The Political is Personal

personal

Dalrock had an interesting post this morning – Black Fathers Don’t Matter – that mends nicely with a topic I was poking at in Obesity Culture:

While HHS (Health and Human Services) says any man currently shacking up with mom counts as the father, the Census says any man currently shacking up with mom counts as the father so long as mom says so.  Either way, fathers clearly can’t matter that much to the US government if distinguishing between the actual father and the man currently banging mom isn’t important.

There are other ways we can tell that fathers don’t matter (and therefore Black fathers don’t matter).  Under our current family system fathers are a sort of deputy parent. Just like a sheriff’s deputy serves at the pleasure of the sheriff, a father in an intact family serves at the pleasure of the mother.  Our entire family court structure is designed to facilitate the removal of the father should the mother decide she no longer wants him to be part of the family unit.  How important can fathers really be, when we have a massive and brutal bureaucracy devoted to helping mothers kick them out of the house?

What Dal is pointing out here has a far broader implication than simply how various governments define fatherhood. Many critics of my defining the Feminine Imperative like to think it’s a work in conspiracy. However, as I’ve explained before, there really is no need for a conspiracy; the Feminine Imperative has no centralized power base because feminine-primacy is so ensaturated into our collective social consciousness. It needs no centralization because feminine social primacy is literally part of women’s self-understanding – and by extension men’s understanding of women and what women expect of them.

Thus, on a Hypergamous social scale we see that Protein World’s male focused ad gets no such vandalism. The message is clear – It is Men who must perform, Men who need to change themselves, optimize themselves and strive for the highest physical ideal to be granted female sexual approval. Women should be accepted, respected and expected to inspire genuine desire irrespective of men’s physical ideals.

[…]

On more than a few occasions I’ve made the connection that what we see in a feminine-primary societal order is really a reflection of the female sexual strategy writ large. When we see a culture of obesity, a culture of body fat acceptance and a culture that presumes a natural evolved order of innate differences between the sexes should be trumped by self-impressions of female personal worth, we’re viewing a society beholden to the insecurities inherent in women’s Hypergamy.

A feminized, feminist, ordered social structure is one founded on ensuring the most undeserving women, by virtue of being women, are entitled to, and assured of, the best Hypergamous options by conscripting and conditioning men to comply with Hypergamy’s dictates.

I’m quoting this again here because, in light of Dalrock’s observations, it’s important for men to really understand that the power struggle women claim to be engaged in with men has already been settled on a meta, social scale. When a father is whomever a woman says he is, that’s a very powerful tool of social power leveraging.

  • A father is anyone a woman/mother claims he is
  • A father is legally bound to children he didn’t sire
  • A father is prevented at great legal and social effort from access to DNA testing of children he suspects aren’t his own
  • A father is legally responsible for the children resulting from his wife/girlfriend cuckolding him
  • A father is financially obligated to the support of children that he didn’t sire or he had no power in deciding to sire

These aren’t just examples relating to men’s lack of power in parenting; these are examples of determining the degree of control a man can exercise over the direction of his entire life. From Truth to Power:

Real Power is the degree to which a person has control over their own circumstances. Real Power is the degree to which we control the directions of our lives.

The inherent insecurity that optimizing Hypergamy poses to women is so imperative, so all-consuming, to their psychological wellbeing that establishing complex social orders to facilitate that optimization were the first things women collectively constructed when they were (nominally) emancipated from men’s provisioning around the time of the sexual revolution.

Ensuring the optimization of women’s biologically prompted Hypergamy is literally the basis of our current social order. On a socio-political scale what we’re experiencing is legislation and cultural mandates that better facilitate Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks.

Driver had a good comment from the last post that illustrates another aspect of this feminine-power consolidation (emphasis mine):

“All the “feeling good about your body” that a fat woman can muster is NEVER going to be an aphrodisiac or a substitute for having a great body that men are aroused by.”

It’s funny how women are very attracted to a guy who works out, eats rights and takes care of his body but they fully expect men to love them (or be attracted to them) for “who they are” – thin or big. You would think that these overweight women would get the memo by now but women (and more of them) keep getting bigger each year.

Feminine-Primary Social Doctrine is the Extension of Women’s Hypergamy

In a feminine-primary social order women presume, without an afterthought, that they are entitled to an attractive guy who works out and meets or exceeds women’s very stringent and static physical ideal. At the same time they expect an entitlement to absolute control of that attraction/arousal process regardless of, and to the exception of, any influence or difference in men’s control of that process. And they expect this without any thought to meriting it beyond appeals to a nebulous and inflated concept of their personal self-worth.

When we consider the present, ambiguous state of sexual consent laws we begin to understand the latent Hypergamous purpose those laws serve – absolute consolidation of women’s Hypergamous strategies as the motivator of any sexual encounter.

Furthermore, they expect an entitlement, either directly or indirectly, to the material support and provisioning of men for no other reason than they were born female.

Any deviation from this is on the part of  men is met with a cultural reprisal designed to convince or coerce men to accept their inevitable role in providing those entitlements to women. When those social contingencies fail, or become played out, the Feminine Imperative then appeals to legal legislation to mandate men’s compliance to what amounts to women’s social entitlement to optimized Hypergamy.

Legislating Hypergamy

From the Alpha Fucks side of Hypergamy this amounts to socially shaming men’s sexual imperatives while simultaneously empowering women’s short-term sexual strategies and fomenting men’s societal acceptance of it (i.e. the Sandberg plan for Open Hypergamy). This is further enforced from a legal perspective through consent laws and vague “anti-harassment” legislation to, ideally, optimize women’s hypergamous prospects.

When we read about instances of the conveniently fluid definitions of rape and harassment (not to mention the pseudo-victimhood of not being harassed), this then turns into proposed “rape-by fraud” legislation. Hypergamy wants absolute certainty, absolute veracity, that it will be secured in its optimization. And in an era when the only restraint on Hypergamy depends on an individual woman’s capacity for being self-aware of it, that Hypergamy necessitates men be held legally responsible for optimizing it.

Even the right for women to have safe and legal abortions finds its root in women’s want to mandate an insurance of their Hypergamous impulses. Nothing says “he wasn’t the right guy” like the unilateral power to abort a man’s genetic legacy in utero.

Feminist boilerplate would convince us that expanding definitions of rape is an effort to limit men’s control of women’s bodies – however, the latent purpose of expanding the definition is to consolidate on the insecurity all women experience with regard to optimizing Hypergamy.

The Beta Bucks insurance aspect of Hypergamy is evidenced by cultural expectations of male deference to wives’ authority in all decision making aspects of a marriage or relationship. And once again this expectation of deference is a grasping for assurances of control should a woman’s Hypergamous choosing of a man not meet her expectations. This is actualized covertly under the auspices of egalitarian equalism and the dubious presumptions of support and feminine identification on the part of men.

Beyond this there are of course the ubiquitous divorce, support, child support and domestic violence legalities that grossly favor women’s interests – which should be pointed out are rooted in exactly the same Hypergamous insecurity that her short-term Alpha Fucks mating strategies demand legislation for.

As Open Hypergamy becomes more institutionalized and made a societal norm by the Feminine Imperative, and as more men become Red Pill aware (by effort or consequences) because of it, the more necessary it will become for a feminine-primary social order to legislate and mandate men comply with it.

Going Mainstream

I’ve addressed this before, but I’ve never done politics on TRM. I will never do screeds on race or multi-culturalism or religion on TRM for a very good reason – it pollutes the message.

We now are seeing the results of this pollution as the manosphere is attacked from both sides of the political spectrum.

I’ve given this example before, but if you put Gretchen Carlson and Rachel Maddow on the same show and confronted them with red pill truths and Game-awareness they would eagerly close ranks, reserve their political differences and cooperatively fight for the Feminine Imperative.

This is the degree to which the Feminine Imperative has been saturated into our western social fabric. Catholic women in the Vatican may have very little in common with Mormon women in Utah, but let a Mormon woman insist the church alter its fundamental foundational articles of faith with regard to women in favor of a doctrine substituted by the Feminine Imperative and those disparate women have a common purpose.

That is the depth of the Feminine Imperative – that female primacy should rewrite articles of faith to prioritize women’s interests.

Religious doctrine, legal and political legislation, cultural norms, labor and economic issues; all are trumped by the Feminine Imperative. All have been subverted to defer to the Feminine Imperative while maintaining a default status of victimhood and oppression of women and women’s interests necessary to perpetuate that covert decentralized power base.

It doesn’t matter what world view, ideology or political stripe the opposition holds; men, masculinity and anything contrary to the feminine-primary social narrative will always be a common enemy of the Feminine Imperative, and both liberal and conservative will climb over one another to throw the first punch if it means defending women and defending the feminine social order by proxy.

This is why anything even marginally pro-masculine is vilified in mainstream society. Anything pro-masculine is always an easy, preferred target because it’s so hated, so incorrect, in a feminine-primary context that it can unite people of hostilely opposed political and ideological differences.

It’s my opinion that red pill awareness needs to remain fundamentally apolitical, non-racial and non-religious because the moment the Red Pill is associated with any social or religious movement, you co-brand it with an ideology, and the validity of it will be written off along with any preconceptions associated with that specific ideology.

Furthermore, any co-branding will still be violently disowned by whatever ideology it’s paired with because the Feminine Imperative has already co-opted and trumps the fundaments of that ideology. The fundamental truth is that the manosphere, pro-masculine thought, Red Pill awareness or its issues are an entity of its own.

This is what scares the shit out of critics who attempt to define, contain and compartmentalize the manosphere / Red Pill awareness; it’s bigger than social, racial, political or religious strictures can contain. It crosses all of those constructs just as the Feminine Imperative has co-opted all of those cultural constructs. The feminized infrastructure of the MSM that’s just beginning to take the manosphere seriously enough to be critical are discovering this and trying to put the genie back into a bottle defined by their feminine-primary conditioning.

The idea that one of their own, whether in a liberal or conservative context, is genuinely Red Pill aware and educating others of that awareness is unnerving for the Feminine Imperative that’s already established strong footholds in either ideology.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

676 comments on “The Political is Personal

  1. @Lone Survivor –

    I would suggest that your lack of success with women even while jacked and ripped is due to how you present yourself as a sexual partner. Even though you are jacked and ripped if you present yourself as a potential LTR to any degree, you thereby place yourself in the BB category, and, obviously, near the bottom if you don’t have any resources. If, however, you present yourself as an exciting, once-in-a-lifetime, hedonistic, I-know-I’ll-regret-it-later-but-it’s-SO-much-fun-NOW, superfun fucktoy, you’ll get VERY different results. Congruence plays a huge role.

    If you ask a bunch of women what qualities make a man sexy and then later ask them what qualities make for a good husband (as I have, N=50+) you will get ZERO overlap, i.e., husbands are not sexy, husbands are BB, not AF.

    @Glenn –

    FYI, Robert Nozick wrote a pretty good rebuttal to Rawls’ *A Theory of Justice* with *Anarchy, State, and Utopia. He gets a bit of the economics of defense/security firms and the incentive for war wrong, but overall does a good job of refuting Rawls. Also check out Ronald Coase’s great article (most cited academic paper in history) *The Problem of Social Cost*.

    @Rule of Wrist –

    Your description of left vs. right is not endorsed by the vast majority of political scientists. For a better, more detailed, more descriptive, and more useful model, check out the two dimensional Nolan Chart. It measures both economic liberty and non-economic liberty.

  2. Firstly, Red Pill is a praxeology, not an ideology. Entangling it with ideologies will only, as Rollo says, dilute the message.

    Secondly, I would say that the tendency toward collective action/consensus building is endemic to the feminine condition. Women are aggressively social creatures, whereas men are performance-oriented in their natural hierarchies, and resort to collectivism only at need. Women first welcome fellow women formally with openess and a sense of egalitarianism, but the newcomer is soon sorted into the appropriate consensus group and subjected to the same controls as the rest of the consensus. She has a voice, but very little power. Men tend to challenge first, force the newcomer to prove their worthiness, before admitting him to the hierarchy.

    Thirdly, a side-question, Rollo: we all know women love opportunistically and men love idealistically, but lately I’ve been exploring the idea that when it comes to work, women work idealistically and men work opportunistically. Conflating idealism with their work product encourages them to avoid risky opportunities, negotiate in ways that disturb the consensus, and continue with doomed enterprises out of a sense of the greater good. Men, conversely, work opportunistically, extending the same kind of cost-benefit analysis and willingness to “branch swing” into a better position as women do to their mating selections. Thoughts?

    1. @ianironwood
      First off I’ve noticed that about myself. Thanks for bringing that up secondly about to read your books.

      @Lone survivor
      Would love to meet up sometime for a training session and get my ass handed to me. Out of shape

      @kyf
      (Very good point)
      (Women fuck men other women wanna fuck)
      would suggest that your lack of success with women even while jacked and ripped is due to how you present yourself as a sexual partner. Even though you are jacked and ripped if you present yourself as a potential LTR to any degree, you thereby place yourself in the BB category, and, obviously, near the bottom if you don’t have any resources. If, however, you present yourself as an exciting, once-in-a-lifetime, hedonistic, I-know-I’ll-regret-it-later-but-it’s-SO-much-fun-NOW, superfun fucktoy, you’ll get VERY different results. Congruence plays a huge role.

      If you ask a bunch of women what qualities make a man sexy and then later ask them what qualities make for a good husband (as I have, N=50+) you will get ZERO overlap, i.e., husbands are not sexy, husbands are BB, not AF.

  3. @Rollo

    “Alpha isn’t about who’s doing the breeding, it’s about who’s doing the fucking”.

    oH, I forgot that we breed without fucking 😀

    You are only seeing one part of the picture. Why is fucking important from an evolutionary point of view? Because it allows perpetuation of the species (altrusitic behavior) and perpetuation of individual’s genes (selfish behavior).

    120000 years ago, the higher the success or the attractiveness to females = the higher the number of offspring that such male produced.

    Now, having countraceptives, the higher the attractiveness = the higher the number of fucking.

    Take a guy who has the body of Charles Atlas (ye olde Charles Atlas for a change), and a Average Muscleless Joe who makes 15000 USD a month. Who is the “alpha”?

    You would probably say Charles Atlas, because he has a great body and he can get laid as much as he want with who he wants. And I will say Average Muscleless Joe rips ye olde charlie to pieces, simply because his salary allows him to pay 20 escorts (at 500 an hour each of them) when he wants without wasting time in going to bars or displaying himself as a royal turkey among women and is still making a decent living with 5000 USD. To make it even worse, little Joe embarasses Charlie, as Charlie has to rely on a woman being predisposed to have sex with him while Joe only relies on his job.

    This blog is called “The Rational Male” and THE best contribution IMHO was your description of the SMV.

    Now, let’s put it this way: the value of an asset depends on its relative abundance, which depends on the effort needed to produce that asset.
    – What is the “production time” of a hard bodied guy? Let me tell you: six months (I am giving you this info first hand). What is the cost? 500 dollars in creatine + proteins (plus a well balanced diet). Push it to one year and 2000 dollars to be more conservative. What is his SMV? Plain simple = fuck 0. Why? because there are thousands like him, I see that every day in the gym or in Portugal in the Clubs.
    – What is the “production time” of a neurosurgeon? Let me tell you: two decades (undergrad + postrgrad + in-field training). What is the cost? the undergrad only costs 100000 to 250000 USD in the USA. What is his SMV? Well… see around you how many neurosurgeons are, how much they earn… do I need to elaborate? Have you seen any neurosurgeon unemployed asking for charity?

    Maybe, our Muscleless Joe is the Neurosurgeon. And, whether you like it or not, he will fuck the cuties he wants as long as he realizes his SMV and where he stands. Why? because he can afford to, either by seducing women or paying hookers.

    An additional thing to consider is that you talk about what “women find attractive”: alpha physical traits and behavior. Physical traits can be overridden: you got money, you hack women’s lizard brain. Behavior: if you are a neurosurgeon and have a shitload of money, you don’t need to behave, you simply ARE.

    1. @Lone Survivor
      “you don’t need to behave, you simply ARE.”
      Does that not count as a mindset?

  4. @ianironwood

    women work idealistically and men work opportunistically.

    Very true point. I get the oddest looks from women when we discuss work and I flatly state “I’m a mercenary, not a charity. Employers have to give me a reason to be there, and by ‘a reason’ I mean ‘a stack of cash’.”

  5. @ Kyfho Myoba

    Agree with you on that. It is to be noted that you can do all that without having a hard-body. Now, one question: why should a man like me (who has a good body and is starting a career in one major Pharma Companies in the world and who could be doing 8000 euro per month in 4 years) should spend energy presenting himself as an hedonistic once-in-a-lifetime guy to women when I can simply pay a prostitute?

    What is the difference between a hooker and an everyday girl?

    Please note that I am being pragmatic, result-oriented and rational.

    PS: in my job there are already two women wetting their pussies for me, one of them is a MSc student I am supervising, the other one is a Postdoc who is sharing the office with me.

  6. “Take a guy who has the body of Charles Atlas (ye olde Charles Atlas for a change), and a Average Muscleless Joe who makes 15000 USD a month. Who is the “alpha”?”

    Me.

  7. @Rugby

    Rugby, it is a mindset, indeed. But it is not a mindset oriented towards getting pussy, it is one intended for self-improvement and fulfillment. Pussy follows.

    Get yourself together and go for a run… it is the first step towards getting back to shape.

  8. @10×10 – You’ll note I’ve not once said the left is evil. They do have a very different moral compass, and one that permits great leeway in the use of political power to pursue justice.

    I am close to some really hard core leftists and I can tell you that in their personal lives they are good people. I’m not hear to demonize anyone. I’m not even here to talk politics – Rollo doesn’t want to and normally doesn’t and I keep away from it in the main. But if it’s going to be dealt with in such a slapdash way while claiming to not want to discuss it – well there it is.

    My take is simple. Democracies fail from within. Empire is corrupting. All societies rise and fall. So do governments. We live in a society that is devolving. The rapid change in birth rates and family formation – it’s nothing short of social collapse. Just follow the trend lines forward, look at Baltimore. This is what happens when you get multi-generational underclasses. Forget whether they are right or wrong – what we do know is they are hopeless and feel like the have nothing left to lose. And we have destroyed the working class most of all with these insane new ideas about family and sex and men and women.

    Western civilization is in its twilight years. And don’t kid yourself folks, the Dark Ages can come again. We do not have to “progress”. I tell myself this. Why shouldln’t I live in a society in decline? Why not me? And I can’t do a thing about it. I’m a speck of sand on a beach and all this is far more powerful than me.

  9. @ Glenn

    re: Marxism

    I haven’t read Marx, although Richard Wurmbrand, who survived the Bolshevik invasion of Romania and 14 years of imprisonment and torture and several years of solitary confinement, had some opinions about it. He wrote a book called “Marx and Satan” if that’s any indication of his thoughts about him and his ideas, lol.

    He was at some guy’s speech somewhere who was promoting communism, and walked up and took the mic out of the guy’s hand. He said “I have a PhD in communism” and proceeded to take his shirt off, showing the massive amount of scarring all over his body from the years he’d been tortured in communist prisons.

    The Anti-Humans by Dumitru Bacu gets into the brainwashing prison that was in Pitești, and the unspeakable horrors that occurred there.

    The main reason it existed was to see if the ‘perfect man’ could be created. Intellectuals, priests, and other people with very strong convictions were selectively brought to Pitești to see if the brainwashing program could work to destroy these people’s very strong personalities and very strong opinions and re-program them to fit into communist ideals.

    I worked for a number of years with a guy from Romania and they had some stories to tell.

    I don’t claim to know anything about politics — I just happen to have read a lot of Richard Wurmbrand’s work, which helped me a lot at that point in my life, even though I consider myself to belief in Zen, if anything, and am not religious.

    He mentions how one man was arrested because he was shaving a guy’s head. A secret police officer overheard the barber telling his customer, “Don’t worry. Some of the most intelligent men in history have been bald.”

    And the officer overhearing him told him, “So you’re saying Stalin is an idiot, then?” and arrested him.

    Wurmbrand pointed out that it sounds ridiculous. And it was ridiculous. That was the extent that it got to. You couldn’t say or do anything without being accused of a crime.

    I’m seeing faint echoes of this with all the cries of racism and misogyny now.

    Think of how we’d be labelled if we were exposed as following this blog and RP ideas? We’d be run up the flagpole by fucking morons that have no capacity to understand RP ideas and don’t care what we’ve been through or how valid our points are.

    YaReally shared that video about Social Conditioning. That was good. And very true. When you make nuanced points, it makes people angry. They want simple things. Like how they teach kids in college how Marxism is so great and it’s just accepted. Spoon fed. Just the same way that they’re taught conservatives are evil without spending any time to understand what the ideas being presented actually are. It’s insanity.

    “I bet most people here who didn’t study sociology don’t get that Marx is presented to students in these classes as a groundbreaking social scientist who’s social analysis is amazing and important to understand.”

    I don’t understand the difference between all these different political systems, but I do know about that.

    I knew a lot of people, including one of my best friends, who thought that Marx was a misunderstood genius. This stuff was shoveled down his throat at college. He actually told me how he screamed at someone for drinking out of a plastic water bottle and took it out of their hands and threw it in the garbage and told them something about how they were ruining the planet.

    I was like…..well wow, that makes you a complete fucking asshole. And I wonder why we’re not friends anymore, lol. It was only after he pulled something like that on me that I decided to stop talking to him. I heard stories from him but I didn’t pay any mind to it but when that can of worms opened in front of me, it was like….okay, I’m not gonna play that game.

    But just from speculation, the leftist people I’ve known that are really hardcore about it seem to be infected with this disease that makes them think it’s okay to treat other people like shit just because they think they’re conflicting with their ideals of how things should be. Even if they’re not doing anything to hurt anyone else.

    He had a lot of rage about people in general as he saw them like swine — like people that didn’t fit into this model of how the world should work. Very much with the sentiment of: “Let’s end racism and violence! KILL ALL WHITE MALES!”

    Anyway, Wurmbrand was heavily critical of Marxism, obviously because of his firsthand experience with it.

    He often referred to the line, “You have to crack a few eggs to make an omelette,” which the Bolsheviks used as an excuse for the insane and completely inhuman acts they committed against their fellow humans.

    He pointed out to one of his jailers that those ‘eggs’ are human lives. They just laughed. This is similar to how the victims of medical experiments in Unit 731 in Japan were referred to as “logs.”

    In the interviews with some of the people that performed live vivisections and other horrible medical experiments, one of them said that it bothered them at first, but they were told to think of the people as “logs.” And eventually they lost empathy and performed all these horrible things because they had it in their minds that these people actually weren’t human beings.

    He also said it didn’t matter if you were Christian or not. That the communists hated everyone. Sometimes the torturers would end up in the same cells as the ones they were torturing and the new torturers would torture them.

    The Falun Gong persecution in China is another example.

    Politics is definitely a major issue. For sure. I hardly know anything, but I see a lot of people that know even less that I do that are eating this stuff up — mostly college students.

    It’s ingrained in them to hate conservatives, that Republicans are assholes, and also, you should be ASHAMED of yourself if you’re white, especially if you’re also middle class.

    The impoverished are celebrated and sympathized with, although it’s not real celebration and not real sympathy. It’s all lip service.

    Social media shows a lot of this. It’s been nonstop on Facebook about Baltimore — people posting all this stuff about how we should be ashamed of being white, we have no right to judge the people looting and burning everything because we’re not black, how dare we have an opinion on anything we’re not involved with?

    etc.

    While my personal opinion is why don’t you shut the fuck up and stop using these things to push your agenda. People don’t want to understand — they’re actually insulting the severity of these social problems by using them to push their agendas.

    Like gun control, for example. Let’s ignore all the other things and use these shootings as an example that we need to ban guns. Even worse is that no one on the left sees a problem with that. They push the agenda and ignore everything else.

    Just like how medical companies only worry about what medications’ patents are in force. It doesn’t matter what’s actually medically necessary. It’s all about the bottom line and pushing an agenda.

    I see self-indulgence in shaming others and self-shaming about being white and living in America. HOW DARE WE?

    This is everywhere. I’ve seen it for years and I was aware of it even in early years at school, around middle school when kids who didn’t know shit (none of us did) would talk about “politics.” They were simply parroting whatever their parents and the media were saying.

    Anyone on social media with some liberal friends should be able to spot this a mile away.

    Women complaining that men have no right to complain is right along the lines of white guilt. Feminists making fun of men is par for the course.

    I see a lot of shaming about being American, and especially being white in America, along with glamorizing poverty.

    These are just my observations. It pisses me off when I see people posting obvious double standards and trying to covertly shame people — sometimes overtly.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqXAW2snGMI

    Danny wrote that song as a ‘serious satire,’ for whatever that’s worth.

    I might not know shit about politics, but a lot of this song resonates with how I feel when I read people posting this shit online, or hearing them talk about it in person.

    It makes me feel about the same as when I hear people talk about sympathizing with “mental illness.” Having had tons of firsthand experience as a patient in mental hospitals and having gone through so much shit with that I just want to punch these people in the face when I hear them going off about this stuff as if they know anything about it.

    “If it ain’t one thing, then it’s the other
    Any cause that crosses your path
    Your heart bleeds for anyone’s brother
    I’ve got to tell you, you’re a pain in the ass
    You criticize with plenty of vigor
    You rationalize everything that you do
    With catchy phrases and heavy quotations
    And everybody is crazy but you

    You’re just a middle class socialist brat
    From a suburban family, and you never really had to work
    And you tell me that you’ve got to get back
    To the struggling masses, whoever they are
    You talk, talk, talk about the suffering and pain
    Your mouth is bigger than your entire brain
    What the hell do you know about suffering and pain, you dumb fuck?”

  10. @ Kyfho

    I am uninterested in the consensus opinion of political scientists. Also, it seems the Nolan Chart, while good, is a useful tool to describe the political views of an individual. I was trying to describe where a political system would fall on a spectrum.

    If you look at it in terms of the Nolan Chart, the 2 extremes would be Police State in the bottom left corner, and Total Anarchy in the top right corner. Both of these are undesirable conditions, and my point still stands that fascism/nazism/statism is not a far right ideology, it is a far left ideology.

  11. @ Glenn

    My forte is the personal side of all this. Like I said, I don’t know about politics, but I do know a hell of a lot through firsthand experience about:

    -mental illness
    -addiction
    -social isolation
    -sexual frustration

    I’m a cog in the wheel as much as anyone else is. It’s not like I exist outside of my environment. Whatever about me that is genetically unique, okay — but a lot of times I think of myself as a social experiment.

    How much of use did I really learn in school? If I was running things I’d try to teach people things of value. Real value. And yet just about all of us are forced to go to public schools until we’re 18, and by then we’ve been indoctrinated with so many different things it’d make your head spin to try to conceive it.

    I’m sure someone who knows a lot about politics and sociology could explain fairly well what factors in those played a role in how I came to be where I am now.

    Again — cog in the wheel. I have my own life but my life is inseparable from the society I live in. I affect the society and the society affects me, and the lines are too blurry to really make any clear distinctions about where one stops and the other begins.

    As a man, however, and identifying with TRP, I have some perspective. I’ve been a victim of very real and very negative changes in our society as a result of the FI.

    It’s all part of the same picture. The FI is a part of it. It’s not the same as politics, but it’s a part of it. Maybe a finger on the hand, or one of the hands itself.

    And I do know a hell of a lot about what’s happened to me in that one area of my life. Seeing how women are now, seeing my friend’s lives fall apart because of that, and my own struggles.

    That’s what gets me riled up the most about feminists. They don’t know jack shit about what they’re talking about.

    One of the best examples of this is feminist sympathizers with female victims of genital mutilation.

    Men who’ve been genitally mutilated (circumcised, for example) can empathize with these women who’ve been through the same thing more than intact women ever could. How could they know? How could they relate? Just because they’re women? What does gender have to do with genital mutilation? It doesn’t matter what gender you are. What matters is if you’ve experienced it or not and have experienced firsthand the distress over it.

    Anyway, I have perspective really only from my neck of the woods. But TRP has opened my eyes to some demographics. I can definitely see patterns now, and everything that’s happened to me with women makes a hell of a lot more sense.

    Honestly I feel like my ‘mental illness’ primarily revolved around women, and the more of TRP I digest over time, the better I feel psychologically. With men’s biological need for sex in this modern environment, you’ve got a recipe for disaster.

    I haven’t read The Way of Men but it looks interesting, and I plan on checking it out eventually. I guess that’s a whole nother topic though.

    1. @Softek
      That was such a great thing to learn from.
      @Lone survivor
      Going an a run later just ran into a women however and learning about letting go of my white knight.

  12. @Rollo

    @Lone Survivor, I can rent Lamborghini, doesn’t mean I own it.

    Yes, it is right. As long as women don’t realize that you do not own it, it will be fine.

    Now, the uncomfortable question: say you have 500 USD to rent a Lamborghini Gallardo for one day. You can choose to do it for the amusement of driving it and/or picking up girls. If you are going to use the car for the sole purpose picking up and fucking, then pay yourself an escort.

    If you are going to rent it to enjoy the ride, then your investment has a return.

    See what I say?

  13. This post is on point. Ask yourself how the current family court system could have developed into the dystopian nightmare that it has become. The answer isn’t to be found in ideological differences that pit the left against the right, but on those things which both sides of the debate agree and which consequently are never brought out into the open to be discussed at all. The whole system is designed to shame, cajole and coerce men into taking care of women. You get two different rationales for one policy and since there is nobody there to provide criticism or resistance, it simply gets worse and worse. There is no check or balance on it whatsoever.

    Traditional conservatives don’t want to pay for women’s poor mating choices and so they’re perfectly comfortable instituting an elaborate and oppressive system of institutionalized theft and debtor’s prisons in order to coerce men into “manning up” and taking care of sluts and their rug rats. Feminists on the other side of the aisle agree and will support the same system but instead will justify it through maudlin victimization narrative which forever damsels women and forever saddles men with the obligation to prove they aren’t callous, raping, irresponsible monsters. In reality, of course, it is about freeing women from the bother of having to optimize the BB side of hypergamy. Who needs to bother with throwing the deluded blue pill workhorse his monthly duty fuck when you can just call on the proxy violence of the daddy state to take his resources by force?

    It just occurred to me that what Rollo has been calling the “feminine imperative” this whole time is identical to what MGTOWs have been calling “gynocentrism.”

  14. There is a substantial qualitative difference between (1) sex with a woman who is totally turned on by you viscerally, without regard to your car/money/job and (2) sex with a woman who is being paid by you for sex, or a woman who is having sex with you to get a piece of your money spent on her. Those are just very different things, and the difference in quality is not small (the quality of the sex itself). Nothing can compare to monkey sex with a woman who can’t help herself because she’s unbearably turned on by you *viscerally* and *sexually*, without regard to your resources/bank. It’s a case of pure attraction as compared with a transaction. Very different things.

  15. “I also think this plays into the hysteria about rape culture. The fear is not so much about rape but about 2nd tier and lower men behaving as though they were top tier. Even if the average men lack polished game just having the same expectations and recognizing/accepting only the same burdens as the best AF men places greater burdens on women to accept responsibility for their choices.”I saw it as trying to control top tier, make them more compliant on demand. And banishing lower tier from even coming to the starting line. Or at least removing them after the start if it’s discovered they aren’t top tier. Or she just changes her mind. Which is all a power rush. Power gain by making others look bad instead of power gain by becoming good.
    Rollo’s tweet about women sabotage instead of making themselves better.

  16. @Lone Survivor –

    What is the difference between a hooker and an everyday girl?

    It’s the difference between Beta Bux and Alpha Fucks. The hooker fucks you because you gave her money. She likes the money, not you. The everyday girl fucks you because you give her the tingles. You’re hawwwt. She doesn’t care if you have money or not (if you present yourself as I described earlier). It’s the difference between transactional sex and validational sex, and as all of us here on The Rational Male know so well, desire cannot be negotiated.

    I saw a comment somewhere on the ‘sphere from a neurologist [~30M] that noted that when he’d tell girls that he was an MD, he’d invariably have to wait a few dates for sex. His wingman, also an MD, told the girls he was a bouncer and usually hit it the same night. The neurologist started saying that he was a bartender, and immediately began getting similar results.

    If she thinks that you’re BB, she’ll treat you that way and deny you the AF benefits.

    @Rollo –

    Really enjoyed your last Christian McQueen interview. Even better than the first. Hopefully you can do at least 3 or 4 a year. But it’s still hy-PER-guh-me, not HY-per-GAY-me. Look it up. Please. You’re KILLING me.

  17. It’s actually a shame that more of you haven’t read Marx because, weirdly
    enough, Marx’s theoretical framework actually provides a pretty elegant
    and compelling explanation for what the blue and red pills are.

    As Althusser explained, “ideology is your imagined relationship to your actual conditions of existence.” I can’t think of a better description of the blue pill. An argument could be made that the blue pill was Marx’s “superstructure of belief” which once explained your experience of biological and material reality, or what he called “the material base.” The blue pill was simply yesterday’s superstructure which explained your experience of gender and the sexual market place.

    According to Marx, we participate in a system in which our basic needs are met, but what we believe about that system will always be at odds with what is objectively true about it. This is how it must be since at no time can we ever have perfect and complete knowledge which would entirely explain a given social arrangement. To do so would make us omnipotent. We participate in a wider system at all times whose big picture is never fully comprehended, not by anyone. Instead of actually understanding it, we have an abstract map of our social universe which we confuse with our actual social universe.

    We could call this “ideology.” It is a representation of reality that we confuse with reality itself in much the same way that we might confuse a trompe l’oeil painting of a window with an actual window if we viewed it from far away. If this seems reminiscent of the allegory of the cave and the prisoners who confuse the shadows on the wall with the things which cast them, that’s because, in my interpretation, they describe precisely the same thing.

    Since the means of production and everything else which conditions our actual and immediate experiences of biological and material reality will evolve and change, our beliefs about it will veer further and further from the underlying reality until the point where our abstract map can no longer adequately explain our experiences or provide a means for us to integrate successfully and have our needs met. At this point, revolution, of whatever kind, becomes “inevitable.”

    Think about what the blue pill provider ideal is like for the chump who buys into it. Think back to the experience of your own conditioning. He experiences an actual objectively quantifiable relationship both to women and to the wider society in which he participates, but that actual condition is obscured behind the screen of ideology. All his experiences are contextualized according to cultural myth and an elaborate system of ready-made rationalizations, and this provides not only an explanation for what he experiences, but an explanation of who he is in relation to it. It supplies him with a set of socially acceptable identities and this structures his entire life. He’s like the proverbial fish in water who doesn’t know it’s in water because it’s never left the pond.

    Ideology or the superstructure of belief, we accept Althusser’s definition, is never recognized as ideology by the ideologue, but is mistaken for reality itself. It is not a system of normative ethical doctrines or conscious beliefs, but quite the opposite. It’s not the beliefs he has consciously and deliberately chosen by way of reason, but the unexamined and unnoticed background against which those conscious beliefs were adopted. It’s what he takes for granted and assumes to be “real,” meaning that it is never questioned or noticed at all. It is the foundation on which his conscious beliefs are adopted, or maybe we could say that his conscious beliefs, opinions, convictions and so on are predicated and determined by ideology.

    For men in a modern post-industrial and contraceptive revolution West to begin to question their conditioning and their previous understanding of themselves and women is really no different than the emerging proto capitalist middle class of feudal Europe who, having over generations evolved from serfs to prosperous yeomen to merchants and property holders, finally came to realize that their theology which had once explained their condition as a serf could no longer adequately explain their new reality as merchants. The protestant reformation attempted to reinterpret Christian theology in a way that would accord with their new interests and experiences. The superstructure of belief which had explained feudalism had to be revised in order to explain an emerging capitalist political and social modernity. It’s the same shit.

  18. “The constant strategy if Communist repression, whose central aim was always the establishment of absolute power and the elimination of political rivals and anyone else who had any sort of real power in society, was to attack systematically all the organisms of civil society. Because the aim was a monopoly on power and truth, the necessary targets were all other forces with political or spiritual power.”

    Sorry, meant to point out in my original post that this and the text above it was from The Black Book of Communism.

  19. This is a complete digression, but I thought I would share it. Sometimes I watch Karen’s older videos and I wonder what she would look like if she grew her hair out. I think…she would be kinda cute. Not a knockout but…kinda cute.

  20. @Lone Survivor
    SMV is not binary. A musclehead may not always be impoverished and having an MD doesn’t preclude being “yoked.” The goal of maximizing SMV (as I understand it) is about optimizing health, wealth and confidence.
    Georges St. Pierre, Dr. Travis Stork and Wladimir Klitschko are paragons of optimized SMV. Your common yoked guido from Jersey will never pull the kind of tail that GSP, Stork and Klitschko can.

  21. @Glenn

    Very often political discussions turn into either echo chambers or some high-falutin’ version of, ‘the Left is evil!’ ‘Nuh-uh! The Right is evil!’

    This hasn’t happened (much) here, so I’m glad to see that.

    I’m no scholar of political though or ideology. I plan to read the essay you referenced above simply as a point of pride, and we’ll see if anything takes off from there, but my default position is generally to view political ideas and movements as emergent characteristics of society underpinned by biological incentives and drives. If Marx hadn’t written what he did to spark such idealogical fervor, someone else would have written something similar that did.

    I don’t want to monopolize more of your time than you’re willing to grant, but if you want to see what sorts of things resonate with me, you can read this: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/04/a-thrivesurvive-theory-of-the-political-spectrum/

    the TL:DR is that political parties, and affiliations, are explained by a general feeling the individual has about society – whether society feels secure and can be counted upon to remain so, or whether society feels tenuous and might disappear at any time. Base level of anxiety/uncertainty or confidence/certainty has more to do with it than some ideology written about by a writer a few hundred years ago that few people have read. And if that writer hadn’t written, they would simply glom on to another, similar one. And so, as technology and economic prospering make life more safe, politics tend to drift leftward. As they become more unsafe, they drift rightward.

    There’s a weird thing we’ve begun to pick up on – political affiliation appears to be strongly genetically determined. Almost to a weirdly strong degree. See: http://jhfowler.ucsd.edu/heritability_of_partisan_attachment.pdf

    This may be spurious – a lot of political science is – but if it’s not, it strongly indicates that politics emerges from biological underpinnings in a very strong, non-alterable way. And so, even if Marx never lived, we would still see the same drives and movements, perhaps with some minor differences, that we see today. It’s biology, not society, that drives mass human decisions.

    So that’s my thesis. It’s a bit uninformed, so I don’t see it as being immutable. Lots of stuff needs to be banged out. So let me ask you: where do you think the great political thinkers derived their ideas and ideology from? In the great mass of people who have written about politics, why did a select few become agelessly influential? What drove people to devote themselves to the ideas of these few? Why does one political ideology take over from another, one thinker get superseded by another as the ages pass? After all, no-one’s talking about the political theories underpinning monarchy anymore…

  22. Silly of me, I used more than one link.

    Glenn, wrote a comment about political stuff to ya above that’s in moderation. Rollo tends to be quick so I imagine it’ll appear soon.

  23. I just started reading “The Globalization of Addiction” by Bruce Alexander, the guy who’s responsible for the Rat Park study on addiction that was done back in the late ’70s.

    “The history of Vancouver suggests, and a broader survey of history seems to confirm, that today’s rising tide of addiction to drug use and a thousand other habits is the consequence of people, rich and poor alike, being torn from the close ties to family, culture, and traditional spirituality that constituted the normal fabric of life in pre-modern times. This worldwide rending of the social fabric ultimately results from the growing domination of all aspects of modern life by free-market economics, producing a lopsided kind of existence that will be called ‘free-market society’ in this book. Free-market society subjects people to unrelenting pressures towards individualism, competition, and rapid change, dislocating them from social life. People adapt to this dislocation by concocting the best substitutes that they can for a sustaining social, cultural, and spiritual wholeness, and addiction provides this substitute for more and more of us.

    Please note: The cold war is over. The beautiful dream of a world founded on collective ownership of all means of production collapsed on itself in the USSR, China, and elsewhere in the 20th century. The ability of capitalism to produce the highest levels of innovation and productivity is undisputed. Although today’s globalisation pits antagonistic regimes against each other, all of them, including China, India, Russia, Venezuela, and Vietnam, use market principles to organise at least some aspects of their economies and all are vulnerable to the depredations of hypercapitalism. Capitalism does not necessarily produce excessive dislocation and addiction when it is kept in a healthy balance with the other institutions of society. Dislocation and addiction are, however, mass-produced by free-market society, which is a form of hypercapitalism that any regime can impose, whether it labels itself capitalist, neo-conservative, neo-liberal, market socialist, socialist, labour, or anything else. This book is not about resurrecting the dream of pure socialism, but it does confront the urgent necessity of domesticating modern capitalism in the end.”

    On the back cover one part reads:

    “A social perspective on addiction does not deny individual differences in vulnerability to addiction, but it removes them from the foreground of attention, because social determinants are more powerful.”

    So the emphasis here is social and political, as far as arguing about the roots of addiction goes, as opposed to personal.

    Now on the other hand, I haven’t been thinking about Faster EFT for a while. But Robert Smith has given plenty of seminars at Habilitat in Hawaii, which AFAIK has the highest or one of the highest success rates of any drug rehabilitation center in the country.

    And the focus in Faster EFT is basically COMPLETELY on the individual, following the Neuro-Linguistic Programming model of internal representations/submodalities — fancy talk for how you think of stuff in your head, and what your inner belief system is — your ‘how-to’ manual for operating in the world.

    I tend to lean more towards the individual side than the social-political side, but obviously both are important.

    A book like “Monsters and Magical Sticks: There’s No Such Thing as Hypnosis?” or “The User’s Manual for the Brain” resonate with me a lot more than this “Globalization of Addiction: A study in poverty of the spirit” book is so far.

    My general ignorance of and complete disinterest in politics probably biases me a lot in that way. I’ve spent most of my life in isolation, and most of my time thinking has been spent observing what I’m thinking about, how I’m thinking about it, paying attention to the pictures and stories in my mind, etc. So it’s no coincidence I ended up finding out about NLP and devouring all sorts of material about that and psychology in general.

    But I also feel like I don’t care what the rest of the world is doing because the only thing I’m worried about is finding peace in my own life. So debating about political things doesn’t click with me. My focus is and always has been on the individual mind of people.

    Two sides of the same coin. I guess it’s like me with mechanical things: I really have almost zero interest in working on big things. Like cars or houses. I really almost don’t care at all. But when it comes to gadgets and small devices and extremely detailed things where you have to use dial calipers and custom make your own tools for really weird jobs, and have a lot of finesse and hyper-attention to detail — that stuff I really love a lot.

    Similarly, my concern with TRP is more how I can improve myself and manage my own life. Other people will see how to apply it, or how it should be applied, most appropriately on a more global scale.

    I think both sides are very important and when you combine the best of those both worlds the best possible solution will probably become a lot clearer.

  24. @ Seraph

    “If, as you suggest, traditional masculinity is such a threat to the order of those three (thus their hostility to it), then perhaps pushing back through promoting masculinity, under the Red Pill flag, will be enough to undermine all three’s power structures. It will also have the added benefit of creating “social warriors” of our own, but true ones, not faux ones.”

    What is traditional masculinity though? Because it also entailed being a provider draft horse. The only socially acceptable aspect of traditional masculinity that remains is the beta bux provider. It’s not as if it is an invention of the FI or feminism.

    This is the whole problem with assuming that the ascendancy of the FI is due entirely to the left and feminism. In reality, a right wing traditionalist conception of masculinity is just as gynocentric as the left and it is equally at fault for the current state of family courts and misandric law generally. They’re just two sides of the same worthless coin. To be sure, men got a better deal under traditional marriage, but it was still a pretty shitty deal. And at any rate, there is no way back to traditional marriage anyway.

  25. Re: Politics….

    One thing that is helpful to discussion when politics is forced to enter the discussion is to remember that no single group’s ideas can possibly define your thoughts in perfect detail. And more importantly, that because they cannot do this, any offense felt by someone blasting your “favorite” side is little different than getting upset that someone blasted your favorite baseball team. If those parties can actually describe your feelings, if you absolutely completely agree with everything the Democrats or the Republicans say, then frankly you shouldn’t be allowed to voice an opinion because your opinion is not your own, it is one someone else gave you and you haven’t thought about what you’re talking about at all.

    I’ve heard Rollo and others on this blog say things like, “I’m probably more _______ than most people here would want to think.” But the reality is you’re not any of those things, you’re just you and a very tiny fraction of what other people say they think, not what they’re actually thinking, seems to align with how you would say you think, which is also not exactly how you’re thinking. From that simple mental short circuit of trying so desperately to find the like minded we tend to create loyalties far beyond what is deserved by any lying politician.

    It’s best to not align yourself with any party/group/political affiliation, because it can only serve to usurp your actual power of persuasion and give it to someone else.

    I recall so many times people I know attempting to convince me that I was “throwing my vote away” by voting for anyone other than one of the major parties. The obvious irony of the futility of voting at all in California (which so often goes full blue) did not occur to them, nor the more subtle and dangerous irony of the fact that those people openly let someone else tell them who to vote for, while instructing me that I was wasting a vote. Their power of politically expressed opinion was surrendered to a politician’s siren song before they even got a chance to think about it, but somehow I was the ignorant one. Yeah, cult-like surrender of critical thought is rampant in humanity, enough to make full-awareness feel like madness.

    Very few accusations of being “left” or “right” ever phase me anymore. I don’t think they should get anyone upset. You should have already thought about how you stand on things, enough to realize that there is merit to be found in a multitude of perspectives.

  26. @ Forge the Sky

    “I’m no scholar of political though or ideology. I plan to read the essay you referenced above simply as a point of pride, and we’ll see if anything takes off from there, but my default position is generally to view political ideas and movements as emergent characteristics of society underpinned by biological incentives and drives. If Marx hadn’t written what he did to spark such idealogical fervor, someone else would have written something similar that did.”

    Don’t be silly. Marx was an evil man who appeared ahistorically and wrote a magic book which billions of people around the world for no reason whatsoever were persuaded by to the degree that they were willing to overthrow governments, install dictatorships, and fight countless wars. Y’know, because that’s how history unfolds. People come up with ideas and for some bizarre reason which we won’t bother to consider, people choose those ideas over other ideas and act on them just for the fuck of it.

    Why consider how their experiences of economic, political, and social reality would incline them to accept some ideas over others much less act on them? That’s just ridiculous. Obviously all historical change and all historical outcomes are the direct product of deliberate and conscious intention because somewhere out there exists a class of super competent and ultra powerful people who simply decide what reality will be for the rest of us and presto, history conforms to their decisions and designs.

    Marx clearly must have been one of these people. If it wasn’t for Marx or Marxism, the entire globe would be guzzling Pepsi, playing Xbox, and wearing Levis in middle class comfort and affluence because the capitalist wizards are more powerful than the communist wizards.

    In fact, everything about modern politics and culture that we disapprove of can be traced back to the communist wizards who work their black magic behind the scenes. A cabal of them known as the Frankfurt School engineered the ascendency of both the feminine imperative and the SJW left. Go ahead and read their mysterious grimoirs like the Dialectic of Enlightenment or Escape from Freedom. It’s all right there. Saul Alinsky said they would make the “long march through the institutions” and thus it was so.

    What does this sound like? Oh wait, I know.

    “Was there any excrement, any shamelessness in any form, above all in cultural life, in which at least one Jew would not have been involved? As soon as one even carefully cut into such an abscess, one found, like maggots in a decaying body, often blinded by the sudden light, a kike.[2]”

    -Hitler

  27. The death of traditional marriage is not the worst thing that could happen to masculinity. But it is actually quite bad for civilization, because you only have civilization when most men have reasonable access to sexual success. Without that, you get chaos and war.

  28. @Rollo
    I fucking envy your brain and tolerance.
    I can see Mrs Tomassi’s love to you.

    95% of politics and power are WOMEN(that is beautiful women).

    @Glenn
    I’m sure when Carl Marks wrote Das Kapital, in the back of his head what he really meant : Das Kapital to fuck beautiful women.

  29. Divided Line – “This is the whole problem with assuming that the ascendancy of the FI is due entirely to the left and feminism. In reality, a right wing traditionalist conception of masculinity is just as gynocentric as the left and it is equally at fault for the current state of family courts and misandric law generally. They’re just two sides of the same worthless coin.”

    Not quite.

    The old order traditional restrictions on men were a method of ensuring consequences for irresponsible behavior. Reckless fucking and generating bastards is unquestionably bad/immoral/wrong when the two people responsible have no capacity or intention of seeing to the survival of their children.

    Everything since the New Deal is a move to ensure no one anywhere faces the full effect of reponsibility, and also punish everyone by taxation and regulation in the name of “the children”, “equality”, “social justice”, or “fairness.” What used to be handled as charity and matters of civic reponsibility is now a relegated to the state with as little input and influence from the common man as possible.

    Where the Tradcons go wrong is failing to recognize that their rules and standards are now bring used in service of a worldview they disagree with to suppress and enslave them. They now work in service of what they claim is their enemy because that can’t fathom that the old rules no longer apply. That rightwing conception of masculinity works just fine if the system at large isn’t rigged to favor the FI. If the order of things were simply the FI vs. men generally the natural chaos of male competition would sufficiently mitigate female solidarity.

  30. @Jeremy

    Without that, you get chaos and war.

    Which begets a decrease in male population, which reasserts patriarchy due to favorable male:female ratios, which rebuilds society.

    Kind of amazing how it works once you step back and look at it.

  31. The Law of Unintended Consequence (of an overreaching government) has been born out and proven over and over to no avail.

    Not an inkling or a suspicion. A fucking Law! Milton Friedman won the Noble Prize for this discovery. It is largely ignored with politicians and policy makers. It is the nature of government to become more intrusive and move left.

    In Coming Apart, Charles Murray intentional left out black america to make clear that the decline in morality and economic opportunity is not only being experienced by minorities but on us all. Our environment is a direct result of government largess.

    What drives government you say? It’s philosophical predisposition.

    To understand how we got here you need to look no further than that of the momentous swing of the philosophical pendulum. Away from logic, reason and patriarchy, (Aristotle) and towards mysticism, relativism and tribalism (Plato).

    More specifically in a modern day context you can blame Kant (relativism), Heiddegger, (philosophical deconstruction), Derrida and Fouucalt, (post-modernism and multiculturalism – (feminism)).

    “A bone in the nose is as equal to a rocket to the moon”. Get it?

    Another words IDENTITY is in the perception and your feelings and not the intrinsic properties or the proof of evidence that reality tells us.

    It is no coincidence that the discovery of the power of the individual came at the height of the second wave of Aristotelian thought, the Age of Reason (Descartes, Locke and Voltaire). As sir William Wallace once said “FREEDOM!!”. In the arc of human history, ‘progress’ makes no greater advance than that of the result of this axiom.

    In ancient Greece and Rome, the arts and sciences flourished. In their culture and religion,(Paganism), man was the measure. In early Christianity, when Platonic thought ruled, the arts and sciences went dark. Life became brutish and barbaric.

    So in the spectrum of time in the philosophical calendar it wasn’t until the 13th century, almost two millennia before Thomas Aquinas rediscovered the ideas of Aristotle and laid the seeds of the renaissance and enlightenment.

    So enjoy the decline my friends. We are on the precipitous of a new dark age.

    To introduce the concept of the FI into political discourse would only confuse.

  32. @ Glenn

    “Western civilization is in its twilight years. And don’t kid yourself folks, the Dark Ages can come again. We do not have to “progress”. I tell myself this. Why shouldln’t I live in a society in decline? Why not me? And I can’t do a thing about it. I’m a speck of sand on a beach and all this is far more powerful than me.”

    You do realize that Schadenfreude is your best friend in a declining civilization? You already know that and exhibit it well. At the risk of exhorting your to read one more fricking book,( sorry?) Aaron Cleary’s book “Enjoy the Decline” defines your sentiments on the decline of the US. As I read it and the clarity of the decline leaps off the pages in regards to it (civilization) all starting to accelerate in 2008 with the female vote, I for the first time in my life found myself stalling in the Kubler-Ross stages of grief. I couldn’t work my way to acceptance for a couple months after reading Cleary’s stark truths (mainly because of the economic implications to me and my profession). But Schadenfreude has always been my friend too. Give a stupid person liberty and it’s like a noose for their own hanging. Yippekayay Mother****er you got what you ask for, now see what it got you.

    Glenn you should live well in a society in decline. But of course first comes acceptance. Throw in a bit of schadenfreude and then come on strong with adaptability.

  33. @Sun Wukong

    It’s like a deer population die-off. The problem though is that in a modern context, war increasingly becomes suicidal World War II killed 60 million people with 1940s technology. Imagine what a 21st century world war would be like.

  34. @Divided Line

    Aye, Jeremy noted during our roundtable the other night that the nuclear bomb pretty much eliminated world war as a regulator of male population. Once he plopped that in front of me, the idea that a lack of war is what lead to the insane levels of hypergamic privilege suddenly becomes a product of the nuclear age.

    It’s absolutely fascinating in a gruesome way.

  35. @ 70’sAntiHero

    “To understand how we got here you need to look no further than that of the momentous swing of the philosophical pendulum. Away from logic, reason and patriarchy, (Aristotle) and towards mysticism, relativism and tribalism (Plato).”

    You haven’t spent much time with Plato, I see. Aristotle considered himself a Platonist, even if he disagreed with Plato on key points, the two biggest being Plato’s critique of democracy and the theory of the forms.

    What’s funny about this is that Aristotle’s critique of the theory is actually just the same one that Plato himself offered up in the Parmenides. Aristotle’s critiques of other philosophers of his era are notorious for missing the point. For instance, see his critique of Zeno’s paradox.

    Platonism is not about mysticism but an attempt to rationally explain what mysticism is. It’s an anthropological or sociological account of religious belief, which is really to say that it’s an account of political belief, since the two weren’t separate in the ancient world. Indeed, they are pretty inseparable today. Plato was a bit like the ancient world’s version of somebody like Pierre Clastres, a political anthropologist. Even the title of the Republic in ancient Greek, politeia, is better translated as “the public life.” What modern discipline studies the public life if not sociology or political science?

    Platonic “myths” are the ancient equivalent of modern propaganda. Plato doesn’t propagandize, he offers a rational account of how mythological propaganda works and why it exists. That is the whole basis of his critique of Homer, who he called “a poet,” meaning a maker of romanticized images of the past. He compares this poetic image maker with the rational image maker in the form of the philosopher. One’s image appeals to our base instincts and imagination, the other simply makes images which are intended, not to be sexy, but accurate and true to the subject they purport to represent. The republic ends with this critique of Homer and the rhapsodes. In other words, it’s a defense of reason, skepticism, and philosophy, not an endorsement of mysticism.

    Myths are lay versions of the truth which are necessary since the majority of the population are never going to be scholars, theorists, and so on. Blue pill conceptions of women and marriage are a fine example. You can see the necessity of those myths when you consider how complex gender is and how unrealistic it is to think that your average 18 year old male or female is going to be able to sufficiently grasp any of this shit in order to safely navigate relationships and child rearing. It’s the lay version of the truth which provides a mediation or contextualization for their pairing. In this sense institutions think for us. We participate in them without understanding them and our needs and society’s needs are met. That’s the whole point of institutions to begin with. We can go about our lives and society and recreate itself without all of us having to be Spock.

    Plato argues that this isn’t because people are stupid, but because they are specialized and divided in their labor. A guy who spends all his time thinking about engineering probably won’t have as sophisticated a grasp of history as a guy who spent the same amount of time thinking about political economy and vice versa. The jack of all trades is the master of none.

    That’s the basis of Plato’s, and presumably Socrates’s, critique of democracy. Plato doesn’t think that a rational polity is possible because in a perfectly rational world, there would be no politics. Politics, according to Plato, is the relationship of those who know more to those who know less. All political orders aren’t founded on reason, since in a perfectly rational world, no such orders would even be possible or necessary. To the contrary, every state is always founded on a myth by necessity. As it turns out, you have to provide a lay version of the truth, like the myth of the metals, to get young men to coerce others in order to uphold any legal system which would make any state possible just as surely as you have to provide men with idealizations of romantic love and family life in order to get them to defer to or risk their lives to protect and provide for women and children.

  36. Two schools of western philosophical thought. Plato v Aristotle. You have a distorted notion of philosophical history. Aristotle was a student of and his ideas were in contrast. St. Augustine based much of his ideas on Plato. You ramble on in non-essentials like Emanuel Kant.

  37. Also it’s worth mentioning that Plato’s lack of belief in the possibility of public rationality and the efficacy of democracy was shared by the founding fathers in the United States with the possible exception of Jefferson at various points. Democracy was thought to lead to the “spirit of faction” and was essentially a dirty word. Their lack of faith in it wasn’t based on Plato, however, but Hobbes. Read Richard Hofstadter’s histories, he explains it at length. That is the whole idea behind checks and balances in a tripartite system and choosing representative government over direct democracy. Take a look at the SJW left and tell me you have faith in public rationality.

    And the renaissance coincided with the rediscovery and appraisal of Greek thought generally, including that of Plato. Platonism isn’t responsible for Christianity. Early Christianity competed with neo Platonism, which was alive and well throughout the life of the Roman empire. It’s worth noting that Platonism was in many ways a modernization of Pythagoreanism, and the pentagram was an important symbol in Pythagorean geometry, probably because of how often the golden mean appeared within it. In Platonism, Prometheus is an important symbolic figure because he is the light bringer while light is a symbol for reason. He’s the guy who brings the “light” to the prisoners in the famous cave allegory. “Lucifer,” of course, means “light bringer.” So while I haven’t done the research, I wouldn’t be surprised that if you could easily show that Christianity often recast Platonic and Pythagorean symbols as evil. It wouldn’t surprise me. Anyway, you have Platonism all wrong.

  38. @70santihero

    “Two schools of western philosophical thought. Plato v Aristotle. You have a distorted notion of philosophical history. Aristotle was a student of and his ideas were in contrast. St. Augustine based much of his ideas on Plato. You ramble on in non-essentials like Emanuel Kant.”

    They are different schools, but nothing you’ve said here indicates that you understand either. I’m not going to continue to argue with you about this, since it’s pretty far off topic, but which side of right wing thinking did you get this idea from, I wonder? The Ayn Rand side or the Karl Popper side? Because you realize I can offer up plenty of right wing thinkers who claim Plato as their own and interpret him as a kind of existential conservative. Leo Strauss and Harry Jaffa, to name but two.

    As for St. Augustine, you can interpret him in a myriad of ways. For instance, he argued that “Divine Law” trumped all other forms, yeah? So in the end I guess mysticism ruled the day. Am I supposed to assume that St. Augustine is responsible for political modernity?

  39. Plato a student of Socrates, both believed that reality was unavailable. And that objects and events are shadows. Another words, eyes to be blind and reality is subjective.

    Sounds like mysticism and relativism to me. . . . “Who’s to say?”. . . “Who to know?”

    An infinite regression in relativism. . . . . . Are you sure that you can’t be sure? Certainty is achievable.

    Two camps. Knowledge if provable. To wallow in grayness is the absence of hierarchy and principle.

  40. @70’sAntiHero

    “Plato a student of Socrates, both believed that reality was unavailable. And that objects and events are shadows. Another words, eyes to be blind and reality is subjective. ”

    This is literally the opposite of what Plato was arguing. Plato’s entire system of thought is based on the idea that reality is singular, objective, and can only be known through reason. That is how he defines philosophy. Socrates is said to have been martyred for this very idea.

    You would understand nothing about what Plato was arguing if you thought this. His chief disagreement with the sophists was on this very point and some form of it appears in virtually every dialogue he wrote. The sophists believed truth was democratic, that “man was the measure of all things,” while the Socrates character argued that truth was what it was regardless if anybody even knew what it was. His response was “well why isn’t a tadpole the measure of all things?”

    The “forms” in his theory refer to objective reality. That is what the philosopher is supposed to find if he makes it out of the cave in the allegory.

  41. @70’sAntiHero

    Let me try to make this relevant to the topic. What do women and relationships look like to a blue piller? He experiences them directly, a la Aristotelian epistemology, so he must know women and relationships for what they truly are, yeah?

    Or could we say that the blue piller experiences, not women and relationships, but their shadows, a la Platonic epistemology? See the difference? Plato is arguing that the red pill exists and can be taken, the actual woman can be known once the woman he experiences is recognized as an abstract shadow which he mistook for the actual woman. Aristotle, or somebody like Wittegenstein, is arguing that the only woman that exists is the one the blue piller experienced. There is no red pill to take.

  42. It is a mis-characterization that Plato was objective. More like non-sensory or extra sensory.

    Aristotle held concepts as intrinsic a derivative of reality.

    I disagree with your ramblings.

  43. @Kyfho

    Thank you for your response. Let’s elaborate on this:

    “It’s the difference between Beta Bux and Alpha Fucks. The hooker fucks you because you gave her money. She likes the money, not you. The everyday girl fucks you because you give her the tingles.”

    Do you think that when you meet a girl at a bar you are not paying? Quoting Bill Burr, the greatest trap women make you fall into is believing they won’t get their pound of flesh from you. Say you go tonight to a bar to practice all TRP stuff. You will be spending:
    1. time: being in a bar with shitty music waiting for the opportunity to hit on a random girl with a chance of getting laid that is inferior to 20%.
    2. money: paying overpriced drinks with lo quality alcohol to either forget about the shitty place you are into, relieve yourself from the stress of the situation, or make time pass faster
    3. overpriced pussy: women in bars/clubs spent 4 hours dressing up so that they look sexier than ever. Then, if you are lucky to meet them outside you will see that a 10 is in fact and 8, an 8 is in fact a 6 and so on.
    4. health: being awake until late in the evening affects your health and gets you even more tired before the beginning of the week
    5. quality weekend time: when you go to bed at 5 AM after trying to get laid you will be a zombie the following day, and you will probably waste part of the time of the following day either taking a nap or being tired

    So, as you can see, the sole fact of hanging out to a bar is by itself a use of resources WITH NO RETURN GUARANTEED.

    Go to a prostitute, pay, get laid and that’s it.

    Let me tell you something. Let’s assume a random guy makes 10 euro an hour in his job. If that guy spends 6 hours in a club trying to get laid, he will be spending 60 euro of his time on something that depends on women-approval. Add the costs of going to a bar and stuff (say 20 euro) and you have 80 euro. For 80 euro you fuck a russian girl half an hour.

    Quoting you again:
    “You’re hawwwt. She doesn’t care if you have money or not (if you present yourself as I described earlier)”

    She does care, the thing is that you do not realize that. Women have learned to assess men with resources unconsciously the way we have learned to assess beauty unconsciously.

    If you go through life trying to find out a woman who will fuck you for the sake of it, you will die a virgin. you have to be willing to have something to offer more than your looks.

    Quoting you again:
    “I saw a comment somewhere on the ‘sphere from a neurologist [~30M] that noted that when he’d tell girls that he was an MD, he’d invariably have to wait a few dates for sex. His wingman, also an MD, told the girls he was a bouncer and usually hit it the same night. The neurologist started saying that he was a bartender, and immediately began getting similar results.”

    1) he does not have to wait for sex, you can negotiate by simply refusing to accept her terms: “sorry baby, my time is valuable, call me if you change your mind”
    2) I read a comment somewhere saying that if I was a nice guy I would got laid. What people say is often biased. What is the quality of women bartenders get, and what is the quality of women surgeons get? But even before getting to that: “WHAT IS A SURGEON DOING AT A BAR?” It is a lot cheaper for him to pay a prostitute than going to a bar. Let me give you a hint (but please, please, please, DO NOT TELL ANYONE, because it is a secret): the surgeon could be having pussy 24/7 if he started teaching in College. And that, my friend, is why TRP and PUA and all that crap are flawed: because people who read and write simply repeat things over and over and over, based on what they read from people who repeat things over and over. TRP readers UNDERSTAND TRP, BUT they DO NOT APPLY IT.
    3) “Wingman”: please do not use that PUA vocabulary, PUAs are idiots who know shit.

    A truly masculine man does not need “a wingman”, in fact he works better alone, as he can move and talk as he pleases. A truly masculine man does not learn “game” in women’s territory (clubs/bars/ecc), he is capable of standing and saying: “laydees, you are now going to play by my rules; because I get my dose of pussy either from you or from prostitutes”.

  44. @70santihero

    In the example I’ve given you, is the red pill sensory or non-sensory?

    The point here is that you never experience reality directly, you only get an image of it, reality’s recreation by your senses which appears on the stage of your mind. It is partially seen and partially understood. Outside of the cave we find the forms, or abstract patterns which explain the seen, inside the cave we find the shadows, which are what is seen but not understood.

    Look at an optical illusion like an the image of the old woman that is simultaneously the young woman. If you hadn’t seen the old woman or the young woman, think about what happened there. The illusion isn’t in your eyes, but in your brain. It’s a logical illusion, not an optical one. What you *understood* limited and determined what you could *see* in physical reality either on a page or on your computer screen. You had to understand the image before you could see it for what it was. That is how only one woman can appear at first and not the other.

    Well it’s the same for blue pill experiences of women. To have relationships with them but to view them through blue pill conditioning is to only see the old woman without suspecting the young woman is there. What you understand limits and determines what you can see and therefore experience. If what is actually there is never seen by anyone because it is not understood, like prisoners in the cave who know only the shadows and can never turn their heads around, then for all intents and purposes, we would never know it exists, the shadows of women or anything else would be mistaken for reality. But the reality exists all the same and can be known even if nobody ever knows it.

    So how could we argue that ” concepts [are] intrinsic a derivative of reality?” Reality itself cannot even be seen, let alone known, without an a priori conceptual framework. Sense data is organized into a pattern of information by the machinery of consciousness. It’s a version of reality that humans get, not reality itself. Reality as we are capable of experiencing it begins as much in the mind which attempts to perceive it as it does in the world external to the mind.

  45. @TOM

    SMV is not binary. A musclehead may not always be impoverished and having an MD doesn’t preclude being “yoked.” The goal of maximizing SMV (as I understand it) is about optimizing health, wealth and confidence.

    Agreed. Good point.

    It is a combination of factors: pursuing a career/goal in life + developing assertiveness + regaining masculinity

    And when you get to that point you simply ask yourself: “wait, I have achieved all this, why the fuck am I chasing after women who’s SMV will decay after hitting 25 while my SMV will continue to rise as I get promotions and have a better body, understanding of life and masculinity?”

    also, your example explains why the surgeon Kyfho mentioned above did not get laid: because he lacked masculinity.

  46. @Glenn

    What I wasn’t too sure about was what I take to be an unnecessarily churlish attitude to @rollo who is the whole reason most of us are here.

  47. @ Divided Line

    If you get hit by a bus you experience reality directly.

    Your are a child of post-modernism regurgitating your professor’s half truths and maligned suppositions. Such zeal!

    Thomas Jefferson champion of freedom or slave owner?

    You should understand the broader implications of Aristotle’s and Plato’s ideas. And use brevity.

    I ascribe Occam’s razor and to the principle of Aristotle’s ides. Father of logic champion of reason.

    Women subjective men logical. Theres your tie in.

    Okay?

    Goodnight.

  48. @70santihero

    “If you get hit by a bus you experience reality directly.”

    Uh huh, but if you never knew it, what difference does it make? If no consciousness exists to perceive the universe, the bus isn’t a bus. It’s just sub atomic particles in various configurations, no different than the air surrounding it. There is no bus, or air, for that matter. Matter exists, as does the energy which pulls it apart or holds it together, but it ceases to have *meaning.*

    “Your are a child of post-modernism regurgitating your professor’s half truths and maligned suppositions. Such zeal!”

    Do you normally trot out buzz words you don’t understand like “post modernism” in between accusations of “rambling” when confronted with an argument you have no substantive response to? It’s identical to what feminists do.

    “Thomas Jefferson champion of freedom or slave owner?”

    Both. He championed the freedom of “small farmers” in the new “empire of liberty” which the Louisiana Purchase was supposed to establish. In other words, he championed the freedom of white men over black and red. One man’s absolute freedom is the absolute tyranny of every other man if their interest are opposed. Simple idea, but if it’s not simple enough for you, it will no doubt be considered “post modern rambling” which comes from liberal Marxist professors or whatever the fuck.

    “You should understand the broader implications of Aristotle’s and Plato’s ideas. And use brevity. ”

    I don’t think in sentence fragments and nifty little slogans, sorry. I’m not apologizing for it. Reading isn’t difficult. If you find it difficult, there’s always youtube.

    “I ascribe Occam’s razor and to the principle of Aristotle’s ides. Father of logic champion of reason.”

    That’s nice, but you never successfully explained how they differed from Plato’s, let alone defended them contra Plato. You certainly didn’t demonstrate that Plato was an enemy of reason. Occam’s Razor is a given, but then again it doesn’t contradict the theory of the forms. Abstract objects – forms – actually are the simplest of all competing theories which would explain similarity and difference or spontaneous order which is apparent in the universe we can empirically observe.

    Goodnight!

  49. @Divided Line

    Sorry to weigh in here, but I have a PhD in Semiotics and have to acknowledge French poststructuralism has a lot to answer for giving zealous young academics overblown ideas about how something has to be meaningful to be real.

    If I punch you in the head it is real regardless of your ability to comprehend or relate the story later. End of story. It’s called corporeal semantics, FWIW.

  50. @ Macbeth

    I guess I don’t know enough about French poststructualism to understand what you mean by “meaningful.”

    If you refer to the blue pill and red pill analogy, it isn’t the end of the story. The flip side to your argument about being punched in the head is that if we all spent our entire lives as a draft horses and died that way believing we were otherwise and that women were something other than what they are, then we were never draft horses. It’s a Gettier problem.

    So I guess the red pill is bullshit and we can all pack up and go home, wife some overgrown child up, and play white knight until death, financial ruin, and exhaustion.

  51. If it is real yet can have no possible knowable meaning, then it’s noumena. There’s no attempt to argue otherwise, at least not by me. I can’t speak for French poststructuralists.

  52. @Divided Line

    I’m not sure if that’s a deliberate misunderstanding about what I was saying (this is a red pill forum after all, so it might be safe to presume that’s mostly why most of us are here)? What I think you’re arguing is an ongoing position based on the idea that reality needs some sort of consent from us to be real, and it doesn’t. (Apologies if I am also misunderstanding you).

    One of the difficulties poststructuralist inquiry always faces is that almost any model for analysis we can offer is metaphoric. All we can ever do is hope to map a system to our best ability using the notoriously fraught medium of language (as these forum exchanges show). Whatever our linguistic maps of what constitutes red and blue pill, and what may or may not be women’s “true nature”, it is only ever a linguistic model, an interpretation. However, the underlying tangible facts (and there are parallels here to the advice to “watch what she does, not what she says”) don’t change, except historically over time as we are influenced by the network of power relations @Glenn quite rightly mapped in his first response. Underneath our descriptions of women’s behaviour is their actual behaviour, which we imperfectly glean, no matter how skilled we are (hence the possibility of all of us being fallible, including @rollo). Just because we are wrong doesn’t mean the underlying behaviour simply vanishes like a soap bubble when it’s pricked. Baudrillard did the world of semiotics an enormous wrong by suggesting there is *only* representation. It’s just not fucking true and I don’t even believe he believed it, he was simply being driven by the overly dramatic mode that permeates 70s and 80s French philosophy.

    One of the biggest obstacles I struggle with in accepting the red pill reality in which I find myself is the privileging of the male perspective, making all of @rollo’s observations potentially open to flawed thinking because a) it is a highly subjective position and comes with a lot of assumptions, and b) (similar to feminists’ criticism of Freud) it sometimes fails to take into consideration the historic specificity of the time period in which we are living. These “truths” about women’s “intrinsic nature” might only be truths *right now* (due to that complex web of power relations and the socio-economic and cultural system of thought which typifies our epoch).Simply put, we have a massively invested personal interest in our superior analyses being “right” and this is exactly the sort of absolutism (not to mention hubris) any intellectual should beware.

    Although the Marxist dialectic that runs through leftist academic thought is hugely problematic, the reason I recommend reading theorists like Foucault is because he examined the *systems* which produce all kinds of systems of thought and historical eras, which mean any critique informed by the tools he provided are actually a sort of meta-toolkit with which to turn the enemy’s discourses against them (or hell, at least that is how I am taking it right now).

    I have to say that as an intellectual dude I have been massively influenced and enriched by @rollo’s writings, and like many of us, I am only here because of a traumatic moment that opened my eyes to many of the things I’d always felt in my gut, but which my conditioning deterred me from pursuing any further for fear of sexism. I struggle to make the leap and use this knowledge to start banging heaps of whores because I haven’t shaken myself free of that conditioning entirely. And part of that is acknowledging that for all its import and power, The Rational Male might only hold as a momentary truth rather than the all-encompassing blueprint for which it is often offered.

  53. I see with great pleasure, that Gramsci and other, finer points of “really” (from an EU-perspective) left politics are discussed. The essential essay of Engels about the family was mentioned, too – good job.

    Of course these views are the “new normal” that no one is allowed to digress from without social punsihment in every social situation above a sport bar or behind closed doors of fraternities.

    Rollo’s defence of his anti-politics-stand is valid though, I think.
    The reason is this:
    Introducing politics into rationalo discussions about female behaviour quickly leads to one conclusion (even if those reaching the conclusion perhaps do not conciously recognize it). And I guess Rollo doesn’t want that here for good reasons.

    There are two (basic) political ideologies that combine:
    – behavioural and long-term genetic “alpha up” of the male population
    – clear mother role & condemnation of slutty and/or hypergamous behaviour in women – not just in words, but also in actions (like severe punishments for fucking outside of the genetic and social group that they should choose from)
    – economic ideal of high productivity with a clear validation of the working class as the backbone of society (but not class warfare or throwing the money of other people at them)

    I guess by now everyone knows what political affiliation that is. 😉
    It took 3/4 of the world to stop it just once.

    What people should be thinking about, though:
    I understand that constant gaming, no matter how much pussy it gets you, is mentally taxing. Even if you absorped it into flawless, instiuctive execution – you still know it is there and you still know what you know.

    But what everybody really should be thinking about:
    Both of the basic ideologies I am talking about need a PRICE to be paid. Sure, if you follow the rules, are productive and not a sicko, your life is fine. Young, fertile women will be delivered to your doorstep as it is supposed to be – you get one and she will behave. And of course also “love” because her hypergamy would be thoroughly supressed.

    But the price is this: You have to follow orders, without discussing them and there is no “enjoying the decline” or “sitting by the poolside” or “dissenting on the use of drugs/inter-x-marriage” etc.pp.

    I personally work well in clear hierarchies and strict systems.
    But I guess many men -even those complaining about the excess freedom of cunts to be hypergamous- would be very hard-pressed to feel well and flourish in a “behavioural alpha”-enviroment, where you do what you are told and even have to do it enthusiastically and with intelligence/fervour.

  54. MacBeth: “Sorry to weigh in here, but I have a PhD in Semiotics and have to acknowledge French poststructuralism has a lot to answer for giving zealous young academics overblown ideas about how something has to be meaningful to be real.

    If I punch you in the head it is real regardless of your ability to comprehend or relate the story later. End of story. It’s called corporeal semantics, FWIW.”

    Yes, of course the main guys there were socialists and sickos/gays.

    What those being lured into this thinking don’t realize (because their profs never told them) is: Viability.

    Viability – the arch enemy of poststructuralist nonsense. 😉

    1. @Macbeth
      “I am only here because of a traumatic moment that opened my eyes to many of the things I’d always felt in my gut,”
      Would you mind saying what that was? Curious to see if it’s familiar?

  55. She does care, the thing is that you do not realize that. Women have learned to assess men with resources unconsciously the way we have learned to assess beauty unconsciously.
    If you go through life trying to find out a woman who will fuck you for the sake of it, you will die a virgin.

    Actually, no.

    Again, leaving aside issues where there are countries where more women select for resources than in other countries, in the US and in large West Europe cities like London, women are “riding the cock carousel” between 15 and at least 26, often 28-30. The kinds of guys women are fucking during this period, again at least in the larger US cities and in places like London, are not guys with resources or bright futures economically. They’re the guys who make them wet, full stop — even if he’s a drug dealer, bartender, drunk, penniless musician, etc. The girls have their own money at this age (often good money), don’t want to “settle down” yet, and want fun and hot sex with the men who make their pussies tingle — regardless of whether the guys have money, or any prospect of having money, in the future. These are the “alpha fucks”. This behavior may not exist in Portugal or Brasil, where fewer women have access to significant resources on their own, but in the US and places like London, this is the *absolute* norm for how educated women with decent jobs living in major cities behave before they are 26-28.

    This *changes* when women “switch lanes” into looking for a guy who will be a good “husband” type — this generally happens in the US around 26-28, and in London a little later. When they switch like this, it’s true that they are screening at *this* time for men who have resources, and good future prospects for garnering resources. These men are the “beta bucks” — men women are not attracted to for sex per se (given that they would never think of having sex with them when they were at a point where they were “not interested in settling down, and want to have fun and keep it casual” (the motto of these kinds of women in major American cities prior to 26-28)), but are attracted to as prospects for men to raise a family with. This is a different set of criteria, obviously, than just having sex with someone you don’t care about having a future with — and among the beta bucks guys, the ones who have more money and better bodies will do better once a woman hits this “epiphany” stage (in terms of getting a hotter woman to marry) than a guy who is less wealthy and more flabby — but the key here is that she is attracted to the resources because she is now at the point where she wants to build a nest for a family.

    You can choose to be either type — the guy women are viscerally attracted to, regardless of your resources or the guy women are attracted to once they are older and looking to settle down and build a nest. But if you are focused on attracting women through your bank, your car, and your job, you are defaulting into the second category, the category of beta bucks. If you’re comfortable with that, this is ok, but many guys prefer to be the kinds of guys women will just fuck for fun, because this gives access to a LOT more women and a LOT more sex.

    Again, it may be the case that in Brasil or Portugal, etc., women jump right to the “seeking a beta bucks” phase because they don’t have the same luxury of riding the cock carousel with their own resources for an extended period, as many of them do in the US and richer countries in West Europe. I don’t know — I’ve only been to each of those places once, and I’m not that familiar with the SMP in either of them. I do know that the manosphere has one poster — Yohami — who is based in BA, and he reports that women in Argentina still follow AF/BB, but perhaps that’s not the case in Brazil and Portugal — dunno.

    Finally, the very existence of AFs means that if you are one you are not a virgin. This explains phenomena like Tinder. On Tinder, girls (again, at least here in the US) are basically giving it up for guys they find physically hot. The encounters are almost all no strings, they are set up quickly based mostly on physical appearance and a very small amount of chatting, and really have nothing at all to do with car/bank/job/resources. That’s because these women are riding the cock carousel — Tinder is the “app for the cock carousel”, where AFs find prospects who want to fuck them just for the sake of fucking them, with NSA. I know you want to deny this happens, and, again, it may be that it doesn’t happen in Brazil or Portugal, but it’s the entire basis of the sub-28-30 sex market in the main cities of the US, as exemplified by Tinder. It’s a reality.

  56. @Novaseeker

    I cannot give my opinion about what happens in the US as it has been 8 years since I was there for the last time.

    Now:
    1. the AF-BB option you present is a false dilemma. Actually, money makes you “alpha” gets you laid. Why? Money = hookers and money = exciting life. Furthermore, a man who has money, is aware of his SMV and is aware of the Red Pill can get laid without turning into a provider. A guy with money can afford to do skydiving, climbing and all these cool things that make you interesting to women. A guy without money is effed up from the beginning.
    2. In Argentina the “money gets you laid” is a rock-solid truth. If you have got resources, women will come to you. Otherwise, you jack off to porn.
    3. You shouldn’t pay attention to what one outcast writes in a blog, sphere or whatever, because his vision is biased.

  57. And I will state this again: MONEY GETS YOU LAID AND PUTS YOU IN THE HIGHEST NEGOTIATING POSITION. A woman who does not want to fuck you is discarded and replaced with a hooker.

  58. @rugby11ljh

    The trauma is the garden variety unexpected marriage collapse. Nothing unusual here. I am one of @rollo’s guys in his early 40s for whom the only thing worse than this collapse in my marriage and rough road to red pill redemption would be to have remained married to such a woman.

  59. @Lone —

    Well, if you are not speaking about the US, then that’s probably where the disconnect lies. Rollo is in the US, as are Roissy, Roosh (both of those two are in the city where I live) and most of the “red pill” writers. AF/BB describes very well how women in the US are behaving, which is what is relevant for people who live here. Again, Tinder.

    As for “money = hookers”, again, as I wrote above, there is a huge qualitative difference in the sex with a woman who just wants you to bang her for the fun of it, on the one hand, and someone who will bang you because you are paying her. If that’s not important to you, that’s fine, but almost all men know there is a big difference there, especially those of us who have experienced a woman who wants you just because she’s sexually turned on by you, not because she is being paid. Again, if you want to not bother with trying to get a woman to be turned on by you in that visceral way, and would prefer to just make money and bang hookers with your money, that’s fine, but most men would prefer a woman who actually is turned on by them over a pro.

    1. @Novaseeker
      What city is that? Curious
      @Macbeth
      Is this a dagger which I see before me,
      The handle toward my hand? Come, let me clutch thee;
      I have thee not, and yet I see thee still.
      Art thou not, fatal vision, sensible
      To feeling as to sight? or art thou but
      A dagger of the mind, a false creation,
      Proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain?
      I see thee yet, in form as palpable
      As this which now I draw.
      –Macbeth, Act II, scene i
      The truth will set you free…
      @Lone survivor
      What do you define as attractive in a women?

  60. @MacBeth – Re: My Churlish tone – I’m sick and fucking tired of Rollo dismissing how politics gets us here. And in this post he does so while opening up the dialog on politics, and so inviting political commentary. I won’t comment on politics here if he doesn’t make silly, fact-free and incorrect comments about it.

    Have you read the Engels essay? Care to discuss Rawls’ Veil of ignorance, the “the difference principle” or his lexical hierarchy of justice? Do you actually have any idea what I’m even talking about?

    Churlish indeed. You see one of the things that pisses me off the most in our society today is how deformed our political dialog has has become (a direct result of its saturation with ideology) I have a huge interest in the founding of the U.S. and have read things like the Federalist Papers and many other documents from those times that were published in pamphlets and newspapers and other publications. The quality of the thinking from the vocal leaders (formal and informal) of society was quite high. The public intellectual dialog about liberty and governance and the nature of humanity was informed by the hard won experience of the previous several thousand years of human thought. Today? Our political dialog proceeds as though basic questions like equality and justice haven’t been long discussed.

    Even on this thread, the citation of Marx’s ideas about men’s false consciousness – he’s essentially re-addressing ideas that Socrates, Plato and Aristotle thought through long ago. Fyi, there is no such thing as “false consciousness” – all consciousness is false…The Buddhists figured that out 2600 years ago, yawn. You see it’s that kind of tedious, emotional, speculative bullshit from Marx that I found revolting. He made up an entire metaphysics about our political and social reality which has been subsequently largely debunked. Yes it’s ornate and intellectually pleasing, but in the end it’s mostly nonsense. I also find it obscurantist, and intentionally so. That should matter. It’s also true that Marx was a scumbag, broke, welching moocher who was awful to friends and family his entire life. I mean, if the politics are personal, does not Marx’s failure to ever secure financial stability for himself or his family not make into our frame of analysis of him? Could Marx’s mile high stack of speculative, debunked horseshit not be explained by his psychological projections and compensations for his own failures and rage?

    Anyone who’d like to get a sense of the quality of the public political dialog at the time of the separation of the U.S. from Great Britain, go read Theodore Draper’s A Struggle for Power: The American Revolution. He constructs the narrative almost entirely from the writings of the major players in the founding of the U.S. in the decades leading up to the American Revolution. As an aside, Draper’s work is considered to be the preeminent “materialist” history of the U.S. founding. For those who aren’t political geeks, “materialism” is considered a Marxist lens of social analysis and usually also implies the presence of the Hegelian dialectic. Yet I’m recommending it here as the best book on founding of the U.S. – gosh how could that be?

    As for the ideas about politics emanating from genetics, as the other attempts to reduce the central role of politics in shaping how our society evolves, yeah, I see this kind speculative analysis quite frequently. Sometimes the ideas are cute, or even interesting, but rarely do such approaches impress me wrt their appreciation of the complexity of human society. They all strike me as reductionist, desperate attempt to impose some kind order on something that isn’t ordered in the way humans want it to be.

    My thinking on this subject has been deeply effected by what I’ve read about evolutionary psychology/biology. Jared Diamond’s The World Before Yesterday is a great view into some of this, as what he’s really looking at is “group selection” and our social evolution. What’s clear to me about politics is this. It’s a big part of how we formally organize ourselves into larger social groups than hunter-gatherer bands (bigger than 150 humans). Politics enables larger groups to form, and the larger the group, the more complex the social and political structures that emerge.

    Politics results from the battle for control of the concentrated of power we give govt/leaders in exchange for the benefits of scale. The state emerges of a consequence of the utility and advantages scale offers compared to other social groups, and emerges and then dominates independently in at least 6 separate threads of human civilization. While social groups are much more than their political social structures, politics is incredibly important to how social structures and societies evolve. But let me clarify something else – I don’t view the drivers hierarchically. Yes biology is a driver, but it’s not deterministic and neither are the politics. They do interact of course, but to see either as superior or inferior to each other is to miss how complex systems work.

    It’s also true that our success as a species is due in large part to our social evolution, and group competition and selection. Humans form into groups and compete with other groups for resources and territory and mates etc. Group selection and social structures in fact are the engine of human “progress” (assumes a benevolent effect for no reason) and politics is at the center of how we organize socially.

    The question of from where it all emanates, and how these actions are driven by biology are interesting but are also irrelevant to my framing of these issues. I don’t care what complex set of factors gave rise to a given political impulse – that doesn’t mean that we aren’t living in a Marxist political reality, and the feminism inherits all that. Fyi, it’s thought that the words “socialist” and “feminist” were coined by the same early 19th century French political philosopher Fourier – but hey, I’m a raving loon for connecting the political to the social as a primary driver.

    Shall I stop now? Have I made clear how important politics is to a scientific, evolutionary view of human society? Is it clear why I see politics as a crucial driver of what we are experiencing? And why I find breezily dismissing it ludicrous, and at a certain point, anti-intellectual?

    I hope so. Great thread, btw.

    1. @Novaseeker
      Sweet I am from their to Roissy I wonder if I can meet him and Roosh or you for that matter.
      @Lone survivor
      Simple to me
      @Glenn
      Pogo.org
      I Hear you

  61. @ Lone

    I don’t have money. How’d I get a couple one night stands?

    Literally all I did was straight up ask the first girl if she wanted a fuck buddy, and I made it explicitly clear that I didn’t want a relationship. She said “definitely” and drove over to my place within 20 minutes of me asking her. I had to do some convincing to have her come over immediately but she caved pretty quickly.

    The other girl I’d only met one party earlier blew me on a couch. I thought she was single. She had a boyfriend that has money and is doing well. I dropped out of college 7 years ago and have been working for minimum wage in a warehouse.

    I’m the US. Things might be different where you are. But here AF rules.

    The “money gets you laid” argument was taken out back and put down by the whole Elliot Rodger massacre.

    There you have it: a good looking guy that’s also loaded with cash. Why couldn’t he get laid if money gets you laid and puts you in the highest negotiating position?

    I’ve never had any experience with, or known anybody, who had a serious amount of cash, e.g. driving a Lambo, in terms of how they deal with women. So I can’t comment on that.

    I drive a stick shift 28 year old pickup truck with no power steering, no air conditioning and no cup holders.

    When women have the means to provide for themselves, which they absolutely do in the US, the strategy shifts to AF more than BB.

    Especially in the younger crowd, e.g. 14-26.

    I remember being in middle school and listening to two girls in study hall brag to each other about jacking off the hot guys in school. They literally were talking about how much they ejaculated and how much got all over them, or how fast they busted, etc. I was either 13-14 at the time.

    I never dated in high school or the short time I was in college but the hot girls had reputations for sleeping around. It was just par for the course. The hottest ones were the ones who slutted it up with as many guys as possible. I always wished I was one of those guys, lol. If I had Game back then I’m convinced I could’ve been, too.

    But now I’m older. Going on 26. I still see women in their late 20’s and early 30’s doing the AF thing. I think AF is just getting more and more extended the less women need BB. Cuckolding and cheating in general included in that shift.

    I think it’s a cultural statement, if anything. I think it was Dalrock who pointed out that unrestrained hypergamy is not the same as natural hypergamy, or something along those lines — unrestrained hypergamy ends up being something that hypergamy would never be under normal circumstances.

    So is it hypergamy rearing its ugly head in western society, or is it actually turning into something that it was never able to be before?

    I’m more on the side of adaptation than things being hard-wired. Whatever is hard-wired is still always evolving.

    I think it would be a mistake to look at hypergamy as a static process as opposed to an evolving process. Evolution doesn’t stop. It’s actively happening right now.

    Can cultural climate influence hard-wired biology? Sure. That’s how our biology got hard-wired in the first place, after all. We might be talking eons here, but evolution is still happening. It’s a constant process and it’d be wise to consider how adaptations to our current environment might affect our future evolution generations down the road.

  62. @Macbeth – Ah, thanks for giving some background on your education. Okay, so then you get better than I do how the meta ideas of the left such as post-modernism and post-structuralism have intentionally been used to unmoor “social justice” from modern ideas about reason and classical liberalism utterly.

    You should also get how overtly and intentionally leftist activism has been collapsed with intellectual,academic, educational work and journalism. It’s considered revealed truth in such circles that an academic or an educator or a reporter is always “acting” in service to some ideology, so it’s only moral and just to pick the one that delivers the most moral and just world. In fact, why not embrace one’s own biases if you can’t escape them – as long as they are the “right” biases? Even better, why not cynically use one’s power as a professor or journalist or judge or political office holder to advance the cause of justice? Better yet, if I’m really committed to these ideas, why wouldn’t I do “whatever it takes” as you see Obama doing right now as POTUS with an unprecedented series or executive actions and orders? The transgressions of law and tradition and ethics that such a worldview permits are shocking to most of those not steeped in leftist ideology – but it’s this ideology which now informs all the elite institutions of our society. And that didn’t happen accidentally, this power was intentionally sought after and acquired by these ideological madmen – actually it’s mostly women these days.

    My frustration stems from how little most people outside of the leftist intellectual bubble know about how advanced and complete the ideas of the left are, and how complete their ideological takeover of the elite institutions of society is. You guys know that look you get from some SJW when you start telling them about how the wage gap isn’t true, or question any feminist orthodoxy? It’s because they already know how to discount everything you say, axiomatically. And have been doing so for a long time now. Non SJW men need to wake up – these people are not fucking around. They are already taking our liberty via force and have violated the social contract in the U.S. in astounding ways. I’d be out on the street with an AR-15 today if I thought there was a chance of taking this corrupt govt out.

    But there isn’t. So I just try to enjoy my life.

  63. @ Novaseeker

    Yes, the sociological context matters, I agree with you.

    I want to elaborate on this:

    “As for “money = hookers”, again, as I wrote above, there is a huge qualitative difference in the sex with a woman who just wants you to bang her for the fun of it, on the one hand, and someone who will bang you because you are paying her”.

    That, my friend, is the feminine imperative. Do you really believe hookers do not enjoy sex?

    Well, there are those who do not enjoy it, true. There are others, especially if you are young and well-built, who enjoy it. An example: last year I was doing the NoFap challenge and was without fapping for 20 days. On day 21 I needed so much to get laid that I called a hooker and started bantering with her, she wanted to charge me 100 euro for going to her house… she ended coming to my place for 70 euro. It had the best body I ever fucked and I had a better conversation with her than with all the portuguese women I tried to date.

    The feminine imperative wants men to think that prostitutes do not enjoy sex and are sub-human, because a huge part of the feminine power is built on the capacity to withhold sex. A man who has money is no longer attached to women’s hysteria, as he can fuck whenever he wants. You will understand that after watching these two videos:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOO8Fl-XrDg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm2gnbmnuY0

    Now, let’s analyze this:

    ” Again, if you want to not bother with trying to get a woman to be turned on by you in that visceral way, and would prefer to just make money and bang hookers with your money, that’s fine, but most men would prefer a woman who actually is turned on by them over a pro”.

    Nope, I do care about turning women on. However, my existence does not revolve around that anymore. I do what I like to do, want to do, for the sake of it, not to have some retarded cock-carousel rider over me. The behavior you are mentioning is “approval-seeking behavior”, doing things to please women.

    And I can tell you this: my current job has started wetting pussies of women who didn’t care about me in Portugal and pussies of women who work with me or under my supervision.

  64. @Rugby

    1. young women (younger than 27)
    2. feminine and caring
    3. thin, curved, big boobs

    Simple, huh? 😀

  65. @Softek

    Have you realized that you are turning into the woman in society and women are turning into men?

    @Novaseeker

    I used to do online tutoring to an american girl who was from DC and was studying in Hawaii. Her words: “in DC the only thing you need to get laid is a STD test confirming that you are clean”. Needless to say she was 38 and still riding the carousel (and being asian, she looked like a 29 girl).

  66. Yeah, perhaps Rollo could turn this blog into one about ideological brawling. Seems like a fresh idea.

    Or if things are too tame here for the posters wanting red meat with their Pill, why not skip over to Roissy?

    If you ask me, politics only to the level of MRA, or hell maybe not even that, please. Keep things like they are. (I’d be far more interested in a second blog about your branding experience than one about politics, actually.)

    1. “Rollo, you’re a fuckin pussy if you don’t acknowledge the political aspect of the FI. Everything you write is worthless if you don’t address the totality of the Red Pill and how Leftists are destroying the entire world!”

      Writes a post to address the underlying dynamics of Hypergamy and how it extrapolates into a meta socio-political dynamic.

      “Rollo you’re a fuckin’ idiot! Let me tell you how much I know about Marx, Kant, Engels, Proudhon and Plato. Stick to fluffy shit about Hypergamy and fucking hot bitches, that’s what I come here for.”

  67. @Lone —

    Well, that”s interesting. Certainly not how things work in the US at all.

    Can any other European readers confirm that in Europe, women are mostly turned on by your money and your job?

  68. @ Glenn

    Leftists are wolves in sheep’s clothing. I always come back to the line: “Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining.” Which is exactly what they do.

    There was that kid who started 3D printing guns. They confiscated all his stuff but I think he’s still making high capacity magazines if I remember right from the video I watched.

    With the increase in technology, people are getting pretty creative. If push comes to shove, things are going to get ugly. People can make laws but people are constantly finding new ways to break them and/or get around them.

    Basically, if people want it bad enough, they’ll find a way.

    Hence the fear of the “Brave New World” dynamic where people will just tolerate everything because they’re complacent. Even with America how it is today, I think a lot of people would be willing to fight if push came to shove and their rights were overtly, completely violated.

    A lot of people wouldn’t, sure, but I think a lot would.

    But with gradual changes, as we’ve been seeing, people are less likely to resist. A lot of times because there’s nothing overt to resist against.

    If someone attacks you physically, you attack them back. If you own a gun you can shoot someone who accosts you or threatens your safety by physically assaulting you.

    However, with all the tactics of the left, it isn’t straightforward like that. I’d say most of their strategy relies on principles of hypnosis and manipulation. You get people to think a certain way so there’s no need to resist — they think you’re on their side.

    You get people to allow changes to happen by making them believe those changes are good, or making them so covert that even the people who disagree with them can’t figure out how to do anything about it.

    I’m more fearful for the “Brave New World” script as opposed to the “1984” script, and looking at the world today, the former seems like it could very well go into full swing.

    What are we supposed to do about it, anyway?

    You already pointed out that they’re not open to debate. That’s why I think of their tactics as hypnosis/psychological manipulation. It’s an appeal to people’s EMOTIONS. People that don’t care about understanding the truth of the matter. They just want to hear things like “hope” and “change” and “bring down the rich.”

    As in 1984, the proles are the only ones who can do anything about it, because they vastly outnumber those in power. If the proles ever turned on them, they’d be screwed. They couldn’t defend themselves against a massive number of people like that.

    But the point in the book was that they would never do it. Like you said about being willing to fight if you thought it would change anything — I think a lot of people feel that way, but there’s no obvious way to change anything. That’s how the left works.

    Wurmbrand described communism as a cancer that metastasizes slowly. I think that’s a very apt metaphor.

    Elliot Rodger was painted as a psycho lunatic — and surely he had other issues aside from women, but the breakdown of the nuclear family and the elimination of gender roles in society is not looking like it’s going to lead anywhere wholesome.

    And it already hasn’t. Most men haven’t woken up though and are still brainwashed by the Blue Pill/leftist/feminist media. Brainwashed into ignoring their own pain and frustration. I feel like it’s like pushing a beach ball underwater — the farther you push it down, the more forcefully it rises back up and bursts through the surface.

    Who knows how long it’ll take? Is it the boiling a frog deal and all this shit will just happen and completely change our society for the worse without anyone really noticing? It seems to have been going in that direction for quite a while now.

    “The most dangerous creation of any society is the man who has nothing to lose.”

    ~James Baldwin

    Censorship is a big deal. I wouldn’t be surprised if eventually blogs like RM got slapped as ‘obscene’ or categorized as some sort of hate crime that denies the right to freedom of speech.

    They’re a bunch of malicious, manipulative fuckers that operate like this. Their MO is controlling public opinion through media manipulation and propaganda.

    If they told people the straight up truth, nobody would stand for it. The whole point is that it plays on emotions with lies and empty promises.

    Just like the ‘equalist’ thing in relationships. The truth isn’t pretty, but it’s a hell of a lot healthier than believing in fairy tales.

    And just about everyone is sold on “equalism” in relationships. When I read RM and started putting the pieces together it all seemed so obvious, and I wonder how I could’ve been so oblivious to the truth for all these years.

    The brainwashing runs very deep. And that’s the goal. Indoctrinate people so they don’t even WANT to resist. And to the ones who do want to resist, obscure what they’re resisting against. Make the enemy unclear.

    Like Glenn, my focus is on enjoying my life. I agree with the idea to ‘be the change you want to see in the world.’

    It all starts with adopting RP ideas for ourselves and applying them in our lives. That’s priority 1.

  69. Just saw the State Farm commercial – the “Never”ad that shows a man capitulating over and over – in this light, and it’s a mind blower. The formerly single guy gets molded into a husband and father in order to support the wife’s goals. Not his. I got a sense that the underlying message is, “Enjoy your captivity and make her dreams come true, and forget about your say in it,” which is really disturbing that no one I know sees that; they just think it’s an incredibly sweet Hallmark card.

  70. @Softie – I’m having a hard time keeping up – did you say you got a fuckbuddy? Or is that a failed attempt? Either way, it’s amazing what’s possible when you take a relationship off the table…

    And don’t bother with the conversation “it’s all about money or not”. In fact, having wealth has both utilitarian and signaling effects in mate selection, and of course, context is decisive. It signals status and also that one is a person who can navigate life and the world successfully. Women’s attraction is complex and both status and utility factors into it.

    But for the man who is simply trying to fuck women he finds desirable, the real job is improving your value and success on your own terms as paradoxically demonstrates huge value – being self-centered may be the ultimate aphrodisiac. Then you simply notice which women indicate interest (IOIs) and proceed from there. Fyi, my 19 yr old for tonight flaked, sigh – i’m in a high flake rate game, as I said. But other plates make it just another “next”. And if she sticks to form, I bet she’ll float back around at some point.

    I notice attraction, I don’t consciously try to manipulate and create it. I nurture it and try to not disrupt it but it’s really something that I can’t control. A women “opts in” to me and I’m simply noting and acting on the opt in. Yes, I have been working on how I communicate my frame and the “smirk” and demonstrating high value, but I get that women choose me or they don’t. Most don’t, and those who do can change their minds at any moment. I think part of what women respond to is that I just “get” that I can’t make them attracted to me and don’t “try”. This creates a real freedom of expression for some of them and off we go.

    I do want to share one more thing here generally. On the @SunWuGong Show the other night, I learned that some here doubt my exploits and escapades. It really surprised me because to me, this is a space where I have very little at stake. I mean, I’m anonymous, what would I gain? But I also get that some of my stories seem wild, and that it may seem that I’m bragging or something. Let me be clear, I’m just excited to be sexually alive again and getting some of what I actually want. I’ve embraced my interest in young nubile women in a way that I never permitted myself to do when I was younger and I actively cultivate plates and plate candidates because I love young, tight, hot women. I guarantee my T is much higher than it was 24 months ago.

    But that said, I will refrain from sharing my exploits going forward. It’s gorgeous by the lake here today and I’m outside for the duration. Have a good weekend guys.

  71. @Glenn

    I think we have different academic experiences rather than me understanding it better. I read Rawls during my doctorate and wasn’t taken by his stuff. I have come full circle in my thinking though, about poststructuralist and leftist academic thinking, and I stand by earlier statements that some of their work (yes Foucault was a leftie and a fag and still a genius – he taught himself German so he could read Nietzsche in the original language FFS) in the discourse field is actually what the manosphere needs to be able to pitch its solid arguments on the same terms as the enemy understands. I posted earlier in this thread I think about how embarrassing it is seeing Roosh (I am a big fan) blame the decline of western civilisation on an Illuminati of wealthy families. The manosphere needs a more sophisticated understanding of power, and discourse theory or discursive analysis offers that. Foucault is the guy for that.

    The seductive thing about the equalist argument as it is communicated through academia now is the logic (someone said “pissing down your back and tell me it’s raining” and yep). I first entered that world borne by arguments like: we laud a man for being a stud, but a woman is called a slut if she’s promiscuous. I thought yes, that is really unfair, though I was also never able to exorcise my gut repulsion at slutty girls and their antics. The other day I went back on Tinder and a girl’s profile shone a big light on that same academic stud/slut argument. I hope she matches me back, because she pointed out a slut’s work is easy, while a man has to be skilled to be a stud. This is so true, and yet what is missing from that academic position is an ability to hear back from moderate guys who can articulate that basic disparity. The slut/stud dynamic isn’t flip sides of the same experience, but are uniquely male and uniquely female situations.

  72. First, this thread has turned into some amazing conversations. I wish I had time this weekend to read through it with the attention it deserves.

    @Divided Line

    “What is traditional masculinity though?”

    Still trying to figure that out in our modern context.

    “Because it also entailed being a provider draft horse. The only socially acceptable aspect of traditional masculinity that remains is the beta bux provider. It’s not as if it is an invention of the FI or feminism.”

    Well, first, it wasn’t ONLY about being a provider draft horse. It was about being the head of the household, the sole provider (usually), and other things which gave the masculine position cache, power and respect. That has definitely been worn away, and given away, much to our detriment.

    But, at the core, women still need men because we are the creators, workers, maintainers, mechanics, etc. For the most part the world runs and progresses technologically and materially on the backs of men. We are still the providers, collectively, for the material comfort that women so enjoy, even as they act like selfish, self-entitled children who disdain their benefactors.

    Perhaps that is part of the problem; we have been collectively enslaved, in a fashion, both with propaganda and law to maintain this existence even as we see less of the results and benefits we desire for ourselves (i.e., woman acting out their traditional role even as we still do).

    My point about promoting Red Pill ‘Warriors’ is to spread a movement where men push back against being drafted into this unbalanced paradigm. It’s already happening in the form of men marrying later or not at all, the complaints about from women are well known. It’s already happening with the spread of Red Pill ideas which strips away the ‘mysteries’ of female behavior.

    My point is that if men start to demand THEIR respect, in all manner of society, and refuse to be sucked into ‘feeding the machine’, something will have to give. The FI will most likely try to force compliance through increased messaging and governmental control, but unless they opt for actual slavery, men cannot be FORCED to be slaves. If they try, well, men were always the ones who fought, anyway.

    I do not claim to know how all this would shake out. The advances of technology and the threat of economic collapse (small or large), societal collapse can all shuffle the cards. I do think, however, that we are part of Nature, and nature as a way of rebalancing itself. Men are the doers, adapters, creators. We can figure out how to ‘fix’ this if we are all made aware of what is broken.

    “This is the whole problem with assuming that the ascendancy of the FI is due entirely to the left and feminism. In reality, a right wing traditionalist conception of masculinity is just as gynocentric as the left”

    Not sure I follow you on this. Could you elaborate because I don’t find it a convincing statement.

    “To be sure, men got a better deal under traditional marriage, but it was still a pretty shitty deal.”

    As opposed to what? I guess what I am asking, what was/would be the much better deal we had/could have?

    “And at any rate, there is no way back to traditional marriage anyway.”

    THAT may be very true, and in the end, women may end up regretting it most of all.

  73. @BP

    “I also think this plays into the hysteria about rape culture. The fear is not so much about rape but about 2nd tier and lower men behaving as though they were top tier.”

    Powerful observation.

    I’ve seen this with my own eyes, the visceral distress a woman displays when a lower tier man thinks he has a shot.

    Not enough sexy to go around.

    I have a sneaking suspicion that the lack of sexy will usher in 100% state subsidised child payments, too many sexy men locked down by their ex and child payments.

    The progression seems to be taking place:
    Public schooling
    Pre schooling
    Child care
    Welfare
    Subsidised housing
    Gender quotas

    The next logical progression will be full blown socialised child payments, that way they can have their cake and eat it too.

  74. @BP

    “I also think this plays into the hysteria about rape culture. The fear is not so much about rape but about 2nd tier and lower men behaving as though they were top tier.”

    Powerful observation.

    I’ve seen this with my own eyes, the visceral distress a woman displays when a lower tier man thinks he has a shot.

    Not enough sexy to go around.

    I have a sneaking suspicion that the lack of sexy will usher in 100% state subsidised child payments, too many sexy men locked down by their ex and child payments.

    The progression seems to be taking place:
    Public schooling
    Pre schooling
    Child care
    Subsidised housing

  75. @ Glenn

    She did agree to be my fuckbuddy, but I ended up getting cockblocked (someone knocked on the door when I was about to fuck her and wouldn’t leave even though I told them to and kept knocking) and it really freaked her out. I thought it was a shoe-in for at least a temporary fuckbuddy but it just ended up being a ONS. This was from about a year ago when I had my first successful hookup.

    So she flaked on me too. High flake game, as you said — one thing I’ve braced myself for. Even when she came over and the pants were coming off, I had a feeling in my gut this might be the only shot I’d have with her, so I’d better make the most of it. And I definitely did my best, like yeah, I had anxiety and I ended up not fucking her but we fooled around for a couple hours and all things considered it was pretty good. Also the only average weight girl I’ve ever been with, which was nice.

    I get that freedom thing. If there’s anything that sabotaged me back in the day, it was putting tons of pressure on girls by letting them know how much I liked them. Even getting LJBF’d last year — that took a lot out of me, but the hookup happened before the LJBF.

    So I did have the presence of mind, even in the throes of ONE-itis, to hook up with another girl given the opportunity. So that’s what I did, and having made that decision helped me come to terms with the LJBF.

    Which honestly I can’t understand now how it was such a big deal to me then. I feel so much more free now.

    I’m just going to replay the best parts of the hookups I’ve had and get that going in my mind. I know I can do it again.

    With spring here (finally) I’m starting to perk up. Big time. I really feel like I belong somewhere like California or anywhere where it’s warm and sunny year round. Every single year it’s the same thing, even with my SAD light and using a clear heat lamp or halogen light in the evening to emulate summer —

    — I get depressed as fuck in the winter, and when spring rolls around, I naturally start waking up earlier and feel a million times better. I just can’t stand winter and I wouldn’t mind if I never saw a snowflake again for the rest of my life.

  76. @DividedLine – Of course, Marx was an anti-semite and a racist, but hey go to Hitler comparisons – and don’t expect to be taken seriously forever after. Of course Marxism gained acceptance as an ideology – what, are you claiming such things do so on merit? Are you actually going to claim that the scientific socialism of Marx was a valuable ideology or not? If so, based on what fucking evidence? You see, every society that ever tried Marx’s scientific socialism/communism, from New Harmony to the Soviet Union to the Kibbutzim of Israel have failed utterly. As an aside, the leader of New Harmony in the U.S., a brilliant socialist with an admirable moral fervor (can’t remember name or be bothered to look it up right now), wrote Marx to ask advice on how to deal with all the problems that were arising in the socialist Utopia he was attempting to create. Marx’s repsonse? Marx scoffed at the guy in public.

    Even worse for you, I have not once said a single thing you puked up in your screed of nonsense and hyperbole. Not a single thing – you get that, do you not? This is your projection of who-knows-what and as an argument, well it’s laughable.

    Take a good look at this handwaving, borderline histrionic commentary by DividedLine folks, he very neatly demonstrates the kind of hyperbole which substitutes for critical thinking by those on the left, and those “in the middle” who believe they somehow surf above petty partisans like me. Lol.

    Assignment for the day for those who want to actually learn a fucking thing or two about why our politics is so fucked? Google the term “factionalism” and what the U.S. founders had to say about it and then consider how our current politics look. Bonus points if you also research “republican spirit” (having nothing to do with the Republican party) from the same thinkers/founders. You’ll see the perils of partisanship and a powerful govt laid out quite clearly as this is a lesson humanity has long known, and it’s democracy’s fatal flaw.

    But hey, politics don’t matter, and some people are just so fucking cool they can surf above it all or “not pick sides”. And we wonder why we are being overrun by leftists? With this kind of assessment of reality and where we find ourselves? Wake the fuck up people. Your pose of being above it all or evenhanded is surrender.

    1. @Glenn
      This video got really into the red pill. As a blue pill male I thought it was just weird but equiality gender places of interest and female and male dynamics where interesting to look into especially at the end.
      It’s graphic so be careful but it’s political as well because it’s somewhat true.

  77. @Nova

    May I provide additional data?

    Yes, there is a country where both the carousel and the gold-digger profiles are highly active: Spain

    In large urban centres (Madrid, Barcelona) women ride the Carousel. However, and big capital letters: THEY DO IT WHEN NO ONE THEY KNOW IS WATCHING THEM. Saw that while in vacations in the Basque Country. Women from Barcelona and Madrid who where nuns in the hostel, playing hard to get and went outside the first night to get fucked by some random guy.

    Three of these women said they were not interested in marrying (we are talking about girls of 26 years old).

    On the other side, laydees of 18-23 y.o. from small towns/villages only date you if you come from a family with money. Oh, and when they go abroad during the Erasmus exchange programs they become cum dumpsters.

    So, as you can see, both strategies are running at the same time.

    Are you REALLY interested in turning the visceral part of a cum dumpster who every night swallows sperm from a different guy? Hookers at least have clear game rules and are as expensive/cheap as laydees from clubs/bars.

  78. @Glenn

    I see your argument and your frustration, but let me pose two questions:

    1) Do you actually want to have political discourse (which you clearly can get elsewhere) on a site most guys don’t come to for political discourse? I mean I know this aspect of Rollo’s writing frustrates you, but for me it’s refreshing to push that out of the way and just consider what I feel are the dynamics that lie underneath the entire political and social structure. OK, you want each of us to read all the books you’ve read on the subject to even start the debate otherwise you bludgeon from a position of assumed superiority, and those books have no relevance to what I came here to learn; I agree with Rollo that they are an emergent property of what’s discussed here, not the other way around.

    2) Honestly how much do the politics matter in choosing an individualist strategy as a male? OK they do influence the laws you live under, but when the dominant zeitgeist (which is absolutely huge compared to even all of us as a group) has and will crush anything we put up for debate then any action ultimately nothing but pissing in the wind. MRAs are pretty much showing this by being marginalized and laughed at with every single statement they make. So the individual male’s choice remains the same regardless of the politics: live a positively masculine life until it becomes illegal, and at that point find somewhere to live that it isn’t.

    I do tend to agree with Rollo here in the end though: the politics are in fact an emergent property of all the dynamics discussed here. Politics are absolutely related, but they’re not a cause. They’re an effect that feeds back on itself. To me in the end this hasn’t been about the politics though; it has been about my own selfish needs never being met by a society (regardless of the politics) that demands THEIR needs be met by me long before my own. That’s a social dynamic people simply engage in on a base level. I care only about how I can swim against that current on a personal level and maintain a positive attitude and life while doing so.

    Getting engaged in long, winding, and ultimately futile political debate doesn’t further that goal one iota. Quite the opposite; it often simply leads to frustration about things we simply can’t change, and if there’s one thing both you and I need it’s less of that ya know? We’ve spent too much of our lives banging our heads against things that couldn’t change (which politics out of the small municipal falls in) when what we’ve really needed is to see the change we can effect in ourselves to make our lives better.

  79. @Macbeth

    And for the record, Rollo’s a man. He can handle Glenn’s “churlish” tone just fine, particularly because we all know no matter what Glenn means well. You think a guy runs discussions as unmoderated as this and doesn’t expect the commenters to rough him up from time to time? Give the guy some credit for knowing what he’s setting himself up for hahahah

    1. @Sun wukong
      Politics and self improvement

      factors:
      He inherited a well-trained army from his father.
      He was quick in both decision and action.
      He was innovative and daring in battle.
      He always led from the front.
      He looked after his men who were fiercely loyal.
      He was ruthlessness and merciless with those who opposed him.
      He was politically astute: bribed and helped those needed as friends.
      He understood PR very well and wrote his own history.

  80. @Glenn

    I agree with your comment about Baltimore.

    You have a lot to say about politics. You should start your own blog and go through things chronologically regarding the left, right, front, back, centre or whatever of political thinking and how it’s affecting society today – given it’s not just the feminine imperative screwing things up.

    (And if you did make a blog, try and keep it simple so that everyone can grasp it as politics “appears” to be complicated enough. Having it written in a way that people can understand would be a breath of fresh air.)

    @Rollo

    How come you don’t have a reply section on your comments? Wouldn’t it save people having to scroll down to find a new reply to their discussion?

    On another note . . .

    Here’s an article on the Daily Mail about the denigration of men: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3044380/The-denigration-men-Ridiculed-abused-exploited-triumph-feminism-today-s-men-second-class-citizens-argues-deliciously-provocative-new-book-s-time-chaps-fought-back.html

    It talks about how men are responsible for many great achievements but getting a raw deal, how Peter Lloyd’s book claims men have been unfairly undermined by modern feminism and how men are doing more, working harder and getting none of the credit.

  81. On second though, I’m now trying to start a show where this same commentariat can rage at me in real time. Maybe I haven’t thought this through well enough…

  82. @Lone Survivor –

    >>MONEY GETS YOU LAID AND PUTS YOU IN THE HIGHEST NEGOTIATING POSITION

    Then why, oh, why do we hear so many stories of wives of wealthy men getting caught tearing one off with the pool boy? So many of these it’s a cliche.

    Which one of these guys gets the hottest sex, and which one gets put off with, “I have a headache?”

    You are not looking at this from the POV of the female (or her genes). This is what Rollo has done for us here with this blog – he has shown us the true nature of the female sexual strategy (The Red Pill), warts and all. It is not pretty, it is not at all pleasant. It goes against what we have been taught all of our lives (and we were taught that for a reason, which he also explains).

    >>why the surgeon [neurologist, actually] Kyfho mentioned above did not get laid: because he lacked masculinity.

    How did he instantly obtain masculinity by falsely changing his profession? He notes that he’s gone back and forth between claiming to be a bartender and his true profession. Without fail, when he claims to be a neurologist, the girl makes him wait for sex. As a bartender, he gets the hot, sweaty, dirty, freaky, nasty monkey love, and gets it very quickly. Obviously, he hasn’t changed, but the perception of him has. His friend reports the same, that’s why he started telling girls he was a bouncer.

    To reiterate, you’re not looking at this from the female’s perspective.

    The fact that a man incurs certain costs as a result of pursuing women is obvious. All actions have at least an opportunity cost. This is also irrelevant from the POV of the woman – your costs are your problem, not hers. The other stuff you wrote about how a man can lower his costs (financial and time) may well be true. Again, though, it’s also irrelevant. The woman doesn’t care about his efforts. [I note that you keep referring to him as a surgeon, and neurologists aren’t surgeons. Also you seem to think that he was meeting them in bars, and I did not say that. I don’t recall if he said where he was meeting them or not. You will not find that information in my comment. You made it up, along with your ridiculous theory that only money gets women.]

    >>TRP and PUA and all that crap are flawed: because people who read and write simply repeat things over and over and over, based on what they read from people who repeat things over and over. TRP readers UNDERSTAND TRP, BUT they DO NOT APPLY IT.
    3) “Wingman”: please do not use that PUA vocabulary, PUAs are idiots who know shit.
    A truly masculine man does not need “a wingman”, in fact he works better alone, as he can move and talk as he pleases. A truly masculine man does not learn “game” in women’s territory (clubs/bars/ecc), he is capable of standing and saying: “laydees, you are now going to play by my rules; because I get my dose of pussy either from you or from prostitutes”.

    This is a strawman argument. You are claiming that TRP and PUA simply repeat things they read, and that TRP readers do not apply their knowledge. This is completely false, and could not be further from the truth. PUAs are NOTHING if not empirical. Every bit of knowledge, every technique is rigorously tested by multiple men IN FIELD. I don’t write of anything that I haven’t tested MYSELF (if I do, I say that I have read of it, or heard of it, not that I have done so myself). TRP, which is also based on EMPIRICAL evidence, is also known as evolutionary psychology. If you’d bothered to read this blog, you’d know that.

    “Wingman” is a useful term. Everyone on this blog knows what I mean. PUAs are most certainly NOT idiots, and anyone that can genuinely claim that title has forgotten more than you will ever know about women. Since most women socialize in groups, most often dyads (twos), having a trusted, skilled “wingman” is extremely useful in isolating and escalating intimacy with a woman. If you had ANY experience with women (you admit that you have little, having to pay for most of it) you’d know this, but you don’t, so you don’t. Who’s the keyboard jockey now? I’ve got a notch count of over 100+, with less than 10% of that being pay for play. I’m over 50, I’m maybe 6.5 out of 10 on a good day. I’m so broke, it’s not even a joke. My job has the shittiest hours for socializing you can imagine, but I’ve still fucked over 100 women for free. Only one was below a 6. I don’t spend any money on women. I’ve currently got 6 women in rotation, and other than gas to go see 2 of them (less than 5 min away, the others come to see me) I’ve purchased 2 cups of coffee for them, out of pocket.. 4 of these women have boyfriends that they don’t plan on leaving for me (except for the odd hour or two here and there).

    Lastly, just because you’re rich doesn’t mean that the “laydees” are now going to play by YOUR rules. Remember, women have a point of view, too. Men that use prostitutes are AUTOMATICALLY BY DEFINITION beta bux. A regular woman will AUTOMATICALLY be less attracted (more like repulsed) to you if she discovers this, and if she is presented with the option of you fucking her vs you fucking a pro, it’s a no-brainer: she’ll happily let you spend your money on the pro, while she finds the “hawt” guy that gives her the tingles, who she fucks for free.By offering to pay for it, you signal loudly and clearly that no other woman wants you. Have you heard of the concept of “pre-selection?” Well, this is “de-selection.”

    Lone Survivor, you have entered a discussion where the vast majority of participants have forgotten more than you will ever know about women. From your own comments, you are clearly not satisfied with your relationships with women. Rather than dogmatically argue and insist that your (ineffective) model is the only correct one, why don’t you read, ask questions, and learn from the experience of others with more of it?

  83. @rugby

    In self improvement, most men need to understand politics as local social interactions with other individuals and the cascade of events that arise out of that. But right/left national politics? Nope. Most guys won’t be Alexander the great or play the game at that level ever.

    1. @kyf
      “Rather than dogmatically argue and insist that your (ineffective) model is the only correct one, why don’t you read, ask questions, and learn from the experience of others with more of it?”
      That sounds like me at such a bad time in my life thanks for teaching me.
      @Sun Wukong
      Yeah your right but their is something so damn wonderful about Alexander maybe the thrill of just being able to lead that way in front of 50 000 thousand troops.
      Well being aware is something I can do in 2015…
      So much of the past is important to not just repeat but learn from.

  84. ” . . . money makes you . . ..”

    . . . a “John” and a “Mark.”

    “You shouldn’t pay attention to what one outcast writes in a blog, sphere or whatever, because his vision is biased.”

    Exactly.

  85. @Kyf

    Let’s see:

    “Then why, oh, why do we hear so many stories of wives of wealthy men getting caught tearing one off with the pool boy?”

    1. That is what you saw in Hollywood movies. In Hollywood the nice guy steals the hottie from the football team captain, too.
    2. I said “money gets you laid”, not “money buys fidelity from your woman”.

    Now:

    “Which one of these guys gets the hottest sex, and which one gets put off with, “I have a headache?””

    I won’t elaborate because it would be too long. for the answer to that, read “How to be a 3% man” by Corey Wayne.

    Now:
    “How did he instantly obtain masculinity by falsely changing his profession? He notes that he’s gone back and forth between claiming to be a bartender and his true profession.”

    Because he is trying to get laid in the improper environment. Put a sprint runner to run a marathon and he will finish last (if he finishes), and the marathon runner will win. Put a marathon runner to run a 100 m sprint and he will lose to the sprint runner.

    Bars/clubs are places where losers can afford to look like winners. The door bouncer, probably a jackass who hopefully finished high school, has as much power as the US president in a Club. It is all about power dynamics. Also, the surgeon does not know how to approach the situation. If you want to bang hotties at a club, you have to go to top-quality clubs, book a table in the VIP sector and ask for a bottle of Crystal. Women take care of the rest (I give you this info first handed).

    Now:

    “PUAs are most certainly NOT idiots”

    No, they are master manipulators capable of convincing people with low self-esteem that they are masters of seduction (when they actually know shit).

    Now:

    “Lastly, just because you’re rich doesn’t mean that the “laydees” are now going to play by YOUR rules”.

    I am not rich, but I can tell you that a rich man makes the rules and they obey. Women who do not obey get discarded. Have you got any idea how many women are chasing guys like Cristiano ronaldo (who is a millionaire, an achiever and a winner)?

    “Rather than dogmatically argue and insist that your (ineffective) model is the only correct one, why don’t you read, ask questions, and learn from the experience of others with more of it?”

    Because I only listen to men who DO KNOW about their stuff. Rollo Tomassi makes great insights, some guys here also do, and you ARE NOT one of them. From the moment you consider PUAs to be “clever” and you use silly terms such as “wingman”, “in the field”, you are immature. Meeting women is not a military operation, it is something meant to be spontaneous, fun and effortless.

  86. PS: not to mention that if you believe that women do not follow rich men rules you are clearly either naive or ignorant.

    1. @Lone survivor
      “spontaneous, fun and effortless.”
      Would you consider that art? Those words put together in real life?
      @Rollo
      I am starting to understand the importance of what you mentioned in your early youth with your guiltar and amp. It’s all coming together.
      Maybe that is what we all must do is not only perform but perform well. While women willingly give a part of them selfs in that phase.
      I am stable and humble about how ignorant I am about my biological mechanics.

    2. I am reading here that there is a debate between people who believe that money is the key to sexual relations and other who claim that body-capital is the key. There are other forms of capital than wealth or attraction, social capital (preferential treatment or nondiscrimination) and cultural capital (level of education), for instance. But, what should be addressed is the particulars of these forms of capital and how they convert into sexual interaction (fucking). How much money improves substantially one’s SMV? What kind of body type (post rigorous bodybuilding experience) improves one’s SMV? How much education increases SMV?

  87. @ Lone

    I caution you and every eyeball reading here, not to over-estimate the ” money ” factor. If money is solely responsible for getting you laid, you my friend, are Beta Bux material.

    Most guys here understand that you can be broke and still get laid. Often.

    When I was in my 20’s, I spent the majority of my cash on guitars, my little weekend drag race car and new tools. I lived in a small attic apartment. Back then I didn’t know the term ” spinning plates “, but I was spinning a damn china cabinet.

    If I went to a club, it wasn’t with picking up women in mind, it was because I liked the club. I never bought drinks for chicks. I used to reply when a broad said ” buy me a drink ” with ” …How about you buy me a drink?”.

    I didn’t know the term ” alpha ” back in those days, but I did hear many times from women ” Ohhh…there’s just something about you “. Trust me, that ” something had nothing to do with money.

    I may lose you here ( as I tend to ramble sometimes ) but stick with me.

    In highschool I drove a 10 year old chevy Nova, but it was clean enough to eat off of and it sported a monsterous 454 cubic inch motor that shook the ground. I used to start it up and put girls on the hood as I blipped the throttle. Worlds fastest vibrator.

    I ran track and played football.

    I never, ever lacked pussy. All I had at the time was a part-time job at McDonalds making minimum wage. When I had time I fucked cheerleaders and female track runners. I’d pick up grown women in grocery stores and at my McDonalds job.

    It. Is. NOT. All. About. The. Money. PERIOD.

    If you can’t get anything but prostitutes, it is a signal that you seriously need to work on other aspects of your life and personality. It’s not about manipulating people per se. It’s not about pretending to be someone or something that you’re not, necessarily.

    And you’re mistaken if you don’t believe that many women who are with rich dudes only fuck the pool boy in the movies. LMFAO…are you serious?

    Understanding TRP ( please, don’t knock it. It’s good medicine. Open up and take it ) gives you insight. AWALT for the most part man, no way around that – not even with cash.

    Later in life, I went from ( what I assume was Alpha ) to a Beta provider. Got a family, high paying job, aimed my dick at only one woman, and tried to be a ” good man ” and make her haaaappppyyyy.

    I got about a decade in, and it all turned to shit, including court involvement and massive child support payments. In my circle of friends and family, at least 60% of us wound up in the same misery. It didn’t matter if you had a 6 figure income or you worked at fucking Walmart. Beta Bux – the reliance on money, puts you in extreme danger.

    Understanding Red Pill thinking ( instead of attacking it ) is the ONLY thing that will give you a fighting chance. And even then, it’s just a chance. But you must internalize it. It’s like Pink Floyd…. ” all that you know, and all that you see…etc ”

    So good luck in your new job. I mean that. Go easy on the whores man. Those wet pussies you refer to at your job? Spin them. Immediately. But do shit for yourself man. Some of the shit you do for yourself inadvertently attracts more chicks. Never down or judge a man for how he chooses to better himself.

    1. @Blaximus
      ” I used to start it up and put girls on the hood as I blipped the throttle. Worlds fastest vibrator.”
      Ahahahahah
      Man that made me laugh so hard the whole damn bus is looking at me type this. Thanks for putting that in perspective. Never down a man who is trying to better himself.
      I need to remember to put myself their.

  88. @Lone Survivor: “How to be a 3% man”

    Why would I wish to lower myself?

    @Fredrick Welfare: “There are other forms of capital than wealth or attraction . . .”

    When I answered the question, “Who is the alpha?” with “Me,” I was not talking about myself, just as Rollo was not talking about Lambos.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: