Adaptations – Part I

age-of-aquarius-woodstock

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.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

565 comments on “Adaptations – Part I

  1. Dang, now I can’t get the image of an orchestra pit with 6 or 7 “vagineers”, and their instruments, out of my head.

  2. @Kryptokate

    “@ 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 [sic]. 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.”

    I’m curious why you come here to ostensibly leave a compliment and begin by bashing the other commenters. Seems very passive-aggressive to me.

  3. Talk about adaptation – check out this documentary on the sexual revolution in China. Mao enforced “equalism” on an extreme basis – while he had legions of young women come to “dance” for him at night. He had syphillis and gave it to many of them, many of whom were virgins. This is all laid out in the biography published about him a few years back by his personal physician during much of his rule. Yet he prohibited premarital sex for the Chinese. Ah yes, yet another socialist intellectual doing what his ideas ultimately tell him he must, and oh yeah, in China it’s illegal to even speak about Mao’s sex life. Sexuality was officially and severely repressed by overt political means.

    Wrt the documentary, look at how so many of the views are from women and female POV and imperatives. It’s 44 minutes but well worth it. Just seeing how the FI and open hypergamy play out in another social and political system is kind of amazing. Women want to slut it up and they are doing so with a gusto – 5,000 sex shops just in Beijing now and a western style club scene. And a woman who put an audio of her having sex up on the Chinese internet actually broke their internet, lol. She preens about her sexual exploits on a blog. Fuck, the RP explains everything. FI and open hybergamy on turbo. It’s all developing in a very short period of time over there.

    And of course, any male not at the top of the food chain is fucked because of the severely out of balance m/f ratio due to the one-child rule. The interviews with these men are heartbreaking. There are large increases in gangs and violent crime as 50 million such men moved to the cities in China. Sickest? When they focus on strip clubs and prostitutes that cater to male sexual agency? It’s the “dark side”. The FI just reeks throughout the entire thing. They do publicly same prostitutes once in a while though, to placate the older generation of Chinese who are horrified by much of this.

    Busy day didn’t read any new comments, i’m off – just had to share this.

    [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsKg5EEq0X8&w=560&h=315%5D

  4. As far as intelligence goes, it’s been shown that at the high end men have fewer partners. Perhaps due to lack of social intelligence, and lack of relatability as well. Average intellect has the most partners.

    I grew up as 99 percentile SAT, and it did make relationships more difficult. Didn’t translate to social intelligence. Now I can learn that stuff, but it takes time and experience. Still, when I would discuss things with soon to be ex, she would always win based on social intelligence. I would think of good analytical counter arguments – a day later. Of course, she had worked in HR and was higher than most on social intelligence.

    Back to the long lost topic of adaption and the SMP. The Internet has changed things a lot. Pre-Internet, take the life of a 28 year old single woman. Younger women are coming into her hangouts. A lot of her friends have gone LTR or married and know fewer single people. So she is starting to worry a little. So the betas she knows here and there are starting to look better to her.

    The Internet has killed beta game. Now the 28 year old goes on Match.com, puts up a presentable profile, and oh tee hee, 100 responses in the first day! The Internet has killed the game of the average guy who can’t find a way to stand out, since there are simply too many of him. So the 28 year old can afford to wait, and can stretch out the years where she is at the advantage. Sure, if she waits ’til 35 plus, and still wants kids, there is a time crunch, but post-Internet women are gatekeepers of sex AND commitment for most of their childbearing years. But yeah, the older men get to clean up with the 40+ banged out whores. Hooray for that.

  5. @Striver
    “The Internet has killed beta game.”

    Only a bad workman curses his tools.
    The females were always the same just that this is a different battlefield.
    I am not able to comprehend you lamenting the loss of beta game.
    The beta game was never fulfilling and an illusion of achievement at best.
    Good riddance.

    You just improve your game and let the rest of world go into their own created hell.

    Beta game is like always trying an egg-white omelette hoping that you would stumble on some recipe where it would taste better than an omelette with egg-yolk. Does not happen.

    ” Didn’t translate to social intelligence.”
    Just start DHVing. I cannot impress upon the effect it has on one’s social standing and how better every female in my social circle is treating me now.

    DHVing is the simplest and most effective solution to the gordian knot of shit testing.

    1. @striver
      “The Internet has killed the game of the average guy who can’t find a way to stand out, since there are simply too many of him. ”
      So than you adapt
      Women will want to be with a successful man. Alpha is a mindset. You think you could build that over the Internet?

      @Shiva H.P.
      Good point on DHV

  6. Okay, you want to know my situation? Tell me how I can “DHV?” Yeah, just start DHVing.

    I just turned 50, 3 kids, ages 5 to 7. Divorce not yet final. Buying a small duplex as a starter home, best I could do.

    What can I do on the almighty DHV? I will answer a list I found at random.

    Pre-selection: mostly have to be faked. I’m better looking than average, tall, so I got that. Never a ladies’ man. Won’t talk myself down as far as women being attractive, but I can’t fake A-list.

    Leader of men: No chance. I’m Spock, not Kirk.

    Protector of loved ones: Waste of time IMO. Women don’t care.

    Ability and willingness to emote: I thought I was supposed to be aloof.

    Belief in a greater cause: I have my causes, again just not sure that many women care outside their own interests.

    Willingness to walk away: Sure. Non-zero chance I die without a partner now. May not find anyone suitable due to circumstances. No interest in hookups or PUA, so it’s probably back to LTR or alone.

    Wealth (perceived): 3 kids, solvent but no money, time faking that is time wasted.

    Famly background: Solid and conservative. Again, not sure women care about solid and conservative.

    Body build: In shape. Not a lifter. Probably not worth the time given my build and lack of interest.

    Sense of humor: That’s okay, I have some success there.

    Social intuitiveness and wittiness: Pretty good, but I have to have seen the situation before. Not good at off the cuff. Learned not to stay stupid things a long time ago.

    Ability to have fun and positive emotions: Pretty good, but what about her? What does she bring to the table here? With soon to be ex, there were always complaints about this or that.

    Understanding how to redirect social pressure: Too nuanced for me to be an expert.

    Strong personal values: Again, do women care?

    Secondly, what does the woman DO FOR ME? There will be no more children. I need to raise my children, retire, some travel, some companionship. I have a number of hobbies. Maybe I can find a woman that would share ONE.

    I am beyond fooling myself at 50. I can tweak a little, but I am never going to be bad boy. Waste of time. If all women want are bad boy, or some guy she had before me, there’s nothing out there for me.

  7. Do what the average man does, get what the average man gets.

    What the average man seems to want above all else, however, is to be average, to “fit in.” There is, therefore, a certain disingenuousness about his complaints about not being able to stand out.

    I can sympathize with the plight of the average man, but I cannot truly empathize with it. I have never felt the same motivation to be average. I do not understand it.

    And these days, when so few men even try, indeed trying is actively denigrated, it takes so little effort to reach the 90the percentile in any given activity that there really isn’t any excuse for not doing so in at least some activity.

  8. Striver
    June 18th, 2015 at 2:33 pm

    I dunno. My brain power never seemed to get in the way. I was Red Pilled (the rudiments) back in ’62 by my first GF at UChicago.

    But I have an attitude similar to that of a certain well known smuggler. “Never tell me the odds.” Because I intend to bend the curve. Twist it into knots if I have to.

  9. ” . . .it’s probably back to LTR or alone.”

    How many points on the number line are there between 1 and 2?

    ” . . . but what about her? What does she bring to the table here? . . . what does the woman DO FOR ME?”

    Well hey, guess what? If you hold that as the core of your relationships with women, you’re already in the 90th percentile, whether you realize it or not.

  10. @Divided Line, Et Al,

    Look, I will be honest, I have been away for a few days, and while I tried to follow the entire conversation going on here (it’s actually is pretty fascinating), I did not have the time to read it all in depth. I just felt a need to throw something out there. Maybe it’s just my mood.

    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.

    Security competition for who? For what? What is in a ‘national interest’? Does it not dovetail back into security?

    Is the ‘national interest’ of a North Korea the same as for the United States?

    Cynicism, or what might be called realism or realpolitic, is certainly warranted in life, but I think you go a bridge or two too far.

    Don’t get me wrong…there is a lot to be cynical about U.S. politics, particularly today, and I suspect it is the same for much of the Western World, but don’t let other’s cynicism blind you.

    Again, what is the security for which we are competing? Who is it for?

    Is it just for us, the individual? Our families? If we want to protect a certain way of life for both us, and our families, is that high flown rhetoric, or is it just security?

    And is security for ourselves and/or loved ones so base an idea that it can’t be high flown? Wanting the people you love and treasure to live a life relatively free from fear, oppression, want?

    Is it selfish self-interest to want to live in a society where you also don’t have to watch your neighbors live in fear and oppression, suffering from starvation?

    Are we rationalizing all those desires above? Rationalizing them to cover what?

    Our own pure, individual self-interest?

    Are we deceiving ourselves into thinking we are altruisitic and idealists, or thinking we are entirely selfish and self-serving entities?

    Well, if we collectively do that, operate out of pure self interest, and in the final result end up with a society which is less oppressive and more wealthy than any other history, how do we score that? We started out deceitful, self-serving and ended up helping out hundreds of millions of others.

    The national interest of North Korea is the ruling elite, particularly Kim Jong-uun. The society is geared toward it, entirely. It may starve the entire populace to do it, and it does, but everything is meant to keep Kim in power and high on the hog. It is ALL about his security, and if you ain’t him, your security rapidly diminishes the further from him you get.

    The United States, for all it’s flaws and despite the ever increasing, sometimes successful attempts, at it’s ruling class to make itself elite in name and fact, is geared toward individual liberty.

    NOW, before anyone on the left or right starts whipping out their cynical bazookas, take a breathe, and try to see the point.

    The United States, like much of the Western World, go to where it is largely due with the allowance of personal initiative, or allowing human potential to flourish.

    YES, you can point to myriad examples that contradict that principle, and that personal initiative did not always lead to the most pretty results but look at the larger point.

    The point is the Western World’s national interest has been (nevermind what pin-heads are trying to do now) in promoting individual liberty because of the increase in the national interest, ie power. But that national interest has promoted the personal interest of individuals.

    So, which really comes first here?

    In nations physically divided with very different sets of political philosophy (North, South Korea, East, West Germany), there was a STRIKING difference in quality of life, happiness, lifespan, development, yadda, yadda.

    The philosophy of individual liberty is developed over the centuries, and those nations adopting it tend to fair better in regards to the living standards of those people, both in terms of general production and advancement. Did the national interest pull individual liberty forward, or did personal liberty push national interest forward?

  11. Striver
    June 18th, 2015 at 3:47 pm

    DHV? Get rid of your failure attitude.

    And Spock was often a leader of men. Just not as many as Kirk. You don’t have to be a Captain. Lt. Commander will do. Quite nicely.

    Protector – well if the women you find don’t care find different ones. The LTR (40+ years) says that is one of the things she values highly.

    Dump solid and conservative. That is fine for financials. It is terrible for GAME. Outlaw biker is what you are after.

    “What does she bring to the table here?” – Pussy. You want it or don’t you?

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

    You have a ton of Beta moves. And you are happy with them. Don’t care to change. Well OK. More for me. And I’m f’n 70.

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

    The first thing you should want from a woman is pussy. After that if something more develops it is because she wants YOU. That is the ONLY basis for a LTR. And to make sure she keeps wanting you it is good – at least during the early phases for you to have others. And she should know about it. It will maker her want you more and it is always a good bargaining chip. “You can be replaced”.

    Get your “n” up. Also a good chip.

    Never bargain. “If you don’t like it you can leave. I have options.”

    It is a Zen thing. The way to get pussy is to not want pussy.

  12. @striver

    Man, you sound like 50 is quitting time. Never, ever quit on yourself. In the end, all you have is YOU.

  13. @Seraph

    Perhaps this help explain what your talking about.

    Declaration of Independence (as a consequence of the need of some for national sovereignty) -1776

    Bill of Rights ( generally based on the basic idea of the Magna Carta ) – ratified by congress in – 1791

  14. I was just turned on to this website 1.5 days ago, and have killed my cell phone’s battery three times absorbing as much as I can.

    My question: what advice do you have for single dads, for lack of a better picture, just beginning to swallow the red pill? Especially when I’m trying to raise a daughter to fight against mainstream feminism without destroying her feminitiy?

  15. @Striver

    “Okay, you want to know my situation? Tell me how I can “DHV?” Yeah, just start DHVing.”

    You will have to read a lot of Rollo’s article and reflect upon them.
    But the basic roadmap would be

    1. “Burden of Performance” : Rollo’s article search for it
    You might get angry at first while reading this article as many commentators did. But you need to realise that you have to always perform at highest standard, but for yourself.
    Not for your women, not for your children, not for the society but for yourself.
    Once you perform to your best at every moment for yourself, a lot of anxiety of performance just vanishes and you are able to just punch harder and harder.
    In your comment you poured out a lot of issues and responsibilities. Once you get the right frame of reference for your performance, no task will seem took big or difficult.

    2. “You are always first, you are the prince” : Don’t remember which article covers this.
    You always expect others to treat you nothing less than a prince expects.
    You will not take any shit from any one. You will not let others walk over you.
    The social conditioning is all about making it acceptable for males to take shit lying down. You have to unlearn it all and hold highest standard of treatment expected from others for you.
    If others do not measure up to it then either next them or totally shun them.

    3. “The frame is everything” : Many Rollo’s articles cover this
    All your thoughts, actions, anxieties and even the way you perceive things
    are determined by the frame of your mind.

    The success of a society depends on the conditioning its subjects to sacrifice the maximum for the social imperative.
    Currently, the feminine imperative is the social imperative.
    When you pussy beg or become politically correct or suck up to the feminine imperative, you have lost your frame of mind to that ideology dominating you.

    Something to look forward to
    4. Amused Mastery : This is a bit far ahead than what you need right now.
    Rollo has got article named the same.

  16. @Matt Keeton:

    Give yourself some time to digest. It isn’t easy and you don’t want to make yourself choke on it.

    Buy the books in dead tree. Easier on the batteries and still the preferred media for study materials. They can also be easily passed around to others who might benefit from them.

    Try to come to terms, as best you can, with the idea that your daughter’s school and friends will likely have a larger influence on her than you do. Do what you can, but don’t carry the world on your shoulders.

  17. Hey Insanity, put your iguana in her cage.

    M Simon,
    It’s very simple to explain the middle east, it goes like this :
    One man’s religion is another man’s death sentence and add oil to spice it up.

    Here is my simple understanding of Capitalism vs Socialism :
    When you are rich, you become capitalist / conservative and you have no time for theories , you’re to busy making money by hiring more minimum wage slaves.
    When you are poor, you become socialist and plenty of time on hand to think and write new theories or you become an “artist”?

    When you loss your money you become? A socialist.
    When you gain money you become?
    A capitalist.

    It’s the same with ugly woman vs beautiful woman.
    Ugly old bitches/hags complain about everything they are like the socialist in that way ((plenty of time to do nothing but “femininizing”.
    Beautiful women don’t have the time to bitching.

    See how simple it is.

  18. @ Atticus I don’t see how pointing out that commenters are reactive to female screennames constitutes “bashing”, it’s simply a fact. If they find being reactive to be a negative description, then I guess they should stop being reactive to that.

    However, in the past, when I’ve made substantive comments, half the commenters have accused me of actually being a man or at least a transsexual, while others are dismissive based not on substance but on my presumptive gender. A few responded/disagreed based on substance, and that’s to their credit.

    It seems to me that it’s in everyone’s interests to respond to the substance of comments rather than one’s idea about the commenter and whether they are male/female or alpha/beta. Because if y’all are correct that the thinking and perspective of every female is fundamentally different from the male perspective, and that the perspective of an alpha is fundamentally different from the perspective of betas, then that should be addressable solely in reference to the substance of what is being said. Because those differences would then be reflected in the substance and could be responded to directly. But if y’all are wrong, then focusing on the purported gender or alpha/beta status of the commenter risks making one into a fool if it turns out they were wrong. Either way, one’s points should stand or fall on their own merits, and it’s a much stronger credit to one’s arguments if they can defeat another based on substance rather than resorting to ad hominem rhetoric, which is always a sign of the weakness of one’s ideas.

    1. @Kryptokate
      “And I can’t agree that hurt and anger are ever useful to analysis of social issues.”
      Most of the time no.

      @Blaximus
      “Never, ever quit on yourself. In the end, all you have is YOU.”
      Shriver amp that by 100 go do things you enjoy.

      @Matt keeton
      Ask Rollo about his actually in your situation.
      Also kfg is a huge help listen to a lot of what he says and make sure to point out your ideals here as well. He’s a great guide. Buy both books and make notes about your life in person.

      @kryptokate
      “But if y’all are wrong, then focusing on the purported gender or alpha/beta status of the commenter risks making one into a fool if it turns out they were wrong. ”
      Being able to share experience helps.

  19. @Kryptokate:

    And as such, your point would have been stronger had you simply presented it, rather than prefacing it with a bit of passive/agressive, ad hominem rhetoric.

  20. kryptokate – “Because if y’all are correct that the thinking and perspective of every female is fundamentally different from the male perspective, and that the perspective of an alpha is fundamentally different from the perspective of betas, then that should be addressable solely in reference to the substance of what is being said.”

    Mostly correct.

    The perspectives of men are different from women. Biology creates a divide. The difference between Alpha and Beta is perspective based on experience. Often that experience is as simple as being aware of what is really going on. The potential for all men to have, share or understand an Alpha perspective exists. There is no way way for a woman to share a man’s perspective.

    1. @Badpainter
      “The potential for all men to have, share or understand an Alpha perspective exists. There is no way way for a woman to share a man’s perspective.”
      Even if you use mirror neurons it still may not get through. Active listening only goes so far as well.

      @Matt Keeton

      Buy both books to make notes this will help so much more than WordPress blogging
      http://smile.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1492777862/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1434663114&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SY200_QL40&keywords=the+rational+male&dpPl=1&dpID=51r%2Bu0XiwZL&ref=plSrch

      Here’s the link to book 2 read one first than 2
      http://smile.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1508596557/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?qid=1434663194&sr=8-2&pi=AC_SY200_QL40&keywords=the+rational+male&dpPl=1&dpID=517wI2hDn8L&ref=plSrch
      Make notes in a notebook or for me I underline parts in the books as personal references.
      http://therationalmale.com/2012/07/25/the-5-stages-of-unplugging/

      http://therationalmale.com/the-best-of-rational-male-year-one/

      http://therationalmale.com/2013/08/21/the-best-of-rational-male-year-two/

      http://therationalmale.com/2014/09/10/the-best-of-rational-male-year-three/

  21. “Just wanted to give props.”
    Why not you just don’t and say you did…..beat it.

    “Don’t have anything substantive to add to this all-over -the-place thread.”
    Then why not keep out of it?

    “Though I must say y’all are much more interesting, logically coherent, and evidently intelligent when you discuss topics that move beyond your anger at the cows for preferring to bring all the boys to the yard for a milkshake,”

    The neg that was the real point of your yapping….

  22. @Matt

    The first thing you should do is educate yourself. Read. read and then read some more. You really can’t ” do ” or ” change ” anything without an understanding. Some red pill points are harder to grasp at first, than others. Study hard and reflect.

    Keep what your learning to yourself until you build a good foundational understanding. The changes will come, everyone’s different and on a differing schedule.

    Explore. There’s enough here at TRM to keep you busy for a while, and there are other blogs as well. I’m biased…. This is a process. There are no tricks or short cuts. It will be like deprogramming. Most information will be informative, some will be painful as you will see yourself portrayed. Don’t flinch or shy away. Take it in.

  23. “I don’t see how pointing out that commenters are reactive to female screennames constitutes “bashing”, it’s simply a fact. If they find being reactive to be a negative description, then I guess they should stop being reactive to that.”

    (Yeah we should all just scroll through you and most will….in time.)

    “However, in the past, when I’ve made substantive comments, half the commenters have accused me of actually being a man or at least a transsexual, while others are dismissive based not on substance but on my presumptive gender. A few responded/disagreed based on substance, and that’s to their credit.”

    (3 “I / I’ve” and 2 “me / mine” Haven’t seen any thing substantive yet from you, just a bunch of “look at meeeeee” and “good doggie”.)

    It seems to me that it’s in everyone’s interests to respond to the substance of comments rather than one’s idea about the commenter and whether they are male/female or alpha/beta. Because if y’all are correct that the thinking and perspective of every female is fundamentally different from the male perspective, and that the perspective of an alpha is fundamentally different from the perspective of betas, then that should be addressable solely in reference to the substance of what is being said. Because those differences would then be reflected in the substance and could be responded to directly. But if y’all are wrong, then focusing on the purported gender or alpha/beta status of the commenter risks making one into a fool if it turns out they were wrong. Either way, one’s points should stand or fall on their own merits, and it’s a much stronger credit to one’s arguments if they can defeat another based on substance rather than resorting to ad hominem rhetoric, which is always a sign of the weakness of one’s ideas.”

    Making it all about you……….. then lecturing us some more about how to enjoy our space. Just. Leave. …………….Still here?

  24. “Either way, one’s points should stand or fall on their own merits, and it’s a much stronger credit to one’s arguments if they can defeat another based on substance rather than resorting to ad hominem rhetoric, which is always a sign of the weakness of one’s ideas.”

    You don’t say?? So, now contrast the ad hominem rhetoric, the relentless attacks against anything female, and compare it to your former comment about “stating my admiration when someone’s intellect seems to defy ego and they rise above engaging what amounts to highly-articulate pissing contests…” Can you see the two alternate realities attempting to coexist there?

    It’s pretty simple. This is a collection of broken and wounded men so terrified and threatened by the weakness of their ideas, they are incapable of discussing anything like adults.

  25. @ Badpainter

    “The perspectives of men are different from women. Biology creates a divide. The difference between Alpha and Beta is perspective based on experience. Often that experience is as simple as being aware of what is really going on. The potential for all men to have, share or understand an Alpha perspective exists. There is no way way for a woman to share a man’s perspective.”

    This may very well be true though it is ultimately unknowable. The experiences of transsexuals who take hormones to maculinize or feminize themselves is the best evidence we have — far from perfect — and they certainly report different emotions and intensity of sex drive though I haven’t read much to indicate that their deliberative reasoning changes much. Brain scans and algorithmic analyses of writing styles can often but not always predict gender and there is no perfect way yet devised to definitely tell if someone is a man or a woman absent examining their chromosomes and genitals. This blog is about broad trends but as with most things there are overlapping bellcurves. And a certain segment of the population, I’d estimate maybe 5%, is psychologically androgynous even if in appearance they are highly feminine/masculine. So when dealing with individuals, treating them categorically will inherently lead to errors in at least some instances.

    And btw, those people that are psychologically androgynous but physically dimorphous are usually enormously successful with the opposite sex precisely because they do understand their perspective. Every guy I know like that has a crazy-high n-count, much higher than your typical alpha (though they won’t always inspire the feral lust an alpha does).

    As far as intelligence leading to a lower partner count, I would suggest that’s because highly intelligent men are more selective not because they can’t acquire partners…spending time that involves any conversing whatsoever with someone an SD or two below one’s IQ is actively painful. So if you are at the extreme end of the bellcurve, you likely don’t want to spend time with someone in the middle unless she is literally supermodel hot, and even then it would quickly get old. I know plenty of high IQ guys that turn down lots of opportunities.

    1. @Kryptokate
      “Every guy I know like that has a crazy-high n-count, much higher than your typical alpha (though they won’t always inspire the feral lust an alpha does).”
      That is very evident in the dance community as a whole.

  26. “It’s pretty simple. This is a collection of broken and wounded men so terrified and threatened by the weakness of their ideas, they are incapable of discussing anything like adults.”

    And why your highness keep “lurking” and trying to discuss anything. Don’t blame your cat for not understanding your feelings . Blame yourself for believing your cat understand you.

  27. It seems odd to suggest that Marx was merely describing history in light of The Communist Manifesto, which is quite programmatic in its prescriptions.

  28. Matt Keeton
    June 18th, 2015 at 4:44 pm

    I have a Daughter. She is 24. If there is something you can do I am unaware of it. OTOH I’m working on the culture by commenting here.

    She is totally indoctrinated into equalism. Totally. I told her it wouldn’t make her happy. The topic is now off limits.

  29. ” I would suggest that’s because highly intelligent men are more selective not because they can’t acquire partners…”

    I would tend to agree with that as something that happens. On the other hand, I would tend to agree that there are a good many highly intelligent men who are, nonetheless, socially inept and wear their pickiness as a shield.

    “…spending time that involves any conversing whatsoever with someone an SD or two below one’s IQ is actively painful.”

    However, I would tend to agree that women find conversing with men who are are two or more SDs above their IQ to to be actively scary.

    A high IQ, high T woman might not experience this, and thus fail to understand it.

  30. Mr T
    June 18th, 2015 at 5:01 pm

    Try recalibrating you byzantine meter. The Israelis are currently not too covertly allied with the Saudis. They also seem to be playing with Assad.

    Capitalism (market economy really) is not just for the rich. It is for those who want to become rich. Economies controlled mainly by politics don’t work well. Venezuela can’t even produce toilet paper. Let alone food.

    Nothing is simple if you actually have to do some kind of design in relation to it. i.e. foreign policy.

  31. @Matt pt2…

    Oh yeah, and as your eyes are opened and you come to some conclusions, when you discuss them, from time to time, you will be called ” angry” and ” hurt ” and ” broken “. You really won’t be any of these things, so pay no mind to this sentiment.

    Sometimes a stuck pig squeals the loudest.

    1. @M Simon
      “I told her it wouldn’t make her happy. The topic is now off limits.”
      Well that’s familiar
      Note that having a large brain is biologically costly: the brain is an expensive organ to run, and large ones consume many precious calories (the human brain accounts for a whopping 20 percent of our energy expenditure).
      David Livingstone Smith, Why We Lie: The Evolutionary Roots of Deception and the Unconscious Mind
      Being equal in my environment equates to dehumanizing masculinity.

      http://www.npr.org/2011/03/29/134956180/criminals-see-their-victims-as-less-than-human

      Social psychologists confirm that we are likely to perceive people outside our own community as more alike than those within it. We perceive members of our own group as individuals, but see other groups as more or less homogenous (psychologists call this the “outgroup homogeneity bias”).
      David Livingstone Smith, Less Than Human: Why We Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others
      Even within are own places near are direct keen we still have to posture for respect and connection. No wallowing about it most of the most important topics I’ve wanted to discuss with people who would use the word love made those topics become banished.

      “Economies controlled mainly by politics don’t work well. Venezuela can’t even produce toilet paper. Let alone food.
      Nothing is simple if you actually have to do some kind of design in relation to it. i.e. foreign policy.”

      Very true especially when you see how sports play out in the world and how oil only has meaning once used.

      A friend of mine was going to work in The Dakotas at an oil refinery to pay off student debt. He ended up not going but the principle you point out really works that way in the real world.

  32. @ kfg I think people who fall an SD or two below someone else are not generally aware of how much dumber they are…they might have a vague awareness that the other person is “smart” but it takes a certain level of intelligence to even be able to recognize it. Therefore, they’ll usually default to just thinking the smarter person is “weird”. They don’t really understand what it is they’re dealing with. So in women dealing with a much smarter guy, this might manifest as fear, I can see that. That’s how less intelligent women deal with smarter women so that would make sense.

    I guess what I’m saying is that even if the average woman finds a high IQ guy weird or scary, he could always dumb it down so that she wasn’t aware. It would be pretty easy for him to just keep his mouth shut and not say much that would give it away. But I don’t think most people want to dumb themselves down and I think doing so is an unpleasant experience that will make the guy feel resentful and annoyed and just generally take more effort than it’s worth. Which is why I think having fewer partners is probably often a choice…because they COULD, if they really wanted to, have more partners.

    Of course, alcohol helps enormously with both dumbing oneself down and finding others who are less smart to be tolerable. Maybe that’s why people with high IQs drink much more (on average) than those with average IQs, and why there are so many famous brilliant alcoholics.

    As they say, it’s lonely at the top. Most brainy guys could knock back a few drinks and do just fine for themselves with the ladies, so if they’re not doing that I think it’s mostly a choice.

  33. @Matt Keeton – oh man, I remember being you 1.5 years ago. kfg’s, Rugby & Blaximus advice is solid. Enjoy the giddy ride that is unplugging from the matrix.

    I’m a single dad and I have a 14 y/o girl. Rollo has a great post you should definitely read
    http://therationalmale.com/2012/09/14/amused-mastery/

    That has been the cornerstone of my relationship with my daughter and it has improved our relationship exponentially. My advice would not be to try and fight against the FI (the horse has bolted) or to speak of Red Pill truths. Demonstrate through your actions & remove her from any pedestal she may be on.

  34. insanitybytes22
    June 18th, 2015 at 7:25 pm

    Well no. The men here are not broken. They are raw recruits that just need to learn how the equipment works and the discipline to put it in to action.

    It is the job of the CPOs (Sgts.) who hang here to impart the knowledge and teach the discipline.

    Your hanging here without assisting the process is a sign that it is YOU who are broken.

    This is Alpha training camp. Betas and FIs need not apply.

  35. And I should add to my June 18th, 2015 at 8:46 pm that there are women who see Alpha potential in a man who like training that. One picked me in ’62. I was very lucky.

    They may be 1 in 10,000 (4 SDs out) or rarer. I never ran into another in the intervening 52 years. And the one I met gave up her hobby to get married. To a divinity student. And Joan, where ever you are. Thank you.

  36. Kryptokate
    June 18th, 2015 at 8:39 pm

    It is not the IQ. It is the Beta mindset.

    It is not the social skills. The LTR tells me my social skills have improved greatly over the years. I said, “From the bottom 5% to the bottom 25%” She said, “Yes”. None the less I can give her social advice on occasion. Advice which helps.

    And yet when I met her my “n” was well into the Alpha range despite the brains and low social skills. And I improved that score in the 10 yrs we dated. Then came kids and my active interest declined. But never so much that she decided she wanted to “find herself”. She still sees 20yos come on to me. Keeps her on her toes.

    1. @ Matt Keeton,
      These guys know what they’re talking about; everything they’ve advised is good. I just want to underline one point: be careful who you talk to about the red pill until you have a better understanding of it; I’d even recommend a couple of months. The reason is, when I first started unplugging I was dumb enough to mention a couple things I found interesting about the red pill to the wife. That didn’t help anything; in fact if I would have just implemented changes gradually I would have saved myself some grief.

      You never know who you start to talk to about the red pill that will turn out to be a white knight that thinks they’ve uncovered some kind of evil.

      Law 18 Win through your actions, never through argument.

      Once you get familiar with red pill concepts you start to see it in life all around you, it’s like being privy to a secret code almost, especially when watching female behavior.
      It’s easier to see the truth of it than to implement Game myself but seeing it is the first step. Still working on the rest.

  37. @scribblerg,
    China has recently put a propaganda piece endorsing Chinese husbands in the official Russian government newspaper. Said they’re a perfect match for Russian women because they take care of family, live a healthy lifestyle (i.e. do not drink), are good at housekeeping and serious about marriage. There’s been quite a few Chinese/Russian marriages before, especially in the Far East, and the consensus about Chinese men appears to be positive. Maybe the countries’ gender imbalances will partly offset each other.

  38. @ crossphased – yeah very good point. Women AND men can get prickly hearing RP nuggets of gold. Just recently I stupidly blurted out a red pill truth to a plate I’ve been spinning – wow didn’t that shake things up. They quickly try to push back with the usual shaming tactics (you’re bitter, in a cult, angry, blah blah blah). I even get feigned concern…the “oh, I’m really worried about you” routine…lol

  39. kryptokate – “I guess what I’m saying is that even if the average woman finds a high IQ guy weird or scary, he could always dumb it down so that she wasn’t aware.”

    Not weird or scary but boring. Boring is the killer. Dumbing it down doesn’t work well because it’s an act and soon the smart guy becomes bored himself and then the act will lose it’s veneer of sincerity. Following a policy of STFU works pretty well, but there is a lack of friendliness involved. Really the only answer is going darkside and using the smarts gap to dominate.

  40. @M simon
    everything whether Capitalism / socialism / fascism / dictatorship / feminism, it all comes down to Realpolitik.

    The ugly feminists/manifactured anti feminists women would dump all their ideology into the toilet if they get the same men that beautiful women get.

    It is the environmentalists who would dump their bicycles the moment they win the lottery and they would find a million logical reason for the change “of heart “.

    When it comes to politics! Just listen to any declassified tapes from any administration and you would think it’s like a bunch of high school gang.

    The difference between capitalist democracy or socialist/dictatorship is:
    In capitalism, you have democracy that change the GANG every 4or 6 years in other words the distribution of wealth among different new gang every 6 or 4 years and the old gang get new jobs in the “private” market (it’s time to reward the old gang for lobbying for the right to become rich).

    In socialist / dictatorship?! Forget about 4 or 6 years in office, the distribution of wealth is for one gang only.

  41. kryptokate -“Most brainy guys could knock back a few drinks and do just fine for themselves with the ladies, so if they’re not doing that I think it’s mostly a choice.”

    Of course you do. But then you don’t have a male perspective or experience.

    Let’s make a few similar statements from your quote to illustrate:

    Most tall guys could just stand up straight and do just fine for themselves with the ladies, so if they’re not doing that I think it’s mostly a choice.

    Most hot guys could just say “hi” and do just fine for themselves with the ladies, so if they’re not doing that I think it’s mostly a choice.

    Most guys could do just fine for themselves with the ladies, so if they’re not doing that I think it’s mostly a choice.

    You see how you’ve over simplified? I’ve actually heard variation of all of those statements from women. All spoken by people who have never made an approach, and never will. It’s as if the deer are explaining what the hunter is doing wrong. The first step to being a better hunter is to stop taking hunting advice from the game.

  42. Why is it super sexy actresses are not feminists (and don’t give a shit about feminizats) tend to focus their lives about animals rights (when they get older)?

  43. As far as intelligence goes, I did read a survey that there is a lower partner count. Varies by individual of course.

    I am not blaming anyone else at all for my relations with women. Let me say that the moment has never come where I have made a drunken pass at a woman. I guess I would consider it an embarrassing display on my part. So it doesn’t happen. I got married when I shopped for a wife when I couldn’t tolerate my old lifestyle any longer.

    Parents were not helpful in this regard. Two emotionally conservative people who got pushed together by friends when they were in their 30s. Based on mild hijinks as a youth (I wandered around the neighborhood a bit when young,) they decide I was the “bad son,” and took it upon themselves to correct my behavior regularly long after that was the last thing I needed.

    Things have gotten better. In going through this divorce, at 50, I have a much better friendship group than at other times in my life. But psychologically, I have shame issues. Based on my research, behavior resulting from shame issues can take years if not decades to modify. So it’s been a long slog.

    So for me, getting excited enough about a woman, getting the conversation going, asking out, performing the whole sequence, there were always better things to do, and I didn’t have the social equipment to make those moves.

    So I’ve continued to hone my conversation skills, more “I” statements, more assertive, putting things forward more, but the whole building process of my social personality has been akin to a person learning to walk and talk after a major stroke. It has all been a mechanical effort from Ground Zero.

    I am really trying to build the thicker skin I’m going to need to direct my social life post-divorce. But the light bulb doesn’t always go on very easily for some of us in this area. Congrats to those who have had better luck.

    1. @ stuttie
      I saw one guy I used to work with the other day, and during conversation was feeling him out for his red pill understanding. He started white knighting like crazy, talking about some guy he knows that divorced his wife and was cheating on her prior, and how probably that’s most divorces, and I thought man you have no idea. Was glad to find out where he stood though.

      Was talking to another guy at work that got frivorced. He was talking about how the girl he’s dating now wants to get married, but he’s pretty gun shy after the experience he had. Gave him my copy of The Rational Male, he seemed like he was ready.

      It’d be great to have some of you guys that lived close enough to talk this stuff over and spur each other on, but in absence of that maybe I can rescue a couple and end up with a gang.

  44. I’m bored by the anti-commentariat lately. Been too much enjoying the stop and enjoy the roses, cigars and bourbon lifestyle while soaking up some red pill wisdom dispensed by Nassim Taleb.

    Been fascinated by the regulars and the new commenters who are on board with the red pill.

    I’m in the process of simplifying.

    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2015/06/18/clark-and-hatfield-study-men-are-far-more-open-to-casual-sex-than-are-women/

    “Feminists — ah, fuck it, let’s just say all women — will never be convinced by logic or reason to accept that there are deep, abiding differences in the psychology of the sexes. Women are built by evolution to fool themselves as much as fool men to their true natures, because complete enlightenment and the pained introspection that would follow could sabotage the Darwinian prime directive to attract and monopolize the top alpha sperm and resources.”

    Ahhh. Sublime simplicity spoken by another of the primal R’s. Straight to the point and irrefutable.

    A women commentator on the RM couldn’t walk a foot in a man’s shoes, let alone a mile without comprehending. Can not do it. I’ve never seen a women here have the slightest bit of empathy (because it is not remotely possible) for a man. And I don’t care. And will never hold my breath for it.

    @Matt Keeton
    June 18th, 2015 at 4:44 pm

    Keep reading. Have a 15 month plan. You can’t steal your daughter away from the FI. But you can demonstrate without explicating that she should remain feminine. Don’t over explain. Don’t talk about red pill to the general population out there. Demonstrate in the future, once you assimilate red pill awareness and game practice, but not a day sooner. The day your daughter buys into the value of being equalist rather than complementary to a male partner is the day you failed as a father and your ex won the battle but lost the war.

    Read The best of Year One of Rollo Tomassi at the top of the main page.
    Then go on to read everything else he read. But don’t be to quick to react to what is new to you. Else you would be playing with dynamite.

    http://therationalmale.com/2011/09/22/dream-girls-and-children-with-dynamite/

    There is red pill awareness and there is game implementation. Have a 15 month plan depending on your skill level and then attempt to achieve it.
    And have a Kubler-Ross way of getting through your grief.

    http://therationalmale.com/2012/07/25/the-5-stages-of-unplugging/

    The Manosphere is a terrible thing not to have. But it will spin your head if you are not well grounded. If you want perspective on what the Manosphere is all about and concentrate on, check out Ian Ironwood’s kindle book.

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Manosphere-New-Hope-Masculinity-ebook/dp/B00D74DQ8E

    1. @crossphased

      Very on point just spoke with a dear friend of mine right now about the red pill.

      I only did it because he asked first. He’s having a baby girl in about 11 days.

      @Matt keeton

      Give this a listen

      http://realchristianmcqueen.com/2014/10/06/episode-25-interview-with-rollo-tomassi-of-the-rational-male/

      @crossphased

      “It’d be great to have some of you guys that lived close enough to talk this stuff over and spur each other on, but in absence of that maybe I can rescue a couple and end up with a gang.”

      Me to brother me to…

      @Mr T

      “When it comes to politics! Just listen to any declassified tapes from any administration and you would think it’s like a bunch of high school gang.”

      Spot on I do that in rugby and it shows how selfish and delusional I can become if I hold on to the ball to win all the glory at the expense of others.

      @Badpainter

      “All spoken by people who have never made an approach, and never will. It’s as if the deer are explaining what the hunter is doing wrong. The first step to being a better hunter is to stop taking hunting advice from the game.”

      That’s so true

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9tfmG8xtET4

      @kfg that’s a good listen that is “the trick is not…”

      @Striver

      Your freaking awsome and I have a hard time telling myself that. You got many new adventures of untold glory in places and experiences you may not have lived through yet. Give yourself a break and remember don’t wish it where easier wish you where better.

      @stuttie

      “But I also spend a lot of time reading & continuously learning here.”

      It’s my way of meditation it’s my way of calming down its my way of really loving myself.

      “I’m not saying I have internalized everything (believe me I’m still learning), but I have invested serious time reading everything on TRM. And I mean everything.”

      Wanna get their myself their are no many nightmares drowning away into oblivion.

      @sjfrellc

      “Bed her again and move on. That would be a sublime experience.

      You got another ten years or so, to choose a special female that only comes around every 8 years or so for a good male.”

      Anyone ever tell you how poetic you can be? That part of bedding her was a sublime gift to another male. Especially Forge. This may come off as out of turn but I find that incredibly humbling.

  45. @ cross – As Rollo states – “Unplugging chumps is triage – save those you can, read last rites to the dying.”

    I went through a phase of trying to introduce RP concepts to AFC’s that made excellent candidates for unplugging, but 90% to no avail. I think a lot of it boils down to the “can’t be bothered / tl/dr / it’s too much work” factors. So I mainly don’t bother now.

    I’m lucky I have two good mates I hang out with that are unplugged, read TRM and we can discuss our red pill experiences in real time. But I also spend a lot of time reading & continuously learning here.

  46. Forge the Sky,

    You know the script. Stick to it.

    Play her for practice. She will not be your future one. She does not have the fortitude to be worthy of a LTR for you.

    You know it. You voiced it.

    Practice makes perfect. Stick to it and what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.

    Guy talk. Women need not comment. (Because they have no empathy for the male Experience, no matter how pithy their male put downs are, here.)

    Bed her again and move on. That would be a sublime experience.

    You got another ten years or so, to choose a special female that only comes around every 8 years or so for a good male.

  47. @sjfrellc
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    June 19th, 2015 at 12:27 am

    Hey Rollo. Let me roam. I’m on your side. I don’t understand moderation rules.

  48. stuttie,

    Some of the recent stuff. More on the Dalrock site, that tends to be more my speed. The sites have proved helpful in identifying characteristics in my soon to be ex. Some stuff applies, others doesn’t, still working on other things.

    Soon to be ex has a very strong personality. Probably attractive to me because of my issues with flat affect. Upper management personality, Type A. That was a mistake, they do not make good partners. Deep down cold streak. If you’ve ever seen the movie Up In The Air with George Clooney, when we met she had that job. Flew around the country and fired people. Always thought they deserved it. Guess I should have seen that coming.

    Not all women… have characteristics that are true of some women… I hope. Women do not frivorce 100% of husbands.

  49. striver – I suspected as much. Do yourself a massive favor this weekend and at least read The Basics in Year 1 and the 9 Iron Rules of Tomassi, (and understand Hypergamy) then come back here and hash some stuff out.

    A few guys come and go here, skim over a few posts and don’t ever really fully grasp or internalize core red pill concepts. I’m not saying I have internalized everything (believe me I’m still learning), but I have invested serious time reading everything on TRM. And I mean everything.

  50. It’s 1:40 here on the west coast and as I reread the comments here, I was thinking, to put it essentially . . . . .

    . . . I have to say I think Divided Line is a multi-vocalist equivocator with polysemous enigmatical tendencies. . . .Wallowing in the muckily muck of his self imposed epistemological grayness. . . . . with professorial deference and approval seeking with an anti West Po-Mo thinking. . . . .

    . . . IMO. . . void of principle, hierarchy and causality . . . . and an unwillingness to distill to the essence. . . . just sayin. . . .

    So this evening me and my girlie friend go to a busy restaurant and as we are hanging out in the bar waiting for our table. . .

    . . . I ask the young lovely hostess, “How long for our table?” . . . .

    And she says, “There are a couple of tables with thier checks in the bar that should be leaving shortly, in the main dining area we just seated the last two tops except for the two and the fours that we are going to combine for a party of 14 that has a reservation, I’m not sure about the booth’s I have to double check. . . . . What was your name again?”. . . .

    I asked the bitch what time it was and she told me how the clock works. . . .

    Perhaps a headline writing class is in order. . .

  51. “A few guys come and go here, skim over a few posts and don’t ever really fully grasp or internalize core red pill concepts. I’m not saying I have internalized everything (believe me I’m still learning), but I have invested serious time reading everything on TRM. And I mean everything.”

    Exactly this.

    @striver, Do you have good study habits? Treat this like a class, I’m serious. Take notes. Write down questions. Let your mind follow those questions around and figure things out. Then sleep on it. Carry a note pad, or use your phone to take notes. Likely your brain will start spitting out realizations on how the red pill applies to your own situation and you would serve yourself well to write it down.

    And as was said before, AWALT.

    Not all women are type A personality, no. But the truths in the red pill DO apply to all women.

    All women have these red pill truths operating in the background, then ON TOP OF THAT some women are type A, some are sweet, or sarcastic, or rude, or bitchy, or kind, or literally anything. But ultimately, AWALT.

  52. @striver,

    My soon to be ex is also type A. (plus depression, anxiety, and BPD…if you believe the head shrinkers)

    No, they do not make good partners. They will follow an alpha, but the drama is not worth it…easier chicks to game out there. (that or I am not as alpha as I believe lol)

    The most helpful posts for me was “The Medium is the Message” here at TRM. (can’t c&p the link sorry, just search it) Still, read everything.

    Dalrock is a good one to read. alphagameplan (Vox Day) is really helpful. The CH is good too (although I had to avoid the CH when I first unplugged, it made me angry at myself. I couldn’t handle it)

    I would also recommend you read the primer by athol kay, and probably his MAP book too. Read his blog up until about 2012, then quit it. (he went purple, plus you are about to be single)

  53. @M. Simon – So well put regarding our founders and what they knew and intended. This response from Dividedline is standard leftist agit prop, and he doesn’t even realize he’s re-hashing ideas that were known long ago. The nature of our perceptions and the fallibility of reason etc. Fyi, just as an aside, if one considers religion as our first attempt at philosophy and a way of understanding men and the world, one can see that Judaism, Christianity and Buddhism contain strong views on the limits of man’s mechinations. We are to be considered deluded and “fallen” and flawed, hopelessly aiming at perfection and always falling short, acting out baser impulses that we seek to hide behind rationalizations or good intentions. The post modernist view is not as revelatory as its adherents want it to be. I won’t break out post structuralism as a separate idea, accept to say that this is where the underlying metaphysics of today’s gender politics emanate. Again, it’s another set of ideas that is simply not worth the time spent learning them. When you “get” post structuralism you’ll be like “What, this is it? I read all this crap by Fouccault to get this (nowhere near the best post structuralist)?” I’m always struck the brutal reductionism of leftist thought but post structuralism simply takes it to a new and absurd level. To actually take such an idea seriously in the first place is to announce that you are a fool, a sucker, a rube – or a child. And that’s the big trick now. They fill children’s heads with the political spawn of these ideas before they even know how to think critically. But I digress…

    What post modernism does is take an interesting idea, a clever lens of analysis and turn it into an axiom. Dividedline seems trapped in it. Being so “meta” makes one ridiculous after a while because such general ideas are not falsifiable. And since reason itself is assassinated by such a worldview, the entire exercise of debating with Marxists and postmodernists is futile. I mean, if post structuralism reveals a power based superstructure of belief, than the only “truth” in this world IS “power”. Which is how Marxists roll and why it always leads to killing and imprisoning lots of people.

    Sure, looking at the “superstructure of belief” is interesting, but it’s not “the” driver any more than materialist analysis is “the” answer to understanding history. You can’t invalidate arguments about history and consequences and real world politics with such abstractions. In fact, such abstractions seek to re-impose a meta view of the world that is absolute, reductionist and intractable as a tool to accomplish anything real. That’s my test of a POV – not how deontological the reasoning behind a “philosophy” is.

    This mistake of treating philosophy as axiom is as common as peas on the left. One can easily see it in Social Justice as the underlying theories are much less obscurantist and ornate (Marxism is incredibly complex mental masturbation ultimately). One can look at say “the difference principle”, the “veil of ignorance” or Rawls’ lexical hierarchy of justice and easily apply them to the world. I think the reason so many SJWs are women is because social justice theory is much easier to understand and internalize than Marxism. I call it “Pop Ideology”, lol. Social Justice Theory is the sitcom or police procedural of political philosophy. Neatly packaged, easy to identify with, very accessible and inherently self-righteous. It’s the marketingization of political philosophy, not political philosophy myself.

    And for those of you who take this stuff seriously and have read Rawls all I have to say to in response is this. How many of you have actually read Nozick’s brilliant response to Rawls in Anarchy, State and Utopia? If not, you should before dismissing me. Nozick’s analysis is much more broad than just a takedown of Rawls but it does so as a consequence of his ideas and analyses. Fyi, Nozick and Rawls corresponded with each other and reviewed each other’s work, sometimes before publication. Rawls himself was the most surprised at the success of social justice theory, lol.

    Many Marxists actually kind of turn up their noses at Rawls due to the clumsy simplicity of social justice theory. For sure, it is nowhere near as elegant or as all seeing as Marxism, which is nothing less than an all-knowing sociology of humanity. It might as well be called “The Theory of Everything” – which is why it tells one very little that is actually true about man and our world. Like I said, I chased my tail around this endless regress of useless thought for far too long myself.

    One of the techniques the left will always use is the pretense of reason and science to support their beliefs. Hayek referred to this as a “fatal conceit” and we see it writ large in every area the social justice warrior and Marxist endeavor today. Claims of certainty and science are the warrior cry of today’s leftist activist – men like us who reject gender studies and feminism as they are taught today? We are not just wrong, we are bigots and haters. Soon we’ll be called “deniers” too. And all of this inherits from the gauzy abstractions DividedLine presents here. Funny how those who reject reason simultaneously claim it so strongly? It seems that chaos and nihilism should result from such a conflicted and flawed worldview – wait, take a good look around…

    You’ll also note that I don’t bother to demonize communism – if you can’t figure out that communism is soaked in blood and massacre you are a fucking moron and are unconvincable. Chomsky demonstrated this brilliantly with his support of Pol Pot and the denial of his genocide for years after the facts were plain. And yes I’ve been bukkakeed with Chomkyesque accounts of the death toll of capitalism – don’t bother. Those analyses are agit prop, not reason or evidence of anything.

    I love the smell of dismissed Marxists in the morning, it smells like victory!

  54. ^^^Striver should…^^^

    …listen to more Wagner! Nothing starts the day off on the correct Alpha badass path quite like German Power Opera.

  55. I was giddy that Charlize Theron was back on the market…

    then,
    “But yeah, the older men get to clean up with the 40+ banged out whores. Hooray for that.”

    *pout*

    Striver,
    Penn was 52-3 to her 39. My gal is 30 to my 39. My gal’s sister is 27, with a 45 year-old. Point being, women like older men.

    Once I stopped asking women “how old are you?”, my perceived age problems seemed to disappear. Don’t call attention to it, and, it becomes a non-issue; simple as that. Although it may seem “amazing”, all it takes is “does it matter?” or “old enough to bounce you off the ceiling in ecstasy” when the question is put to you, and that “obstacle” is cleared.

    If you make it “ok” for young chicks to be with you, they will be. The “trick” is simply letting young hotties be with you: don’t tell them “no” based on their age. Which, is exactly what you are doing by even THINKING there is an age issue: you’re laying the groundwork for rejection, or for yourself to reject women you perceive as “too young”.

  56. [What is “status jockeying”?]

    You know, when you are developing your strength, courage,mastery and honor among men in a group of men.

  57. @Striver – Kirk got all the pussy – stop being Spock. You don’t have to be Spock. Social intelligence is learned and fun. I’ve been going through lots of basic “game” videos by Krauser and RSD and some of their written content. It’s a great way to learn some of the basics of social intelligence. PUA is merely applying social intelligence to fucking women. And leaders are never “natural” – they insert themselves with volition. You can choose differently.

    Also, think about indirect DHV. The little specialty I’ve developed in my community of being the music guy for non-profit events doesn’t require me imposing myself on other men. It does highlight a talent though, and it leverages my whole aging rockstar vibe (pretty weak right now as I’m totally focusing on business as getting my business on a better footing is job one for this recovering cynic).

    But here’s where I think you should look first. You claim to not be interested in hookups or PUA. Tell us, what do you mean by that? Are you pre-programming oneitis? Have you not internalized that the FI imposes monogamy on men, that it is in conflict with our biological imperatives? Do you not get that romance and courtly love and chivalry are FI constructs that seek to harness male sexual agency to the ends of women?

    It took me a while to embrace my inner pervert after my divorce. And even then, I was always a bit ashamed when I was wild sexually or promiscuous. Only when I found the Red Pill could I fully embrace my inner hottie fucker. No more justification required than I like to sink my dick into hot young women.

    Do you not like fucking beautiful women? After just escaping one FI informed snare, why do you want to jump into another?

    Last. Why do you think you have to a be a “bad boy”? Women aren’t looking for “the one” like you are. For short term mating purposes they are looking for “Mr. Right Now”. Being Mr. Right Now isn’t what you seem to think it is.

    Even if you want to nail down one woman, the best way for you to work through that process is to spin plates.

  58. The private ownership of property is an emergent property that occurred in numerous, completely distinct human civilizations which became successful on this planet.

    The “state” and government arise independently as well as a consequence of the ownership of private property, and are emergent as well. It emerges in at least 6 different, utterly separate human civilizations 6000-8000 years ago.

    Socialism is a ridiculous idea that is imposed top down, and is only possible in the age of large state and a global memeplex. Fyi, the memeplex arises from the written word mainly. Globalism and technology merely scale it up.

    And if you think communism is workable, just go research Israeli Kibutzim – despite giving it almost 70 years, they are utter failures. Human nature simply is incompatible with socialism.

    Humans are collective though. We enjoy and make great use of voluntary collective social arrangements. Sophists on the left often assert that traditional societies were often collective, but they miss the real lesson. Those were high trust social groupings of 150 or less where everyone is known. Collectivism doesn’t scale.

    And oh yeah, scale is the reason why we have all the wealth we have today. Without scale, you don’t get specialization. Without specialization you get no innovation or skill. Without skill and innovation you get no comparative advantage. Without comparative advantage you get no wealth creation.

    This is why if you chart wealth creation (and a myriad of other measures of human wellbeing) you see an explosion of improvement as scale increases. And this all emerges over and over again, independent of top down interventions.

    So, when I get lectured by fucked in the head leftists about emergent properties, perhaps some of you will understand why I’m shocked and insulted. The leftist is acting against that which is emergent, not with it. One more point? Don’t dare come back and tell me socialism is emergent. It’s not, it’s a virus in the memeplex that should have died long ago if it was measured by improving the human condition.

  59. scribblerg – “This is why if you chart wealth creation (and a myriad of other measures of human wellbeing) you see an explosion of improvement as scale increases. And this all emerges over and over again, independent of top down interventions.”

    I’m guessing it’s also why top down interventions impede wealth creation, innovation and productivity.

    If applied to the SMP it looks like by socializing the provide/protect resources of men that the masculine quality of men generally has decreased as they have been reduced to mere tax payers. At the same time the feminine quality of women has likewise decreased because it doesn’t negatively impact survival. This puts the SMP into a sort of death spiral where the desired outcomes of that market are in either very short supply, or very low quality because neither side has any collective motivation to produce as the SMP has instituted a price ceiling for what could be called the common good.

  60. Provider Beta, is he a capitalist or a socialist?

    A fuck alpha, is he a socialist or a capitalist?

    A woman who marry a good provider/capitalist and then divorces him. Who do you think was better at adapting to capitalism principles?

  61. “The correct answer is Alpha Fux/ Beta or Socialist Bux.”

    According to this answer,,
    It means the beta is the capitalist? He’s the one with the capital ,it means, he is a capitalist/ beta who provide capital?.

    The alpha is the socialist?

  62. @ Mr. T

    Every society/civilization regardless of the details of its political or economic structure has its Alphas, and its also rans. That never changes. Alpha Fux is a constant of humanity, like violence, and fart jokes. Beta Bux is just a proxy for human labor, whether be involuntary servitude, or for wages the produce of the common man’s labor is the beta bux. Only the details of how that production is distributed differ.

    Your hypothetical is far to reductionist. The details of the legal system and social safety net are crucial to determining an answer as is better knowledge of the parties involved. You scenario would yield very different answers if set in the USA in the 1890s, or 2015, or medieval England, or Republican Rome.

  63. ““The correct answer is Alpha Fux/ Beta or Socialist Bux.”
    According to this answer,,
    It means the beta is the capitalist? He’s the one with the capital ,it means, he is a capitalist/ beta who provide capital?.
    The alpha is the socialist?”

    Beta is the producer and provider while the low MMV Alphas are mostly parasites.

    All economic paradigms are BS.
    The only thing that finally matters is who are the producers and who are parasites.

    A system which allows the producers to keep most of the fruits of their labor will succeed and last longer than one which feeds the parasites.

    Capitalism, in the current form in US, will serve the people no better function than Communism in Soviet union ; if the laws keep siding with the parasitic professions(Wall street) while punishing the producers.

    @scribblerg
    Scalability is the central tenet of all human civilizations, empires and organizations.

    1. Millenias ago, we has people living in a set of tribes with each tribe fighting with the other. Here people scaled at tribe level. You are either from the tribe(friend) or outside the tribe(enemy).

    2. When the size of successful tribes grew, they constructed Janapadas i.e. Realms. The successful tribes joined together for common causes of their realms and competed with other realms.
    After realms, rose the empires which were big enough to include discrete tribes with different languages and ethnicities.

    Though each realm survived more or less within the empires, the empires themselves were short lived.

    Greeks did not offer easier citizenships to other in their colonies, so they could not expand. However, Persian expanded in a larger area because they were tolerant of local realms provided one pays tribute to the emperors.
    Macedonia took up the Greek culture and Persian governance to maintain many successor kingdoms, but still people held close allegiances to their realms.
    But a Syrian did not find a common cause with a Bactrian, yet.
    The scalability was still at realm level.

    3. Rome by offering easier integration and citizenship to their colonised subjects added a new dimension to bond people under a common cause of being Roman citizen, especially for the elites.
    Enter “Abrahamic religions”, especially the 2.0 version called Christianity.
    The areas in which Christianity spread rapidly had lot of poor people. Their poverty was linked to the later stages of Roman empire where corruption was rampant, taxes were heavy and life was difficult.
    The image of martyr who was poor and killed by Romans was powerful enough to galvanise the poor subjects of Rome.
    A poor egyptian christian finds a common cause with poor Moroccan Christian against the poor-oppressing Christ-killer Romans.
    The scalability at this level is more religiously ideological.
    At this level you do not tolerate those who differ from you ideologically, but you tolerate people of different realms.

    4. The aftermath of 30 years war, which was really a slaughter fest celebration by the Europeans across the religious lines of catholics and protestants, ushered an era of tolerable secularism.
    Post renaissance, the British stepped in where they scaled cutting the across the religious , linguistic, ethnic lines of its subjects with just one cause to rally around of “God save the queen and we eat bullet for the emperor”
    This was taken forward by US and then the MNCs where does not matter who you are or who you know the entire organism can function provided you agree to the basic tenets of the country/organism.
    The scalability at this level too is ideological but can be defined something as the common minimum cause.
    Once you agree to a common minimum set of things you can be as different as you like. the country/empire/ organisation can keep functioning near to max(efficiency)

    The size, efficiency and durability of human empires/organizations grew on the basis of climbing up in the scalability ladder . i.e. being able to rally as many individuals as possible around a common minimum cause.

    5.
    The islamic world is still backward because they have not been successful in adoption the Scalability of tolerance under common minimum cause.
    They still want to literally abide by their book which was written for the Scalability at the level of hardcore religious ideologic.
    The book is everything to them and that means they choose not to evolve beyond it and remain stuck.
    Any body even attempting to evolve is ruthlessly weeded out.

    6. “Don’t dare come back and tell me socialism is emergent. It’s not, it’s a virus in the memeplex that should have died long ago if it was measured by improving the human condition.”
    If a mutated variant of socialism rallies people better than the current form of crony-capitalism then it will take foothold.

    If a variation of socialism with bottom up emergence or a mix and match capitalism and socialism can ensure that the producers are able to keep maximum fruits of their labor and weeds out the parasites then why not? Dunno if it is possible though considering the current crop of incompetent and intolerant socialists.

  64. Oh, NOW I know why the crazy feminists love Karl Marx ! , he was the alpha fuck and poor Adam Smith was the beta provider.

  65. You know, I have no interest in capitalism vs socialism. It is a cycle, when the economy is booming, people vote for a right wing gang. When the economy goes down hill, people vote for left wing.
    That cycle remind me in the menstrual cycle, it is best to understand it (like Hypergamy) instead of trying to argue about it.
    Is capitalist the right system?
    Is socialism the right system?
    Is Alpha fuck the right strategy?
    Is beta fuck the right strategy?

  66. @ skribblerg Status jockeying is engaging in a contest to establish that you are cooler than someone.

    Or what sjfrellc said, that’s another way to put it, but same thing.

    I do not get the impression from Divided Line (or Shiva) that they care whether or not the ideas they put forth are new/original/cool/different/leftist/libertarian/rightist/supported by cool people/etc, but only whether or not they were true (i.e. better at predicting outcomes than competing ideas).

    Those are appeals to authority, hierarchy, and status, not truth. And some here have posited that an affinity for hierarchy and delineated relative rank is a masculine trait in itself, which I would say is true on average. However, there is a certain generally detached scientist/engineer personality type, usually INTP, that has zero interest in such things, only in the testable veracity of the ideas themselves. And INTPS are more often males (about 3:1).

  67. “And some here have posited that an affinity for hierarchy and delineated relative rank is a masculine trait in itself . . .”

    As is independence.

  68. @kryptokate

    I believe the context of ‘Hierarchy’ that is being used is as to the relative influence that certain ideas or philosophical underpinnings are shapers of history . . .

    . . . . . as appose to random arbitrary events and circumstance being shapers history. . . . with no underling hand at play. . .

    . . . . Another words, principle, ideas, or philosophical beliefs have NO ACTUAL effect. . . . .

    . . . . . . . i.e. Relative freedom and mobility in the United States as the CHEIF instrument of empowerment and wealth creation by and for the individual/s. . . . . . . . . .

    VERSES/OR . . . .

    Marxism having NO influence on the eventual condition of totalitarianism, collectivism and Stalinism of the Soviet Union. . . . . . . . (Divided Lines argument).

    The former employs corollary. . . . the latter does not. . . . . . .

    It is indicative of post-modern epistemology. . .

  69. @ 70sAntiHero

    I’ve been trying to interpret your comments because I think you have some interesting insights, but I have to be honest, the stream-of-consciousness lack of grammatical structure makes it hard for me to understand what you’re trying to convey.

    This thread is really broad-ranging, but I believe there is a basic argument about whether ideas/ideology matter or whether history is mainly explicable through an understanding of material circumstances. I think Shiva’s points about ideology and religion are extremely well made. And religious fervor (whether officially religious or quasi-religious as in North Korea) is about the only thing that I’d say regularly overcomes mere material circumstances. That said and leaving religion as a tool out of it for a moment, I think Divided Line’s points about material circumstances are also extremely well made and certainly much closer to the truth than smokescreen arguments about “socialism” versus “capitalism”.

    Admittedly, the reason I think they’re true is not necessarily based on sociological data but because that is my experience of my own life. As my material circumstances and relative security/insecurity have shifted from totally dependent as a child to partially dependent in my early 20s to entirely secure and independent in my 30s, I’ve found that it has had a profound impact on everything else in my life, such as my emotions towards others, desires, interests, political opinions, etc. Which I would not have thought would be true until I experienced it myself.

    Concrete example: in my teens when I was economically dependent on my parents, I was interested in them solely for sex. In my 20s when I was establishing myself and economically insecure, suddenly I found myself magically valuing a serious, long-term monogamous relationship and “getting serious” and wanting to “be mature.” And now that I earn a high income and have assets and no longer need economic assistance from anyone, I once again only care about sex where men are concerned, and have no desire for anything beyond that. Then again, I’m not marred by any religious ideologies so it’s easy for me to be clear with myself about what my interests are, without illusions or sentiment.

  70. It may have been mentioned already, and I know it’s back kinda far in the comments, but has anybody mentioned the risk of a sex assault or law suit Forge The Sky was taking with that girl and the back rubs? Once you finally say that’s it with the free back rubs, especially since it’s being done in his office. That’s a prime opportunity for big ego manipulators like that to get one final upper hand shot at you.

    1. @Badpainter

      “Every society/civilization regardless of the details of its political or economic structure has its Alphas, and its also rans. That never changes. Alpha Fux is a constant of humanity, like violence, and fart jokes.”

      This is very hard to admit but it’s patently observable. Mostly coming from beta to alpha.

      @Shiva H.P.

      “Alphas are mostly parasites”

      That’s also true which in part is what makes them the A holes the betas observe.

      “A system which allows the producers to keep most of the fruits of their labor will succeed and last longer than one which feeds the parasites.”

      Work and play have a great balance. I can produce more with a good balance of both.

      @Rollo

      Two things I’ve notice about how much the red pill has helped me. Being ok with hypergamy. And understanding the profound impact of the burden of performance. How that directly correlates to confidence and how my social life has existed for the better as opposed to the worst. I feel more decent and calm.
      @Water cannon boy
      Great point just waa talking about that at my school. It can turn bad super fast especially when women cause men I touching them inappropriately. More men than womb get thrown under the bus when the law comes to play. That is super relaxant because that can be used againts forge in a way that’s caused transference and legally it can be said to be used that he was always in a position of authority. Depending on the details of if he knew her outside the office but on technical grounds it’s all dangerous waters because men haven and will not be giving any slack. Most new by laws for massage in states come from events such as the one you just brought up.

      1. Talking about the burden of performance: intellectually I understand what is meant by the burden of performance, but I’m having a hard time putting that into practice, and not just being ambivalent.

        For background: I landed my dream job 4 years ago. The downside is I have to work some strange hours, but I make more money than I ever dreamed I would for having little education. The job also is not incredibly challenging; I actually have some free time on the job.

        Since getting this job my drive to succeed and better myself has waned quite a bit, and it’s only been since discovering the red pill that I realized what was going on. Before, my thinking went along the lines of, “I’m making more money than I ever did before; why does my wife like me less now than ever before?”

        Now I understand what is going on; that money has nothing to do with the kind of attraction I want. However, I find myself having to find a new source of motivation; it used to be survival and motivation to get a good job; now that I have it I don’t completely know what to do. It’s almost embarrassing.

  71. @scribblerg

    “So well put regarding our founders and what they knew and intended. This response from Dividedline is standard leftist agit prop, and he doesn’t even realize he’s re-hashing ideas that were known long ago.”

    I’m fully aware of the fact that I’m re-hashing ideas that are 2500 years old. They’re good ideas. What we’re talking about isn’t a set of truths that we learn by rote. We’re talking about the lens through which you come to conclusions, the building blocks of analysis. You seem to get annoyed that anyone would try to connect the structural features of reasoning to the product of reasoning. But really, can you see why it would be annoying that anyone believed you could reason about the world without connecting the two? The value of the “meta” here isn’t that we appear a certain way to others, it’s that it leads towards what is true.

    Because we’re also talking about how we reason, rather than just whatever conclusion reason leads us to, it’s doubly irrelevant if we’re rehashing old ideas, since a method of inquiry can always be brought to bear on a new subject. The scalability of a method is the mark of its value.

    The value of a theory is the degree to which it can explain what can be observed, not its originality. Ideas aren’t songs or works of fiction. Why would we care about the originality of the idea unless our intent was to prove what an erudite intellectual badass we are? The intent is just to figure out what’s true. We don’t invent truth, we discover it. And the only reason to bother to try and do any of this is because it’s interesting. If you don’t find it interesting, then why bother?

    You’re so concerned with how an idea makes somebody look or what supposedly motivated somebody to adopt this idea or another. Who cares about any of that? I just don’t see why any of that is relevant.

    “The nature of our perceptions and the fallibility of reason etc.”

    It’s just philosophy. What was Kant writing about in the 18th century? The nature of our perceptions and the fallibility of reason. His best known work is titled “The Critique of Pure Reason.” It’s pretty straight forward. How about Hume? One of his best known works is titled “An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding,” and he spends the whole thing blathering on and on about “ideas” and “impressions.” It’s the same topic.

    In fact, this is all anybody has been writing about for thousands of years. We reason about reason itself before turning reason on some other subject because understanding what reason is helps us to evaluate the reliability of the conclusions it may yield. Again, the issue is always the appearance of truth and its relative distance from truth itself. Leibniz and Descartes asked those questions and gave us calculus, among other things, in attempting to answer them. Were they leftist obscurantists as well?

    You’re not complaining about marxist post structuralist reductionist left wing hipster SJW feminist obscurantism, you’re just complaining about philosophy. You know, “philo” means love, “sophia” means wisdom. You either have love for thinking about this kind of shit, or you don’t.

    “Fyi, just as an aside, if one considers religion as our first attempt at philosophy and a way of understanding men and the world,

    I would.

    “one can see that Judaism, Christianity and Buddhism contain strong views on the limits of man’s mechinations. We are to be considered deluded and “fallen” and flawed, hopelessly aiming at perfection and always falling short, acting out baser impulses that we seek to hide behind rationalizations or good intentions. The post modernist view is not as revelatory as its adherents want it to be.”

    Which adherents? And ideas don’t need to be revelatory, they need only explain what can be observed. Particularly good ones will lead to yet new observations and questions. Again, it’s really not that esoteric or “meta.” I’m simply not understanding why I should care if an idea is revelatory or not. I’m not entirely convinced that anyone else really cares about this either. All of this seems to be based on your perception of why somebody makes an argument rather than the relative merit of the argument itself.

    And if I had an ism, it would be Platonism, obviously, which is older than christianity at any rate. Clearly my intent here isn’t to be “revelatory.” At least I don’t think it is. I’m not even sure what you mean by revelatory anymore.

    “I won’t break out post structuralism as a separate idea, accept to say that this is where the underlying metaphysics of today’s gender politics emanate.”

    If you really spend any time with feminist thinkers, you quickly discover that their ideas don’t emanate from any metaphysics. They originate with women’s inability to understand the male experience, not Deleuze. I think you’re giving feminists entirely too much credit.

    “Again, it’s another set of ideas that is simply not worth the time spent learning them.”

    Even bad ideas are worth spending time with if they lead to critique. Often critiquing ideas is how we can discover and clarify our own views. If it feels like work, don’t do it unless somebody is going to cut you a check. That’s a pretty good rule of thumb for life generally.

    “When you “get” post structuralism you’ll be like “What, this is it? I read all this crap by Fouccault to get this (nowhere near the best post structuralist)?”

    Foucault is a pretty shitty theorist.

    “I’m always struck the brutal reductionism of leftist thought but post structuralism simply takes it to a new and absurd level.”

    I’m not sure what you mean by “reductionism.” It seems as if a theory is too simple and lucid, it’s “reductionist,” if it isn’t simple enough, it’s post modern gibberish. How does one win here? Let’s just worry about if a theory has explanatory power or not. I like that better, personally.

    On the issue of falsification, as I’ve already pointed out, there is no theory in social science which is truly falsifiable in the way a theory of natural science might be. There’s no social science lab in which we can rig control groups and double blind experiments and so on.

    Again, the falsification criterion comes from Karl Popper and it was his attempt to attack the scientific pretension of Marxism specifically. I’ve already dealt with this in a previous message, I thought.

    The elenchus, or Socratic method, if you think about it, is falsification by logical deduction. Ask Socrates what he knows, and he says “I know nothing.” The point being that if we want to prove a hypothesis, we don’t attempt to prove it, but to disprove it (falsify it) and if it should hold up and remain logically consistent, then its worth accepting, at least so long as it can resist criticism.

    Popper’s understanding of falsification is highly problematic and ideological. It’s a huge topic, one which would earn me all kinds of scorn for obscurantism, being to “meta” and so on. But I’ll leave it at this: Can you falsify a pure idea? For instance, there are no perfect circles that exist in nature. Empirically verifiable circular objects or processes are only approximations of circles. Therefore the circle itself must be unfalsifiable, yeah? See how stupid this is?

    The circle is falsifiable by logical deduction, but somebody like Popper would dismiss this as unfalsifiable metaphysical mystical bullshit. Is geometry itself unfalsifiable? So, apparently the circular, the triangular, and so on are figments of our imagination and the fact that their approximations are the only means we have of recognizing the apparent order in the universe or thinking about it in any way whatsoever is neither here nor there.

    Extend the same concept to our reasoning about anything and you quickly realize how silly Popper’s falsification criterion is. An assertion must be falsifiable, but his definition of falsifiability is highly questionable. As I think I explained before, what it amounts to, in the end, is the idea that we can learn nothing from history or any social science. Apparently we should scrap economics, political science, anthropology, etc. What theory in social science could possibly satisfy Popper’s version of the falsification criterion? None. Marx’s historical idealism would be as unfalsifiable as any theory outside of natural science.

    “To actually take such an idea seriously in the first place is to announce that you are a fool, a sucker, a rube – or a child. And that’s the big trick now. They fill children’s heads with the political spawn of these ideas before they even know how to think critically. But I digress…”

    Who is “they?” Stop worrying about how you look. Nobody cares.

    “What post modernism does is take an interesting idea, a clever lens of analysis and turn it into an axiom. Dividedline seems trapped in it. Being so “meta” makes one ridiculous after a while because such general ideas are not falsifiable.”

    Is there any possible axiom which wouldn’t also be a lens of analysis? Certainly we would have to assume that an axiom is a component of any possible lens, right? Or no?

    Let’s get our hipster revelatory marxist obscurantism on and read Plato’s Meno. In it, Socrates demonstrates that we “learn by remembering,” or what he called “anamnesis.” He invites a slave boy to reason his way through an elementary geometry problem purely through deduction and asks how it is possible that the boy could do it with no education unless he already has an understanding of the axiomatic basis of geometry. He “remembers” what he already knew when deduction yields an answer which “makes sense.”

    Consider what your mathematics education was like, or how mathematics feels as if it’s discovered rather than invented. What does it mean that it “makes sense?” We’re talking about the structural features of reason. If they were invented, they could be anything, and yet deduction doesn’t lead to conclusions we choose. We can’t actually invent or choose the dictates of logic, we can only refuse to accept them or fail to recognize them. Convince yourself that a one sided coin “makes sense” or that 2+2=5. Good luck.

    Since the object of reason is also the product of reason (and it is by your own admission, since we can only strive to be “less wrong,” remember?), then we have appearances of truth, as distinct from truth itself. We never have the whole truth, or if we do, we can never be certain of it. If we were certain, it would be dogma or religious faith, an assertion that we have decided is true no matter what, so it would violate your own falsification criterion, wouldn’t it?

    “And since reason itself is assassinated by such a worldview, the entire exercise of debating with Marxists and postmodernists is futile.”

    We don’t assassinate reason by subjecting reason to reason. We clarify it so as to be able to employ it. It’s as simple as that. And this is what we’ve always done, and we do it by necessity. Did Descartes assassinate reason?

    “I mean, if post structuralism reveals a power based superstructure of belief, than the only “truth” in this world IS “power.” Which is how Marxists roll and why it always leads to killing and imprisoning lots of people.”

    Marxists typically had beards too. Maybe beards leads to killing and imprisoning lots of people? I mean, this seems like a non sequitur, or the pot calling the kettle black. All power structures are first and foremost concerned with power, either as a means or an end. They have to be or else they don’t exist. What’s more likely the case is that revolutionary states that are under threat from militarily superior rivals are concerned with power. But then again, so are their militarily superior rivals. See the pattern? Power structures are concerned with power because they have to be. They exist as a response to the possibility of powerlessness.

    Haven’t we already established that superstructures of belief are appearance and representation of reality as distinct from reality itself? Maybe I just don’t understand what you’re saying here.

    “Sure, looking at the “superstructure of belief” is interesting, but it’s not “the” driver any more than materialist analysis is “the” answer to understanding history.”

    I’m not sure I understand your argument. As for Marx, he doesn’t think the superstructure is the cause of anything, he believes it’s the effect. That’s the whole point of historical materialism. Superstructures of belief, as I already explained, are how we explain our experience of our material condition to ourselves. It’s the set of ethics or normative values that we adopt *as a consequence* of those experiences.

    The blue pill was a superstructure of belief regarding gender. Think about what that experience was like. That’s what Marx was talking about. If you hadn’t gotten screwed over by your wife and your marriage ticked along as expected, you would have gone on believing all that shit without questioning it. You inherited a set of beliefs that weren’t even your own. They were unquestioned, unexamined assumptions about the world you inhabit. You followed the rule book, played the provider, and all the rest of it based on those unexamined beliefs. It’s the same for everything else, for capitalism, nationalism, all of it.

    Think about what our social reality is like. It’s a set of institutions, meaning mediated relations with others. Marriage mediates, or brokers, relations between men and women. It does the thinking for them, so that they never have to understand it. Traditional marriage confers a role, expectations, and obligations on to each gender and explains each gender to the other. That’s how the whole social fabric is woven. We participate in it, experience it directly, but without ever truly understanding it. Now that western civilization is going to shit, here we are trying to figure out what the truth is and why and how we could have believed these things about women which were so far removed from what is true about women. See? It’s just not as meta or obscurantist as you seem to want it to be.

    And it is important to understanding history because history is only made by people who adopt belief based on experience and never have full understanding. In other words, history is the study of the relationship of those who know more to those who know less. That was certainly Plato’s take on it and Marx probably would have agreed had somebody put it to him that way. If we were to write a history of gender with this view in mind, we would not only be writing about what is true regarding women, but about what men believed about them, which is not the truth, but an ideological blue pill veil which they confused with the truth because it seemed to explain their experiences. What else would explain the given history? I really feel like this shit isn’t that complicated. And I think its importance should be self evident.

    “You can’t invalidate arguments about history and consequences and real world politics with such abstractions.”

    This is another argument I don’t understand. All arguments are abstractions. And these particular abstractions are arguments like any other.

    Ok, can I invalidate the blue pill belief system with such abstractions? How about patriarchy theory, is that not a blue pill conception of history? Let’s say its 1000 years from now and we’re scholars trying to understand gender in the early 21st century. You’re telling me that we wouldn’t find good reason to explain why it is that blue pill men believed what they believed? Or that we wouldn’t find this to be historically relevant?

    “In fact, such abstractions seek to re-impose a meta view of the world that is absolute, reductionist and intractable as a tool to accomplish anything real. That’s my test of a POV – not how deontological the reasoning behind a “philosophy” is.”

    Is no aspect of the world not absolute? How about the laws of physics. They are universal and thus “meta,” are they not absolute?

    Didn’t you explain to me that we don’t invent gravity with our minds some posts back? If the world is absolute, then why would a view, “meta” or otherwise, that purports to explain that world not also be absolute if it accurately described that world?

    But of course, you’re contradicting yourself. First you seem to argue that “post modernism” somehow asserts that we can wily nily invent truth (by questioning the nature of truth, I guess), but now the post modernists are guilty of absolutism? And as I’ve already explained, philosophy has always questioned the nature of truth, so apparently philosophy has been post modern for thousands of years. Questioning the nature of truth is probably a good idea if we care about what is actually true, no?

    “This mistake of treating philosophy as axiom is as common as peas on the left. One can easily see it in Social Justice as the underlying theories are much less obscurantist and ornate (Marxism is incredibly complex mental masturbation ultimately).”

    I trust I’ve already sufficiently addressed this. Again, what you seem to be calling “philosophy as axiom” is just philosophy. There is no other kind.

    “One can look at say “the difference principle”, the “veil of ignorance” or Rawls’ lexical hierarchy of justice and easily apply them to the world. I think the reason so many SJWs are women is because social justice theory is much easier to understand and internalize than Marxism. I call it “Pop Ideology”, lol. Social Justice Theory is the sitcom or police procedural of political philosophy. Neatly packaged, easy to identify with, very accessible and inherently self-righteous. It’s the marketingization of political philosophy, not political philosophy myself.”

    I don’t know, I personally think Rawls is full of shit, but my hunch is that most SJWs, if they bothered to read him, probably think he is too. But I don’t think he’s full of shit because his ideas are easy to apply to the world. That’s irrelevant. “A theory should be as simple as possible, but not more simple” etc.

    “And for those of you who take this stuff seriously and have read Rawls all I have to say to in response is this. How many of you have actually read Nozick’s brilliant response to Rawls in Anarchy, State and Utopia? If not, you should before dismissing me. Nozick’s analysis is much more broad than just a takedown of Rawls but it does so as a consequence of his ideas and analyses. Fyi, Nozick and Rawls corresponded with each other and reviewed each other’s work, sometimes before publication. Rawls himself was the most surprised at the success of social justice theory, lol.
    Many Marxists actually kind of turn up their noses at Rawls due to the clumsy simplicity of social justice theory.”

    They turned their noses up at Rawls because he’s fumbling around with questions that have already been answered elsewhere. Not only that, his answers are unconvincing, in part because his thought experiment begins with absurd premises. It’s almost as if he tried to come up with answers that specifically would lead away from obvious criticisms of capitalism. Also, Marxists aren’t typically as interested in ethical philosophies of that kind because they tend to think that our ideas about ethics are often rationalizations for given power structures. Rawls, more than most, lends credence to that idea.

    “For sure, it is nowhere near as elegant or as all seeing as Marxism, which is nothing less than an all-knowing sociology of humanity. It might as well be called “The Theory of Everything” – which is why it tells one very little that is actually true about man and our world. Like I said, I chased my tail around this endless regress of useless thought for far too long myself.
    One of the techniques the left will always use is the pretense of reason and science to support their beliefs.”

    Well, who other than religious people claim that their ideas are not in accordance with reason?

    “Hayek referred to this as a “fatal conceit” and we see it writ large in every area the social justice warrior and Marxist endeavor today.”

    He referred to social science’s claims to scientific rationality as the fatal conceit? Did he suggest that his own theories weren’t in accordance with principles of reason? Or just scientific reason?

    “Claims of certainty and science are the warrior cry of today’s leftist activist – men like us who reject gender studies and feminism as they are taught today?”

    This is the warrior cry of anybody involved in identity politics, right or left. There is a left outside of identity politics, just as surely as there is a right outside of social and religious conservativism.

    “We are not just wrong, we are bigots and haters. Soon we’ll be called “deniers” too. And all of this inherits from the gauzy abstractions”

    Well, I’m certainly not going to argue with you about the lynch mob persecution politics of social justice idiots, but, as I’ve just suggested, this is due to what they have in common with religious consevative right wing ways of thinking about the world, not what they have in common with the left.

    “DividedLine presents here. Funny how those who reject reason simultaneously claim it so strongly?”

    This seems to be an accusation that I’m an SJW or something. Amusing.

    “It seems that chaos and nihilism should result from such a conflicted and flawed worldview – wait, take a good look around…”

    No, in fact, I’d argue that the Platonist view is a kind of rational or materialist theology, or a religion of natural science. We’re the only ones who get to have our cake and eat it too, since we can, by logical deduction, argue that forms, like the form of the Good, are transcendent and eternal, meaning non-relative, but we can do this without having to reject reason and accept the existence of the supernatural. It’s good to be a Platonist.

    “You’ll also note that I don’t bother to demonize communism – if you can’t figure out that communism is soaked in blood and massacre you are a fucking moron and are unconvincable.”

    The same can be said of capitalism. I’ve already dealt with this in another post. I can go into a lot more detail if you like.

    “Chomsky demonstrated this brilliantly with his support of Pol Pot and the denial of his genocide for years after the facts were plain.”

    Try reading the book. Chomsky was clearly arguing that it was absurd for the Western media to get puking sick over Pol Pot while ignoring Suharto in Indonesia. There was no denial of the atrocities in Cambodia. How could there be if his argument is that Indonesia was at least as bad. It’s just quote taken out of context that ended up in a silly David Horowitz book. This accusation persists because people, like yourself actually, never bothered to read the context of the quote.

    “And yes I’ve been bukkakeed with Chomkyesque accounts of the death toll of capitalism – don’t bother.”

    Clearly you weren’t bukkaked enough, because if you had been, you would have known that Chomsky never defended Pol Pot or denied the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge, it would have invalidated his whole argument if he had.

    “Those analyses are agit prop, not reason or evidence of anything.
    I love the smell of dismissed Marxists in the morning, it smells like”

    …. smells like bullshit to me, and that’s being as generous as I can be. Speaking of agit prop!

  72. @Atticus

    “How do you account for the success of Taiwan?”

    Well, look at the difference between how the Nazis treated Poland vs how they treated France. You’ll see this pattern with most of the European imperial powers in the 19th century. In colonized or proxy states, there’s a hierarchy. Usually the ones that are militarily stronger or important for some strategic reason get treated better than the ones that produce raw materials and cheap labor.

    Consider the difference between the U.S.’s treatment of Japan and its treatment of any country in Central America. It pulled the strings in both, but clearly U.S. policy makers concerns were different in Japan, especially after China’s communist revolution. Guatemala, on the other hand, became, in the words of one historian or another, a “counter insurgency laboratory.”

    In an imperialist system, shit rolls down hill. The wealth is extracted by brutality at the bottom usually, and the spoils are divvied up. All any industrialized economies does is turn raw materials into value added finished goods, so the spoils got divvied up among industrialized powers that were under the pax.

    It’s actually pretty similar to the way the Athenian empire worked as well. There were junior members, usually potential military rivals, and these made up the Delean League, but they all got the spoils from the militarily weakest poleis if there was wealth of any kind to extract from them. It’s ugly, but that’s the way of the world. The Melian Dialogue is Thucydides is a pretty interesting window into how the Athenians thought about colonized neighbors in their imperium. They thought about them much the same way the U.S. thought about militarily weak countries during the Cold War.

  73. Shiva H. P.
    June 19th, 2015 at 2:36 pm

    All economic paradigms are BS.
    The only thing that finally matters is who are the producers and who are parasites.

    Incorrect. Incentives matter.

  74. One of my favorite quote (sorry),

    You don’t reason with intellectuals. You shoot them.
    Napoléon Bonaparte .

    Intellectuals confuse me, bear with me here,
    “All men are created equal ” in response to his majesty the king of England and his aristocratic capitalists? The founding fathers seems to me as being “socialists”!
    Now isn’t that a socialist logo? All men are created equal?
    Revolutions are plotted by the rich or the poor? The poor of course.
    Did revolutionary Moses rebelled against the poor?
    Did revolutionary Jesus rebelled against the poor?
    Did revolutionary Mo rebelled for the rights of Camels?

  75. Shiva H. P.
    June 19th, 2015 at 2:36 pm

    6. “Don’t dare come back and tell me socialism is emergent. It’s not, it’s a virus in the memeplex that should have died long ago if it was measured by improving the human condition.”
    If a mutated variant of socialism rallies people better than the current form of crony-capitalism then it will take foothold.

    They frequently take hold. And then are replaced or die out. The incentives are wrong.

  76. Mr T
    June 19th, 2015 at 11:52 pm

    A common confusion. You conflate “equal before the State” with equalism.

    The State (ideally) is not supposed to advantage one individual over another.

    Equal results no matter the effort or intelligence applied is equalism.

    The incentives are wrong (for equalism).

  77. M Simon,
    “What you describe is not “free market capitalism”. It is oligarchy with voting.”

    Can average Joe or his rich boss who are working in the “free market capitalism ” afford the millions they need to run for an office without the oligarchy?.

  78. Divided Line
    June 19th, 2015 at 10:32 pm

    TL;DR – that given –> a Question. “Do incentives matter”? Will a man farm more avidly if he gets to keep the profits? Or will his efforts be desultory (“The State pretends to pay us and we pretend to work”) if he cannot profit from extra effort.

    No purely socialist state has found enough stakhanovites to make it work.

    Once you let profit in socialism has a rough go. It can work for a time among the genetically related. But even there it eventually falls. Because the incentives are wrong.

    Or as Thatcher used to say, “Eventually, you run out of other people’s money.”

  79. Mr T
    June 20th, 2015 at 12:08 am

    Yes. And very occasionally they win.

    But it doesn’t matter. I don’t want to govern. I want to change minds. The “correct” government will follow.

  80. Waiiiiiit a minute,
    All men are created equal.

    Feminists ! where are you?
    Aren’t you gonna do something about the all “men”? Those misogynistic founders!.

  81. @krypt

    “I think Divided Line’s points about material circumstances are also extremely well made and certainly much closer to the truth than smokescreen arguments about “socialism” versus “capitalism”.”

    This is from Divided Line :

    “The circle is falsifiable by logical deduction, but somebody like Popper would dismiss this as unfalsifiable metaphysical mystical bullshit. Is geometry itself unfalsifiable? So, apparently the circular, the triangular, and so on are figments of our imagination and the fact that their approximations are the only means we have of recognizing the apparent order in the universe or thinking about it in any way whatsoever is neither here nor there.”

    I red the paragraph before and the one after it and I still don’t understand what this means.

    IMO. Coils of obfuscation. My best guess, triangles, circle and or geometry are an unknowable concept. Another words definitions are subjective, allusive, contextual, non sensory, extra sensory? Not derivatives of reality.

    Admittedly, I find the amount of subjective use of definitions or a system of filters in his consciousness and the massive amount of cross referencing as to his interpretations of say Popper’s and Marx’s ideas impossible and undermine the very idea of MEANING itself. Kant’s, Beyond pure reason? Truth? Really?

    It is an imposition of his design and his design only. Subjective. I find it interesting that you can relate.

    Your statement about my comments ; “but I have to be honest, the stream-of-consciousness lack of grammatical structure makes it hard for me to understand what you’re trying to convey.”

    Now that’s something you can put your finger on.

    Your other statement : ” Concrete example: in my teens when I was economically dependent on my parents, I was interested in them solely for sex.” – You mean men for sex. Right?

    As far as the ‘smokescreens’ of Capitalism vs. Socialism. Two systems that produce different results. Discernible and verifiable. Perhaps you can take is up with Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises and Milton Friedman.

  82. Divided Line
    June 19th, 2015 at 11:07 pm

    Clever boy. But you failed to explain Taiwan. But you are most fortunate. I can.

    In the American “Empire” extraction of resources is not the end of the game. For those who wish to rise in the system by learning production – that is encouraged. Egalitarianism means that your place in the “Empire” is not fixed. And that incentive (you can rise by applying yourself) greatly induces wealth creation. And wealth creation is different from wealth extraction.

    Another thing different from other Empires is that unruly provinces can opt out. And should they decide to become part of the production system – China is a very nice example – they can rejoin the Empire.

    The only requisite (generally) for membership is the desire to either extract or produce. And the more wide spread the production the greater the wealth. In addition taxes to “Rome” are not required unless the interest in what they can buy (military protection) is evidenced.

    The American “Empire” operates on different principles than any previous empire.

    And generally we like spreading our ideals. Individualism being the chief among them. Equality before the law is another. Well practiced? Of course not. Humans are involved. None the less the ideals turn out to be both a good organizing principle and an excellent incentive. “YOU can rise” does wonders for production.

    And another little tool that works well. Price is determined by supply and demand. Limiting supply to advantage some over others is generally frowned upon. Again – imperfectly practiced.

    Your error in thinking DL is colored by you identification of the American Empire with the Roman Empire. It is in fact quite different because the organizing principles are different. Do we some times fall in line with Roman ways? Unfortunately yes. But that is in fact a minor aberration. The main themes are quite different. And the biggest difference is the ability to opt out. Not ALWAYS honored. But mostly.

    And of course culture. English is the lingua franca of the world these days. As is American culture. Jazz brought down the Russian Empire. You do not have to follow the score. You can improvise.

  83. Re: Hayak and the “fatal conceit”

    What Hayak refers to is the idea that any social/economic theory can be applied as a practical blueprint or course of action. He is saying that when such ideas leave the academy and convert from the descriptive to the proscriptive they are doomed to fail. This is because theory always rests in system of static descriptive models where the predictive element relies on the premise of “all else held equal” a clever device for analysis but impossible to apply in the real world where the dynamic nature of the seemingly infinite discreet decisions of individual people mean that nothing is “held equal,” and the volume of real data exceed the ability of policy makers to apply the theory in any meaningful way. Hence theory as policy becomes a matter of adherence to ideological truth that is never manifest in nature.

    The entire economic project surrounding chaos theory was an attempt to get past that hurdle, and the result was failure. Reality is far to complex to for economic/social theory to be applied proactively. It’s only utility is in retrospective analysis, and in generating conversation at blogs and certain drinking establishments.

  84. These days an Empire of interest holds together better than an Empire of conquest. It also has the advantage of keeping the various interests roughly aligned.

  85. M. Simon – “So what organizing principle should we prefer: price signals and individual adaptation.”

    That is the desired set of results. The organizing principle is a minimalist legal system which defers to civil courts, exalts rule of law above whim, demands justice before mercy and is predictable and easily comprehended by the average man.

    That minimalist legal system represents the knowable risk of when the state may resort to lethal violence against the citizens and under what circumstances. This leaves the apparatus of state violence the space necessary to concentrate on defending the geographic integrity of the state.

    Where it goes wrong is in assuming the state has specific economic interests which are privileged to call on the state to provide violence beyond the necessity of territorial defense. Where various interests are privileged to receive multiple scoops from the public trough without showing a tangible benefit to the citizens. And where these interests are not subject to rule of law.

  86. @M Simon
    “Shiva H. P.
    June 19th, 2015 at 2:36 pm
    All economic paradigms are BS.
    The only thing that finally matters is who are the producers and who are parasites.
    Incorrect. Incentives matter.”

    Don’t disagree with you at all.

    I just framed my sentences a bit more discrete.
    Read the following in conjunction,
    “All economic paradigms are BS.
    The only thing that finally matters is who are the producers and who are parasites.
    A system which allows the producers to keep most of the fruits of their labor will succeed and last longer than one which feeds the parasites.”

    The system which incentivizes by allowing the producer to keep maximum labor of their fruits will build a society with more producers and more production.

    Thats what increasing standard of living is all about. More production for more consumption.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: