Prior to the post-Sexual Revolution era men adapted to their socio-sexual and relational realities based on a pre-acknowledged burden of performance. I’ve outlined the expectations of this period in The Second Set of Books,
[…] when men transition from their comfortable blue pill perspective into the harsh reality that the red pill represents, the experience is a lot like Ball discovering that the set of books (the set of rules) he’d believed everyone was using wasn’t so. Likewise, men who’ve been conditioned since birth to believe that women were using a common set of rules – a set where certain expectations and mutual exchange were understood – were in fact using their own set. Furthermore these men ‘just didn’t get it’ that they should’ve known all along that women, as well as men’s feminization conditioning, were founded in a second set of books.
During the eras prior to the Sexual Revolution that first set of books was more or less an established ideal. Men were every bit as idealistic as they are today, but the plan towards achieving that ideal (if it was in fact achievable) was preset for them. Even the worst of fathers (or parents) still had the expectations that their sons and daughters would follow that old-order rule set as they had done.
For men a greater provisioning was expected, but that provisioning was an integral aspect of a man’s Alpha appeal. The burden of performance was part of a man’s Alpha mindset or was at least partly paired with it.
The danger in that mindset was that a man’s identity tended to be caught up with what he did (usually a career) in order to satisfy that performance burden. Thus when a man lost his job, not only was he unable to provide and meet his performance expectations in his marriage, he also lost a part of his identity. Needless to say this dynamic helped incentivize men to get back on the horse and get back to his identity and his wife’s esteem (even if it was really her necessity that kept her involved with him).
A lot of romanticization revolves around the times prior to the Sexual Revolution as if they were some golden eras when men and women knew their roles and the influence of Hypergamy was marginalized to the point that society was a better place than the place we find ourselves in today. And while it’s undeniable that cultural shifts since the sexual revolution have feminized and bastardized those old-order social contracts, men will always adapt to those new conditions in order to effect their sexual strategies.
There’s a lot of nostalgia for these idealized periods in the manosphere at the moment; seemingly more so as its members mature past their “gaming” years and begin to feel a want for something more substantial. Men are the true romantics of the sexes so it’s no great surprise that their romantic / idealistic concept of love would run towards romanticizing a hopeful return to what they imagine these eras were like.
It’s kind of an interesting counter to how feminism and the Feminine Imperative paints these eras – rather than some idyllic place where women appreciated men, feminists exaggerate and deride these times as oppressive; the sexual revolution akin to the Jews leaving Egypt. What both fail to grasp is the realities of these eras were still just as susceptible to human nature – the human nature described by what we call Red Pill awareness – and both sexes adapted to the social environments of the times to effect their natures.
Condoms were widely available in the 1940’s and men painstakingly painted half-nude pinup girls on the noses of their bombers. Women too adapted to that environment; from What Lies Beneath:
two books by John Costello; ‘Virtue Under Fire’ and ‘Love, Sex, and War’ in which all too much of the above female psychology manifested itself;
“Of the 5.3 million British infants delivered between 1939 and 1945, over a third were illegitimate – and this wartime phenomenon was not confined to any one section of society. The babies that were born out-of-wedlock belonged to every age group of mother, concluded one social researcher:
Some were adolescent girls who had drifted away from homes which offered neither guidance nor warmth and security. Still others were women with husbands on war service, who had been unable to bear the loneliness of separation. There were decent and serious, superficial and flighty, irresponsible and incorrigible girls among them. There were some who had formed serious attachments and hoped to marry. There were others who had a single lapse, often under the influence of drink. There were, too, the ‘good-time girls’ who thrived on the presence of well-paid servicemen from overseas, and semi-prostitutes with little moral restraint. But for the war many of these girls, whatever their type, would never have had illegitimate children. (pp. 276-277)”
and;
“Neither British nor American statistics, which indicate that wartime promiscuity reached its peak in the final stages of the war, take account of the number of irregularly conceived pregnancies that were terminated illegally. Abortionists appear to have been in great demand during the war. One official British estimate suggests that one in five of all pregnancies was ended in this way, and the equivalent rate for the United States indicates that the total number of abortions for the war years could well have been over a million.
These projections are at best merely a hypothetical barometer of World War II’s tremendous stimulus to extra-marital sexual activity. The highest recorded rate of illegitimate births was not among teenage girls, as might have been expected. Both British and American records indicate that women between twenty and thirty gave birth to nearly double the number of pre-war illegitimate children. Since it appears that the more mature women were the ones most encouraged by the relaxed morals of wartime to ‘enjoy’ themselves, it may be surmised that considerations of fidelity were no great restraint on the urge of the older married woman to participate in the general rise in wartime sexual promiscuity. (pp. 277-278)”
Women of the “greatest generation” were still women, and Hypergamy, just like today, didn’t care then either. Dalrock made a fantastic observation in a post once, and I regret I don’t have the link on hand, but paraphrasing he said “Every generation in bygone eras dated differently than the ones before it. Your parents dated in a social condition that was very different than your grandparent or their parents. No one in this generation is going to date like they did on Happy Days.” I think it’s important we don’t lose sight of this, but it’s also important to consider that in all those eras men and women’s sexual strategies remained an underlying influence for them. All that changed was both sexes adapted to the conditions of the times to effect them.
Post-Sexual Revolution Adaptation – The ‘Free Love’ Era
While there’s a lot to criticize about the Baby Boomer generation, one needs to consider the societal conditions that produced them. Egalitarian equalism combined with ubiquitous (female controlled) hormonal birth control and then mixed with blank-slate social constructivism made for a very effective environment in which both sexes sexual strategies could, theoretically, flourish.
Women’s control of their Hypergamous influences, not to mention the opportunities to fully optimize it, was unfettered by moral or social constraints for the first time in history. For men the idea of a ‘Free Love’ social order was appealing because it promised optimization of their sexual strategy – unlimited access to unlimited sexuality.
The new Free Love paradigm was based on a presumption of non-exclusivity, but more so it was based on an implied condition of non-possessiveness. Men adapted to this paradigm as might have been expected, but what they didn’t consider is that in this state their eventual cuckoldry (either proactively or reactively) amounted to women’s optimizing their own Hypergamous impulses.
The social contract of Free Love played to the base sexual wants of permissive variety for men, or at least it implied a promised potential for it. Furthermore, and more importantly, Free Love implied this promise free from a burden of performance. It was “free” love, tenuously based on intrinsic personal qualities on the inside to make him lovable – not the visceral physical realities that inspired arousal nor the rigorous status and provisioning performance burdens that had characterized the intersexual landscape prior.
It should be mentioned that ‘free love’ also played to men’s idealistic concept of love in that freedom from a performance-based love. The equalist all’s-the-same environment was predicated on the idea that love was a mutually agreed dynamic, free from the foundational, sexual strategy realities both sexes applied to love. Thus men’s idealism predisposed them to being hopeful of a performance free love-for-love’s-sake being reciprocated by the women of the age of Aquarius.
That’s how the social contract looked in the advertising, so it’s hardly surprising that (Beta) men eagerly adapted to this new sexual landscape; going along to get along (or along to get laid) in a way that would seem too good to be true to prior generations. And thus their belief set adapted to the sexual strategy that, hopefully, would pay off for them in this new social condition.
For women, though not fully realized at the time, this Free Love social restructuring represented a license for optimizing Hypergamy unimpeded by moral restraint and later unlimited (or at least marginalized) by men’s provisional support. For the first time in history women could largely explore a Sandbergian plan for Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks and, at least figuratively, they could do so at their leisure.
The problem inherent in the Free Love paradigm was that it was based on a mutual understanding that men and women were functional equals, and as such a mutual trust that either sex would hold the other’s best interests as their own. That basis of trust that either sex was rationally on the same page with regard to their sexual strategies is what set the conditions for the consequent generations to come.
This trust on the part of men was that these “equal” women would honor the presumption that it was “who” they were rather than what they represented to their sexual strategy at the various phases of their maturity that would be the basis for women’s sexual selection of them.
In part two I’ll continue this exploration through the 70’s and into our contemporary socio-sexual environment.
@rugby
Thanks. I enjoyed that.
“Look, featherweight, if I were “Insanity” I would simply proclaim same. Next try, goober.”
Goobers indeed! You foolish and paranoid ones needn’t worry that I will show up under a different nick or try to play stupid games. I am not you morons. Grow the hell up.
Actually I just wanted to offer Tomassi my condolences about his father. I lost mine a few years back. Fathers are special and they have a huge impact on us and on the world around us.
“Rollo starts his history too late. It should begin in 1920. The start of the First American Sexual Revolution.” My understanding is that the flapper phenomenon was short-lived and localized in urban areas where factory jobs were available to young women who could then buy lipstick, stockings, cigarettes and pay for bobbed haircuts. The 1960s (really, the late 60s and 70s) played out during the television era, and was more widespread geographically and socioeconomically. I think the real watershed would be the cultural invention of romantic love and the concomitant recession of the authority of women’s families and particularly fathers… Read more »
” . . . this is the main plot of Fiddler on the Roof . . .” I’ve posted clips of “They Gave Each Other a Pledge” and “Do You Love Me” on this very point. However, I’ll also note again that the Tender Years Doctrine, which came before (although in England), was the real killer of whatever there was of real patriarchy. Fatherhood is the only thing that a man really gets out of marriage. ” I don’t know that the intent was to show young women’s shortsightedness in choosing mates . . .” No, it was just meant… Read more »
This man saved my life.He will always be correct.Alpha is mindset.Am turning 26 redpill.The last 2 years were my worst trying to ingest the harsh truth.Thank you Rollo.Incase you fly to kenya contact me jasonstephano@gmail.com
Kenya sounds good. Maybe next flight.
@kfg “Fatherhood is the only thing that a man really gets out of marriage.” Men provide Laurence Gonzales As a journalist, I’ve been writing about accidents for more than thirty years. In the last 15 or so years, I’ve concentrated on accidents in outdoor recreation, in an effort to understand who lives, who dies, and why. To my surprise, I found an eerie uniformity in the way people survive seemingly impossible circumstances. Decades and sometimes centuries apart, separated by culture, geography, race, language, and tradition, the most successful survivors–those who practice what I call “deep survival”–go through the same patterns… Read more »
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
@rugby11ljh
Nice quote. Antoine de Saint-Exupéry exuded spirituality from his every cell. What a human. Read his accounts, and learn, about how to live a spiritual life (how you see the world) (and I never read him once, speak of religion). A truly beautiful human being.
Also, Laurence Gonzales is the absolute shit, and ALL of his writings apply directly to the manosphere, as you have summarized.
You are definitely on the right path for you, friend. Keep at it. Massive grin. (in love with human animals becoming spiritual… just love it… peace)
Well, I thought this was telling:
I have yet to observe a single one of them celebrate interaction with a wonderful female as reward for a life well lived, just as would be a fine glass of wine, scoop of chocolate ice cream, splendid sunset, newborn burping on your sleeve. What point are you trying to impress upon this audience? Pffft.
Intel/Insanity
Mr T
June 16th, 2015 at 1:04 pm
Two guys – both tingle inducers. Intelligence can be the deciding factor – if she has a choice.
I have been discussing IQ at another blog and it turns out the heritability of IQ goes up with socio-economic status. So it may be brains could be a bigger factor in tingling smart girls than your average lay of the land.
Another factor – more than 20 IQ points apart and a meeting of the minds is difficult. LTRs don’t work well with bigger gaps than that.
Mr T
June 16th, 2015 at 2:00 pm
Thank God or evolution I wasn’t born a woman
Funny enough that is a Jewish prayer.
Vulpine
June 16th, 2015 at 2:08 pm
Try this link:
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2009/11/the_blue_and_th_1.html
Every post hits this awakening chump in the gut, but this one and its comments = pure ice water through the veins. I’ve a clearer picture now of the supplicating, pathetic slime trail that started sometime in WW2 shortly after a young man whose name I’ll never know was crumpled inside a ball of aluminum, avgas and foreign dirt- instead of returning home a hero and marrying my Grandmother as he should’ve. So my grandfather- the polite, humble farm boy turned-educator who was helping teach agrarian skills to city folk for the war effort… well shit I don’t even need… Read more »
Intelligence
June 16th, 2015 at 3:16 pm
I’m her pet iguana.
Ah. Well then. I must say your writing is quite coherent. For an iguana.
lntelligence
June 16th, 2015 at 4:23 pm
don’t insult my lntelligence
No one here has done that.
Roger D.
June 16th, 2015 at 5:25 pm
The guy in that picture with “Hey 19” looks whipped.
funoldguy
June 16th, 2015 at 6:06 pm
Salut. From another 3X20 + 10.
@Intelligence – “Punk”? Lol, I love it when girls/beta pusses talk tough on the interwebs, like they’ve seen on TV or something. The problem is, cunt, that toughness isn’t something that comes from making comments on blogs. It comes from actually being brave and strong in the face of real danger/threats. I have a simple question for you. Have you ever been punched in the mouth hard? You see, how one reacts to that reveals toughness. In my experience 90% or more of people fall down to the ground crying and begging for mercy when punched in the mouth, revealing… Read more »
Still can’t understand why you all don’t just ignore that insanity troll ??
Looking for part 2 of this, Rollo !!
@ scribblerg “You don’t actually account for the history of materialism. Hegel’s dialectical materialism was adopted by Marx and Engels as a key mechanism that drove society forward. In fact, they reduced society to materialistic concerns – something capitalists like Adam Smith never did. This is going to be long. I apologize for that. Marx’s historical materialism is not a system of normative claims, a competing ethical doctrine, or design for an alternate political and economic system. It’s a theory of how history changes. Marx, after having identified what he thought those mechanisms were which drove historical change, tried to… Read more »
@ scribblerg
Oh and on the question of alienation. It’s pretty simple. It just means you don’t own the product of your labor.
@ Badpainter
“And basic assumption behind Smith, and Hobbes, Hayak, Voltaire, etc, etc.”
You should remind contemporary conservatives of this then.
@emeraldcurtain “I haven’t seen discussed much in the sphere- when advances in medicine made male genital mutilation practical for almost everyone.” Happen to me and my nephew always kinda wanna laugh at myself about how that has never been taking seriously by women in my family and society in general We don’t talk about an no one thinks I should take in seriously because their use to doing it to their kids. My mom convinced my dad to do that to me. My dad wouldn’t violently hit me if I called him dad. So I called him father but that… Read more »
@Divided Line “To put it another way, our experience of material reality must be the root of any and all possible ideological conclusions we might come to regarding it because all that we can possibly believe is subject to a basic hierarchy of needs. ” What about NOT being confused by or to hold up as HERO, the non-essentail ramblings of a very smart TOTALITARIAN . . . . Wheres the moral compass? What about the CAUSE and EFFECT of to much meddling by the powerful FEW? . . . And the ” the multi-cultural judgement call” making by those… Read more »
Godspeed, Rollo.
When my father dies (may that day be long delayed!) I would stay far away from boats. I would feel like the world itself had lost its anchor, and the only illusion of stability to be found would be in my own two legs planted on solid ground.
Thanks Forge, All.
My father actually died in 2010, but I’ve been waiting to make this trip since then. Dad was Navy so this would mean something important to him
“Would”
Life is for living..
@70’sAntiHero “What about the CAUSE and EFFECT of to much meddling by the powerful FEW? . . . And the ” the multi-cultural judgement call” making by those that pull the strings “that know better” ? . . . STATISM . . . . . . .” This statism vs. collectvism bit is just a false paradigm. Real world historical capitalism was utterly dependent on the state. It still is. Think about it, if you’re a competitive capitalist, what better competitive position is there to be in other than the guy who has the state in his pocket and makes… Read more »
@M Simon That link worked just fine. Thanks. Fascinating stuff to get my brain roasty-toasty. I must say, my own observations of people’s mindsets have aligned with the liberal/conservative trend noted there. From what I’ve seen, however, your concepts of cooperation vs. competition may need reconsideration. It’s been my experience that cities are adversarial and the countryside is cooperative, quite the opposite of what you’ve pointed to in that link. That’s not to say your points regarding individualism and self-sufficiency aren’t accurate assessments, but, I think there needs to be a “per capita” data correction on your part. Overall, one… Read more »
@Divided Line
umm. . . . err. . . It’s called LIMITED powers and the checks and balances of the Constitution. . . There no false paradigm in my mind.
I agree, you need a STATE that recognizes the individual right to pursue self-interested happiness. . . . It’s a consequence of. . . . Dare I say the genius of founding fathers of the United States.
I’m not confused as to the proper role of government oversight.
It was I nice tribute to send you father off in such a meaningful way. . . . . . . . . . . . . we should be all so blessed.
@Divideline – I don’t debate Marxists as their beliefs are unfalsifiable, much like feminists. You actually exhibit some of the rhetorical excess of Marx (I didn’t need his superstructure of beliefs horseshit, like you said, Plato did so just fine) in that you presume so much about your audience and the world that you end up just talking down, in case you didn’t notice. More absurd? Most of your points are either obvious or distinctions without a difference. Marx said much about many things. I’m content to leave it at the plain fact that his model of society predicts nothing.… Read more »
@all I’m enjoying and learning from the discussion here, btw, but I feel pretty out of my depth to respond. Maybe a bit of Dunning-Kruger effect here but still. My field is biology. So let me briefly grab the mic and go on about something totally off-topic and anecdotal. Some of you might remember how, a week or two ago, I described a spell of beta backsliding I had for an old flame of mine. A quick recap – she drove me from a relationship (my first) about a year ago, quickly finding a replacement model. I was finally getting… Read more »
“Then last night, I surreptitiously read this comment on an old CH post”
Haha. Serendipitously, not surreptitiously. I ain’t afraid of no gubmint spyin’ on my internets.
Looking at the pic notice how thin everybody looks.
@Forge “A quick recap – she drove me from a relationship (my first) about a year ago, quickly finding a replacement model. I was finally getting over it when that new relationship blew up and she, miserable and desperate for answers, asked to meet me for coffee. I acquiesced…” Just move on. She blew her chance a year ago. The fact that she was your “first” is killing you. No back rubs, coffee, nothing. Even if you don’t have other girls in the pipeline, just move the fuck on. She’s using you; don’t let her. Everytime you see her think… Read more »
@Forge It would be my advice to listen to Atticus! . . . . . That’s what happened with my ex. . . . . a year after the break up we got back together . . . . . the rest was HISTORY. Didn’t work out so well . . . . 13 years of a slow personal identity erosion. . . . . . . And I was spinning plates at the time when I fell to the folly of the beauty and vulnerability . . . just sayin. . . You bagged a cutie before you can… Read more »
scribblerg – “Our founders were steeped in the classics and already had seen clearly the problems with democracy and egalitarianism. Jefferson was present for the beginning of the French revolution remember, as was Franklin.” Could you clarify the second part of this please. The US constitution had been passed and ratified before Bastille Day occurred, and thus prior to the French Revolution. Now it’s an interesting nexus between the the American Revolution the French Revolution and you comments about Bismarck and German Socialism. Historians argue about the degree of influence of the American Revolution upon the French. If nothing else… Read more »
@Forge “A quick recap – she drove me from a relationship (my first) about a year ago, quickly finding a replacement model. I was finally getting over it when that new relationship blew up and she, miserable and desperate for answers, asked to meet me for coffee. I acquiesced…” Jeezzz!! When she asked for a coffee, you should have reminded here that she did hurt you and now she had to make up for it. When she would have asked what you needed, you should have just unzip**d (of course, location of conversation matters). Such DHVs make matter clear and… Read more »
@Atticus, Shiva, 70’s Yup, the coffee thing was bullshit. I hadn’t seen her for a good while and thought I was over the whole thing/could maintain frame. Not quite yet I guess, she’s a quite accomplished social vampire. Mea culpa. The backrubs bullshit was couched as a professional duty; she knows it would be awkward in the workplace if I refused her, which is why she’s hitting that angle so hard. Oh well, time to grab my balls, she’s scheduled in 90 mins. I post this stuff partly so y’all can kick me in the teeth, and partly because I… Read more »
Last week it was the Nobel professor, yesterday it’s Canada’s top General.
The day would come when (ugly /fat)feminists lobby the Government to establish a Police Erections ,soon it will be against the law to look at beautiful women.
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com//full-comment/matt-gurney-failings-in-leadership-arent-biologically-hardwired-either
Utilitarian Relationships of females Rollo, in his articles, has been mentioned numerously; “If you are not fu**ing her then you are her girlfriend.” Females try to optimize their sexual relationship to a single most suitable man at a time while maximizing her non sexual relationships with all available men i.e. building utilitarian relationship with as many men as possible. They do this inherently as an insurance for their survival. The more utilitarian relationships a female has; higher her chances of survival and ease of extracting resources in absence of her prime male. Utilitarian relationships are established in a non sexual… Read more »
@Forge
” I post this stuff partly so y’all can kick me in the teeth, and partly because I think this is an interesting internal look at what the process of unplugging entails. I’ve got a solid mental grasp of it all, and I’ve gotten far enough that I have felt the Alpha mindset, felt the Beta mindset, observed what each does to and for me, what drives me one way or the other.”
Yes, adds to the ongoing conversation and helps the lurkers.
I don’t debate Marxists as their beliefs are unfalsifiable, much like feminists. The falsifiability criterion as it applies to social science comes from Karl Popper. The funny part is that he developed it specifically to attack the scientific pretensions of Marxism. This is a huge topic, but I can make it short and sweet simply by pointing out that historical materialism as Marx conceived it is as unfalsifiable as any theory in social science, including any theoretical framework we would use to interpret history. If “totalitarianism” is truly the attempt to remake a real society in the imagine of some… Read more »
^this unfortunate monster of a post is directed @scribblerg
@Shiva H. P. “Utilitarian relationships are established in a non sexual way by showing / being cute and vulnerable. But males are geared towards reading the cuteness and vulnerability to be IOIs and hence it messes up and misdirects so many males. Most males crave to protect and be of any utility of any kind to the people around them.” Generally I agree and disagree with what you write. Here is some of what I disagree with,,, 1. “Utilitarian relationships are established in a non sexual way….” Wrong. Actually they are established in a very sexual way known as prick… Read more »
@Shiva I like the analysis of how fathers can use soft dread (in the form of implied lessening of support) to prevent daughters from ‘using’ non-family members. I have a sister whom this describes precisely; she won’t wear any clothes, go to any parties, etc, that our father doesn’t approve of. His soft disapproval shuts her right down, and so she behaves appropriately. She’s very sweet/cute to him and her brothers, and we don’t mind, it’s very pleasant. She’s helpful and cheerful usually. Add sexual attraction and that sort of thing becomes twisted tho. It’s interesting that you note vulnerability… Read more »
Women want the best of both worlds, they desire the excitement and sexual fulfillment offered by alpha fucks and the assurance of security beta bucks offers. What women really aspire to is CONTROL of both. They want to establish for themselves the power to control men and therefore the power to provide the best of both for womankind. Feminism and open hypergamy are offering women a false hope of facilitating this control. Actual control will never occur, not because men refuse to relinquish but because men cannot relinquish. Feminism and open hypergamy only frustrate and distort human sexual social dynamics.… Read more »
@Not Born This Morning
If we were still hunter gatherers, women’s sociobiologically rooted, natural sexual inclinations would probably be advantageous for social stability in some way. It must have been if it’s this deeply rooted and can be demonstrated to exist cross culturally.
It clearly is unworkable in a modern context which is characterized by property relations. The modern post agricultural revolution circumstance only works if men adopt a monogamous, pair bonding form of masculinity rather than the polygamous tournament mating variety.
“Communism doesn’t work because people like to own stuff”- Frank Zappa
Ultimately the failure of Marx as an economist and political theorist is in the his use of the the phrase “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Who determines need and ability in such a system? Clearly leaving that to the individual would mean liberty and letting free markets exist unhindered. That however would be unfair to those whose ability is sloth, and whose need is gluttony, and that runs counter to the collectivist’s utopian ideal.
@Forge “And the RP lets me see the mindsets, risk factors, and circumstances for what they are, allowing me to triangulate on solutions far faster than trial and error would allow.” We are both in the same profession it seems. And mindset that’s toxic and somewhat habitual. @NBTM “Wrong. Actually they are established in a very sexual way known as prick teasing. Girls and women do it all the time and they know what they are doing both subconsciously and consciously. They learn it early and practice it to perfection if they possess the physical attractiveness to be successful with… Read more »
@badpainter “Ultimately the failure of Marx as an economist and political theorist is in the his use of the the phrase “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Who determines need and ability in such a system? Clearly leaving that to the individual would mean liberty and letting free markets exist unhindered. That however would be unfair to those whose ability is sloth, and whose need is gluttony, and that runs counter to the collectivist’s utopian ideal.” The problem though, as I already mentioned, is that Marx wasn’t writing about how he thought things should… Read more »
@Divided Line
. . . so what is the philosophical basis for Stalinism or communism? . . . more foment . . . .
. . . . . Sugar coated poison is still poison.
Divided Line – “It has yet to be shown how his theory of historical change leads to totalitarianism and gulags.” You’re correct. Marx should never leave the classroom. As theory, whatever. It’s only when applied as prescriptive that the body count rises. I guess that means there is no practical application, and none was intended right? It’s a clever devise for academics to write papers on subjects only academics read. Really best ignored by people who do, because his theory doesn’t do anything. RIght? In which case I think Hegel does a much better job when it comes it to… Read more »
This is fantastic information as always Rollo…my mission is to get comprehensive Sex Education into some section of the Protestant faith.
@70’sAntiHero “. . . so what is the philosophical basis for Stalinism or communism? . . . more foment . . . . . . . . . Sugar coated poison is still poison.” There isn’t any more philosophical basis for it than there was for the U.S. to install Suharto in Indonesia in 1965 so that he could massacre a million people in the countryside with U.S. arms and U.S. trained “military advisors.” Philosophy and high flown rhetoric doesn’t shape history, security competition and the perception of national (or financial) interest does. Everything else is rationalizations and excuses. Look… Read more »
@ rugby11ljh
Interesting story, and thought provoking. Thanks
“To each his own” the perfect rebuttal. Well played.
“Do you really believe policies are about morality or grand philosophical declarations of mystical universal principles?”
Let’s ask ISIS.
Or perhaps survivors of the Holocaust. Maybe someone who lived behind the iron curtain can opine about how philosophy and high minded principles influence and shape public policy. Maybe we should just look at how feminism as idea has given us Yes Means Yes, and what philosophy inspires that particular body of thought.
@70’sAntiHero As I explained already, China and Russia had to industrialize or else they would be carved up by their militarily superior neighbors. How they sold that industrialization to the populations that had to suffer it is irrelevant. If you look at Stalinism in the Russian countryside, they replaced saints with party heroes and philosophers, and they called grain farms making their quotas “miracles.” They put Stalinism in a package that resembled religion because that’s how the peasants understood power. Mao was understood to be a modern Confucius. In the early GDR, Stalinism looked like Fascism. I mean, literally, like… Read more »
@Divided Line
Yeah right, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini had no ideals or grand visions. . . .
Sorry, have to go. . . will engage later . . .
@Badpainter Let’s ask ISIS. So, what you’re suggesting here is that people with jobs, family, relative prosperity who live in countries which are reasonably free, civil, and so on suddenly, because somebody handed them a copy of a magic book or scroll, dawn ski masks, suicide bomb vests, and grab their AK47s based on the power of an idea. Don’t you think people bring their real world experiences of economic and political reality to their interpretation of theology and ideology? For instance, western protestants in affluent countries look at christian theology and see a justification for wealth, an ethical doctrine… Read more »
@70’sAntiHero “Yeah right, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini had no ideals or grand visions. . . . Sorry, have to go. . . will engage later . . .” We can be reasonably certain they all had genuinely held beliefs and grand visions, but those visions are insufficient to explain the actual historical outcomes because those leaders, like any leader, make policy in a real world that they have to respond to directly. Try looking at the context in which they made decisions for a change because this will tell you far more about the actual historical outcome than some rhetoric in… Read more »
@70’sAntiHero
And as I explained repeatedly, context in which belief is adopted as a way of explaining the world will tell you far more about the origin of those visions in the first place.
@Divided Line
My friend Joshua made this film about the massacre
https://vimeo.com/ondemand/actofkillingdirectorscut
Here’s some of his thoughts
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AxpFSRLq4vE
@Badpainter
It’s weird the red pill is human responsibilty to its very core. It’s not so much political its human responsibility. It’s a beautiful catastrophe. That’s harmonizes itself in threds in the manosphere.
“So, by your reasoning, Marxism spread and billions of people fought and died for communism because of an evil man with a magic book hoodwinked them into altering the course of history?”
Cute.
Vulpine
June 17th, 2015 at 11:50 am
Where I got some of it was at the article linked. As I often do, I had some conversations with the author.
And of course why I posted was because it tended to mirror my experience.
There may be errors in details. The general outline though is correct. Liberal/Conservative do not represent competing ideologies (although politics makes it work that way), they represent different ecological niches.
@badpainter I’m not trying to be a dick. I have a great deal of respect for you guys. I come here not only for Rollo’s excellent blog but for the comments. There are a lot of sharp guys here. I’m not trying to hijack the thread, troll, or stir up shit. I’m being sincere here, what other explanation is there for all this? I contend that the origin of ideas and the adoption of ideas is nowhere else but in people’s real world experiences. This doesn’t mean that ideas are correct, but merely that people see in them an explanation… Read more »
@rugby11ljh Looks interesting. Indonesia and East Timor certainly aren’t the only questionable episodes in the history of U.S. foreign policy. The 1965 ouster of Sukarno might be one of the worst though. The other, much smaller genocide, was in Guatemala in the early 1980s. These episodes are like open secrets. It’s not like they’re hidden, and there are endless justifications for them for anyone who cares to look, mostly strategic but sometimes blatantly ideological. But because few people seem to even know about them or are able to connect them to a wider historical narrative, they are rarely considered when… Read more »
Divided Line June 17th, 2015 at 8:39 pm So, by your reasoning, Marxism spread and billions of people fought and died for communism because of an evil man with a magic book hoodwinked them into altering the course of history? Well not just one man. The essence of the thought preceded him. But yes. The magic book. He said, “This is the theory. It is scientific.” And the utopia was so beguiling (the end of hunger, a place for everyone) that billions fell for it. But there was not a place for everyone. Only believers. And not all of those.… Read more »
Divided Line
June 17th, 2015 at 9:13 pm
There was a war on. Unless you lived through it it is difficult to remember. Lots of evil is done in war. Excessive amounts. In a search for the evil tactic or strategy that will lead to victory.
The wars were proxy. And that was by mutual consent. Because the alternative was…..
The thing I see is that we have forgotten what some fellers in 1776 knew in their bones. 1. Governments are tools of oppression. Keep them small (because they are necessary as far as we can tell) to limit the evil. 2. Taxation is theft. =========================== All this is in part corrupted because the US has in fact inherited the British Empire. And it is further confused because we are not an Empire people in the British sense. We prefer an Empire of ideas – mostly. We prefer to rule by interest as opposed to force. Generally. Can it work?… Read more »
Divided line – “It removed checks and balances on hypergamy and reduced their dependence on men in a variety of ways, and this new found freedom and opportunity found political expression in feminism which provided the excuses. I could go a lot further, but you don’t think this at least is a plausible explanation for why feminism posits these particular ideas and not others? What other origin would these ideas have?” I would agree with that mostly. What I am contending is the ideas need to held accountable insofar as they have actual consequences when they leave the academy. As… Read more »
@M Simon Look, I feel like I’m hijacking this blog. I don’t want to argue about this all day. “Well not just one man. The essence of the thought preceded him. But yes. The magic book. He said, “This is the theory. It is scientific.” And the utopia was so beguiling (the end of hunger, a place for everyone) that billions fell for it.” There is no magic book. This removes 20th century revolts against imperialism or attempts to industrialize in order to achieve the guarantee of sovereignty from their historical context. We’re assuming that all would have been fine… Read more »
Divided Line June 17th, 2015 at 8:39 pm the question is why these ideas and not others? Well that is a very useful question. The one place where I think we can agree. So what is it about human nature that elevates faith over reason? Thinking hurts (not true for everyone – but that is the way to bet). And we live by consensus. It is easier to believe what our neighbors believe. What is causing the current chaos? My neighbors no longer live next door. I have a good friend who lives 10,000 miles away and who I have… Read more »
@M Simon “Well not just one man. The essence of the thought preceded him. But yes. The magic book. He said, “This is the theory. It is scientific.” And the utopia was so beguiling (the end of hunger, a place for everyone) that billions fell for it.” I’m not sure I fully agree. Many cults promise much and are charismatic. Why don’t they take off as well? Would Marxism have taken off if a utopia already existed? At least some degree of discontent and discord were a necessary precondition for its wide adoption. The simple qualities of the book and… Read more »
DL,
Well. Your error is to replace “the book” with “imperialism”. And for the most part the anti-imperialists are people of the book. Which is why anti-imperialism has been so devastating.
Real anti-imperialism focuses on economics first while keeping “liberty” in its back pocket for the day when economics has produced sufficient wealth.
And if anyone here minded the “hijacking” you would be ignored.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hUT1xvdrlDA
Forge the Sky
June 17th, 2015 at 10:19 pm
The lure of Marxism was not some heaven or spiritual purity. It was “we know the secret of wealth for all”. “We promise if you follow these ‘scientific’ instructions wealth for all.”
Dialectical materialism. Historical materialism.
This site is hilarious – unintentionally.
http://www.marxist.com/historical-materialism-study-guide.htm
Divided Line
June 17th, 2015 at 9:58 pm
You are mistaken. Foreign domination is not the problem. Wealth is the problem. Domination is caused by lack of wealth.
In this country (USA) everyone knows that the rich are less dominated by government than the poor. The more rich the less the laws apply.
You may not be a Marxist (well I have my doubts on that one) but you have adopted Marxist reductionism to explain events. I prefer wealth as my reducing tool.
Divided Line June 17th, 2015 at 9:58 pm Well OK. Let us assume for the sake of argument the two systems are equally bad. Why did the Marxists lose? Because the “capitalists” were/are better at generating wealth. Capitalism works poorly and “Scientific” Marxism doesn’t work at all. Why is that? It fails to harness self interest. Am I my brothers keeper? Only if he is a close relative. Marxism IS spiritual. It assumes a level of altruism not found in actual humans. It operates on the principle “Of course I want you to have succor. Let me rob some folks… Read more »
@Divided Line “Do you really think illiterate Russian and Chinese peasants were reading Hegel and philosophizing about capitalism’s inherent contradictions?” What does it matter? They had no power or influence. . . . . merely pons in a greater scheme. . . . The events of history are always a result of the confluence of many factors. . . . . . To deny that ideology of powerful rulers, or governments, or the ethos of public sentiment are irrelevant and not the CHIEF underlying factor behind conflict, wars, political movements, revolutions, elections, market forces, social trends & fads, etc. .… Read more »
I’m a relative novice at political thought and history, but I get the feeling a good deal of the debate here is simply the degree and manner in which Marx was prescriptivist or descriptivist – and whether, if he was descriptive and people tried to enact his ideas anyways, his ideas should be held accountable for the results.
Divided Line June 17th, 2015 at 8:39 pm So if you want to understand why ISIS does what it does, ask yourself what the conditions are for the people who think its version of Islam makes sense. Well they are convinced that their enemy is “wrong religion”. And that the right religion is an organizing principle and a series of social rules (laws) that evolved out of the ravings of a 7th Century bandit. What is telling is that their culture has not produced, nor is it even copying (ala the Chinese) the tools it is using to wage its… Read more »
Follicular phase = capitalism
Luteal phase = Marxism.
Communism kill directory.
Capitalism kill indirectly.
@ Divided Line I realize that a compliment from me is likely to tarnish your RM reputation, given that most commenters here are highly reactive to the mere sight of a feminine screenname. Therefore, if I thought you cared whatsoever about your reputation among disembodied strangers, or whether you invoke their ire, contempt, or envy, I would refrain from saying anything. But I feel certain that you do not. And therefore, I’m compelled to come out of observation-mode momentarily to say how much I’ve enjoyed reading what you’ve been posting. It’s always dismaying witnessing the inability of even the strongest… Read more »
@Not Born This Morning The consistent difference in your and my points have been about You representing how actually the males should look at the things and fact and me presenting how most of them unfortunately look at those things and facts and the social dynamics of it. 1. ““Utilitarian relationships are established in a non sexual way….” Wrong.” Let me put it this way. Small kids , even boys and puppies, practise cuteness and vulnerability for protection and resources. We wean our boys out of this behavior as they grow but have stopped doing so for our girls. The… Read more »
ISIL was created by Assad as a counter revolutionary to fight the moderates.
ISIL for 2years didn’t fire one bullet against Assad.
So don’t ask ISIL any thing.
You can change history, but you can’t change geography.
Feminists try to change the history of man but they can’t change biography.
@Kryptokate Oh lawds. We’ve got a lot of smart men here. And you only acknowledge as much when we discuss politics, not women. Consider the potential that your own ego investments might be protecting you from understanding what we’re trying to convey when we discuss what we’re ostensibly angry about. And, lest I be drawn in caricature – yes, anger exists here. What of it? We aren’t always bloodlessly discussing political history. This is full-spectrum masculinity here. I’m not sure what your angle is, Kate, but we’ve had a good series of women come through here recently unleashing a torrent… Read more »
“…we’ve had a good series of women come through here recently unleashing a torrent of fear and shaming at us for expressing anger. You’re doing so more subtly here, and maybe it’s a fluke, just know that you’re poking a hornet’s nest here…” What pompous nonsense. That is nothing more than your own confirmation bias and projections at play. Mental masturbation, nothing more. “It’s great if you recognize good thinking when you see it. It’s great if you can recognize right feeling when you see it…” Now that really is funny. Most you of wouldn’t know either if they bit… Read more »
Don’t you fucking judge me! Yes I’m a cunt! A holy christian cunt! Why don’t you listen to me?! I’m the voice of reason. I’m feigning to lecture all of you! If I fucking feign to lecture you, you better feign to listen!
And Rollo…I thought I told you this once but you just won’t listen. I. Will. Never. Fuck. You! I hate you sooo much!1!!
What pompous poppycock! Just because I insult all of you doesn’t mean I bear you any ill will. What I’m showing you is Christ’s mercy!
Worship my old quim and it will lead you to salvation. Can’t you see?! It’s all in my blog. Come visit my blog sometime.
And Rollo…how many times do I have to tell you this?! I hate you so much! I. Will. Never. Fuck. You!
P.S.
Your words flow like milk and honey. XOXO
Lol. Insanity thought she could get a few insults out of me.
C’mon guys, we need to display more anger for her to feast on. She’s reduced to escalating off of posts that are merely sardonic.
@Forge the Sky
Ok here we go…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S7wFpMJr_hQ
@…
Feast on this….
@ Forge I know there’s lots of smart men here, otherwise I wouldn’t read. Just pointing out that as someone who plays for the smart team myself, it’s often disappointing to witness how entirely useless smarts are in the face of ego. Certainly I’m not exempting myself from that. Just stating my admiration when someone’s intellect seems to defy ego and they rise above engaging what amounts to highly-articulate pissing contests. No other angle than that. I’ve been really interested in his analysis. And I appreciate lots of comments here, I’m just not generally motivated to make a point about… Read more »
Such sad little boys you are, like wounded birds. Have you ever considered growing up, actually becoming adults?
Have some men (or teens) adapted to our surrounding by simply convincing themselves they are different? Like this 14 yr old kid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53pzfO8X8Nk&feature=youtu.be
His father calls him brave. How is this brave? That he is declaring his sexual orientation in front of others? He’s just a kid, a 14 yr old kid. What kind of father did he have who had to adapt to his surroundings?
Are gay men hypergamous? Or just lesbians? Or just the non-butch lesbians? How do you think Hypergamy applies to this form of “non-traditional” sexual adaptation?
@adamman,
http://therationalmale.com/2014/04/20/homosexuality/
“Just stating my admiration when someone’s intellect seems to defy ego and they rise above engaging what amounts to highly-articulate pissing contests…”
ROFL! Oh dear, this place is just plum full of comedic gold.
@insanity / incel
“Such sad little boys you are, like wounded birds. Have you ever considered growing up, actually becoming adults?”
I think you do the same in an AA meeting.
You must be going around in hospital telling the wounded or in coma to just grow up, become adults and get up and get going.
And around the psychiatric facility asking every one to just grow up.
Would you use the same words at rape victim counselling?
@Vulpine
Yep. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awYdJ8p5NDc
All right let’s see Krytokate and Insanity fight! A twist on the old meme and bound to be entertaining.
Re: control
Women don’t want control. They authority without responsibility.
Mr T
June 18th, 2015 at 12:02 am
The deep politics of the Middle East is so byzantine that not even the Byzantines can understand it.
That given – it is my understanding that IS is, like Al Queda, a Saudi undertaking. i.e. Sunni. Thus they are enemies of Iran/Assad.
But my larger point holds. The technology they are adopting will ruin them.
Here is one prong of the attack (for those of you with Ad Blocker)
Jewish Porn Sweeps The Arab World
@Badpainter
“Women don’t want control. They authority without responsibility.”
They just want to feel carefree. They do not want authority.
When they ask for authority, they are only shit testing, massively.
You fail the shit test when you give it to them.
They feel,
“If you relinquish control to a female, then you will more easily relinquish control to other competitive males.”
I vote for Anna Nicole Smith on the $10 bill.
Tits or GTFO
@Dividedline.
“Are we supposed to think that China, without a communist revolution, would have become a prosperous democratic state and that they’d all be guzzling Pepsi and wearing Levis if it wasn’t for those pesky communists? Because we have no reason to think this and every reason to think that it would have continued on the decline it had been on for a century.”
How do you account for the success of Taiwan?
@Sam Botta What she says in the beginning… well… I’m musically inclined, but the “music as religion” sort of involvement turned me off to further “structured learning”, too. I’ve had some ideas, much like Ms. Stirling, to “screw around and make the music I want to make”. But, time and motivation have kept those ideas from being a reality. I had Fruity Loops at one point and was messing around with a few mash-up ideas I had, but when it came time to obtain dat files… that path fizzled. &@ anyone or no one: Although it appears that I don’t… Read more »