Socialized Hypergamy

2

This weekend’s discussion post was inspired by commenter Johnnycomelateley

Rape hysteria also has a deeper motive, equalitarianism (high taxes and social distribution) has changed the economic ecology and altered the incentives for female bonding patterns.

Several economists and anthropologists contend that society is transitioning from monogamy to serial monogamy (serial polygyny).

For serial polygyny to be facilitated women require absolutely unfettered, unrestricted, unconditional, uncommitted, unrestrained, unmoralizing, independent and completely free and unqualified safe access to sexual free choice. Unbounded by contracts, agreements, social norms, moral restraints, religious injunctions, social ties, aesthetic norms, maternal obligations, infanticide (abortion), selling progeny (adoption) and economic restrictions.

Anything that is deemed as restrictive is seen as limiting this choice, male spaces, employment obstacles, undesirable attention, unsafe neighbourhoods, male aesthetic standards, religion and of course rape.

What we are seeing is ‘choice hysteria’, anytime someone somewhere restricts female sexual choice it is met with unbounded fury. Even centuries long legal precedents and wrongful imprisonment must acquiesce to facilitate free choice.

Here are some quotes showing we are transitioning to serial polygyny.

Murdock’s (1967) Ethnographic Atlas categorized just 16% of 862 cultures as exclusively monogamous, with polygamy being found at some level in the rest.

A 2011 study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control found that just 23% of women and 14.7% of men aged 25-44 had one (or zero) opposite-sex lifetime partners.

Frank Marlowe, Biological Anthropology – Cambridge
When males provide all the income but some have much more than others, richer males achieve polygyny, while ecologically imposed monogamy prevails in case of moderate inequality. When males provide an intermediate level of investment with little variation, females are not excessively dependent on males and serial monogamy may arise.

David de la Croix, Professor of Economics
In a society with few rich males and virtually no rich females, polygyny is supported by rich males, who can naturally monopolize a larger number of partners, and poor females, who prefer to be the n-th wife of a rich male rather than marrying a poor male monogamously.

Eventually, however, the number of rich males increases enough, and poor females prefer to marry monogamously.

Serial monogamy follows from a further enrichment of the society, through a rise in either the share of rich males, or the the proportion of rich females.

Monique Mulder, Anthropology
A key finding here is that while men do not benefit from multiple marriages, women do. Although the data are very variable (large standard errors), women appear to gain more from multiple mating than do men.

I’ve written more than a few posts about equalism here, but one thing that needs to be made clear is that a true state of egalitarian equalism among the sexes is neither tenable nor sustainable in any realistic measure. There is always a dominant / submissive dynamic in all human relations (not just intersexual ones), even in same sex pairings. While that dom-sub relation may be flexible in various circumstantial instances, the meta-relationship dynamic tends to place the more dominant personality at the top of an intersexual relation.

For the better part of human history this dominance has been expected from a Man, and I daresay as a species we evolved into that dominant role both physically and psychologically. But for the past 60+ years, since the advent of ubiquitous, unilaterally female-controlled hormonal birth control, the social and physical constraints of women’s innate Hypergamy, that had been kept in check by Men’s default dominance, has been unfettered.

When I wrote Owed Sex I went into detail about how women’s perception of their hypergamous choices have been contained by men:

The premise that a man would ever be ‘owed’ sex for anything is offensive to the feminine imperative because it offends women’s self-entitlement to being filters of their own hypergamy, plain and simple. Women’s hypergamy dictates whom they will and will not fuck according to their sexual strategy’s most urgent needs.

To presume a man is ‘owed’ sex for services rendered, or due to his own self-perceived prequalifications for a woman’s intimacy, is to remove women’s control of the decision making / filtering process of their hypergamy.

The offensiveness doesn’t come from the notion that men would need to perform in order to get sex, but rather that a man might forcibly assume control of a woman’s hypergamous determining of his sexual suitability for her.

When I wrote that post it was before the Yes Means Yes law had been enacted as well as before the “rape crisis” hysteria we find ourselves in as the result of the machinations of a feminist writer who actively hunts for pulp fiction rape stories to embellish. All now proven a complete and calculated fabrication.

However the base motivation is still the same, and I agree with Johnnycomelately, the social press for equalism is a suitable mask for socialized Hypergamy.

The Feminine Imperative isn’t interested in anything like an idealized state of egalitarian equalism between the sexes; it is only interested in unilateral, uncontested, and socially assured optimization of women’s Hypergamy.

Equalism is an anathema to Hypergamy.

So long as women are subject to innate hypergamous influences there can never be a socialized state of egalitarian equalism between men and women. By its very nature the Feminine Imperative will always seek an unequal state – maximal restriction of male sexuality and maximal unrestriction of optimized feminine Hypergamy. The persistence of pressing the idea that equalism between the sexes is a realizable goal state is necessary to achieve those maximized / optimized conditions.

For men, the end result of that optimized state is really a form of normative, accepted, socialized cuckoldry. However, the efforts to achieve this state are in social evidence all around us now.

Milo Yiannopoulos has an excellent two-part article, Sexodus, on Breitbart London outlining the cultural impact socialized Hypergamy is having on men today and how they are “checking out of society”.

In part two Milo explains:

Men, driven, as many of them like to say, by fact and not emotion, can see that society is not fair to them and more dangerous for them. They point to the fact that they are more likely to be murder victims and more likely to commit suicide. Women do not choose to serve in the Armed Forces and they experience fewer deaths and injuries in the line of work generally.

Women get shorter custodial sentences for the same crimes. There are more scholarships available to them in college. They receive better and cheaper healthcare, and can pick from favourable insurance packages available only to girls. When it comes to children, women are presumed to be the primary caregiver and given preferential treatment by the courts. They have more, better contraceptive options.

Women are less likely to be homeless, unemployed or to abuse drugs than men. They are less likely to be depressed or to suffer from mental illness. There is less pressure on them to achieve financial success. They are less likely to live in poverty. They are given priority by emergency and medical services.

Some might call these statistical trends “female privilege.” Yet everywhere and at all times, say men’s rights advocates, the “lived experiences” and perceived oppression of women is given a hundred per cent of the airtime, in defiance of the reality that women haven’t just achieved parity with men but have overtaken them in almost every conceivable respect. What inequalities remain are the result of women’s choices, say respectable feminist academics such as Christina Hoff Sommers, not structural biases.

And yet men are constantly beaten up over bizarre invented concepts such as rape culture and patriarchal privilege. The bizarre but inevitable conclusion of all this is that women are fueling their own unhappiness by driving men to consider them as sex objects and nothing more, because the thought of engaging in a relationship with a woman is horrifying, or too exhausting to contemplate.

I don’t see men as ‘checking out’ of society so much as I see them being  forced to develop personal and cultural contingencies to adapt to a feminine-primary social order that’s based on socialized Hypergamy. The obvious comparisons to Japan’s culture of “herbivorous” men is nothing new to the manosphere, but what is new is the increasing awareness of the consequences of socialized Hypergamy.

The MGTOW movement (such as it is) is a good example of this adaptation, but even men going their own way are still directly and indirectly subject to the social pressures created by feminine social primacy and socialized Hypergamy. Irrespective of how insulated a man may think he is with regard to interacting with women, he’s still subject to the correlative impact of the societal changes that mandate maximally restricting his sexuality while legislating women’s right to optimal Hypergamy into law.

Imagined “rape crisis” hysteria, affirmative consent laws, politicians attempting to redefine rape as men ‘misrepresenting’ themselves in order to have sex with a woman, and defining domestic abuse as “restricting of finances“, higher divorce rates, marriage rates at an all time low, are all evidence of a feminine-primary socialization of Hypergamy that hides behind an egalitarian ruse.

The more men refuse to cooperate with socialized Hypergamy, the more the Feminine Imperative will legislate their compliance with it. But at some point it will reach a state of critical mass. The UVA gang rape hoax, the fem-centric maliciousness of Sabrina Rubin-Erdely and the blind, ego-invested adherence to an unassailable feminine correct narrative of its ‘believers’ was a good primer for this critical mass.

Most of what I’ve delved into here has been manosphere staple for more than 13 years now, but the mainstream exposure from the likes of Milo and even the national dialogue generated from the UVA gang rape hoax (as deliberately distractive as it is), is evidence that the previously hidden social machinations of feminine social primacy are becoming unignorable.

As Open Hypergamy and the Sandbergian embrace of women’s sexual pluralism becomes more normative, so too will Red Pill awareness become more mainstream. Men aren’t dropping out of feminine-primary society, they’re adapting contingencies for it, learning workarounds, comparing notes, and a growing Red Pill awareness is at the heart of that adaptation, even for men who’ve never heard of it.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

326 comments on “Socialized Hypergamy

  1. It appears true that a typical optimum level of polygyny for a typical male (i.e. not a special male) human is about four or five females, exclusive to him. Four women for one man, and the women do not get other men while exlcusive. Fewer than four women are a pain because he will get less sex and fewer children from less women, e,g, two, than four. But many more than four women, e.g. eight, are also a pain for other reasons, especially infighting so they say.

    What, instead, is the typical optimum N level of serial monogamy for a typical female (i.e. not a special female) human? I’m going to guess about five. Her starter boyfriend from her young teens is not the hunk she wants when she’s twenty, and the stud she craves at twenty five is not the provider she wants at thirty. (Ignore thirty year olds who pretend that they did not want studs earlier.)

  2. jf12 – “Yes, but easier said than done for most men. It is literally definitionally good that most men are conditioned to play by the rules and to put others first.”

    That is premised on the assumption that rewards for good behavior exist, you know the “first set of books.”

    And I don’t think it’s necessary to make “bad” men, just men can say “no.”

  3. @jf12- I would argue that maybe it’s time to redefine what “bad” is. Like a parent who spoils a child by being “good” and “nice”, men have collectively done bad by trying to be so good. The goodness or badness of an action can be measured by its result, in the action itself.
    If men being “good” by providing and playing by the rules is leading to the destruction of family, the suffering of kids growing up in torn homes, and the collapse of society in general, then I would argue that man playing by those rules is actually the bad guy in the film. He is a good soldier for a corrupt regime and can not escape his responsibility for the regimes crimes.
    If, on the other hand, the man decides the regime is corrupt and abandons his post and his role in the regime and decides, instead, to follow his own innate sense of right and wrong when dealing with the regime, then I would say that he is the truly good man.

  4. Bachelorocles – “If one accepts that all human beings are of equal moral value – in other words, if one rejects aristocracy, rejects inequality before the law, and accepts modern morality instituted since the Enlightenment that all humans are created equal – then you must accept the freedom of men and women freely to choose sex partners.

    This will result in unfettered hypergamy and it will result in alpha males and males of high social status and wealth hoarding female sex partners leaving scraps for the rest of men….”

    Hypergamy runs amok when the betas are compelled by violence to feed cloth and house the bastards of other men. When the betas are on the hook to pay for a society that won’t reward them there is no equality. Hypergamy was neatly controlled when society punished poor decisions with starvation and social stigma.

  5. @ Bangonmydick – How about you actually comment on what I said? Rollo has lamented on these pages for a long time about the fetishization of radical egalitarianism in radfem circles. He asks where it comes from, in fact.

    I explained where it came from. I didn’t make any claims about the relative importance of politics versus the FI, and in fact such an analysis would be silly as it all occurs in a complex system with many factors and feedbacks and nonlinear effects that can’t ever be held constant to test just one. But just as I can’t and didn’t, nor can you. I mean, am to believe that the FI drove the decline of the Roman empire? Hmmm, who’s claims are wildeyed and absurd now?

    But of course, you aren’t arguing with me, you are arguing with Rocking MrE or some other tradcon who lays all the blame for all the evil in the world on cultural Marxism. I do not do that. But I do know the history of political philosophy and it’s adherents and the politics of the left and the right in the U.S. and elsewhere quite well. If you care to have a substantive conversation about anything I actually said that you disagree with, I’m all ears. Other than that…

    @ Hobbes – And you are even worse. PRO TIP for you: When you admit up front that you don’t know a particular subject, you might want to just shut the fuck up in the future and spare us the fatuous hyperbole. Or you could go read about 100 books that I’d recommend to you, and then get back to me after you’ve studied the topic. We’ll start with The Peloponnesian War, so you can see tthat nothing is new politically under the sun, and we’ll go from there…

    It’s just so typical. Most of the guys who take these lines of criticism are used to arguing with TradCons and just assume a lot about what I believe and end up not even really arguing what I say. It’s also sad, as whether you guys are willing to acknowledge it or not, we are at where we are wrt the FI going on steroids is due to Marxism and it’s socialist cousin, Social Justice Theory. Whether you know it or admit it doesn’t change it.

    And we didn’t get here accidentally or by virtue. It was very calculated, it took 100 years and tremendous resources and personal commitment on behalf of millions of Marxists worldwide. I bet most here don’t realize that Obama is a Marxist, or think saying that is “crazy”, lol. Here’s just one proof point I’ll offer. He taught courses in Alinskite Community Organizing – and Saul Alinsky was a communist revolutionary who sought to blow U.S. society up from the inside. Here’s a great clip of Bill Buckley interviewing Saul Alinsky way back when http://youtu.be/PZ9Si5pkAqg Obama taught classes using Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and moved to Chicago to be part of the radical movement that Alinsky helped create there.

    Hilary Clinton worshipped Alinsky and in fact wrote her masters thesis on him – it’s been hidden ever since she entered public life, she also had correspondence with him.

    This is who is running our fucking country and yet punks here are willing to go all ‘red baiting’ on me. I’m not hysterical, I’m factual. I can back up every single factual assertion I make. I read, I’m funny that way. And I listen. The Marxists told us exactly what they were going to do, and they did it. You can pretend it isn’t so, but that only makes you a fool, not me paranoid or full of shit.

    None of that makes the right wing good. I’ve not said a thing in favor of them. But I there is a huge difference between the left and the right. We also have a really fractured and polarized electorate, so “the system” looks absurd but that’s really a reflection of how divided and disengaged the people are from our politics. We are a nation that is officially at each other’s throats, politically, with a full third checked out and sitting on the sidleines, about 90 million or so adult Americans are checked out, never vote, don’t watch the news. That’s more people than who voted for Obama…

    The evangelicals did give us Obama redux though, 4 million stayed home instead of voting for a Mormon – thanks for that guys. And no, I’m not a huge Romney fan, but he’s not a crypto-Marxist putting actual Marxists into important positions across govt either like Obama is. Obama was a member of the Marxist New Party in Chicago, only ending his association with it and covering up his past (unsuccessfully) after he began his national political career.

    Yeah, facts are stubborn things. You guys can play it down the middle if that makes you feel better. Oh yeah, an open Marxist has been elected as Mayor of NYC too – I must be crazy, right? And Anita Sarkesian and her headmate, McIntosh are openly anti-capitalist – but I’m crazy, right? Lol…

  6. Bango Tango
    December 14th, 2014 at 3:57 pm

    I think the point is that the Marxist adapted to their environment.

    The point of all the politics is: can their strategy be derailed. If not then the next question is how to adapt.

    Another question is: can the abundance be sustained? My guess is not. For two reasons.

    1. The politics is against it. Men don’t like to produce for other men’s kids. Even less so women.

    2. The climate is going to go into a Maunder like Minimum for about 40 to 80 years. Just as the cycles ganged up to give us a century long warm spell we are entering a similar period of cold. The harbinger is the declining sunspots.

    What could derail or slow #1? Robots. How about #2? Nothing. A very cheap source of energy could help though. A fusion guy will be giving a talk around the end of January. Watch for it.

    What else? We should be building up food reserves. The one thing government could do to help. Unlikely. Record harvest this year. What? Me worry?

    So will women rule? No. You have to be smart in cold weather/climate. Women are not smart.

    All speculation of course.

  7. @Badpainter

    “Hypergamy runs amok when the betas are compelled by violence to feed cloth and house the bastards of other men.”

    As I stated, there is an easy fix for this: do not marry.

    I would agree the laws should be changed such that no man should be forced to pay child support for offspring of another man.

    “When the betas are on the hook to pay for a society that won’t reward them there is no equality.”

    That problem has been created by the business environment in the US where we have witnessed record corporate profits for years with zero gain in real wages since the late 1970s.

    “Hypergamy was neatly controlled when society punished poor decisions with starvation and social stigma.”

    I want no part of such a tyranny, like Saudi Arabia, which would force starvation on a human being for a sexual choice.

    Again, if you accept modern morality instituted since the Enlightenment, then you must accept free sexual choice of men and women.

  8. I bet most here don’t realize that Obama is a Marxist

    Well I saw that one coming. Alinsky and all. I was arguing that on my blog starting in late 2007 and going all the way up to the election. As far as I can tell it didn’t make a whit of difference. The hysteria was too great and Sarah Palin was everything the left wanted to be/hated in a woman. Of course she had to be destroyed.

    For national politics a woman has to be non-competitive. Liz Warren looks bad enough. Hillary has crows feet. If the Rs run a beauty she will be destroyed.

  9. @Glenn- stopped reading at your STFU moment. What happened, did your pussy start menstruating?
    I tend to like your comments and find them informative, but don’t be an internet badass with me, cunt. You don’t have the balls to get that way in person, don’t pull it here. I answered with an opinion, one you were free to disprove of without the insulting shit I never aimed your way.
    And one of the most dishonest arguments is that one must read a million books before you can prove or explicate your point. If you have a point or proof of my being wrong, you can state it without me needing to read a “100” books. Its the amazing thing about the human language. Its a logical fallacy to argue by authority. I can find a 100 books that say bigfoot exists and tell you you need to read them before I can prove to you my point that he exists, or just look at the biblical yahoos who say you must read the bible before they can prove to you God exists. BS. You got proof of your assertions, they can be simply stated.
    Now, if you have something to say, say it with respect and I’ll read it. Otherwise go get that leaky cunt fucked properly, bitch.

    1. @ Hobbes – So, you have no factual refutation of a thing I said. Got it. My comment anticipated your ignorance and made a suggestion that you go educate yourself instead of running your ignorant mouth about things you don’t understand.

      As for shutting me up – good luck, monkeydick. I insult you because your comment to me was asinine. I can tell it frustrates you that you don’t have the requisite knowledge to actually counter what I posit here. I get it – you are ignorant of history and politics, but have some sense that I’m “wrong” so you just decided to sort me out with hyperbole.

      Got it, nothing to see here, You are just a bog standard, angry ignoramus shooting his mouth off in an act of masturbatory pleasure. I hope it feels good for you – it does’t edify a soul on this thread though.

  10. Hobbes – “I want no part of such a tyranny, like Saudi Arabia, which would force starvation on a human being for a sexual choice.

    Again, if you accept modern morality instituted since the Enlightenment, then you must accept free sexual choice of men and women.”

    Sure, but the tyranny you don’t want is actually your freedom and liberty to produce for yourself and then choose who will benefit from your success. The status quo takes that choice away and forces you to produce for the so called “common good” and if you don’t then you personally will face the violence of the state.

    Free sexual choice isn’t really free when parties not involved in the choice are compelled to pay for the consequences of those choices. Nothing is free, if something appears to be free then be assured someone else paid the bill.

  11. @Badpainter

    “Free sexual choice isn’t really free when parties not involved in the choice are compelled to pay for the consequences of those choices.”

    Then we’re back to solutions. The only solution is to institute the force of law – because cheating, sleeping around, and having multiple partners are not going away. I would rather pay for that behavior with my tax dollars than to institute tyranny to control such behavior.

  12. @Bachelorocles-
    “If one accepts that all human beings are of equal moral value “- full stop, freedom and equality before the law does not equate will “equal moral value”. There are many choices we can make that are not considered of equal moral value and punished or shamed accordingly. The FI actually counts on doing this at every turn.
    I think you’re making a mistake I see many people do, that just because one has the freedom to do something, doesnt mean they should do it, or that it is a good thing to do, or even worse, the moral thing to do.
    Yes, people have the freedom to choose their own partners, etc, that doesn’t mean we have to value their choices as legitimate or moral.
    You don’t have to go all Saudi Arabia either. Public shame does the job- why do you think feminists are having “slut walks”? because they know the power of shame and disaporval in influencing female behavior. We don’t have to make it illegal to ride the cock carousal, we just need to demonstrate it’s of lower value than not doing so. We don’t have to make hypergamy illegal, we just need to show it’s a lower value behavior. Why don’t men shame women and voice their opinion that slutting it up makes women lower value? because men, too, are afraid of being publicly shamed and ostracized. Men have been beta-ized much more by the FI’s use of shame and fear of being judged lower value than by laws.

  13. Hobbes, the solutions don’t all require tyranny.

    Simply, the safety net incentivizes irresponsibility. Take it away and people adjust their choices accordingly. Starvation can be avoided by humility, and seeking charity.

    The real tyranny is compelling the betas to pay taxes to support the bastards of other men, to support the women that ignore them, pay the agents of the state to punish their non-compliance, and support the corporate welfare (DOD) that allows BigBiz to export their jobs.

    The current SMP is dysfunctional because of market externalities that are largely the result of silly men buying into the notion that no one should be unfairly punished for a bad decision and thereby incentivizing those types of bad decisions.

  14. Socialized Hypergamy. It will end. It has to end. Civil war won’t end it; economic collapse won’t end it; the fall of western civilization won’t end it. Women will end it. It not the natural order. Yes woman are hypergamic. But you know what, men are horny. Are woman being raped in the streets? No. Yes women desire to “marry up” and they always have. That’s been controlled. Think 50,000 years, 250,000 generations ago, People lived in tribes. The leader needed his boys. Could he fuck their woman and survive? Could the women survive with the men at each other’s throats? Men owned their wives in Rome and could kill them at will. Women needed a man to survive in the middle ages (think Walking Dead). Yes hypergamy was there, but it was silent, hidden, behind closed doors. We are not wired to live like this.

    We live in a time when there is no local danger. So much wealth. So much freedom. We are living in an anomaly of human history. What girls can do now is historically unprecedented. And you know what? Women are unhappy. All the freedom they have, all the rights they possess; they hate it. 1% females that are feminists are driving an agenda that is not natural.

    I remember watching the History Channel and there was a show about 50 German women married to Jews protesting outside the Reich Chancellery because their husbands where taken. The Nazi’s were petrified, brought the men out of the camps and reunited them with their women.

    Women will end this.

  15. @Hobbes

    “I think you’re making a mistake I see many people do, that just because one has the freedom to do something, doesnt mean they should do it, or that it is a good thing to do, or even worse, the moral thing to do.

    Yes, people have the freedom to choose their own partners, etc, that doesn’t mean we have to value their choices as legitimate or moral.”

    As a principles, I agree. But the question is: what can be done to countervail unfettered hypergamy? Roll back modern morality and institute pre-modern morality (I don’t want to go there), use the criminal law (I don’t want that), or use religion (I don’t want superstitious folks dictating behavior).

    “Public shame does the job”

    That’s gone in all but a few small, provincial communities. But even in those places, shame has limited effect. Public shame for sexual behavior was out the door in the 1960s.

    I like the modern sexual mores. I can get sex and a lot of blowjobs (blowjobs are so easy to get these days) and I don’t have marry one woman, give her access to my property, be stuck with one vagina for life, or hire prostitutes.

    “Why don’t men shame women and voice their opinion that slutting it up makes women lower value?”

    Men somewhat do. Most men don’t want to have a relationship with a slut. But women are covert about their sexual past. Also, American men will do anything for pussy and female approval. The power women have on the sexual market is given to them by men.

    By the way, love your name. Is life in the state of nature really solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short? 😀

  16. Badrocks
    December 14th, 2014 at 4:37 pm

    So many in the manosphere blame women for this. I blame men. Alpha males hoard women and beta males kiss ass.

    If you had been reading all the comments in this thread you would know you didn’t have a clue.

    What has changed is the environment. Abundance. Hell. I gave a link

    http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/the-theory/rk-selection-theory/

    not too far up thread and you haven’t read even that. Sexual strategies are determined by abundance/scarcity. The politics will follow.

    The Marxists are prepared to rule abundance (and probably run it into the ground along with all the surplus people they will have to kill when failure is at hand).

    The tradcons will create abundance and be totally unprepared to deal with its consequences because they are uneducatable brutes. God rules. They can’t adapt. Or rather they adapt too slowly. Way too slowly. Holding on to the last “great idea” the Marxists produced and declaring it traditional.

    OK. This is all new to most of you. The vast majority have not studied all this even a bit. Too abstract. To abstruse. Too arcane. No pussy.

    Work on it. Study it. Let it sink in. Be silent.

  17. @Bachel- “Is life in the state of nature really solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short?” yes!
    In your comment is the root of why we have kind of allowed things to go so far- men like the idea of easy access to sex, so we rationalize the problems it leads to down the road. We lament that we have unfair divorce laws, tax burdens and expectations, but we like our easy to get bjs so we don’t shame women or voice our real opinions, and don’t rock the boat.
    But here is the thing- if we are going to allow hypergamy to go unfettered for the sake of that free BJ, then we need to accept all the unfair tax burdens and laws that we don’t like. Lets not be women and think we “Can have it all”. Unchecked hypergamy means those laws and social expectations will continue- as well as increasing laws to justify regret sex as rape- meaning we’re paying a hell of a high price for BJs 😉

  18. Badrocks
    December 14th, 2014 at 5:04 pm

    I was wondering why I didn’t like you. Now it is much clearer.

    “Record corporate profits”

    Who do you think that money belongs to? Were the customers willing to buy at the price offered? If so what is the problem?

    You think they have it too good? Easy. Go into business and be willing to take less profit. You will get the business.

    Well you want to tax the profits away? How can the corp. deal with a bad year if it has no surplus?

    You have been infused with Marxists economics and are probably not even aware of it. Labor theory of value my arse. The value of labor is what people are willing to pay. The value of everything is what people are willing to pay. And that number is a variable. Supply and demand. When food is scarce it is worth more.

  19. I think the point is that the Marxist adapted to their environment.

    The point of all the politics is: can their strategy be derailed. If not then the next question is how to adapt.

    Another question is: can the abundance be sustained? My guess is not. For two reasons.

    1. The politics is against it. Men don’t like to produce for other men’s kids. Even less so women.

    2. The climate is going to go into a Maunder like Minimum for about 40 to 80 years. Just as the cycles ganged up to give us a century long warm spell we are entering a similar period of cold. The harbinger is the declining sunspots.

    What could derail or slow #1? Robots. How about #2? Nothing. A very cheap source of energy could help though. A fusion guy will be giving a talk around the end of January. Watch for it.

    @M Simon. That article on r/K selection that you linked to is so good at explaining where all this political psychology originates from and where we might be going in the future. I was actually going to ask you about the statement the author made about nature not allowing for abundance to be sustained indefinitely and then you asked it here.

    It seems that these two environments r/K have always been going back and forth through out history. However we seemed to have reached a time when the technology that was produced through competition during the K cycles has the potential to continue the abundance and offset the civilization damage the enormous amount of r selection idiots can do. This is not a given, but in my mind it seems the only reason that the system hasn’t already collapsed which some libertarian economists have been predicting literally for decades now.

    Even though you might have social relations between men and women changing dramatically from what it had been for all of human history there is still a chance that the crazy tech to come, virtual reality stuff like oculus will allow r and K to exist together without bringing about radical destruction of either. Government does not regulate tech in the same way as other industries which is why computers are getting faster and cheaper everyday. And the welfare state for the masses of idiots might be sustainable if the production from all this tech is sufficient enough. That is the best possible scenario. The worst is if the most adaptive ones at the top of the food chain view killing off the rest as the most advantageous for their own survival. I actually view climate change as having less of a destructive impact then social relations at this point.

  20. @Msimon- Hate to get into economics, especially here, but fuck it, all the free market retards do it, so why not?
    The problem with “record profits” is that it’s two sets of books. Corporations use money to buy politicians and get laws passed that undermines labor, avoids fair taxation through loopholes and funnel tax dollars into their coffers. Along come the free market retards to defend the practice and accuse anyone who smells the stench of a rigged game as a socialist or a Marxist blah blah…
    The medical industry is a cool example of how Americans are fucked by the corprotations all the free market, ayn randian morons defend. Big Pharma gets tax dollar handouts as well as tax breaks to fund research. They then use those handouts to create medicine as well as buy politicians who will pass favorable medical laws that protect their profits. So even though the average citizen contributed to this research, laws will be passed to make sure the american citizen pays top dollar for the use of the drugs they had a hand in creating. In turn the pharma companies will also sell those drug much much cheaper in other countries whose citizens did not pay taxes and contribute to the research. So americans end up paying top dollar- not once, but twice- at tax time and at the counter, all the while the corporations will use every dollar they can spare to buy politicians and not pay fair taxes. Along comes the free market retards to defend all this and label you a marxist socialist blah blah for pointing out the corruption that exists at the corporate/govt/bank level.
    Wash rinse repeat.

  21. @Hobbes

    Unfettered hypergamy and the lopsided divorce laws are separate things. Even if we corrected those laws, hypergamy would still exist, and women would still control the sex market. Open sexual mores did not lead to these laws. Those laws were on the books before the 1960s. Mansfield’s Rule (creating a presumption that the child born in a marriage belongs to the husband) was adopted in the US long ago. The unfair divorce laws are a carryover from the days of chivalry in which women were deemed to be lesser beings requiring our special protection.

    “if we are going to allow hypergamy to go unfettered for the sake of that free BJ”

    That’s not why women have free sexual choice. Free sexual choice is the rational result of the Enlightenment morality instituted in the West for centuries. Under that morality, all humans are to be deemed of equal moral value and the freedom to choose one’s sexual mate is understood to be a sine qua non of liberty.

    I have a question, and I don’t have an answer: men control Washington, men control most state legislatures, and men control the courts. Why are men not overturing these unfair child custody laws and unfair alimony laws?

    I don’t have an answer. But I have a solution . . . do not marry.

    “tax burdens”

    You’re referring to single mothers collecting welfare? What is the solution? Use the criminal law to force women to marry? Require child licenses before one may have a baby and prosecute women who have children without a license and force them to give the child to adoption?

  22. “You’re referring to single mothers collecting welfare? What is the solution? Use the criminal law to force women to marry? Require child licenses before one may have a baby and prosecute women who have children without a license and force them to give the child to adoption?”

    I don’t actually give a damn so long as I don’t have to spend more time at labor to foot the bill.

  23. M Simon

    “I was wondering why I didn’t like you.”

    If you hate those with whom you disagree politically or economically, then you shouldn’t engage in debate on the issues. I respect those who hold different opinions. It’s been years since I disliked those who disagree with me. I hope one day you too grow out of it.

    “Easy. Go into business and be willing to take less profit. You will get the business.”

    How do you know I do or do not own a business?

    “You have been infused with Marxists economics and are probably not even aware of it. Labor theory of value my arse. The value of labor is what people are willing to pay. The value of everything is what people are willing to pay. And that number is a variable. Supply and demand. When food is scarce it is worth more.”

    I’m not a Marxist, I think Marxism leads to tyranny. Nor have I forwarded a labor theory of value, although Abraham Lincoln did. Lincoln stated, “Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”

    At any rate, I’m not here to debate economics. I’m here to discuss hypergamy and Rollo’s article. I will discuss economics as it relates to hypergamy and sexual relations.

  24. @badpainter

    “I don’t actually give a damn so long as I don’t have to spend more time at labor to foot the bill.”

    That’s a fair,honest answer. Now for this question: what will cost more . . . ending welfare for single mothers or continuing with it?

  25. @bachel-“Unfettered hypergamy and the lopsided divorce laws are separate things.” they are part and parcel. The interpretations and implementation of law depend how hypergamy is viewed. This is why a man can be forced to pay child support for a child that was not his, and yes, men have had the responsibility to pay for their children, but they also kept children after a divorce if the woman broke her vows and the law allowed the same man to enforce discipline in his own home. Hypergamy drives which laws are kept and which are discarded… so I stand by my statement that they are part and parcel, they work together.

    ” all humans are to be deemed of equal moral value and the freedom to choose one’s sexual mate is understood to be a sine qua non of liberty.” you keep saying this but it just isn’t true.. equality and freedom under law does not equate to equal morality of behavior. I addressed this already in an earlier comment.

    “I have a question, and I don’t have an answer: men control Washington, men control most state legislatures, and men control the courts. Why are men not overturing these unfair child custody laws and unfair alimony laws?” white knights mostly… but in our system its a result of many things- first, I think men in positions of power are arrogant enough to believe it doesn’t matter to them personally- if you are rich, child support aint so bad. Its the shmuck working for a living on hourly wages or limited salary who gets slammed. Second, I think it’s because these same men make alot of money off the system.. and I think we have to understand that pussy begging is not something only poor men do. Men in power and with money are some of the biggest pussy beggars I’ve ever seen. They have a normalized sense of paying for pussy almost. Lastly, women vote. Alot, More than men usually. But I don’t know for sure- it’s a great question.

    The solution to paying for womens sexual choices is to shame them for their behavior- just as it was before. It wasn’t illegal in the 40s for a woman to have sex, but the ramifications socially were very unpleasant and she was forced to shoulder the burden. Sounds fair to me.

  26. Cost more to whom?

    It’s not my problem and if it costs anyone it will be the mothers and children left without the safety net. Again not my problem. And this is all the result of stupid stupid women not making the connection between fucking and babies. Choices have consequences I’m tired of being hit up to pay bill for choices I wasn’t involved in.

  27. @badpainter-“Hobbes what you just described is in no way a free market. It’s crony capitalist system where the parasites are killing the host.”
    Fair enough, but any free market system will inevitability lead to crony capitalism. The only thing that can stop crony capitalism from forming is laws limiting regulating commerce. But laws limiting and regulating commerce are by definition not “free market”. So laws that stop crony capitalism are then seen as marxist and socialist blah blah.
    Round and round it goes

  28. “they are part and parcel.”

    I don’t see a causal relation between hpergamy and unfair divorce laws. I’m open to your suggestion but I just don’t see it.

    “Hypergamy drives which laws are kept and which are discarded”

    Was it hyergamy which caused these laws to come into being or did men pass them and do men still enforce these laws because of old fashioned chivalry or, as you suggest, white knighting?

    “you keep saying this but it just isn’t true.. equality and freedom under law does not equate to equal morality of behavior. I addressed this already in an earlier comment.”

    I know I keep saying it because it’s true. It’s fundamental. It’s enshrined in the US Constitution.

    “white knights mostly… but in our system its a result of many things- first, I think men in positions of power are arrogant enough to believe it doesn’t matter to them personally- if you are rich, child support aint so bad. Its the shmuck working for a living on hourly wages or limited salary who gets slammed. Second, I think it’s because these same men make alot of money off the system.. and I think we have to understand that pussy begging is not something only poor men do. Men in power and with money are some of the biggest pussy beggars I’ve ever seen. They have a normalized sense of paying for pussy almost. Lastly, women vote. Alot, More than men usually. But I don’t know for sure- it’s a great question.”

    Great points. I think I agree.

    “It wasn’t illegal in the 40s for a woman to have sex, but the ramifications socially were very unpleasant and she was forced to shoulder the burden. Sounds fair to me.”

    But we ain’t going back. Not possible. I could be wrong, but I can’t envision a shame regime making a comeback. And then there’s this little wrinkle: women love sex and are hypersexual.

    Hypergamy is here, it’s been set lose, and we’re not going to put the genie back in the bottle. We can deal with it, develop game, stay single, enjoy the good aspects of open sexual mores, or MGTOW.

  29. @badpainter- The difference being that one (regulation) is needed to limit the other (cronyism), and the other (cronyism) serves no useful purpose, at all.

  30. “Hypergamy is here, it’s been set lose, and we’re not going to put the genie back in the bottle. We can deal with it, develop game, stay single, enjoy the good aspects of open sexual mores, or MGTOW.”

    Not sure I agree with some of your positions vis a vis morality/shame not returning etc,- but you do provide good food for thought. Thanks. Alot to chew on.

    As to the above quote. Yes, I agree- Game, MGTOW (are those mutually exclusive? I feel I do aspects of both in a way) and don’t get married etc…. make the best of it. Agreed. I actually do all those things- and I am sort of arguing against myself with you, as I do enjoy the current lifestyle, lol.
    I was in bed with a 24 yr old (I’m 45) last sunday who was kinky hot and lots of fun and she texted me as we argued about doing it again soon with a nice picture of the bruise I left on her ass that is now fading… So please take my contentions with that in mind. I’m not some tradcon/religious uptight, but I do think about this dichotomy alot.

    Look forward to continuing the discussion! As for now, let me see if I can get her to come over now, her pic got me riled up 😉

  31. @Bachelorcles re: “there is an easy fix for this: do not marry.”

    Not fixed:
    1. Bachelor tax.
    2. Having children.

  32. @Badpainter re: “just men can say “no.””

    If so, then the penitent’s prayer would not include the request for forgiveness “for what I have done and what I have failed to do.”

  33. Still weighing all the arguments and some good points here (minus the insults tossed back/forth). Frankly I am interested in 3 main things:

    1) Why is this happening 2) What can we do about it and 3) Where is all gonna lead.

    #1 To start, I get a bit of the Culture Marxism but don’t buy all of it. Rollo harps on evolutionary psych and how a lot of the behavior we see is based on genetics and human nature. I buy that A LOT. Yes Hypergamy has existed forever and has been unleashed at various times throughout history. What is different now ? In my mind 2 things and they are related #1 Vast wealth as has been mentioned here already AND technology. The technology is referred to somewhat, but way under appreciated. For example we all know about Female Contraception but few appreciate the medical technology associated with abortion. In today’s world a female can have multiple abortions in her 20s and still concieve and have children well into her 30s. In no time in human history has this ever been possible. Hell, for most of human history even having a baby was life threatening to the mother, how often does that even happen anymore. We all know about the loosening of the moral fabric so shame for being a Slut is practically non existent; as is the shame for being an Unmarried mother. Divorce ? But to me the second biggest thing was that now that women were freed from the burden of child rearing that unleashed their ability to work. And work they did. Initially this was a good thing which is why it existed for a couple of decades without any serious side effects but eventually the market corrected. The main issue for the current discussion is, as has been pointed before, women NO LONG NEED MEN FOR ECONOMIC SURVIVAL. As far as I know this has never existed before in human history.

    #2 is what we all struggle with. Telling guys to learn Game to get a little pussy is the wrong answer in my mind. Doesn’t do the guy any good long term either. After you get enough pussy and get older, its just nicer to have someone to grow old with. For those who claim humans are not naturally monogamous … I say bullshit to that. Sure there was sneaking and cheating but men AND women are more comfortable paired up. I’ve voiced my opinion here before and glad to see others joining in. The answer is to JUST SAY NO. No marrying, no girlfriends, no attention. no, no, no. If you want sex with a real woman, see a hooker. For most Porn or robotic sex will suffice. When enough men say no, things will change. I call this MGTOW but others differ. The point is do not cater to women, live your life for yourself and ignore them. Do not feed the FI and resist wearever you can. Just do not play their game. Some have said that things will only change when Women decide its time to and in some respect that’s true. They will want to change when its clear that enough men are saying No that its likely to impact THEM. As in HER. Its kinda like divorce with guys. You hear about other other guys being raped in divorce but until it happens to YOU or someone very close to you it doesn’t sink in how horrible it really is. Until a woman walks into a room of men and every single one IGNORES her sexuality and refuses to feed her attention addiction, will she ever admit there is a big enough problem to do something about. JUST SAY NO.

    #3 Where is it all gonna lead ? That is the answer that I’d really like to know. Frankly I think the forces in play are huge and is the type of situation that rarely occurs in human history. Think Germany post WW-I and during the depression (1920s, 30). Nobody thought initially that the Nazi party would turn into a war machine, rounding up Jews and others by the millions and starving and working them to death. For most Germans they were not affected for many years, for they were not Jewish. I think we could very well see the same thing here. The FI dominates Politics. It dominates the Media. Its power influences Corporate behavior. The legal system is already being used to incarcerate men by the millions. And does it affect them ? Hell, no. Look at the recent “Mancession”. Women dominate spending, they dominate education, they dominate jobs. The men whose lives are being destroyed mean nothing to them. “Yes means Yes” frankly scares the hell out of me. The next step is to just round up men who women think are undesirable and just lock them up. Or use them as slave labor to keep the rest of society going. A society that benefits THEM. Either learn from History or repeat its mistakes. Its happened before.

    For those who think I am exaggerating the numbers of men in prison in the US, please refer to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate

  34. Cherry picking a couple of stats from the wiki link: 8.7% of current inmates in the US are women. Stated another way, women are slightly more than 50% of the population but for every 1 woman in prison THERE ARE 12 MEN.

    “According to a US Department of Justice report published in 2006, over 7.2 million people were at that time in prison, on probation, or on parole (released from prison with restrictions). That means roughly 1 in every 32 Americans are held by the justice system”

    As mentioned, the FI controls the legal system and uses it to punish men. And one of the most powerful ways is to control access to employment. Enter “Discrimination based on Criminal History”. Welcome to the 21st century, if you are a man and have ever been arrested you are now “Unemployable”. You will likely never find a job in corporate culture again.

    Look at the Labor Participation Rate; there has actually been some talk of it in the media. Nobody will tell you the truth though. The truth being millions upon millions of men in the US will never work again. Because … da-ding they are arrested at the rate of 12-1 vs women and at the highest rate in the world. Probably all of recorded history actually. If you’ve been arrested at any time in your life and are male … nobody will hire you ever again. Welcome to life under the FI.

    http://www.nelp.org/index.php/content/content_issues/category/criminal_records_and_employment/

  35. “Alot to chew on.”

    You’ve made me reconsider my positions too. Good debate!!

    “I was in bed with a 24 yr old (I’m 45) last sunday who was kinky hot”

    Atta boy!!!! One of the best things about being a man is that we age gracefully and, as Rollo points out, we can maintain a high SMV and can remain sex market elites even into deep middle age.

  36. tticus
    December 14th, 2014 at 5:34 pm

    We live in a time when there is no local danger. So much wealth. So much freedom. We are living in an anomaly of human history.

    That is not proof it can’t continue. All it would take is very cheap fusion.

    And there are so many cost reductions possible. Cannabis medicine fully exploited is worth $1 trillion a year savings in the US alone. Think cure for cancer. A 2/3rds reduction in diabetes. And there are at least 700 maladies it can be applied to. If only the socons would stop standing in the way.

    There is so much stuff in the pipeline.

    The abundance could end. But it may not.

  37. Rocket
    December 14th, 2014 at 9:49 pm

    After you get enough pussy and get older, its just nicer to have someone to grow old with.

    I’m 70. A data point. Yes it is. And children are a comfort too.

    In another 10 years this will become more obvious as the boomers get into their 70s and 80s and start wailing about their lacks. Watch for the “I’m so lonely” articles.

  38. Bango Tango
    December 14th, 2014 at 6:26 pm

    Even though you might have social relations between men and women changing dramatically from what it had been for all of human history there is still a chance that the crazy tech to come, virtual reality stuff like oculus will allow r and K to exist together without bringing about radical destruction of either.

    One of the bigger problems I see is that the two political philosophies do not understand that they need each other. They are suited to different ecological niches. Each “side” thinks they have all the answers and should dominate. It is not only wrong. It is stupid. National and even State politics needs to be cut way back. The best politics IMO is local. For a LOT of reasons.

    A thermodynamic explanation of politics

    I wrote that in late 2009.

    Our #1 problem is that we were taught the wrong stuff in school. The r/K article (and others like it) needs to be taught. The thermodynamics of politics needs to be taught. Instead we get Capitalism vs Socialism.

    And here is where the drug culture could really help (not just cannabis). The body’s endocannabinoid system production declines markedly past age 25 or 30. That is the age when people’s world view is set. We have drugs that can loosen up “old” people (over 30). Thanks to the socons they remain illegal. Thankfully this is changing as the most rabid of the socons die off. We NEED to be more adaptable.

    The value of the drug culture is not taught in school either. At best we get “drugs are bad m’kay”. Well no. They have their uses. Some native cultures had psychedelic religions. Peyote, magic mushrooms. And all that has been driven to extinction. We have wasted 40 or 50 years. Worse. We have been hacking away at our support systems. Blindly.

  39. jf12 – “If so, then the penitent’s prayer would not include the request for forgiveness ‘for what I have done and what I have failed to do.'”

    Hobbes explains it well. The “for what I have done and what I have failed to do” could easily refer to giving into silly demands and failing to maintain frame.

    Our sin as men is in having allowed ourselves to be lead astray by consumer culture and believing that doing good=providing material trinkets to the women instead of acting as a break on their worst impulses.

  40. Badpainter
    December 15th, 2014 at 1:48 am

    Our sin as men is in having allowed ourselves to be lead astray by consumer culture

    Surprisingly Marxist Marcuse made the same analysis. I don’t think that explains everything.

    Our sin is that we are too successful. Without that success the production of trinkets would have little value. At least for the masses.

    Think back to 500 years ago. Who supported the jewelers? The wealthy. The upper classes. Now everyone can get a gold ring with a diamond. And if it wasn’t for the diamond cartel diamonds would be as cheap as opals.

  41. Evidently the Plan is working well. Part of the polygynous Plan includes convincing many males to self-select themselves out of the running for reproducing with females.

  42. jf12 – “Evidently the Plan is working well.”

    It’s all for the good of the species, perfectly natural, organic even. That which is natural is always good you know hurricanes, Ebola, tornados, poisonous spiders, mosquitos, droughts, bubonic plague, infant mortality, etc. The state of nature is good and superior. Man er…Men are flawed, defective in that we always try to control nature. Be it by engineering civilizations, creating systems of governance, or creating Game the need of Men to change nature is a flaw corrected only by submitting to the FI and abandoning our minds. The current situation is sum result of Men’s hubris. Like the old ommercial says “It’s not nice to fool mother nature.”

  43. Badpainter
    December 15th, 2014 at 7:24 am

    Engineers have their own sayings.

    You can’t fool mother nature.

    And conservatives are just as hard at work trying to as are liberals.

    I was looking at the blog posts over at the r/K site. They know the truth and yet are trying to fight it. Bring back the “good old days”. They want a War On Gays because gays disgust them. Playing right into the hands of the SJWs. Idiots.

  44. @ Rocket – Let’s just be clear. I didn’t say that “cultural marxism” causes the FI or feminism or anything like that. What I did is lay out the epistemological history of the relevant political philosophy and the actual history of the political actors in the movements I focused on, and how that gave rise to the radical egalitarianism present in the radfem and entire social justice movement. Rollo keeps focusing on the “radical egalitarianism” and how it’s so destructive – I’m explaining how this arose in our political system. It did not arise from feminism, it arose elsewhere and was co-opted by feminism and many other victim groups. I explained this all very clearly.

    My comment is eminently falsifiable. If you have a counterfactual, please offer it. If you believe my analysis is faulty, tell me where. But you don’t do any of this, you just say “I don’t buy all of it” – all of what, Rocket?

    As for my follow on comments about the state of Marxism in our society, the facts I cited support my contention. Please, show me how Obama wasn’t and isn’t a Marxist – I’m all ears. What – you have no counterfactuals or an actual counter-argument? But still want to say I’m wrong? Lol.

    The politics instrumentalize the FI in a way that human society hasn’t done before. Why does this simple point put so many people’s brains to sleep or make them angry in the manosphere?

    Wait, I know why. Because ultimately most of you likely have unexamined political views and know little of the actual political philosophy or the history of these movements in the 20th century. That’s okay – just don’t yell at me when I pull the scales from your eyes.

    And stop presuming I’m arguing for tradcon values or saying that evolution and genetics etc don’t matter – I’m not saying that. Deal with what I’m actually saying.

  45. @ M. Simon – I haven’t commented in your r/K selection commentary because it’s a very technical idea. Fyi, the reason I don’t comment on genetics much here is because I’ve actually been reading scientific texts on all of this and realize that the science behind all of this is much, much more complicated than most manospherians claim it to be. We have to be very careful of abusing evolutionary psychology to suit our priors. I’ve been at it for over a year now and am starting to get a good understanding of the basics. At some point, I will probably start making more commentary of that sort, but I’m weird – I don’t comment about shit I don’t understand well.

    That said, it seems to me that r/K selection theory was supplanted as a model for Life History Theory due to its fixed nature. It has been replaced by a more stochastic model that allows for more axes of causality to be taken into account, and in general it’s thought that the lack of dynamics in r/K theory limits it’s usefulness. It’s also thought that r and K aren’t directly comparable. It is a useful shorthand and does get us thinking about various ecological pressures on survival strategies. But more than that?

    Rushton famously used r/K selection theory to look at IQ and crime rates across races and received a ton of criticism for doing so, even though the basic science seemed right, even according to Edward O. Wilson. I’m reading Wilson, fyi, he’s amazing. Wilson is really focused on group and sexual selection and social systems, and was the originator of r/K selection theory along with someone else. In his recent book, The Social Conquest of Earth, Wilson doesn’t mention a thing about the connection to politics. He’s smart and stays away from too much PC controversy, but still, I’m left wondering how strong the basis is for your claims as to the deterministic nature of r/K and politics.

    Let me be precise. I’m not saying your wrong, I’m saying I can’t really evaluate your claims effectively. I am quite loath to take my science from a site entitled “anonymous conservative” – an overtly political site and necessarily partisan. I’ve tried to find what Wilson himself has to say about the politics and r/K and he’s silent. Do you have a non-partisan citation for us?

  46. Glenn,

    Nice to see you finding your inner Alpha. I have not studied the things you have in as great a depth (my efforts went elsewhere), but everything I have studied backs up your contentions.

    What is interesting is the wealth of information available. You don’t even have to buy books to get it. I have left a LOT of links on this thread proving that.

    We know that endocannabinoid production declines markedly at around age 25 or 30 and that generally fixes a person’s world view. So I would not be too surprised at the reaction. It is normal. But let me repeat something I said elsewhere:

    Do you know why the fems/liberals/Marxists faction is whipping your arse? They are adapting faster. So far what I see in the manosphere is empty dreaming. A pining for the way it used to be.

    I have made several calls to action (I’m busy with other things – but I can help) and no one has taken me up on my offer or even tried to figure out a plan of action let alone implement it. Crying in the wind is what I see.

    Maybe if the “conservatives” (and I’m excluding the tradcons from that faction – they are a spent force) were smoking as much rope as the liberals they might come up with better ideas faster.

    Pussy is whipping your asses. And you sit back and just take it. MGTOW. What a joke. It is the ultimate pussification of men. MEN don’t take it. They don’t retreat into basements. They fight. .

  47. Glenn
    December 15th, 2014 at 10:12 am

    That said, it seems to me that r/K selection theory was supplanted as a model for Life History Theory due to its fixed nature. It has been replaced by a more stochastic model that allows for more axes of causality to be taken into account, and in general it’s thought that the lack of dynamics in r/K theory limits it’s usefulness. It’s also thought that r and K aren’t directly comparable. It is a useful shorthand and does get us thinking about various ecological pressures on survival strategies. But more than that?

    I agree. esp the bolded part. But it does seem to provide a good base for thinking about these things. You are familiar with chaotic systems. “Random” inputs at critical points can change the strange attractor. Politics is one of the “random” inputs in the system we are studying. It can not only switch attractors but to some extent determine which attractor is switched to.

    The problem I see is that the conservative mantra is always “keep it the same as it ever was”. They are not even thinking of how to adapt their ideas to changed conditions and new information. That is really the beauty of the Frankfurt School. “What we were doing wasn’t working. What should we try next?”

    Let me be precise. I’m not saying your wrong, I’m saying I can’t really evaluate your claims effectively. I am quite loath to take my science from a site entitled “anonymous conservative” – an overtly political site and necessarily partisan. I’ve tried to find what Wilson himself has to say about the politics and r/K and he’s silent. Do you have a non-partisan citation for us?

    Again. I agree. As to finding something non-partisan? Not so far.

    And I have said on their blog that they are trying to hold on while they admit that holding on is not possible. They ought to read themselves some time. They have no clue how to adapt. I don’t either. But unlike them I have no nostalgia for the past (I’m Frankfurt School in that respect) and by continual study and thinking I expect to eventually come up with something.

    My first advantage is that I don’t think the problem is insoluble. I’m not a MGTOW.

    One funny thing. They continually refer to the amygdala and never once mention endocannabinoid signaling – one of the keys to the amygdala. You might think they have been blinded by the culture wars. Heh.

  48. One thing H. Marcuse said in one of his videos struck me. Roughly: “We don’t hold that Marxism as originally expounded has all the answers. Conditions have changed.”

  49. What got me really interested in the r/K site it the number of citations in the literature of how resource availability affects hypergamy/mating patterns. I though the r/K piece was the best expositions of that I have seen.

    There are other factors. Birth control is a big one. Politics is another (no fault divorce which I touched on above). But we also have “rape culture” propaganda. But even if we take their bad statistics ant face value 3/4s of men are not rapists. So why do men take it? They have bought into group identity. They have accepted the sins of some men as their own.

    Of course we are more violent. That is our value to women. Remember the bad boy preference? We are the protectors of women. We should sell it. It used to be a cultural norm.

  50. @ M. Simon – Ditto on MGTOW – making a lifestyle of defeat and hating women. It’s essentially a “rage-quit”. A commenter above says ‘solve it all with prostitutes’, lol. That is the ultimate in negotiated desire. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve done it and it can be fun. But it’s essentially quitting before you get out of the gate in terms of being successful with women. And after all, what I’m really after is a woman’s unbidden desire, but with a pro I’ve already “bid” for it.

    My “inner alpha” was always there, I now know that I’m quite lucky to have one. The Blue Pill programming and the FI always had me ashamed of my masculinity at a very basic level, and I always felt deep conflicts about my instincts. I don’t feel that way anymore. I embrace my masculinity, my aggression, my problem solving POV, my courage and curiosity. Even when I overdo it, i forgive myself quickly. Interestingly, I think I’ve finally internalized the “she’ll forgive you for being an asshole but never for being a pussy” bit. I just have to keep doing it once I’m in a relationship.

    Back to the topic of the article, I think that part of Socialized Hypergamy is having married men essentially agree to be cuckolds of some sort or another. Even if they aren’t cheating, women are entitled to withhold sex and otherwise sexually belittle and frustrate their husbands. I think this is a way of demonstrating their sexual value and essentially inducing “dread” in husbands to be better Betas – who they don’t want to fuck in the first place. Circular logic, ratcheting it’s way downwards, towards insanity.

    I’ll never forget the day I decided I wouldn’t take it anymore. I was 30 and foreplay with my wife had become begging and pleading – and fyi, I had HB8+ regularly interested at me at that age (making big money, good job, great suits and a model quality face on an average body). I made an amorous advance towards my wife early in the morning – knowing she would rebuff but I really didn’t care. I like fucking in the morning, it’s a great way to start the day. She pushed me back for the 1000th time and I got up out of the bed and told her. “This is not a marriage. I will no longer put up with this – we’re done.” I took off my wedding ring and put it in the cigar box on my dresser and never put it back on. My then wife was stunned, but I didn’t argue, I just got dressed and went to my job in Manhattan.

    I went out that night and met a hot, wild Russian woman who threw herself at me, got a hotel and fucked her brains out. Fyi, I had already given my then wife an ultimatum 7 months before to either “get in or get out of our marriage” and she of course, didn’t make a decision, but did take a lover. While we were shopping to buy a house – she was banging the new guy. She had set up a savings account in her name – I discovered her cheating and perfidy in the weeks that followed as I pulled my head out of my ass.

    In way, she set up the entire dynamic to justify her hypergamy. When I gave her the ultimatum 7 months earlier, she assumed I had cheated on her. Fyi, she was half right – i had met a woman who really liked me and the contrast between her and the way my wife treated me was obvious. We had one half-backed sexual encounter that I ended before it finished as I didn’t want be a cheater. But my eyes were open to how awful my wife was treating me and how many real options with women I had, hence my ultimatum. But she already had this other guy in the wings, ready to go, hell she might have already been fucking him. But somehow, me giving the whiff of not playing her game anymore gave her the license to move on to the next guy. It was so weird.

    She also cut the new guy off from sex eventually too, after marrying him. I remember watching the light die in his eyes over the years as she wore him down to a nub. He finally quit on her too, after 13 years. My ex had pathology going on though, so she was not like most women. She has what I think is a covert narcissistic personality disorder. She was also quite hot. I think that she never really developed a full sense of herself as a person, forget any true self-worth. As a beautiful women, she thrived on the adoration the world threw at her, as anyone would. I think that her inner emptiness could never be filled by anyone or anything – her mother ruined her. Her mom treated men like dirt too, and now my daughter treats me like dirt – it seems to be the family business…

  51. You can take the feminist defintion of “rape culture” and replace every instance of rape with the word cuckold and it will perfectly explain what their agenda is.

    Cuckold culture is a concept that examines a culture in which cuckoldry is pervasive and normalized due to societal attitudes about gender and sexuality.

    I also propose that the manosphere create a new term.

    Cuckoldism

    Definition:
    1) The promotion, advocacy, or support for an ideology of cuckoldry.
    2) An ideology that seeks to enable, encourage, celebrate or normalise cuckoldry.
    3) An ideology whose central organising premise is cuckoldry and its enabling.
    4) Promotion of cuckoldry.

    Cuckoldist
    Definition
    1) A person who believes in, advocates or supports cuckoldism.
    2) A person who ascribes to an ideology of cuckoldism.

    It will provide a conceptual rallying point for combating feminism, (or atleastly the parts of feminism that I believe many in the manosphere have a problem with). It will do for the manosphere what coining racism did for anti-racists or sexism did for feminists.

    Then it’s just a matter of propagating emotionally reactive images of cuckoldry in practice and attaching it to that word.

    i.e. http://www.reddit.com/r/relationship_advice/comments/mazxi/gf_pregnant_by_another_guy_after_wild_weekend_of/

    or

    http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1rir7r/prefect_example_of_alpha_fucks_beta_bucks/

    or

    http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/84261128/

    And Boom! Pretty soon we can shut down any feminist in a debate by accusing her and her argument of being cuckoldist.

    This agenda of cuckoldry is easily observed in #Gamergate;

    Zoe Quinn cuckolded her boyfriend with 5 other men. He put her on blast for this and this pissed guys off as men don’t like cuckoldists. Then it took on a life of it’s own as being about ethics in gaming journalism.

    But what has been the feminists response? To accuse the men of just wanting to slutshame Zoe Quinn. But just think of that for a moment, feminists oppose slut-shaming, by saying this event was about men trying to slut-shame Zoe Quinn they are extending the definition of slutshaming to women who cheat, to women who cuckold. By extending the definition out to such women feminists have made their agenda clear. Their agenda is cuckoldry and they will fight, agitate and advocate for the imposition of a culture that cuckolds men.

    And the reason why the term cuckoldry so aptly encapsulates what the left/demoncrats/liberals/SJW’s/SWPL’s is doing to the right/Whites/heteronormative/traditional men and women. men is because cuckoldry is a form of parasitism, and the left/demoncrats/liberals/SJW’s/SWPL’s ARE trying to parasitise those on the right/Whites/heteronormative/traditional men and women.

  52. The first step to happiness is getting in touch with your inner animal and not feeling shame. The next is to see the world as an interplay of animals that try to invent rules to cope with their nature. Then everything becomes clear. A happy animal is one that respects the nature of himself and others and builds a life on those terms. Asking for the return of social rules and mores from a different era when nature has clearly changed is just crazy. A man can only adapt with the knowledge that he is the only jockey of his life (of course chance can deliver any surprise).

  53. Glenn,

    First while it is on my mind. – M/F mating patterns are also influenced heavily by the M/F ratio. When women predominate by as little as 1.05 to 1 the inner slut takes over. When the ratio is in the other direction monogamy. So that is another dimension. It is not just food/shelter etc. that enters the resource equation.

    ===

    her inner emptiness could never be filled by anyone or anything

    They are all like that. In the book “Zen Flesh, Zen Bones” one Master says that of the men who try for Mastery 2/3s will accomplish it. Of the women 1/3. Not mentioned is how few women try.

    Everyone has noted how much women like to talk and how few useful words come out of their mouths. They use talking to cover their inner emptiness. Men generally are comfortable with silence.

    And if they don’t have some one to talk to they will be running the TV all the time. As long as some one is chattering they do not have to face that inner emptiness. The only thing I have seen that fills the emptiness is bonding. And they are uncomfortable staying bonded. Got to be ready in case what looks like a better deal comes along. Even if they KNOW that no better deal is likely or even possible.

  54. Because I am interested in ending Prohibition I hang out with lefties a lot. The difference between them and what I see in the manosphere is that lefties are always working on plans, inventing slogans, passing out studies, and the like to push their agenda.

    I have yet to see any sites in the manosphere dedicated to political action. It is all about the nature of women, men/women mating, how to keep a woman, and of course the big draw –> how to score pussy.

    I think it is in the nature of left/right. The left is biased to political action. For them it is second nature because “everything is political”.

    So for your amusement.

    Divorce is ALWAYS somebodies fault.
    No more hide the daddy. (DNA testing)

    Anyone care to add to the list?

  55. A woman can only bond to a man who is unashamed of his sexuality and never buys into the monogamy drivel. My father and mother have had a long, wonderful marriage but he always walked around with wolf eyes for women and never made a secret of his animal nature. My mother, a very bossy, aggressive woman, is completely bonded to him. That is the only way. Any man who actually buys into the idea that his sexuality can be controlled by marriage, is automatically a man whom the woman will not want to fuck.

  56. @ M. Simon – Another point worth making is how unsettled much of the science is in the field of evolutionary biology. See this article laying out the huge disagreements between Richard Dawkins and Edward O. Wilson – two giants in the field. Wilson, fyi, invented the field of “socio-biology” that become evolutionary biology, as well as r/K selection theory. Here’s the article http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jun/24/battle-of-the-professors.

    But what’s undeniably true is that many of the “truths” that are presented in the manosphere about the relationship between genetics and inter-sexual relationships are nothing of the sort. That’s not to say that heuristics aren’t helpful – in fact, such ‘rules of thumb’ are much of what we use to navigate the real world. But heuristics are not axioms – yet many in the manosphere argue as though they’ve got axioms.

  57. @M Simon The difference between them and what I see (here) is that (bullies in all shapes and sizes) are always working on plans, inventing slogans, passing out studies, and the like to push their agenda.

    The bullies spend money (they’re given by a much larger power) hiring people around the world to create, manage and moderate countless sock puppet accounts to effectively push destructive concepts so they can feel they have more control over people that seek constant improvement.

  58. LiveFearless
    December 15th, 2014 at 7:15 pm

    In my experience the vast majority of them do it for free because they believe it to be in their interest.

    And you believe you are being bullied.That does not help.

    You are being out thought and out marketed.

    The bullying doesn’t come until they get laws passed.

    ===============

    You don’t even know what war you are fighting . How can you expect to win it?

    “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” ― Sun Tzu

  59. Glenn
    December 15th, 2014 at 6:18 pm

    There are cases of group selection in the animal kingdom.

    http://www1.ucsc.edu/currents/02-03/06-23/lizards.html

    That was given to me by a tradcon.

    And the essence of the left is group pressure. In fact the essence of politics is group pressure.

    The feature of the right that reduces group political cohesion is that if you don’t agree with them 100% they don’t want your help. The left OTOH is generally – “if you only agree with us on this issue, help us with this issue”. Ronald Reagan noted the tendency 30 some years ago. He only asked for 80% agreement.

    1. @ M. Simon – There are many cases of group selection in the animal kingdom – this is how ants and termites came to dominate their worlds so thoroughly. Human’s put it on hyper-speed and our social development was largely driven by group selection.

  60. You’d think from reading HuffPo that there was practically a consensus that the most desirable, attractive wife for truly “self-assured” and non-insecure men was a masculine, high-achieving, intimidating, opinionated woman. The equalist narrative claims as victories for itself even social phenomena that rely on ultimately more base, traditional motives, so keen is it to shoehorn and subsume all other truths into its own box. Case in point, all the fuss over the newest media darling, George Clooney’s Lebanese lawyer bride:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-houghton/the-new-trophy-wife_b_6207364.html

  61. @Thick_Biscuit
    I’m fucking two lawyers, a hot single mom, and occasionally an average EE chick right now. I don’t plan to keep any of them (all shitty LTR options for their own reasons), but a lawyer? The two I’m doing have to be neg’d in to a submissive state on such a regular basis that I don’t want to ever mess with a lawyer again. Seriously what guy would keep one of these SIWs? You’re unnecessary to the relationship as far as they’re concerned. My game with them has to be straight up relentless in its condescension, and neither of them is particularly hot. I imagine hot lawyers are even more a pain in the ass.

    I’m seriously about to just start trolling ghettos for diamonds in the rough at this point. Middle-upper class SIWs in the US are just too much trouble.

  62. Thick_Biscuit
    December 16th, 2014 at 12:25 am

    Well I wanted a strong beauty with brains. Got one too. To keep it together I have dominated her. For forty years so far. Four kids. Three handsome with brains. And a beauty with brains.

  63. Glenn,

    I had a tradcon say to me in the last 24 hours that Liberals are designed for easy times and Conservatives are designed for hard times. Progress.

    His take “Come the fall of man…” The usual we get around here. I said that at this stage it is very unlikely that we will return to a non-abundant state. I am awaiting his reply.

    He has been ranting on for years about values and how his are the only correct ones. I pointed out that his recent admission was counter to that. I am awaiting his reply.

    Further he said “Hard times produce good people, easy times bad people.” I said that conservatives didn’t even have a theory for producing good people in easy times, let alone a practice. I said I was working on producing a more universal set of rules to replace the good times/bad times dichotomy. But it was early days and what the rules should be was not entirely (or at all) clear.

  64. re: “a more universal set of rules”

    Even if a model isn’t fitting reality well, the unmodeled behavior may not be modelable per se.

  65. jf12
    December 16th, 2014 at 7:26 am

    The tree has too many intertwined branches and the intertwining is contingent. If I get your meaning correctly.

    Chaos plays a part. You can model it but you can’t predict it.

    As a tech guy you would get it. Navier-Stokes.

    ================

    But that is true of all human behavior. You can have general rules of right and wrong but they are contingent on circumstances.

    Would you violate a law to prevent a death? Jewish law in fact commands it.

    I still think there can be rules.

    I aim to start with two:

    Divorce is ALWAYS somebodies fault.
    No more hide the daddy. (DNA testing)

  66. Glenn
    December 16th, 2014 at 11:20 am

    There are two daughters involved. That situation sets a really bad example. If I was the husband I would have moved out. OTOH the c*nt might have deprived him of contact.

  67. Glen, you don’t really know who you are, do you? Identity crisis much? One moment you were an MGTOW with a YouTube channel and 22000 hits, now you think MGTOW is for losers… Look, your “intellectualism” at the end of the day counts for not much – it’s no “SO IMPRESSIVE” – and your insults to those who actually appreciate(ED) some of your informative posts only reflects on your character. YOU are playing up to – and playing right into – the needs and wants of the FI – and encouraging everyone else to follow your lead. Way to go.

    You need to read @ Rocket’s #2 again – he nailed it. You just don’t have the balls for it.

    1. @ J.J. – I don’t claim to be an intellectual. And I didn’t have an identity crisis, I evolved as any man who takes the RedPill does. I closed my channel down because it was mostly about criticizing MGTOW, in the sense that it’s mostly just a bunch of spergy, beta pussies who make a lifestyle out of being on the losing end of the mating game. The entire community is seething with passive aggressive man-children filled with rage. Don’t agree with me? Go watch Sandman’s videos and tell me that they are “A Daily Ten Minutes of Hate”.

      I also realized that doing a channel was mostly about my ego, so I stopped. But I learned a lot and made some good friends. I still like some of the MGTOW stuff on YouTube, from guys like Razobladekandy and Spetznaz.

      As for coming out hard at people, go clutch your pearls elsewhere. You’ll note that substantive engagement is responded to with substance, but people who make general, half-assed arguments while dismissing me get served. Like you for example. You actually didn’t deal with a single thing I said, you just took cheap shots at me. Next…

  68. J.J.
    December 16th, 2014 at 2:49 pm

    There is no one best way to fight the FI – so far. People have opinions of the best way. Sometimes opinions change. And that is why the FI is whipping your ass. They are flexible and will adapt their methods as the situation changes. You will not.

    I work with the lefties on some issues and their political acumen is something to behold.

    “To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” ― Sun Tzu

  69. Supply and Demand, Bitchez!!

    And when it comes to withholding the supply the “alphas” are the biggest betas… 😀

  70. J.J.
    December 16th, 2014 at 3:40 pm

    Not getting any I see. Obviously the ladies don’t miss you. More for me. Plus by constant contact with the opposition I learn things unavailable by any other method.

    In any case. My condolences.

    BTW you might want to learn politics. Because passive resistance accomplishes nothing without politics. So if you would be so kind as to outline any part of the political plan you have developed so far. I’m sure we could all profit from that.

  71. About a year into this red pill reality. Although, I subconsciously knew that something was off in my bones over 5 years ago. Anger, confusion, denial, introspection, mentality shifts, personality changes, internalized shame for falling for this ruse and acting it out, regret for not acting out my place in life, etc etc.

    I know feminism won’t win. You can’t out legislate nature. Society can’t function with women as primary drivers because only 5% of them take responsibility for their actions. They cut corners and are just all around pikers. Women are so risk adverse that if they ever achieved their version of “equality” Starbucks wouldn’t have any new flavors for fear of rejection. Their version of equality forgets that the world will judge you equally as well and that scares the hell out of them. I could go on…

    ..but it doesn’t matter. They’ve tried to bash and crush men while simultaneously giving women every advantage and what is the result? Malaise, malcontents, 2 generations of ruined women, and a confused as fucked populace that is saying “No, no this isn’t working”

    I am not checking out of society. I am building a new version for myself and will choose who gets to benefit from my vision going forward. Fuck all with the consequences.

    In the end, it was a simple realization. The why will always outweigh the how, what, who, etc.

    I’m rewriting my why without any concern for any nonsense I’ve been “taught” over the past 26 years.

  72. @ Simon

    “Not getting any I see”… Do you think I am “shamed” do you?

    What do “alphas” and feminists have in common? They like to (try and) shame others into conformity.

  73. @M_Simon, you wrote

    I hang out with lefties a lot…

    In my experience the vast majority of them do it for free because they believe it to be in their interest.

    And you believe you are being bullied.That does not help.

    You are being out thought and out marketed.

    The bullying doesn’t come until they get laws passed.

    ===============

    You don’t even know what war you are fighting . How can you expect to win it?

    1. Me too, they’re smart, you’re right, they do stuff for free. Except, they outsource most of the work since time freedom is the domain of the most powerful folks. They believe it’s in their interest to understand that they are NOT smarter than all the ones doing work that requires mastery skills sets they’ve found unnecessary to learn. That’s smart thinking. I even delegate talent work that I’m one of the best in the world at doing. Why? There’s only so much time in a day & doing so gives me time to do biggest talent ‘gigs’ I most want to do. The term ‘left’ or ‘lefties’ you’ve used often implies the political parties are not bought and controlled by the same people. The stadium is filled with fans cheering for their team, choosing not to believe the obvious fact that the game is rigged.

    2. Worldwide influence is not free, it requires people working around the world and around the clock to spread the funded narratives

    3. Do I believe I’m being bullied? That’s good to know.

    4. Out thought/out marketed? You’re correct. Since the hit and run accident, I’ve been a bit slow, but I can walk and talk again. Before that, my team was hiring 2,000 people per year to stay ahead of ‘their’ methods

    5. No bullying until laws get passed? You’re right. Although Attorney Mike Cernovich didn’t say laws were broken in pointing out a “bully”:

    http://twitter.com/playdangerously/status/525797577652842496

    6. Do I not even know what war is being fought? You’re right. Not sure why interests in Hollywood have trusted and paid me to know and to cause mass change. Thanks for pointing this out. I’ll have to ask them.

  74. There are a lot of references to “how to fight” in this comment section.

    Danger & Play has spent two months demonstrating this every day, in real time, on Twitter. It’s working. Watching his every tweet is like the ultimate FREE Mentorship Program on using the ‘enemies’ tactics and ‘facts and truth’ against them:
    Mike Cernovich calls it:

    GO FULL GORILLA

  75. M. Simon – “I work with the lefties on some issues and their political acumen is something to behold.”

    Agreed they are truly gifted. But they are usually idiot savants who without politics are incapable of doing anything by themselves. Politics is their compensation for lacking actual substantial competence.

    And to be clear I’m talking the pro and pro-am type political lefties who make it a vocation and not just a point of view.

  76. “Men aren’t dropping out of feminine-primary society, they’re adapting contingencies for it, learning workarounds, comparing notes, and a growing Red Pill awareness is at the heart of that adaptation, even for men who’ve never heard of it.”

    The same can be said for the women, who are becoming more aware that men are becoming more aware. The war of the sexes is real and it’s getting worse. The articles in all pro feminist magazines are giving the tips to gain and maintain primacy

    The most common mental fallacy primed into females is “Strong & Independent yet still wants Chivalry & Romance” how anyone cannot see the contradiction there is a fool. This is just one of many socially engineered conditions we are facing, and it is all real.

    The truth is, going their own way isn’t going to change a thing. With technology advancing the way it is, men have essentially worked themselves out of a job. They go their own way means they don’t make babies. Think about population reduction.

    Unless they are the top 20% they get the scraps that the elite don’t want. So check yourselves out or find yourself a fugly that can’t chase alpha cock. This feminist “matriarchy” everyone is screaming about is just a little slack given to the bitch’s least by its true master. They are naive to think the rulers of this world wont pull back on the choker in due time once the population is low enough.

    Either way, your dream of finding a beautiful woman to love you for the strong masculine man you are won’t be coming true unless their is a catastrophe and men are actually needed and appreciated again.

  77. Badpainter
    December 16th, 2014 at 6:43 pm

    My point was that what I see in the manosphere is a total lack of interest in politics. Glenn presented something on the first page. I followed up with more stuff and instead of taking the hint and figuring out a political angle/program (to start) there was backbiting and a lack of interest that is almost total.

    It doesn’t matter that lefty/female plans are self defeating. A lot of people are going to get hurt in that defeat.

    To head them off at the pass or at least slow them down men need to get as political or more political than the lefties/females. We can take lessons from them. I am in fact fortunate to have been a communist until about 1980. I know how they work. I can do politics some. But politics by its very nature requires support.

    Is there a single issue that we can rally around? Ending no fault divorce say. Or some other? You don’t need paid staff. You don’t need gobs of money. Just personal commitment. The only thing the folks around here seem to rally around is pussy. Or its converse no pussy.

    Or maybe conditions are not right. Maybe we need more Red Pill. In the mean time the lefties/females are relentless with the object of beating our asses. If they can. And because we have no united front they usually can.

  78. bookooball
    December 16th, 2014 at 7:55 pm

    You do outline the essence of the problem. But I’m not so pessimistic. Should men care to rally the forces can be defeated.

    So work on a rally point.

  79. LiveFearless
    December 16th, 2014 at 6:37 pm

    Did you know that lander had an RTX2000 series processor programmed in Forth? My favorite language. http://spacetimepro.blogspot.com/

    BTW “Be Yourself” “Go Full Gorilla” is not a political plan. And men are being whipped by politics.

    You don’t even know what war you are fighting . How can you expect to win it?

  80. “As far as I can tell the MGTOW political plan is:
    1. We withdraw from close contact.
    2. A miracle happens
    3. We win”

    MGTOW political plan? Win? No. IMO MGTOW is not about victory, it is about damage control and self preservation. MGTOW will not empower men to have any success with women or in life, but it will stop them from being fucked over. That is the “win”.

    Most MGTOW don’t call themselves that and haven’t taken the red pill. They just know they have been fucked over, and over, and they want it to stop. There is no political battle to fight because most of these men are classic betas so they are invisible to most women. MGTOW and Game are coping strategies that may work based on the type of man you are.

    For men as a group, RP awareness is what matters most. Every beta bucks guy that decides not to marry that slut and soft cuckhold himself, is a victory. Every former white knight that decides to let that drunk chick fight her own battles, is a victory. And so on…

  81. M. Simon – “Or maybe conditions are not right. Maybe we need more Red Pill. In the mean time the lefties/females are relentless with the object of beating our asses. If they can. And because we have no united front they usually can.”

    Too early for an overt movement. The ‘sphere is sewing the seeds of dissent, what may sprout is too early to tell.

    Politics is dicey because there is so much baggage associated with it. Even a sane discussion is difficult. I admit to having no interest in whatever the left has to say when it comes to policy. I have no faith in the right. Whatever evolves politically from the ‘sphere will have too appeal to enough men of all types to prevent them opposing or dropping out.

    I do fear what a charismatic leader could do by direct appeal to the disenfranchised betas. Betas are excellent followers, especially when they have something to believe in. Now too many still believe in the first set of books. If the Redpill shatters that world view what it offers to replace it is more ambiguous, and much less hopeful.

    How do you market, to the average man, accepting his place in the lesser 80% without the risk of generating Project Mayhem?

  82. Badpainter
    December 17th, 2014 at 1:15 am

    I admit to having no interest in whatever the left has to say when it comes to policy. I have no faith in the right.

    Yeah. I study politics. Fairly deep. And I’m totally with you.

    And you are probably correct about too early.

    But there are movements somewhat independent of left and right. Anti-Prohibition for one. We are fighting what I currently call “The War On Some Men aka The War On Some Drugs”. It is about 75% left and 25% right. (see how I have co-opted Men, Race, and Justice with that one? Not to mention evoking the War On Women. Short. Easy to remember. And I piggy back on other cultural memes. )

    How do you market, to the average man, accepting his place in the lesser 80% without the risk of generating Project Mayhem?

    Offer them a set of rules, if enacted, that will return things to the way they used to be. The rules need to be seen as both objective and just. So we can be RJWs – Real Justice Warriors.

    Divorce is ALWAYS somebodies fault.
    No more hide the daddy. (DNA testing)

    There is a start.

    You will note: Vektor
    December 16th, 2014 at 11:27 pm

    Who thinks that letting Alphas get all the ‘tang is a victory. That not having children is a victory.

    And I assume because he is here that he has at least the start of Red Pill. So even Red Pill may not be enough to get Betas organized. It may be that Red Pill Alphas have to do the organizing and fighting and work for Beta support. Makes it much more difficult but not IMO impossible. Well you know the Alpha motto – “Never Tell Me The Odds”.

    We are starting to see Red Pill women – that is a very hopeful sign.

    Early days yet. Things may have to evolve some more.

  83. Let me add that Red Pill women is not a new phenomenon. I met one in ’62. She was my first GF. But it was rare back then. So rare that I dare not even put a number on the odds. And she was spinning plates. She liked training virgins. So I was odd for a man of that time. I accepted the other plates. As long as she liked me I didn’t care who else she liked. She was also 4 years older than I was.

    She found a man studying for the ministry and married him. Making her a born again virgin or something. And I was there the day she met him. Later she, he, and I saw Lenny Bruce together at the Gate of Horn in Chicago. I did take her to bed that night. Just me and her. But it was the beginning of the end. Well I was new to Red Pill and my Game was not yet very good. But I did have a start. Thank you Joan.

  84. Trying to think here. It may be White Knighting to go your own way, e.g. by protecting females from yourself, by giving other guys more of a chance, etc.

  85. @ M. Simon – What these guys who ‘don’t do politics’ fail to get is that they have ceded that entire field to the left by doing so. And they have been fucking busy for the past 100 years but in the manosphere, “politics is bullshit and both sides are the same” passes for a political POV. Lol.

    Conservatives don’t have a political ideology in the way that the left does, and I think that’s a huge problem for them. Most self-styled conservatives don’t even know that they don’t have an ideology though, which is quite funny to watch some of the try and wrangle with. They call themselves “constitutional conservatives” or as I heard a caller ID himself on Mark Levin the other night, “a Christian constitutionalist”. I mean, what the fuck is that?

    Most of them don’t know that, for example. “conservatives” opposed the very notion of liberty that informed our founding. They wanted to preserve an aristocratic system in which the elite ran things – conservatives of the day like Burke were the philosophical opponents of Jefferson and Paine. Yet conservatives now wrap themselves in the principles of liberty that their ideological heroes opposed.

    When you analyze conservatives in the public sphere, you find they mostly fall into 2 categories. The first are fundo Christians who believe in so much that isn’t true about the world that they simply are impossible to work with politically. And they have formed an insular reality in the media and online and in their communities where they isolate themselves from the truth. Not only do they question evolution as though there are real questions, they also believe truly ahistorical stuff like the U.S. constitution is based on the Bible – a lie peddled by the odious lowlife, David Barton. Such people cannot be reasoned with.

    The other category of conservative is what I call the “reflexive cultural conservative”. They believe that without a paternalistic government, society will become chaotic and destroy itself. Hence their ability just nod when I point out, for example, that half our criminal justice resources in the U.S. are spent on drug law enforcement. Sex, substances, the family and other behaviors – the conservatives are ready to just chuck the idea of self-ownership and individual sovereignty out the window when it comes to these issues. These types also see the U.S. as a global hegemon, and want us involved in many, many areas of the world militarily (our SpecForces are deployed in 73 countries right now – do you even know that?). They love to see us as a fortress of reason and sanity – but most of them don’t even know our actual history. I often take conservatives through the post WWII relationship between Iran and the U.S. when they portray Iran as hellbent for no reason on the destruction of the U.S. And forget trying to have a fact based, historically accurate conversation with them about the Palestinians and Israel – you can’t.

    That isn’t an ideology, it’s a claque of incompatible, incoherent ideas and beliefs and superstitions. I am conservative in my own way though, in that I understand the value of tradition and history and what’s been passed down from the generations. Culture and tradition are how we transmit what’s been learned and what works from generation to generation. But to blindly respect it is silly.

    You may be correct that there is a genetic component to this – but at this point i remain unconvinced, fyi. I think that what’s really going on is that human beings aren’t anywhere as reasonable as we think. If you spend some time in the cognitive sciences, you’ll find that what we are capable of – at best -is motivated reasoning. What we think is “true” is often nothing of the sort.

    Political philosophy from the left and the right are trying to offer “answers” and the fact is that the ideas of the left are much more intellectually robust and coherent. Read Marx if you haven’t, folks. His ideas about capital or alienation or the nature of class struggle are elegant in their own ways. It provides a level of certainty about the world and how it “should” be that is incredibly compelling if you don’t look at it too critically. Conservatives have no similar ideology.

    Sadly, they are both wrong. In fact, philosophy itself often offers answers about the world that are no better than religion’s. One way to look at where we are at is that we have replaced religion with political philosophy in the public square as an identity and fight about it just like we did religion. Again, I’ll fall back on Edward O. Wilson. In The Social Construction of Earth, he starts by claiming that philosophy will have to be eclipsed by science when talking about human nature and society itself as philosophy simply is inadequate to the task. This kind of blew my mind because he’s so right. If you are tempted to argue, just ask yourself this. What axioms does the left offer about human nature that are always and everywhere true? Answer: None. The only social scientists to try and address this question were and are the Austrian economists, von Bomboverik in particular. His axiom was “humans act” and he reasoned from there, yielding a spectacularly practical set of economic ideaa as a result.

    I know, this is all boring to you guys. As for you, M. Simon, I’m not at all interested in political activism to change a thing. I was deeply involved in politics at one point of my life and I found it disgusting. The people who are attracted to politics are scummy and power hungry and righteous and really, just terrible to spend time with. I found the entire thing unproductive and filled with frustration. Put another way, we are already a statist, collectivist society with an authoritarian, totalitarian govt. That’s what most Americans and people in the West want. They don’t want to be free – it’s too scary for them. In this, I actually see the hand of the FI writ large. Betaized men want Daddy govt too as you can’t expect them to run their lives, can you? The light of liberty is flickering out in the West, as it has in every democracy ever born. I’m just along for the ride. If you don’t believe me – just look at what the Republicans are doing in congress, and wake up.

  86. Glenn
    December 17th, 2014 at 8:51 am

    Tour de force.

    One point I would make is that political Islam (and it is like the left in that everything is political) is a dead end. If you know the history of WW2 in Arabia you know that they sided with the Austrian Corporal. Their idea of a caliphate is of a piece with Deutschland über alles. So on that score, despite the valid grievances of the Palestinians, I think the conservatives have it right. But they get almost everything else wrong.

    The light of liberty is flickering out in the West, as it has in every democracy ever born. I’m just along for the ride. If you don’t believe me – just look at what the Republicans are doing in congress, and wake up.

    I have very few illusions about politics. But it has its uses. If it didn’t the left wouldn’t be using it. Like you I favor less coercion. But it is not a popular stance. Left, Right, or Beta.

    ==

    In fact I am looking at what Republicans are doing in Congress.

    http://classicalvalues.com/2014/12/the-republicans-are-attempting-suicide/

    And by suicide I refer to their insistence on fighting the Culture War – which they are losing badly.

  87. jf12 – “Trying to think here. It may be White Knighting to go your own way, e.g. by protecting females from yourself, by giving other guys more of a chance, etc.”

    That assumes the men in question really had chance to begin with, and were desireable at the time they quit. It also assumes the quitters had a chance connected to a prize worth winning and reasonable odds of actually winning. Reality suggests in the carnival game nature of the SMP the prizes are rarely ever worth the cost of playing.

  88. @ M. Simon – I never imagined I’d enjoy your commentary as much as I am, this is really great stuff. Very enlightening. A few disagreements though:

    1. While I love the allusion “the Austrian corporal” as a way to reference Hitler, I think the conflation of Islamism with Nazism couldn’t be more wrong. You specifically cite some Arabs siding with Hitler and the Germans in WWII but this again is one of those tropes I hear from conservatives who don’t understand the history. Until the Zionists invaded Palestine beginning in 1880, there had been little tension between the Arabs and Jews living in Palestine for hundreds of years under the Ottoman Empire, in fact the 25,000 Jews who lived there (Jews had been about 3-5% of Palestine for 2000 years) were vehemently opposed to the Zionist campaign of invasion, colonization and ethnic cleansing of Arab Muslims. But the Zionists prevailed and now control 78% of Palestine and have turned the rest into gulags and ghettos.

    By the time of WWII, the Jews and Arabs had been at each other’s throats in Palestine for decades and it was very clear that a Jewish state was going to be forced on the Arabs by the west, with the Brits front and center. The Brits armed the Zionists and supported them in a million ways (how did Israel spring into existence in ’47 with a 40,000 man strong army?). Anyone who expected the Arabs to side with the Brits has no idea what was going on in the region.

    And yes, Islam is an religious supremacist ideology that fuses politics with religion. But at the end of the day, they are attacking us because we won’t stop meddling in their affairs. And if you don’t get that, you simply don’t know the history. Period. I won’t debate it here as I’m already testing the patience of many a man who wants to get back to figuring out why his wife or GF is such a cunt…

    2. The “drug war” – It’s just sad at this point. I’m a personal fan of marijuana and certain strains are the only non-addictive substance that actually can tamp down my anxiety when it gets quite bad. But unlike benzos, I can put the weed down with ease for as long as I like without any bad effects. Fyi, at the worst of my PTSD I was on benzos, and in 6 weeks I was taking 8 klonopin at a time – and realized I was in trouble. I looked online to do more research and found a community of millions of people addicted to benzos who suffered from anxiety. I put them in the garbage and bought a bag of weed (hadn’t smoked in more than a dozen years at that point).

    The worst part is that we already had the experiment. I love that you call it “prohibition” to make that point – but conservatives can’t hear it. You see, this is where their utter lack of deontologicalism makes them idiots. they also have conflated drug use, particularly pot use, with being a leftie. Lol, I know many a capitalist pothead on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley. In fact, when I worked on Wall St. in the early 80s, I worked in the building ajacent to the New York Stock Exchange on Broad st. and every day I would see market makers out back smoking a quick joint on a break. One of the top semi conductor analysts in the world for a while was a 24/7, wake and bake pothead. I know CEO of a health care company who is the same. But hey, we gots to get rid of those filthy, lowlife, no count druggies. Oh yeah, it’s been studied – people who smoke weed or no more likely to end up on social services than anyone else. It’s also not a “gateway drug”.

    In fact, what’s known in the field of addiction that never makes it into the minds of these right wing know-nothings is that addiction is brought on by mental illness or emotional/developmental issues. Many are victims of trauma, like me, who self-medicate. I had to stop drinking essentially because there wasn’t enough scotch in the world to drown out my Dad screaming at me in my head.

    Places like Portugal have found the right mix. The made all drugs legal and simply focus the resources on treatment for the actual addicts. Fyi, teen drug use is down dramatically in Portugal – tell that to a conservative and see if that makes any difference to them. Or things like only 15% of people who use crack or heroine ever become addicts. Same with pot and alcohol, gosh – could it be that perhaps, just perhaps something else is going on besides being a leftist libertine?

    Okay, I’m done on this thread guys. I’m sure some of you are happy for it. See you next post.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: