a warrant for being. I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction.

    It is my eyes which see, and the sight of my eyes grants beauty to the earth. It is my ears which hear, and the hearing of my ears gives its song to the world. It is my mind which thinks, and the judgment of my mind is the only searchlight that can find the truth. It is my will which chooses, and the choice of my will is the only edict I must respect.

    Many words have been granted me, and some are wise, and some are false, but only three are holy: “I will it!”

    Whatever road I take, the guiding star is within me; the guiding star and the loadstone which point the way. They point in but one direction. They point to me.

    I know not if this earth on which I stand is the core of the universe or if it is but a speck of dust lost in eternity. I know not and I care not. For I know what happiness is possible to me on earth. And my happiness needs no higher aim to vindicate it. My happiness is not the means to any end. It is the end. It is its own goal. It is its own purpose.

    Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars.

    I am a man. This miracle of me is mine to own and keep, and mine to guard, and mine to use, and mine to kneel before!”

  7. Have you read the Fountainhead yet badpainter?

    If you haven’t check it out. It gives you a window into Ayn Rand and what Objectivism is really about.

  8. That little speech points out that Chigurh’s finger-wagging nihilism (scolding Wells before he kills him) is merely a way of trying to show his own opinions and acts have significance and power; perhaps he imagines himself a grim reaper, who knows, but as a nihilist he should know this too is futile and meaningless.

  9. Re: Ayn Rand

    I’ve read everything she’s written. I find Anthem to be the best encapsulation of Objectivism. Though I have a special fondness for Francisco’s speech on money in Atlas Shrugged, Anthem is most readable of her works IMO. As her uber-Alpha heroes go I prefer Howard Roarke to John Galt.

  10. “Of course, [belief in social equity] was bound for the same sort of disappointment”

    PS. To follow up on myself, hardly a new observation even if it felt that way; was Kafka first in articulating this for the modern, bureaucratic, post-christian age?

  11. @ Glengarry

    Maybe it makes more sense within the context of the story. I am unsure what the lines refer to.

    Was Well’s just being ironic?

  12. Is it fair to call you an objectivist?

    Yes, with the lower case “o” my religious views are in conflict with the orthodox Objectivists.

    “How do you read the lead female in the fountainhead?”

    Dominique Francon is the epitome of unmitigated hypergamy, with the notable characteristic of her being honest* about it. Of course She’s a 10 so she can get away with it.

    Tooey’s niece is typical of spinning hamster hypergamy, with the usual self deception, but then she’s only a 6. Interesting that this character translates so well into modern America.

    * “honest” as a woman understands the concept.

  13. Have you seen what Rand thinks about the fictional novel?

    Given that she was the author of The Fountainhead, what does Francon say about Rand?

    What does Rand consider the highest expression of a man’s evaluative ability?

  14. “Have you seen what Rand thinks about the fictional novel?”

    Best explained by in The Romantic Manifesto when she discusses Hugo vs.Tolstoy. Art, in this case literature, should have positive sense of life. She hates degenerate art. Her understanding of is degenerate is extreme to be sure, given what passes for art these days I find myself agreeing with her more and more

    “Given that she was the author of The Fountainhead, what does Francon say about Rand?”

    Rand writes in Jungian archetypes. Her characters are anthropomorphized ideas not people. Highly idealistic, and very Redpill.

    Francon the publisher, I assume you’re asking about, represents a misanthropic Alpha. A sort of flip side of Andrei Taganov. Francon lacks virtue he’s a bad capitalist. His editorial choices are to the detriment of society, and commercially suicidal. Compare to Andrei who is amazingly virtuous but uses those virtues in a misguided service to evil, ultimately to his own detriment. Andrei found out about the second set of books when the put him against the wall.Francon published the second set of book.

    What does Rand consider the highest expression of a man’s evaluative ability?

    His ability to love.

  15. @Badpainter

    Are you shitting me? No, I’m not talking about Gail Wyland or Dominique’s father. I’m talking Dominique Francon, the female lead in the book. What does her path in the book reveal about Rand. Given that your interpretation of Rand is, “art, in this case literature, should have positive sense of life,” what does Domique’s path reveal about Rand?

    His ability to love.

    Specifically, what? She was very clear about this.

  16. @Anonymous Reader – for some reason I’m reminded of the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail: “Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I’m being oppressed!” Don’t take my levity as anything personal, I’m simply pissing myself laughing.

    @Different T (DifferentTree?) – I smell a successful diversion/reframing away from some hypothetical dead-mass-of-flesh baby. So now we’re no longer beating that nonexistent dead horse. But really, is this any better or more relevant to the blogpost? Wait, don’t answer – I’m using logic, that’s not relevant to how you feeeeeel.

    @Badpainter – thank you for your painful illustration of the destruction of civic virtues and male spaces. You are quite correct, that is how it is done. In fact if we look at the fiasco which has been the comments of the last few posts – including and especially this post – we can see it occurring in real-time gory action.

    For example, I cannot recall ever seeing @RT doing his nut in the comments like he did towards LivingTree. I cannot recall from the top of my head him ever swearing at a commenter before. LT somehow managed to sleaze her way under his skin to the point where she got her dose of troll-attention-validation: the selfish and self-centred narcissist got her attention-fix from the highest source possible, uber-heroin.

    Even @GeishaKate did her parting-shot of: “I’m off to work even though I should be staying at home sick. Hey, its what responsible, working people do. Its what I’ve been doing all my life.” Thus she attempts to paint herself as a brave, strong, responsible person after being called out (and caught out) as engaging in shaming behaviour, being condescending, incapable of truly relating, and without a real clue on the subject of men.

    Yes, I’m calling you out on it woman. Nobody else has taken it on themselves to look like they’re beating on a “poor, defenceless woman” after that remark so I will. Keep your slyly subliminal sub-rosa victimhood away from us – we probably won’t catch it very often, yet it occasionally happens that you will run across someone wise to it. Or who is paying attention at the moment.

    I’m undecided whether you are a Cawing Crow – or perhaps a Meritorious Metricious. For anyone who is curious as to the reference, it’s from A Guide To Birdwatching In The Manosphere. Google it if interested.

    In some ways though, all these comments do illustrate The Second Set Of Books. The blogpost overall is encapsulated in our comments. It’s surreal how we are all, in responding to these trolls/commenters, shining a light precisely upon our use of the first set of books while they are using the second set of books.

    PS: I am starting to think that whenever we swear at a woman it validates her. It shows her that she’s gotten under our skin and stuck the needle in deep. Like when you’re dealing with some BPD/HPD/NPD types, there is a moment at which you might catch a creepy little smile on her face. It’s at that instant that she knows she’s got you, you will always from that point be in the wrong. This is how a lot of men get caught, bound up in legal knots.

    Like LivingTree managing to get RT swearing at her. She got her rocks off at pissing off the owner/writer of the blog, WOOO, she’s important now.

    I’m also thinking of the controversy of the RoK articles that pissed off millions of people worldwide. When you piss off that many people you’re probably doing it right. When a single troll manages to piss off the owner – I am undecided on the dynamic. Though my gut says that it is not good.

  17. “Are you shitting me?”

    Shitting you? Fuck off.

    I suppose I could resort to the power of the googles and play this game, but instead I am working with seven year old memories, and the damn book to get the names. Yes, I confused the characters. You’ll get over it.

    “I’m talking Dominique Francon, …what does Domique’s path reveal about Rand?”

    Dominique’s path is from hopeless to happy. Rand is ultimately an optimist, and more than a bit of a romantic.

    “Specifically, what? She was very clear about this.”

    Romantic love as the highest ideal. A man love’s what is best in a woman by her virtue of values and her fidelity to those values. A woman loves a man out of admiration for his values as expressed through his accomplishments. Ironically it’s the same story in the Book of Ruth.

    So what’s the point to all this?

  18. Objectivism is a very useful case study in the use of philosophy and ideology.

    For those who have no frame of reference regarding The Fountainhead, the relevant story is as follows.

    Howard Roarke is a successful architect who becomes disillusioned with society’s valuation of architecture. Instead of bowing to societal pressure, he quits and goes to work as a manual laborer. While there he meets his boss’s daughter Dominique Francon. Francon is attracted to him but disregards him as beneath her.

    Eventually, Roarke goes back to work as an architect and designs the greatest building the city has seen in quite sometime. At the party for the building’s opening, he again meets Dominique. This time, she is quite impressed. While alone, he tells Dominique how he thinks about society in general.

    They then have sex.

    She thinks he is wonderful, but doomed to failure because society will crush him. He pleads with her to stand by him, but she says no.

    Roarke then goes about his life alone as an architect. Dominique marries a newspaper mogul, Gail Wyland, who bows to societal pressure and publishes articles which pander to the public.

    Wyland is very wealthy and decides he wants to build a house and have it built by the best architect he can find, Howard Roarke. The moment Roarke walks in, it ignites the old emotions between Roarke and Dominique. In the meantime, Roarke begins to influence Wyland towards becoming a “rationally self interested” person.

    Roarke is also tasked (in a round about way) with creating the next great project in the city. He designs the best building he can create on the condition that it is built to his exact specifications. The owners and financiers bow to public pressure to “dumb the design down.” In response, Roarke sabotages the construction. He is then put on trial for criminal acts. This entire time, Dominique and Wyland are growing closer to Roarke.

    Wyland decides he must defend his friend and throws all his power behind Roarke. The public does not agree and all of Wyland’s social capital is spent. He views himself as ruined. In a moment of despair, he commits suicide, leaving Dominique a widow.

    At the trial Roarke delivers an Oscar-winning speech and is freed.

    He goes on to be a great architect……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….with Dominique as his new wife.

  19. Dominique’s path is from hopeless to happy. does not mesh with Dominique Francon is the epitome of unmitigated hypergamy

    What did Rand’s fantasy do to the male (Wyland) who began as an your “misanthropic alpha,” began a conversion towards Rand’s “rational self-interest,” and found out “rational self-interest” is not all roses?

    What did Rand’s fantasy do with the female who completely disregarded her values in favor of materialism and societal approval? She fucks the “rationally self-interested” male, marries the wealthy “misantropic alpha,” and within a short span the “misanthropic alpha” is removed from the picture so she can begin her life with the newly society-approved “rationally self-interested” male.

    Again, this was Rand’s fantasy that “should have positive sense of life!”

    Romantic love as the highest ideal.

    Specifically, But, in fact, a man’s sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions. Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself.

    That’s right, little bitch, the female you fuck is the epitome of your evaluative abilities in the fantasy-land termed objectivism.

    Again, At some point you may realize that these manosphere sites are currently just as much a part of a rebellion against order among people as their so called enemies. It is understandable as these males are understandably jaded by the use of authority and social pressure in their past. However, the response of “overwriting or re-purposing by ideology” their ability to serve is very similar to a young female who, after being molested, purposely gains weight or similar so males will find her unattractive. Fortunately for the these disordered males, there are plenty of fatty-fuckers who will whisper sweet nothings in their ear and give their life a purpose, if only for fleeting moments.

  20. Here we come to the paradox, the cleft stick.

    If we ignore these types we validate them: “Hur hur you couldn’t refute what I said! Therefore I am right!” Validation achieved.

    If we engage these types we validate them: we give them attention that they crave, even when they’re obviously wrong from our perspective. The process of engaging typically ends in this manner:

    Eventually we either swear at them (validation because we’ve been knocked down from our superior intellectual position and lost our cookies emotionally), give up in disgust (validation because we’ve been worn down therefore our position was obviously wrong), or just stop responding to them (validation because of the above).

    No matter what we do, validation achieved.

    Or a fourth dynamic of engagement is that if she decides that she likes you, she might – just might – let you persuade her to your point of view. Thus proving NAWALT. Be especially wary of this one, she’s actually predatory. (Google for the PDF or ePub of The Predatory Female – you know you want to.)

    Now you think that she’s actually sensible and will interact with her on a regular basis. Validation achieved.

    No matter what, we are caught in the paradox that no matter what we do arguing-wise, she wins. Validation achieved.

    So we begin to see the sense of these men simply walking away from this garbage. Life a constant argument with the entitled and spoiled child. He wanders off to go do his own thing, ignoring the noisy chorus of argument and shrieking and bleating.

    Because these are the women who just don’t get it. They’re too conditioned into their entitled mindset to ever get it. No matter how smart they are. They are intolerable and he decides that they’re not worth tolerating in the slightest. He’d rather be alone – and they hate him for it.

    He gets strong and tough and sure of himself. Maybe a little quirky. He finds that it isn’t all bad, being alone. It has many joys in and of itself. Then an odd duck comes wandering along, one that is actually tolerable. In some ways she’s quite refreshing. He lets her stick around.

    She gets it. Validation achieved.

  21. Ayn Rand in “Of Living Death”

    I consider marriage a very important institution, but it is important when and if two people have found the person with whom they wish to spend the rest of their lives—a question of which no man or woman can be automatically certain. When one is certain that one’s choice is final, then marriage is, of course, a desirable state. But this does not mean that any relationship based on less than total certainty is improper. I think the question of an affair or a marriage depends on the knowledge and the position of the two persons involved and should be left up to them. Either is moral, provided only that both parties take the relationship seriously and that it is based on values.

    From wikipedia

    The affair lasted until the publication of Atlas Shrugged in 1957, after which, according to Branden, Rand became depressed, and the affair, practically speaking, ended.[19]

    Branden reports that Rand remained psychologically dependent on him after this period, and eventually began pushing for a resumption of their affair; his own marriage, meanwhile, was deteriorating, although he and Barbara were becoming closer as friends.[19] Branden then met and fell in love with a student at NBI, Patrecia Scott (née Gullison). The two began an affair in 1964, shortly after which Nathaniel separated from Barbara and informed her of the affair.[21] He and Barbara kept the affair secret, fearing Rand’s explosive anger.[22] In 1968, Rand learned of the affair, and, in response, violently condemned both Brandens, dissociated herself from them, and denounced them publicly

  22. Full text from wikipedia

    Branden married Barbara Weidman in 1953, with Rand and Rand’s husband Frank O’Connor in attendance. Branden would later state the marriage was unwise, and troubled from the beginning.[19] In the context of these troubles, and Rand’s reported frustrations in her own marriage, Branden and Rand—who had a passionate philosophic bond—developed amorous feelings for each other, and, with the reluctant permission of their spouses, began a love affair in 1954.[20][19] The affair lasted until the publication of Atlas Shrugged in 1957, after which, according to Branden, Rand became depressed, and the affair, practically speaking, ended.[19]

    Branden reports that Rand remained psychologically dependent on him after this period, and eventually began pushing for a resumption of their affair; his own marriage, meanwhile, was deteriorating, although he and Barbara were becoming closer as friends.[19] Branden then met and fell in love with a student at NBI, Patrecia Scott (née Gullison). The two began an affair in 1964, shortly after which Nathaniel separated from Barbara and informed her of the affair.[21] He and Barbara kept the affair secret, fearing Rand’s explosive anger.[22] In 1968, Rand learned of the affair, and, in response, violently condemned both Brandens, dissociated herself from them, and denounced them publicly.

  23. Again, At some point you may realize that these manosphere sites are currently just as much a part of a rebellion against order among people as their so called enemies. It is understandable as these males are understandably jaded by the use of authority and social pressure in their past. However, the response of “overwriting or re-purposing by ideology” their ability to serve is very similar to a young female who, after being molested, purposely gains weight or similar so males will find her unattractive. Fortunately for the these disordered males, there are plenty of fatty-fuckers who will whisper sweet nothings in their ear and give their life a purpose, if only for fleeting moments.

  24. You’re being repetitive.

    Which is dull, and tiresome.

    Wipe the froth off your chin, it’s undignified. Have some self respect.

  25. @ Eris – I didn’t realize Different T was a woman too – that explains a lot about the tedious word parsing and insistence upon equivalence between the manosphere and feminists. I’m glad to hear that I’m not the only one who sees these comments in this way. Although I found Kate’s response more of the same. She claims to of course understand why I might feel that way, but then immediately offers to have experienced “some” of it. Really? She knows what it’s like to be told that her only value was in serving her wife and children? That she had to be tough and be a fighter? That her suffering was to be ignored and in many cases openly scorned – as it is for men? To have a new dad replace her with her as a father figure to her child? To live in a world where women’s priorities and perspectives have been shoved down her throat for her entire life? And after all that to be told she’s an oppressor? I think not.

    And then she has to put me in a different category “the over 50 crowd” (I’m 51). I’m no different than any other guy, I was just chewed up by this shit longer than others here. That’s all. If I was 49, could she help? I took this as just another way of disposing of me. Fyi, it’s very eye opening to see how disposable older men are to some women, especially as I went through an illness and tough financial times after mostly being the opposite up till the past couple of years. I look a bit worse for wear and put on a little weight, and don’t have flash cash and clothes – and I think if I was on fire, most women wouldn’t throw their Soy half-caf lattes on me to put it out.

    But again, it’s such a relief to see through it all. To not be maddened by their constant assertion of their perspective as something I’m axiomatically supposed to find relevant. I’ll tell you the truth, as I’m through keeping my mouth shut, most of the arguments and analysis presented by the women on this thread are pretty superficial and simplistic. Just like much of the logic presented by feminists – it’s laughable when you scrape the surface. Each of them has taken a very simple bromide and made a career out of it on this thread – and it’s not clever or interesting.

    One of the really harsh things I’ve had to get my head around is how parochial most women are and how poorly developed their critical thinking skills are. I often wonder what I was so impressed by and interested in for all those years now. My game now? My health has returned and I’m getting fit and my finances are coming roaring back as I’m supporting just me for the first time since I was 25. I’m young looking, still have most of my hair and after a few months in the gym I’ll be able to pass for 40. I think I’ve got a few good years left of banging youngish hotties – so I’m going to use all this game stuff to my advantage. Rollo’s “amused mastery” was how I got the last 28 yr old cutie and I think I’ve got a few good turns left in me. Kate at 35 might be a bit of a stretch as there is just something so great about a woman under 30 – maybe it’s just that they smell better? That 30+ stank makes a little puke come up the back of my throat…

  26. Glenn- “there is just something so great about a woman under 30”

    It’s the hair. To many dye jobs, and other chemicals, loses it’s luster and resiliency a bit with each passing year. Might also account for the “stank.”

  27. Is Rollo’s wisdom subliminal? In the last paragraph, he channeled Jordan Belfort though this is not reflected in the comments.

    In case it was invisible, here’s the clear Anthem from the post:

    The good news is you can rebuild yourself. A lot gets written about how nihilistic the red pill is, but this is for a lack of understanding that you can recreate yourself for the positive with the knowledge of both sets of rules. One common thread I see come up often on the Red Pill Reddit forum is how Game-awareness has completely destroyed a guy’s world view. I get it, I realize it’s a hard realization, but their depression is only for a lack of realizing that they can become even better in this new understanding than they were in their blue pill ignorance.

    Now, Live in Certainty, Clarity, Courage – Do not let fear stop you!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8FYZNu-0T4

    “Where focus goes, energy flows.”~Jordan Belfort

  28. @Glenn: The reference to your age was one of deference (my fiance is 58), but if you are going to insist on seeing an insult where there was none, it would be rude of me to invalidate your feelings 🙂

  29. All I recall from Anthem was the ending: the couple had escaped into a house in the woods full of books and they just sat together and read. Sounds familiar 🙂

  30. @infowarrior1

    That piece on equality blows.

    It further enhances the illusion that gender is an engineering problem.

    Bring on the androids. Then will the androids be equal?

  31. Different T: It has long been my belief that machines will not “take over” in the ordinary sense, rather that humans will become the machines themselves. Medical and technological advances are leading in this direction. Rather than continue to be separate entities, I believe we will, at some point in the future, completely merge with our technological devices.

  32. A monk asked Kegon, “How does an enlightened one return to the ordinary world?” Kegon replied, “A broken mirror never reflects again; fallen flowers never go back to the old branches.”
    ~Zen koan

    “Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth.”
    ~Henry David Thoreau

  33. Re: her game vs his game. Keep in mind that since behavior-wise a woman’s best approach to signal sexual availablitiy is the directest (“Come and get it”), then any sort of complicating factors is a sort of her-game to rebuff sexual advances i.e. shit testing. His game is designed to slither around shit testing, one reason being that if she is saying “Come and get it” to him then no actual his-game is needed: the fruit has already fallen into his hand without further effort.

    A prime example of her-game, i.e. shit testing, is for a woman to see whether a man will let himself be treated as a girl by being roped into a she said she said discussion “Did you know Susie told me Janey said Sean was after Jill? No? Then you ask Susie, since Janey will lie. No, don’t ask Sean directly.” Compliance testing by women is ALWAYS for rebuffing i.e. making a sexual relationship more difficult. In contrast, compliance testing by men is for making a sexual relationship easier.

  34. @Jeremy

    It’s your choice what you want to do with your time.

    When I see Kate, LyingTree and women’s wall of text, I skip through the whole lot.
    When I see a beta male replying to women’s wall of text with another wall of text, I skip through the whole lot.

  35. As noted above, another classic article by Rollo. Wow, this stuff is insightful. I didn’t get through all these posts — 250 or so, showing how great this article is. I read Glenn’s story, hang in there. I’ve done the “good soldier” thing all too often, only to get sh-t on my people I thought were close to me.I’m around Glenn’s age, and I work with youth in a counseling position and I’m in the schools, where it’s female dominated in numbers and mentality. I try each day to encourage boys to become men, to become courageous and to advocate for themselves. I use a little Rational Male every day. The philosophies on this site are very important, and yes, often life-saving. Thanks again for the wise words, Rollo.

  36. Nihilism is the belief that your choices don’t matter. In my view nihilism is neither “red” nor “blue” pill, though it isn’t uncommon to see Pied Pipers use the Trojan Horse of the red pill to try to draw hurting people into their nihilism, and then over the cliff that nihilism takes them.

    When all sentiments, theology and culture are stripped away, when all you have left are the bare knuckles and brass tacks, when you get done arguing over the incomprehensible stupidity of whether it even matters that “existence is not a quality” (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116251/best-arguments-gods-existence-dont-challenge-atheists), then you are left with the bare naked bones of the fact that all we have, and all we are, are choices.

    Heave on against God and the gods all you want: He, She and they can’t hear you!

    But – you can live in a way that brings beneficence to those around you, and to the degree that fate has favored you so, to yourself. That is enough. Nothing else is necessary for it to “matter”.

    It is possible for you to create bubbles of beneficence around you, where people inside your bubble get a little bit of heaven in the existence that’s granted them.

    Choose to make beneficence – or choose that your choices do not matter. The choice is yours.

  37. “Guys get upset that what they now see was really there all along, but it’s not so much the harshness of seeing red pill dynamics in women or a feminized society play out with such predictability, it’s the loss of investment that cause the real sense of nihilism.”

    Oh the years we waste and the tears we waste
    And the work of our head and hand,
    Belong to the woman who did not know
    (And now we know that she never could know)
    And did not understand!

    http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/21089

  38. @glenn
    Lemme tell you man, reading your posts is like a breath of fresh air sir..
    I was one of those Men just like you, that was duped into believing lies based solely on conditioning. I believed my kindness would be reciprocated. Damn was I wrong…
    What gets me the most though sir, and whats hard to get past is the deliberate LIES about everything. It truly is what they can get away with vs what can I be honest about to further our relationship. It was a haaard pill to swallow. But one that provided great insight and power of mind once digested fully. Simply put, these women do NOT care about us, additionally, don’t really HAVE to. Fuck that now…
    I’ m honest w honest ppl. That’s it! I’m not angry, just don’t care. I don’t care about stupid people. Men or women.
    Thanks man for your comments bro… Keep the jewels droppin.

    Advice for the kids? Have your OWN shit. Your OWN apartment. Your OWN bank account (if married) If you live w a broad, have an apartment of your own that she knows NOTHING about. Offer NO opinions or objections to her plight. Be as coy and “hidden” as possible.
    Lesson learned..

  39. I used to be confused as to y when single mothers have kids early in life from the cock go round or beta breadwinner.. Then as the wall approaches, mid to late thirties, begin to resent said kids bc it interferes w their “nightlife”. Or the belief of it. They resent the responsibility that comes w having children. Screaming all day and cussing.
    Its a shame. Used to wonder y she even rejected my teachings…
    Don’t date single moms kids.! Friends only. Stay detached.

    I thank the world of manosphere for helping me understand why.

  40. Signor Tommassi, you’re very talented and intelligent writer. Could you enlighten us on the role of female victimization with regard to their “second set of books” rules? Are they always unwilling and romantic victims as our culture expects us to believe? Why are they always viewed as victims?

    Also, traditionally, i.e., in the oppressive patriarchic and religious societies, men are expected to protect women and children alike. But then I wonder: can feminists be viewed in the same context, because as I understand it, historically and traditionally men are expected to protect women who submit themselves to their protection. Usually, in such a context, it’s understood that it is mostly the protection of women as mothers. Or in other other words, it’s all about protection of the family unit and the special place that mammas have always had in the family unit, traditionally and historically. In other terms, we’re talking here about heterosexual and feminine women, who incite the protective instincts of males.

    Now let’s forward fast back into the future of a lot of our societies. Why are men supposed to protect say, feminists, if a feminist leader has stated that women need men as much as a fish needs a bycicle? Moreover, the same insane feminist encouraged women to wear t-shirts proudly proclaiming “I have made an abortion”. Yet she still thinks that women are oppressed. It’s puzzling how complacent we’ve become to “women”… or better feminists like. I wonder which would be the general reaction of some manosphere blog writer encouraging men to wear a t-shirt “Abort a feminist!”. It’s pretty clear to me: these feminists are criminals and psychopaths, and should be treated like that.

    Yet what do we see? A NYT editorial calling men to clean up the misogyny of the world. Sure it’s a task for all of us… at least for the honest and sane women and men alike. But if feminists don’t need men, we might at least count on them at the least to fight misogyny where it is needed. Perhaps we could save men’s lives and send them to fight the mysogynist terrorists and fundamentalists in Afeghanistan, Africa and other places where there is mysogyny. Why not? Perhaps they might make valiant warriors and prove everyone that they’re not just good enough to kill innocent babies and in the name of their “freedom” to do whatever they want (and blame men of course for all of their mistakes).

    Along these same lines of thought, and in reference to your pre-whipped article, I think that a logical conclusion is: if on a societal level boys have been pre-whipped (and still are) by female victimization, then it’s very plausible that on a societal level we’ve encouraged nascisism and megalomania in women. Which is the opposite of “pre-Whipped”? Pre-flattered? Pre-exalted? I believe this could some relationship with the so called “frivorces” and “divorce rapes” in the post-feminist world.

    I would like to know your thoughts on these issues. All the best.

  41. Additionally, I have also read somewhere that guys are sort of “emotional objects” of women “whores” or “jerks”. In other words, playing emotional games, manipulating, using attraction-rejection games, etc. especially when men are young and inexperienced is all about a kind of “emotional objectifying”, because it takes no regard for the subject’s (i.e., man’s) feelings. The difference being that men are not supposed to complain about and just accept that all of this part of women’s nature. I do not intend to generalize and I have known and met some very honest and straightforward women over the years. I just wish to point out to another “double standard”: women are allowed to complain about being “sexual objects” whereas men are whipped to conform and accept that it’s their duty to be “emotional objects”.

  42. As far as the nihilism thing goes and blue pill to red pill conversion, I just had a sudden flashback to how I felt after I read a story in high school: “Winter Dreams” by F. Scott Fitzgerald. That story blew a hole through me.

    ~*~*~*~*~*~*

    He had thought that having nothing else to lose he was invulnerable at last—but he knew that he had just lost something more, as surely as if he had married Judy Jones and seen her fade away before his eyes.

    The dream was gone. Something had been taken from him. In a sort of panic he pushed the palms of his hands into his eyes and tried to bring up a picture of the waters lapping on Sherry Island and the moonlit veranda, and gingham on the golf-links and the dry sun and the gold color of her neck’s soft down. And her mouth damp to his kisses and her eyes plaintive with melancholy and her freshness like a new fine linen in the morning. Why, these things were no longer in the world! They had existed and they existed no longer.

    For the first time in years the tears were streaming down his face. But they were for himself now. He did not care about mouth and eyes and moving hands. He wanted to care, and he could not care. For he had gone away and he could never go back any more. The gates were closed, the sun was gone down, and there was no beauty but the gray beauty of steel that
    withstands all time. Even the grief he could have borne was left behind in the country of illusion, of youth, of the richness of life, where his winter dreams had flourished.

    “Long ago,” he said, “long ago, there was something in me, but now that thing is gone. Now that thing is gone, that thing is gone. I cannot cry. I cannot care. That thing will come back no more.

  43. I’m really unclear on the specifics of this argument. I get what the two sets of books are in broad strokes, but I think LivingTree2013 raised a good question in her first comment that nobody ever answered (that I saw–it’s possible I missed it). Everyone seemed to fixate on who is responsible for the first set of rules existing, but nobody really illustrated what they are.

  44. but nobody really illustrated what they are.

    The concepts developed in “the first set of books” regard how a society deals with individuals who do not have the capacity to survive or make good on the liabilities they incur, even though they depend on said credit. Primarily, this refers to women and children, though it also includes many developing males. In other words, credit is given to protect and provision for women because they are expected to bear children. Credit is given to developing males because they are expected to become materially productive assets capable of providing credit. Credit is given to children because they will grow to either bear children or become materially productive assets.

    It would not make sense to hold a homeless person responsible for the debt of a random female. The society or law could, but the debt would not be repaid. It would not make sense to hold a child responsible for procuring his next meal in a society with property rights. The society or law could, but the child would likely just die.

    The recognition that this credit is needed, led to the recognition that those mentioned may never “make good” on the liabilities they incur. Therefore, someone who is capable of making good on those debts or able to incur the loss themself (and not externalize it onto society as a whole), must be held liable. Men who have the assets and capabilities to pay them back.

    Further, because this credit is extended on the basis that those recieveing it will grow to either bear children or become materially productive assets, certain rights where granted to those held liable.

    Everyone seemed to fixate on who is responsible for the first set of rules existing

    That is because it is very important for how you respond to those rules.

    Here is Rollo’s retarded, literally developmentally disabled, interpration of those events.

    So if men were ‘duped’ into believing in a “first set of rule’s” legitimacy, in the thinking it was their masculine due and/or masculine responsibility to invest themselves into something they believed the feminine would reward (much less appreciate) them for with intimacy or idealizations of love or an enduring legacy through family and children, which was doing the duping? Men themselves, or an overriding Feminine Imperative with the intent purpose and survival-level need of ensuring its own security and optimizing hypergamy?

  45. Re: specifics. The entire manosphere raison d’être, all Matrix analogies, alpha beta concepts, bad boy nice guy distinctions, every bit of everything we discuss on sites like this is founded on the specific observational evidence that women say one thing and do another especially regarding heterosexual relationships. Any elusive unclarity is due to the fact that rational thinking and verbal explanations are best employed in support of the first set of books. If you really need specific background, read Rollo’s magic-mirror funhouse explorations of the Feminine Imperative. The more general concept is basically Hobbesian social contract theory.

    The second set of books in general is nasty brutish and short, and specifically women’s feral second set of books is written in them by men’s pens. An illustration here ought to help settle in your mind what the second set comprises. Suppose a woman keeps a nice diary on her bedside table, pretty with a cream leather cover and violet embossed title My Diary, and she writes in it every day, her thoughts, her hopes for a nice man some day, her plans for 2.2 children, the first a girl with dark hair like her own. You get the picture. The second set of books comprises, in its entirety, the dozen notches on the other bedpost.

    As to who started it, civilization can be considered as having started when, after a fight, the six remaining beta cavemen with rocks in their hands, had finally surrounded the two remaining alpha cavemen, but six of the cavewomen were being voluntary human shields “You’ll have to kill me first before you harm him!”, two were elsewhere busy brewing poison in case the betas won, and eleven others were sprawled on the ground enjoying watching the fight. And the alphas gave up, and the women were divvied up more equally. The social contract is primarily a gentleman’s agreement engendered by technology of (relatively) mass destruction; the women, as history attests, have always been at best reluctant cosigners, marking their X on the book with the fingers of their other hand crossed behind their back.

  46. @Different T

    For a baby to continue being a baby and not a dead pile flesh, it “requires someone to be responsible for it.” You admit a differentiating characteristic between a “baby” and “dead pile of flesh” is that a “baby” is someone’s responsibility.

    I see you prefer a superficial reductive analysis.

    @infowarrior1

    “I define it as ‘equal under the law’”

    Does this take into account hierarchy and the respective duties and privileges thereof?

    It shouldn’t do, no. Murder, should be murder, regardless of how ‘privileged’ or ‘oppressed’ the person committing it is. Anything that aims to provide a ‘leg-up’ or ‘lower the bar to entry’ to a particular group because of historical oppression or lack of representation at the top spires of society will ultimately only benefit those who are already near the peak of society from those groups anyway, and should be resisted as the attempt to claw ever more cash and prizes for themselves that it is. For example middle/upper feminists using the experiences of poverty level women living among the feral underclass (or lumpenproletariat if you’re of a Marxist bent) as justification for doing away with the ‘glass ceiling’.

    Angry Harry as a great piece on equality:
    http://www.angryharry.com/esEqualityNotAchievable.htm

    An interesting link, he seems to take a Macro view of men and women as collectives within a democratic system, and takes into account how much power they’re therefore able to wield. I prefer to focus on the rights granted to individuals so that a person has the same level of rights, protections, and leeway as the person stood next to them. Though of course my vision is also likely impossible as it ignores power which can be used to leverage for more rights for themselves or to take away rights from others. As we’re already experiencing.

  47. The social contract is primarily a gentleman’s agreement engendered by technology of (relatively) mass destruction; the women, as history attests, have always been at best reluctant cosigners, marking their X on the book with the fingers of their other hand crossed behind their back.

    Again, your reinterpretation of history illustrates that you are stupid, or at best ignorant.

    You do not have access to the relevant conceptions, as those were developed in the legal, financial, and economic fields. Therefore, your reinterpretations utilize the concepts you do have access to regarding obligation, rights, and responsibilities. Conceptions which are basically similar to a bratty child or Western female.

  48. An admission, I could only get through the first page of comments, before actually making a comment myself …

    What I have witnessed over the past 12+ months of reading, learning, exploring this Manosphere/Red Pill corner of the interwebs is, it’s a bright light in the distance for Men that have opened their eyes and realized just how dark their world is. It’s like waking from a deep sleep, and you hear a noise in the other room – investigating it is the only available to you – you have to know where the noise is coming from, is it a threat or innocuous sound.

    If you could pan up, and getting a bigger view from the center of things, you’d noticed just how many Men on on the path to see this “bright light” – some are crawling, some are just slowing walking as in a daze, some are running – but all of them, from every direction, are moving to this light. And with each step, more clarity comes to them, they start seeing things they never thought they’d see, they hear things they never thought they’d hear, they feel things they never thought they’d feel. And at times, it is SO VERY uncomfortable, they have to turn away for a while, BUT the majority will eventually turn around and start moving towards the light.

    One of the things I’ve noticed along my own journey to the light, is that there will be people wanting you to stop, to wait, to come back – some use arguments, some get angry, some use shame, some use discouragement, other will try to use logic. All I can say, is stay the course, continue your journey – this is not just for each of us personally, but it also for those we love. It is bigger than one individual Man – it is for all Men.

    As Rollo said, Thomas Ball is footnote. I don’t know if being a footnote is that bad.

    The journey is hard, the road is long, but the destination is worth it.

  49. @Glenn @Westcoaster

    I’m also in the “Men of certain age” category. And when I read the stories, it is truly a “been there done that” moment for me.

  50. @Tin Man

    The journey is hard, the road is long, but the destination is worth it.

    What was your destination?

    Casting off unwarranted obligations and disillusioning yourself about the feminine imperative?

  51. @Different T

    It’s now a WAS, it’s and IS … to become fully aware. In my personal case (because it’s all a personal journey) to shed how I thought the world worked and fully understand how the world really works (and is working today). I’m not even a 10th of the way there yet.

  52. Regarding the link to the “Your Attention Please” post, another photo use props to you Rollo. That’s been an under rated one.

  53. Back to the topic and that presumption: “a presumption that boys should be raised and conditioned to be more like girls; conditioned from their earliest memories to be better providers for what women believe they will eventually want them to be as adult ‘men’.”

    For some reason I was flipping through the increasingly misnamed HUS (aka How Not To Hook Up) and the increasingly misnamed agoodmenproject, and it struck me that each and every article was specifically designed to promote that presumption, and viciously attacked (no defense possible) every questioning of that presumption. The purveyors of the Matrix really think they have all the bases covered, don’t they.

  54. When I first saw that goodanproject I said to myself, ” why have only women able to nominate somebody?”

    3 seconds later…

  55. “a presumption that boys should be raised and conditioned to be more like girls; conditioned from their earliest memories to be better providers for what women believe they will eventually want them to be as adult ‘men’.”

    Assumption (an explanation is not going to be provided): The heirarchy among men has been dissolved due to the quest for egalitarian ideals (understandable as the use of authority, etc. in the recent past has demanded some sort of response).

    Assumption (an explanation is not going to be provided): Women now have the ability to “barter” sexual access and externalize the bulk of the costs of poor decisions onto society as a whole.

    If women are in charge of access to a resource, they will judge who is granted access.

    The standard used, their adherence to that standard, the consistency of judgement are all peripheral concerns.

  56. Yeh go on then R., I give up.
    The pic at the head of the post.
    Over my head for deffo, that one.
    I finally got bored scrolling past the resident laydeetrolls’ slabs’o’grief, and rattled off a quick goog, “bombed out book shop wwII”. There’s something weird about the shoes, specifically the welt (could be DIY resole job), and the physique (even with rationing), so I assumed the figure would be foreign, say French, or a lesbian or something, but the hardcovers on the books are very un-continental (for that time). Apparently not. Just found a bigger, more original version and the titles are clearly English.

    So I’m baffled, unless you’re referring to the comment below result #5, or to result #7.

  57. “who are pissed because women want the same treatment as men”

    Women don’t want the same treatment as men. Correctly put, women want the same treatment as the best men; look up the availability heuristic and the apex fallacy. Sure there are a lot of men who make more money that women, but there are also more men who make *less* money than women (there are more homeless men than homeless women). This is in essence the availability heuristic: when you picture the so-called typical male, what comes to mind isn’t actually typical. It’s the atypical; the apex.

  58. Isn’t it women want the same beneficial treatment as men but want the same beneficial protection as women?

    @Tam
    Think the picture is about various situational requirements that women will say you as a man are supposed to be are vast enough to fill numerous amounts of books. And at the same time requiring how you’re supposed to be means setting things up for what they can get away with.
    So if you put them all down in writing, they’d spill out on to the street. After all, if you’re set on maximizing your own outcome, you’ll never run out of situations where you could come up with a new rule. Didn’t work in your favor, wait a minute, new rule that says players shall have the option….
    Maybe the fact that it’s bomb out alludes to it being mind blowing upon discovery. Or to blowing it open, like a safe or discovering a hidden tomb.

  59. @BlackPoisonSoul

    I think a lot of men give these women attention on the forum because they still haven’t truly grasped why they’re here.

    Some of them are more cunning/persistent than others, they’ll pretend like they’re somehow on the same team (oxymoron) or worse, deign to give unsolicited advice as if their input is of any real value to the men here.

    No different than the way they infiltrate any male activity to get the attention whore fix or to slowly eat away at the establishment to dilute any masculinity and gain control. Around these parts its just a lot of vapid commentary.

    It’s no coincidence that the women who invest time posting on manosphere blogs are post wall and/or low smv.

  60. “The only solution for these fem-trolls is to block them.”

    Self-respecting men could simply ignore such commenters, rather than call for policy intervention to save betas from themselves.

    “I think a lot of men give these women attention on the forum because they still haven’t truly grasped why they’re here.”

    After one round, there’s obviously nothing hard to grasp. Such women are seeking male attention and trying to convince betas to stay beta, feigning conversation as the lure. The men who persist in providing this attention are reciprocally seeking female attention.

    “When I see Kate, LyingTree and women’s wall of text, I skip through the whole lot.
    When I see a beta male replying to women’s wall of text with another wall of text, I skip through the whole lot.”
    –Sao Feng

    The only point worth adding is that insulting such women is evidence of caring too much. Don’t hate the playette; ignore the game.

  61. “Another manifestation of this phenomenon is that it creates males with “daddy issues.” That it is to say, they have never learned to differentiate between legitimate authority and illegitimate authority. This confusion leads to the glorification of “personal liberty” as the prime value in interpersonal relations.”

    Which is how feminism came into being. To see this, one need only change the genders in the quote.

    “Another manifestation of this phenomenon is that it creates women with “mommy issues.” That it is to say, they have never learned to differentiate between legitimate authority and illegitimate authority. This confusion leads to the glorification of “personal liberty” as the prime value in interpersonal relations.”

  62. I’ve attempted to read most of the comments in this blog from a female perspective. That men, en-mass, might discover that there are and always were two sets of books, cannot be of great comfort to women. I suspect that many women will engage in a good cop/bad cop mentality in an attempt to dismiss men who engage in any form of two-book enlightenment. “You’re only upset now because you didn’t figure it out sooner, fool! Admit it!” There are obvious examples of this heretofore.

  63. “@livingtree: What we see here are people in one phase and stage. There is a seemingly endless influx of them. But what we don’t see is what happens when people stop reading and posting or commenting. What isn’t apparent is that people do move out of this phase. But they surely do, and new members of the stasis arrive to replace them. So, as a reader of all of these comments, it is best to keep in mind that most of these people will not feel like this forever. They will flow out on paths they never report, and so it will SEEM as if there is never any growth or change. But there is.

    “The only way around is through.” – Robert Frost”

    Awesome perspective, Kate.

  64. Hey – does anyone else think this blog accurately depicts the underlying message in the movie “Life of Pi”? You know – everyone gets in a life boat with very little food and rescue is far off?

  65. “Or were those concepts related to the realities of human life?”

    Those concepts were related to the realities of human life. Still doesn’t absolve women of the sheite they’ve pulled. The women of today are mostly narcissistic sociopaths. That experienced, wise men are spreading that truth is positive.

  66. “…So finally when man finally has enough, kills hypergamous wife, society has no reason to be angry.

    It’s all so simple.”

    Now that, my friends, is rational thought! If you don’t believe me, the just ask Julia Merfeld! What a wonderful world!

  67. Behold Julia – the epitome of modern femininity. LT and Kate – do all women suck in the same manner as Julia? Deep, deep down, do all women hold that men are disposable in this manner? Be honest, beeotches. Don’t give me the good cop/bad cop routine. Do most women take advantage of men for materialistic gain or not?

  68. So very apropos, is it not? Male disposability is not a woman’s problem. Why? Because the majority of women today are narcissistic sociopaths. Just ask any narcissistic sociopath how they feel about their victims. They’ll tell you that they feel nothing but contempt for their targets.

  69. Kate/LT – in case you haven’t noticed, I loath both of you. Your efforts to obscure the vast, selfless contributions of men towards women and family will be held to account. You can lie to us, but you cannot lie to yourselves. Within each crime against humanity is eventual, self-annihilation.

  70. BTW, much of what I’ve read in this blog amounts to verbal foreplay. Kate/DT, you know what I’m talking about.

  71. The benefits and sacrifice for both women and men, whether through front line death in battle or behind the line sacrifices for children, women, the wounded and the elderly is that it furthers the cause of freedom and independence for all. It is only through our constitutional republic and a fair view of the differences between men and women that these dreams become reality. Tear that down and you have nothing on which to place the feet of previous good will. Tear that down and you return to a world of fascism and institutionalized human injustice.

  72. Hi fellas,
    I’m new to the blog and the manosphere in general, I’d like to divulge my story of enlightenment and emancipation with you.
    I’m from the UK and was popular in school at a young age. However aged around 9 I began suffering from severe obsessive thoughts and ruminations, progressing to delusions and loss of reality, eventually resulting in hospitalization.
    This illness dogged me throughout my teens, but with therapy over many years and numerous types of medication I began to gain some control of my condition.
    Obviously this type of experience causes both internal and external changes within oneself. I was throughout my teens and early twenties socially outcast, awkward and shy. I had low self esteem, couldn’t trust my own judgement and felt pretty worthless. Ambition was pretty limited, as I was happy if wasn’t driving my self insane with some crazy delusion.
    I had no interaction with women during this period. I felt invisible. I was the crazy kid that they avoided.
    Mid twenties, New medication, feel great. Begin to develop self esteem. I realise I’m a good looking guy, 6’3″, lean and muscular without having to kick the arse out of the gym. I’d learned to embrace my different way of seeing things, it made me creative, I started painting, playing guitar, piano, drums. I’d had a couple of short relationships, with some hot girls, but nothing that lasted or fulfilled me.
    Aged 24 I met my future wife, she was a bit older than me, intelligent, petit, Italian ancestry and beautiful, she also earned more than me and had her own property. We were great together, travelled, backpacked, lived life etc. 2 years later we were married.
    Early In the relationship she asked me how many people I had slept with, I told her 5. I asked her and she swerved the question, I didn’t think about it at the time as I had been blinded by ‘love’ and thought that in this day and age it shouldn’t matter, what happens in the present is more important.
    One night we had some friends over for dinner, and sexual pasts were mentioned in passing. Later that night when we were alone I asked her outright how many people she had slept with. She told me she would tell me the truth as she felt she had nothing to be ashamed about. The answer was 30.
    I felt shit about this. I thought about it regularly. My opinion and view of her changed, thus so did my behavior and attitude. I tried to come to terms with this information, using all the usual blue pill bollocks I had had force fed me my entire life. But, eventually I gave up. I couldn’t make myself happy with the situation. And so I made a decision to end the relationship. I had come to the conclusion that my feelings were real and I was entitled to have them. I knew I wouldn’t be happy with her again, and I’d had enough experience being unhappy in my life.
    I told her I was leaving, she was distraught, begged, apologized etc. She told me none of her other boyfriends had cared about her number, this I found ironic, and told her how it was funny that out of all the men, the only one she wanted to live her life with, fucking did care, and I couldn’t care less what the other men thought.
    Anyway, now I was single, came across red pill game by accident and embraced it wholeheartedly. I’m so happy now, I make a living from my paintings, do what I want when I want. Have regular one night stands and pretty much live my perfect life. I honestly can’t see me ever getting married again. Ever.
    I know it might seem terribly harsh, she is a good person and made a good wife. But it was something that I couldn’t stand so I walked.

  73. Pingback: The Severing |
  74. I’ve actually had female friends confide in me that when looking at a man for marriage that “looks don’t matter.” Bullshit. I’m not sure if they were outliers or not. Of course looks can matter, they signal genetic fitness, but its not the only thing that women find arousing in a man.

    If a guy, presumably a beta male, marries one of these women who is not really attracted to him physically/sexually, but just for his provider role or status, I think this is extremely dangerous for the guy – a future horrific divorce or miserable, sexless marriage awaits him. What happens in the future if his career does not work out and he can’t buy the mcmansion and lifestyle she wants? Most men don’t realize how many women marry men that they really aren’t physically attracted to. Women make compromises that men won’t in a spouse. Most normal men would not marry a women that they don’t have any physical chemistry with. I believe that men are sexually attracted to a broader spectrum of physical appearance in women, whereas women I believe only really get sexually aroused by men in the top 5% (such as being tall, developed physique).

    Most men believe that if they just do good career-wise, that will be enough to get an attractive woman to love them. Maybe so, but it doesn’t mean that she will be physically attracted to him, but just tolerable to her.

    Esther Vilar in the book “The Manipulated Man” stated that women will indeed marry man merely because he is rich. Marriage can be essentially prostitution. If he loses his job, status and wealth, he loses her. Most men do not comprehend how alien and immensely different that women see the world and view men.

  75. Pingback: Anonymous

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: