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. Badpainter
    June 20th, 2015 at 1:30 am

    What you describe are deviations. And they are indeed pernicious. What is needed is a cleaning of the system. We will get that when people come to the conclusion that “there ought to be a law” is in fact debilitating. When taxation is seen as theft (it may be needed to fund government the % and the amounts should be small). And probably a few other things.

  2. Shiva H. P.
    June 20th, 2015 at 1:30 am

    As soon as you let incentives in you are prescribing a system. So it is in fact NOT “all BS”.

  3. M. Simon – “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.”

    America is Rome. Rome was/is as much an idea as a place. That idea manifests in different places, different times, and different costumes throughout history. First in Rome, then briefly in Paris, London and finally (currently) New York. In fact Jefferson’s model for America was Republican Rome. Which is why we have a senate. The House of Representatives is our version of the Tribunes of Plebes. Washington DC in its architecture is a copy of the Roman, the error Jefferson makes is to copy the best Imperial Roman architecture rather than Republican.

    The details of the organizing principle vary over time but the root premises are the same. Rome gave the world a defined vision of what civilization is, an intentional fusion of engineering and law in service to a physical scheme of daily life that ideally allows everyone to eat, and thus thrive individually. The collective aspect of which is that all men are subject to being called to sacrifice for a common good which directly benefits them and their families. Collective defense, and a collective agreement to limit at the absolute upper bounds of material success in favor of stability.

    DL’s mistake is to take Rome’s military prowess for its purpose, as do critiques of post war America. Rome’s exercise of military hegemony was a defensive reaction to the reality of the world beyond its borders. The goal wasn’t politcal hegemony but the stability necessary to conduct business. Trade was the goal, empire was the tool that best facilitated trade. Likewise the post war Pax Americana was a reaction to the reality that letting the Europeans run world tended to result in large bloody global wars, it was bad for trade. The USSR being victim to these wars reached a similar conclusion: never again let the British, French, and Germans handle the global levers of power without adult supervision.

  4. @Shiva – But of course the state arises as way of controlling multiple tribes. The rule of law emerges because governance at soe level require it to be accepted by the people as legitimate or it would be overthrown. Re: Rome’s troubles in Alexandria come to mind.

    The Magna Carta arises due to the unamanageability of whimsical, royal rule. It arose because it facilitated a better working state. Emergent properties eventually overwhelmed even the Divine Right of Kings, as it was seen as a real limitation to workable governance. Over time, what works gets amplified and what doesn’t gets abandoned.

    There is no ‘mix and match’ between socialism and capitalism, this is yet another gauzy trope perpetuated by soft leftists. Socialism doesn’t work. Look at social security and medicare and medicaid going broke in the U.S. and the insuffiiciency of the benefits? Look at welfare – over 1 trillion spent in the U.S. last year on welfare programs and poverty doesn’t budge. After 50 years of the “War on Poverty” that gibbering asswipe LBJ unleashed on us, and 20 trillion dollars spent, poverty hasn’t budged. It was at 14% in 1964 and it was at 14% in 2014.

    Capitalism is merely the private ownserhip of property. You give it far too much meaning. The rest of our political philosophy in the U.S. in the beginning was gained from classical liberal values. The ideas of no rulers, the rule of law, the popular election of governmental officers (never meant to be an alternate to a King), limited government, individual sovereignty, this is what informed our countries ideology.

    Real freedom. I think DividedLine quoted de Tocqueville”s Democracy in America to me at one point. I wonder if he actually ever read it? What you see is how humans steeped in individualism and sovereignty cooperate with each other civilly and economically in the absence of a powerful state. Contrary to what most people think, the Brits barely governed the Americas for most of its rule here. Governors were paid by local business people and were more beholden to those living here than England.

    English laws and demands and the rule of their governors were ignored often, as limited as they were. So the entire ethos of the U.S. inherits from that wildly free mentality. It only continues apace in the 19th century when de Tocqueville is writing. He marvels at all the civic activity. There are fraternal orders of men for all kinds of reasons – ethnic, trade, afinity etc. Special commissions to address local problems abound, run by citizens, not “non-profits” funded by govt, run by professionals hoping to get a job in govt, lol.

    The U.S. founding is well ahead of these “balancing” arguments. We already decided that the federal govt would have incredibly limited powers. If you took the time to understand the legal wrangling and gamesmanship, and outright dishonesty required to allow for the federal govt to do things like social security or education in the fist place, you might appreciate that.

    The idea of a powerful state doling out goodies was nothing new to our founders. They saw beyond that horizon. You could easily say that the U.S. was a post authoritarian, totalitarian state in its conception. They anticipated the voracious appetite of dimwitted citizens always wanting to stuff more into their craven maws. They anticipated a craven political class preying on their ignorance.

    We’ve already asked and answered the questions about socialism and built a country around capitalism. The politicians have turned it into a disgusting cronyist, statist, interventionist mess is due to their ignoring and violating the constitution. Our constituton sought to prevent the very possibility of where socialists want to take us.

    The U.S. constitution was thrown in the dumpster 100+ years ago. We don’t live in a nation governed by those rules or ideals anymore. We instead live in a society that pretends socialism works, as it feeds off of liberty and capitalism as a parasite, killing the host.

    That’s okay, we are about to run out of other people’s money, as all socialist nations do. Look at Venezuela if you want to see the future of the U.S. on its current course. Hey, all they did was take socialism seriously, after all. Lol.

    Can’t believe I have to argue with socialists in 2015. Particularly Indian ones who should know up close and personal how socialism corrupts a society and strangles it. India is a case study in the failure of socialism.

    You folks get how crazy this is at a basic level, right? The entire construction of a “balance” between socialism and capitalism isn’t intellectually valid. It’s like a balance between fire and water – it makes no actual sense.

    But when dishing weak polemic it’s handy as hell…

  5. @Rugby – Livingtstone is interesting but to me he completely misses the benefit of group competition among human social groups. While it’s not “evolution” in the way that biological creatures evolve, it’s certainly competitive. What we find is that human’s social organizations and institutions are crucial to our success as species. And people’s preferences about ingrout/outgroup have great facility in keeping groups coherent and working effectively. There is so much more to this than just us killing each other, but that again is derivative of the reductionist Marxist view of everything in our society. It all gets reduced to power and class, and all intelligence flees the room.

    Without human social grouping, we would be nowhere. Even worse? These issues also are nothing new. Check out Thomas Jefferson’s and other U.S. founders ideas about “cosmopolitanism”, the idea of creating a civil space where people of different faiths/creeds etc come together in a free space where we all respect each others basic individual rights.

    Combined with free association, this allows for the benefits of group competition in productive ways for society without the violent conflict. It’s not an exaggeration to say that much of boy’s socialization is about learning to compete in these group social structures and how to be “good” losers and winners. “No crying in baseball” is for a reason. We are to learn how to handle the “game” and not be crushed by it. The many other aspects of male social structures – coaching, insults, fitness tests, the idea of development as in sports or the Boy scouts etc was part of it. And honor, integrity, fair play, empathy for the guy who lost – this all about civilizing men to cooperate socially without resorting to violence. Voluntary entry and exit to and from such social groups is key to them delivering value and being unable to oppress members (if you can exit, you aren’t being oppressed).

    Yet we are having infantile discussions lead by supposedly great thinkers that seem to imply our human nature to form exclusive social groups is bad or evil or must be changes. It’s so fucked in the head and such a strong symptom of how deep Marxist analysis of everything has seeped into the intellectual consciousness of our supposed elite.

  6. @Badpainter – In general, “top down interventions impede wealth creation” but there is an important caveat. Institutions need to exist in the complex system of our economy that bound it, such as contract law and courts (although I think private money can work, it needs to exist somehow). Also, in a nation state based world order, government is necessarily a player in international trade.

    It’s also true that some interventions regarding say the environment or other deadly externalities such as mandatory vaccination etc. are things we may choose to do. Even mandatory education etc. The argument really is about the limits of these interventions. But it would be nice if leftists admitted that all interventions have a cost.

  7. @70s – Epic 1:40 am takedown of the vaporous, soporific emissions of Divideline. I love when Novaseeker basically says, “Errr, uhm, didn’t Marx actually also lay out scientific socialism? How can you now just claim it’s a lens of social analysis?” This is what happens if you continue to tread through the Marxist muck. It just makes more and more grandiose claims for itself, and just ignores all it’s failures and contradictions and debunking.

    Marxism is best seen as a religion, not a political ideology. The payoff is indistinguishable – presumed righteousness and moral superiority, lol.

    1. @scribblerg
      “It’s not an exaggeration to say that much of boy’s socialization is about learning to compete in these group social structures and how to be “good” losers and winners.”
      Very true in observation
      Failing allows good lessons in learning.

      “The payoff is indistinguishable – presumed righteousness and moral superiority, lol. ”
      That’s the religion I grew up in for you. That blue pill beta mindset I am learning to get rid off. Still parts lingering in my brain.

  8. @Kryptokate – Ah, I get it – you have no idea what the fuck I’ve been talking about, got it. Thanks for sharing. No wonder the materialist stuff from DividedLine makes sense to you – you’ve never studied thes ideas. Consider that others may have done so already.

    Have a nice day.

  9. @scribblerg

    My point is simple, IDEAS matter and effect ‘history’ in a broad context. Or more specifically Marx influenced Stalin. . . .

    When you dismiss the notion out right from the start and then go and DROP CONTEXT by discussing the ‘finer points’ as some sort of basis that Marxism has no relevance to the individual plight of the illiterate peasant in the Soviet Union. . . . .This is what Divided does. No real take away. Just that I’m smart and I know better than you. . . . .Ad nauseum. . . .To me that’s a smoke screen.

    What’s next? . . . It’s like AFBB is not an irreducible of women’s sexually strategy, ‘mommy-dum’ is now part of the equation. Or the Feminine Imperative is just folly of bitter men cuz my PERSONAL experience says so.

    Speaks to Rollo’s point about neo-masculinity or as he likes to refer to it retro-masculinity.

    Yeah right! Vaporous and soporific. . . . lol

  10. scibblerg – “The argument really is about the limits of these interventions. But it would be nice if leftists admitted that all interventions have a cost.”

    The left thinks Government is good, and that intentions matter more than results. I tend to view all government based on this obsevation:

    “Government is morally wrong.” – P.J. O’Rourke

    Thus government is a necessary evil, to be carefully watched, and distrusted.

  11. @ScribblerG
    June 20th, 2015 at 10:45 am

    “@Kryptokate – Ah, I get it – you have no idea what the fuck I’ve been talking about, got it. Thanks for sharing.”

    Interesting, I see the same thing about Kryptokate. (No offence to her) but Kryptokate argues @June 18th, 2015 at 5:02 pm in a solipsistic way that she wants to appreciate what someone writes not who they are. She doesn’t understand that around the campfire of men, we are talking without our egos in order to learn and have a common cause of making our selves better and make the other men better (in the campfire-like comments) that are on this blog”.

    What I am seeing is that she wants to come in and piss on the campfire with a derogatory tone. That tone is clearly talking down to masculine men.

    “Skribbler clearly has a high IQ and is knowledgeable as well, but you gotta admit he submitted to status jockeying.
    @ 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.”

    No, its not the same thing that I am saying. Status jockeying to look cool is not the same thing as “testing the mettle” or giving shit to other guys or men shit testing women. The group of men is much more serious than that. We want the group to be stronger (in a common cause) because in The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies:
    For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.

    My interpretation is that ScribblerG is clearly leaving his ego out of his discussions rather than only talking with his ego. A clear as a man thinks logically different than a woman feels. I welcome her discussion if it relies on the content of her writing, not the emotions she feels about the commenter’s motivation. Once Kryptokate (or any other commenter) says anything remotely resembling something with empathy towards mens sexual strategy then I believe she would be slightly worth listening to, depending on the content of what is said. Let men be masculine men in this society. After all they built what comforts you now enjoy. Men should be celebrated by women, not pissed on.

  12. Divided line

    “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.”

    That is brilliant.
    How many woman leaves her wealthy/beta husband because “money is not everything”,her pu**y was telling her that for years but she was in the “blue”?

    It’s fascinating how good we are at sweeping things under the carpet when there is “incentive”

    Back then “All men are created equal” did not include blacks.

  13. Badpainter
    June 20th, 2015 at 4:38 am

    I agree more with you than with me. Specifically:

    DL’s mistake is to take Rome’s military prowess for its purpose, as do critiques of post war America.

    I must add though that Rome did not conceive of itself as a voluntary Empire or run itself on that principle. The US does. Generally.

  14. sjfrellc
    June 20th, 2015 at 12:30 pm

    Nice. And quite correct. Reminds me of G. S. Patton’s, “If everyone is thinking alike some one isn’t thinking.”

    ==

    Mr T
    June 20th, 2015 at 12:43 pm

    And some 80+ years later a LOT of white men died to correct the original error.

    You forget that ideals and reality seldom match. We have ideals to improve our marksmanship. Which is seldom perfect.

    And you can sneer at INCENTIVES all you want. Reality shows over and over that they matter.

  15. @ M. Simon:

    [ Reminds me of G. S. Patton’s, “If everyone is thinking alike some one isn’t thinking.”]

    Heheh,

    I wonder if that thought ever crossed Rollo Tomassi’s mind as he studied his minor in psychology (esp. primarily behavioral psych), posted for years on So Suave, and created and maintained The Rational Male blog?

  16. Mr. T – “Back then ‘All men are created equal’ did not include blacks.”

    The issue that nearly ended the whole independence movement was the slavery clause in the first draft of the DOI. The results of that debate were to chose first independence by holding the colonies together. If one reinserts the slavery cause then clearly all men would mean, ALL MEN. I would argue that since the slavery cause was removed, but all men was left unmodified to suggest all white men, that the founders intentionally meant for the ultimate expression of the ideals to include everyman. Keep in mind that Jefferson and his committee were writing a document that was to serve for all time as a clear, and lasting, statement of reason and principle. The congress could have just declared independence without it.

    Before you suggest that decision proves the moral corruption of the whole movement keep in mind the Continental congress has very tenuous support from the colonial legislatures, and less so from the colonists. Active support for the revolution was around 10% in 1776, active opposition in the colonies was around the same. Most people simply didn’t care. Even at end active support never exceeded much more than 30% population.

    I’ve seen figures, if accurate, that suggest greater support for colonial independence in England than in the colonies. So while the slavery issue was tabled, it wasn’t because of any love for the institution on the part of the founders. Rather it was sad reality of practical considerations trumping idealism.

  17. Mr T
    June 20th, 2015 at 12:43 pm

    About “adopted beliefs not your own”. I’m not convinced. The 80/20 Beta/Alpha split is most likely mainly biological.

    Mom and I were discussing Alpha/Beta/Female issues the other day (not in those terms) and I said the female’s overriding desire for a resource provider was natural and came biologically from child bearing. She started to get all huffy about it until I explained that I had no animosity about it. It was just the way nature made us. And she went into the difficulties of child raising for women. She is not an extremely deep thinker. But she has been paying attention. Of course Dad was an Alpha. That probably made a difference. And we are both disgusted with my beta brother. She has cut him out of her will – not that she has a lot. But it is the thought that counts.

  18. sjfrellc
    June 20th, 2015 at 1:12 pm

    I’d bet it is one of the reasons he keeps comments totally open. How can you improve your thinking if it is not opposed?

    “You cannot be sure you are right unless you understand the arguments against your views better than your opponents do.” – Milton Friedman

  19. Incentives / kickbacks , of course it works, I didn’t say they don’t .
    The question is to whom you give them?
    Do you give them to a Capitalist or to a socialist?

    Here is another argument,
    The Beta Bux incentives! For how long?

  20. Mr. T – “The Beta Bux incentives! For how long?”

    Unless my impression of the question is wrong you incentivize for as long as you want the the benefits of the other party. In other words if you want a man’s labor expect to pay for it for as long as you want proceeds of it.

    1. Only a woman would expect the benefit of a man’s labor for no reward.
    2. Only a woman would believe her smile is reward enough.

    Our crisis today is too many men think 1. is an investment when they will never receive more than 2. in reward.

  21. @ Mr. T

    Capitalism needs freedom of the individual. Socialism requires individual provisioning, an appropriative greater percentage or harnessing of and individuals productivity, from the individual to the State through Government agency. Taxation and regulation.

    Capitalism maximized incentives while Socialism diminishes it.

  22. Now it is official.
    Capitalism is BB
    Socialism is AF.

    Woman’s menstrual cycle is finally explained in economics.

  23. 70santihero
    “Capitalism maximized incentives while Socialism diminishes it.”

    Capitalism maximize incentives = BB
    Socialism diminishes incentives = AF

    Thank you

  24. @Water Cannon Boy

    “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.”

    Thanks for pointing this out. These are the sorts of risks we need to be aware of. In this case, however, I think I’m quite safe.

    Reasons:
    -My personal reputation is stellar. If someone was pressing charges for real, work would have to take it seriously at some level but everyone would be laughing behind their hands at the accusation.
    -Anything brought forward would be he said/she said. And I have the resources, personal connections, and charisma to totally overwhelm her. And she knows it.
    -People know or highly suspect the past sexual nature of our relationship. So it would come across as pretty weird for her to suddenly say I was inappropriate, and people would just think it’s sour grapes really.
    -The TPT therapy (or ‘back rubs’ lol) I occasionally do on her or other staff members is often done off the cuff, with open doors. It’s not shady at all.

    Now, all this might matter little you could say. If you had a crazy, conniving bitch out to get you, I’d agree. Start collecting what evidence in your favor you can just in case. But the real reason I’m unconcerned is her personality.

    She’s very timid. Hates doing anything outside of the box. Her friends have been yelling at her for years to (for instance) see a therapist and she can’t get herself to make the call cause it’s too scary. And she’s gonna throw a lawyer at me? Lol.

    Also, she gets no satisfaction from cutting others down. We had another employee that was borderline abusive to her for a little while and her continued effort was not to get back but to mend bridges. Her instinct upon an attack or insult isn’t to bite, it’s to roll over and seek approval.

    Finally, she’s acting to me like she is out of emotional neediness. That underlies everything. She comes to me to feel protected/cared for, and if I cut her off from that her strong, almost desperate impulse would be to get that sense of caring back, not to drive it away entirely.

    Here’s what’s going to happen. I’m going to cut her off from overt special treatment. I’m still going to treat her kindly and courteously when I see her. And she’s going to be sad and confused, and then she’s going to try a bunch of things to get that caring back. From a new guy or another source if available, or from me if that’s her only option and she perceives she has a chance.

  25. Bad painter
    “1. Only a woman would expect the benefit of a man’s labor for no reward.
    2. Only a woman would believe her smile is reward enough.

    Our crisis today is too many men think 1. is an investment when they will never receive more than 2. in reward.”

    Thanks to you too.

  26. Bad painter
    I meant thank you for helping me cementing my belief that capitalism Is BB.
    I mean it.
    Ps
    When a capitalist drives a Bentley (incentive) he shouldn’t ask his gold digger woman why she picked him and when she leaves him, he should revisits his capitalistic principles before picking up another woman.

  27. “Capitalism maximize incentives = BB
    Socialism diminishes incentives = AF”

    Yeah… Ok…

    By that reduction only in the worst totalitarian dictatorships do truly, objectively Alpha men arise because to assert that sort of will requires risking life to break any/every rule. And who can say a man takes what he wants when he wants is not Alpha. Now what you see is in free societies these Alpha traits are criminalized while in totalitarian system these traits make one a leader with real power.

    This means the following are then to honored as some of the ultimate Alphas:

    Kim Jong Un
    Leventi Beria
    Idi Amin
    Ted Bundy
    Che Guevara
    Gengis Khan
    Caligula
    Mao Tse Tung
    David Koresh
    Chuck Manson

    Or maybe they’re just douche bags and defectives.

  28. @ Mr. T

    Hate to quibble you ole boy. But I’m not sure AFBB is analogous to economic theory. Alpha/beta and hypergamous behaviors would exist in either or any socio-economic environments. Even in totalitarian fascism and communism.

    Although, I do see where you going . . . . . A more mixed system (socialism) allows for female provisioning and therefore AF is more prominent relative to the interest of the FI and hypergamy.

    Capitalism, where’ laissez faire’ is the rule and the rate or velocity of economic growth flourishes and Beta fairs better without the heavy burden redistribution to the girlies. . . .

    To Badpainter’s point :

    Alpha means social dominance. Not necessarily good nor bad.

    Charles Manson, Mitt Romney.

  29. 70santihero

    Did open Hypergamy emerged from a capitalist / consumerism systems or from socialist / communist / fascist system?

  30. “Or maybe they’re just douche bags and defectives.”

    Sadly, that is the sexy alphas. And that’s why they are not providers.

  31. @ Mr. T

    I believe you miss the point…entirely. And given your self professed lack of interest it appears to be willful as well.

  32. @70’sAntiHero

    “‘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.”

    If a pure idea, like a circle for instance, doesn’t exist anywhere in nature, how can it be falsified other than through logical deduction? Perfect circles don’t exist in nature, all that we have are circular things, or approximations of the perfect circle. So circles are non empirical and unfalsifiable.

    We can’t prove it exist or doesn’t exist in a lab somewhere. So therefore, circles don’t “exist.” To claim that they exist, in whatever way we want to define existence, is unfalsifiable.

    And because they are unfalsifiable, we can’t make reference to them in understanding circular things which are empirically verifiable, like, for instance, the elliptical orbits of planets.

    The point, which is made as simply as I know how to make it, is that Popper’s definition of falsifiability which restricts all possible “scientific” inquiry to the empirical and to natural science is questionable since we can’t reason about the world without making reference to conceptual frameworks which are no different than pure ideas, the circle of which is an example.

    In other words, we can reason about the empirical without making reference to what, by Popper’s definition, is unfalsifiable. So it’s meaningless to say “Marxism is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific” if we’ve defined falsifiability in such a way that would restrict it simply to the natural sciences which measure what is empirical. Again, there is no social science lab that is possible.

    That’s the best I know how to explain it. If it still doesn’t make sense, there’s nothing I can do.

  33. I’m trying to prove there IS a real connection between economics and man’s pursue of women.
    Isn’t fucking a sexy beautiful HB10 the biggest incentive for a capitalist / economist / Socialist / ?

    Don’t you think women are experts on judging who to fuck for tingle and who to marry for capital?

  34. I care ZERO for capitalism or socialism BUT, open Hypergamy and feminism were a product of capitalism and a lot of individual freedom. Do I have a problem with it ? NO. But you can’t pick and choose. You want capitalistic / consumerism systems, well then. Guess what, open Hypergamy is the price.

  35. @ Mr. T

    Man didn’t invent tools to generate tingles. Man didn’t invent civilization to generate tingles. Man invent didn’t law to generate tingles. Man doesn’t organize political and social systems to generate tingles. Nor did he do any of those things for women. Although women benefit that’s a side effect not a primary goal. Man does almost nothing that benefits someone else that doesn’t first benefit himself. This is a crucial element of understanding.

    Even the creation of game is first foremost for the benefit of man. That it may benefit women is of little importance. Notice that the MGTOW types in their most extreme forms aren’t giving up technology, tools, or material comforts.

    “Isn’t fucking a sexy beautiful HB10 the biggest incentive for a capitalist / economist / Socialist / ?”

    Really I suspect that is very small motivating factor. And further I suspect that guys the arrange their lives in pursuit of that one goal end up like Roosh. The ultimate incentive is to be free of external burden, and have a high level of confidence in the durability of one’s standard of living. As well one wants a high level of confidence in his physical security. Who you fuck provides none of that, unless you are a woman, or the fem in a homosexual relationship.

  36. And Mr. Picky would point out the USA hasn’t been truly capitalist since the end of the 19th century. Everything since Teddy R. has been creeping socialism, with healthy doses of crony capitalism and rent seeking by special interests.

  37. The US has never operated under free market principles championed at the Mises Institute. Fulton’s first action upon bringing his steam boat to America was to secure a monopoly in New York, which resulted in the famous Gibbons V. Ogden Supreme Court decision.

    Most cultures and most time periods do not really map to our particular ideologies very well, nor do they regard themselves in terms of our ideologies. The Nazis and the Communists and even the New Deal Democrats had some similar economic policies (which Hayek argued would inevitably result in reduced political liberty in “Road to Serfdom”) but each had entirely justifications for their political systems and usually different ideals.

    A similar scenario is the discussion we had about the Roman practice of homosexuality. Are top guys who fuck bottom guys gay? Who the hell cares? The Romans never even thought of themselves that way. They considered the relevant distinction “top vs. bottom.” Sort of like asking Jesus whether he was a Communist or a Stalinist. The fuck? He defined Himself in opposition to the Pharisees first. Actual political rule?

    Render unto Caesar, Render unto God.

    Hypergamy becomes unleashed when women do not suffer social consequences for embracing it and do not suffer severe economic consequences for embracing it. This is possible or impossible under ANY economic regime. The pre-industrial Egyptians can assign rations to women regardless of sexual impropriety and provide women with their own property, and all women may become raging sluts.
    Post-scarcity Star Trek? If promiscuous women lose access to high-end fashions and invitations to major party events, it matters not that Star Trek has eliminated poverty: women still face consequences and will act accordingly.

  38. @Divided Line

    ‘Unfalsifiable’ as agency is A priori. It is a bye in, by CHOICE, of certain thinkers and philosophers, to label or categorize forms and perceptions as ‘delusional’.

    Another words the real world is ‘phenomenal’. And reason and science are limited. I get it and I disagree.

    An imposition allowed only to those in the club.

    So in the realm of debate it can be to one’s advantage and another’s disadvantage.

    IMO. All knowledge is contextual. It requires deduction and reason and ‘truth’ is a derived from of reality without subordination to someone or something else. Unfalsifiable requires induction.

    It flies in the face of definition, identity and existence.

    UNFALSIFIABLE is falsifiable when it comes to logic.

    Conscious is more than a collection of sub-atomic particles, but knowing.

    In order to be conscious, you must be aware of something, something denotes existence. Existence exist.

    Are you certain of your uncertainty?

    ‘Unfalsifiable’ is also used by psychologist, but that’s not what were talking about. It may be relevant or helpful to an individual that chooses to use belief as a guiding principle or to explain and understand ‘things’ for their own personal benefit.

  39. Bad painter
    “Man didn’t invent tools to generate tingles. Man didn’t invent civilization to generate tingles. Man invent didn’t law to generate tingles. Man doesn’t organize political and social systems to generate tingles. Nor did he do any of those things for women. Although women benefit that’s a side effect not a primary goal. Man does almost nothing that benefits someone else that doesn’t first benefit himself. This is a crucial element of understanding.

    Even the creation of game is first foremost for the benefit of man. That it may benefit women is of little importance. Notice that the MGTOW types in their most extreme forms aren’t giving up technology, tools, or material comforts.”

    And who do you think made MGTOW?
    Isn’t the system that told them to buy buy buy whatever your princess want.
    Isn’t it the system that want to sell sell sell and make profits?
    Isn’t it the system that tells Erica to dump Mat if he doesn’t buy her a Ruby ring?
    Yes it is the capitalist system + the complicity of feminism.

  40. @Mr.T – “Isn’t the system that told them to buy buy buy whatever your princess want.
    Isn’t it the system that want to sell sell sell and make profits?
    Isn’t it the system that tells Erica to dump Mat if he doesn’t buy her a Ruby ring?”

    Uh huh,

    Now explain how that is exclusive and unique to capitalism beyond mere details, and not present in every other system, and every other time, in history.

  41. Mr T
    June 20th, 2015 at 1:46 pm

    Uh. Dude. Government giving incentives is the problem. There is another way. A free market gives incentives. Spontaneously.

  42. Generally it is useless getting in these conversations with a lefty. It is a belief not arrived at by rational thought but by emotional thinking. Very difficult to penetrate.

    And worst of all it is Beta thinking. A rationalization for surrender. A call for some one else to do your thieving for you. Taxation IS theft.

    The consolation prize for us here is that near 100% of women think like that and 80% of men. None the less the State is falling out of favor on the left with market forces replacing it. At least in a few area. That can be generalized. At least to some extent.

  43. Here is a question that might gives me lots of enemies. (I don’t mean to troll or offend anyone).

    Why is it capitalist are so angry?
    Is it because they thought money can get pu**y?

  44. Mr T
    June 20th, 2015 at 10:55 pm

    You misunderstand incentives. You limit yourself to government granted incentives. My thinking is not so constrained.

    But OK. Government granted incentives Can we then agree that taxation is theft? Especially when used for incentives? Can we reduce all energy production/generation incentives to zero? For starters?

    Capitalist guys are angry for capitalist reasons. Taxation is theft.

  45. Every tax, every regulation comes with it an army of bureaucrats and behind that an army (with guns) of enforcers.

    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

  46. @Badpainter – Re: Hayek – Great points. The idea of emergence plays in heavily. The crucial difference comes in the self-organizing nature of capitalism – if you own something, you inherently have the right to exchange it on terms you see fit. It turns out in the real world there is lots of advantage just in time and space. Local knowledge that only parties to a transaction may have and is not observable in aggregate makes for a crucial advantage (very obvious in real assets but always present in any transaction). It’s these zillions of small, highly optimized decisions individuals make for their own interests that give us the wildly robust and varied markets we have. There is no “balancing” that off with socialism. Socialism is the imposition of global rules for the allocation of goods and behavior, going beyond respecting the ordinary rights of other in such a system. It also allows for ideas that don’t generate positive outcomes for individuals to propagate. It allows minorities to exercise global power in ways that are quite out of balance actually.

    When considered carefully – rather than rabidly looking for equilibrium and whether humans act according to the biases of behavioral economists (another field of absolute buffoonery), one sees how economics reflects the full range of human sentiments. We are not just “utility optimizing machines”. Yes, we pursue profit but we are also cooperative and altruistic. Again, I cite Adam Smith. His book, Theory of Moral Sentiments describes how economics and the material world interact with a complex set of human wants and behaviors. We are not just materialistic, and we knew that well before Marx was a gleam in his Daddy’s eye.

    The entire reductionist Marxist experiment was a detour from perfecting the amazing classical liberal society we inherited and attempted to build in the early days of the U.S. Young people here have no idea that, for example, not 60 years ago the U.S. was the factory for the world – not China. And not only did we make everything, we also invented most of it. We also had the best machinists and engineering and machinery for manufacturing. We also were synonymous with quality. A sticker that said “Made in the USA” meant that you would pay more and it would be worth it. Period, everyone on the world knew that. This world resulted from individualism, not forced collectivism and maniacs running around screaming about “justice” 24x7x365.

    What was “exceptional” about the U.S. was our radical individualism. I can never understand why leftists refuse to acknowledge this. I don’t give a shit about your anodyne abstractions about how many fucking Ausrtrian madmen can blather on for eternity – this issue was already decided for the U.S. and was baked into our very founding before Marx was born. We can proceed without respect to a fucking thing he says as we already decided to not do any of the crap he hectored the world to do.

    I mean, you guys do realize that our founders overthrew the Brits for far less than what the Prog-Marxists have done with the federal govt in the past 100 years, right? These policies would be unimaginable to them. The ideas that inform these policies would seem ludicrous to them, as they already had balanced collectivism and egalitarianism in a different way while watching the French go to socialism (the term was first coined in like 1809 by a French philosopher or two). They were not ignorant of the issues of class – rather they understood them all too well.

    They knew that the elite would always use govt to feather their nests so they sought to cripple govt, to make it impossible for it to be a tyrant. They sought to prevent exactly what the left is gagging to deliver to us in the U.S. I’m not talking about Europe – many European countries have a different heritage and they are welcome to commit national suicide.

    But here in the U.S.? We were an experiment in what the left would call “red in tooth and claw” liberty and the results are clear. We ran rings around the rest of the world and also moved in the direction of perfecting liberty dramatically while doing so. There is no doubt that this approach drove us to become an economic bohemoth – and no, DividedLine, it’s not just a happy coincidence of geography or resources. This is what Marxism misses because ultimately, it has a very dim view of man and humanity. And also, the rise of the American middle class smashes Marxism to bits right in his tiny, shriveled up nuts. He’s already dead before he gets out of the gate – on a materialistic basis he’s been debunked. Game, set, match. Long ago.

    The biggest crime of the left is a thought crime. They have successfully erased such ideas from our educational system. My brilliant young niece can graduate from a great private prep school and a top 5 small, private liberal arts school and never once have a conversation like this in her entire life. Can you imagine? She did a major in “spanish” (meaning a social justice warrior for hispanics) and a minor in political science – and never took a single course in economics.

    Imagine that? Graduating from a top humanities school that absolutely reeks of social justice from every pore of its being, preening it about endlessly in every way imaginable – and not studying economics? I was stunned when she told me this, as I had asked casually about what economics she had studied. Her entire world view is shaped by radically collective and egalitarian ideas that axiomatically reject the very foundation of the U.S. constitution and trash free markets – and she doesn’t even know what she’s trashing.

    In other words, Divided, my retort to Marxists is “Asked and answered, next.” I’m not interested in any of it. It’s a complete waste of intellectual effort. We already had something better here in the U.S. and my approach is to move on from Marxism. Hence why I don’t even read your comments. I don’t debate Marxists, I dismiss them as defective.

  47. @Striver – Listen to Stuttie. Also, keep sharing with us here, it’s great stuff. You may not realize that you are helping many other men by opening up and talking about where you are at.

    You seem to already get that this is an inside job, rather than focusing on others, so you have a leg up. And remember, Kirk got all the pussy, even the alien pussy. Game knows game…

    Think about it. In a way, when Rollo talks about women wanting men to just “get it” that’s what he’s talking about. You see women are already gaming you, and you’ve been playing with an old set of books/rules that cripple your ability to get your needs/desires met. But women aren’t – you get that, yes? The entire setup of your identity and view of maleness has been shaped by what permits greater female sexual agency and restrains your’s.

    You might also benefit from some deeper evolutionary reading. Try Matt Ridley, The Red Queen. Christopher Ryan’s Sex at Dawn, Dawkins The Selfish Genet and others like stuff from Edward O. Wilson. All helped me realize a few things:

    1. Human beings are transport mechanisms for genes. Not the reverse. Genes care about propagating themselves and we as humans are being used towards that end. You want the “meaning of life”? That’s it. There is nothing more profound going on.

    2. Don’t want to be reduced to that? Consider that even our vaunted human intelligence may simply be an example of “runaway selection” based on female sexual selection. Our brains may be nothing more significant than the plumage of the peacock. Really.

    3. Carefully consider whether how you see the world actually “worked” for you. Me? I eagerly slapped the bit in my mouth when young, and never looked back. Be a “good man”, marriage , fatherhood, provider, protector, stay at home wife. My entire life was about delayed gratification or was absolutely thankless when I carefully considered it. Eventually, that set of books had me turn on myself.

    Where are you respected and truly appreciated? Who actually smiles when they see you? Who makes you smile? How much of life are you actually just suffering or sleepwalking through? Embracing the Red Pill most of all means embracing myself, my wants and needs and interests and emotions as most important. Not of those around me. I’m no longer a pack mule. And when I dropped all that one of the things that became obvious to me was how horny I was, lol. It’s central to being a man, at least it seems that way for me.

    Thanks for being here, I get a lot out of your comments.

  48. Render unto Caesar, Render unto God.

    Yes, but the system of the American Republic was set up to have both parts. Many of the founders were quite explicit about this – the system they were establishing was intended to function with a virtuous people, and that virtue was explicitly equated by many of them with religion and religious practice. Not of any ONE sect or denomination. But it was assumed that religious practice would be widespread and flourish, and that this would continue to nourish the kind of moral virtue which would be required for the system they were establishing to function properly.

    When that falls away, the system malfunctions. This is in many ways what we see today. The attempt to prop up the system with 20th Century economic theories – either of the left or the right – without reference to religious practice and virtue generally fails in a systemic sense, because the system established assumed religion-based moral virtue as a societal norm. Without that basis, the system becomes what we see today: competing interests for the spoils based on selfishness without any wider moral basis, and freedom transformed into license for all manner of licentiousness, which, taken together, thoroughly undermine social, political AND economic life. Without restoring the moral basis of the Republic, the thing that the founders indeed took for granted when they set up the system in the first place, the system will continue to fail, and precisely because it was not set up to succeed in that context and indeed we were warned as much by the architects of the system themselves.

  49. @Rollo – Isn’t neo-masculinity simply saying ‘put that bit back in your mouth and pull you no-good motherfucker’?

    Is it just me, or does Roosh miss the entire idea that romance, courtly love and chivalry do not serve individual male interests? That this suppression of male agency is a form of social servitude?

    Does Roosh not get that no matter how “good” men become as fathers and brothers that they can be disposed of? That women aim up and destine many “good men” to lives of betrayal and grief and loss?

    More to the point, does Roosh think women are about to give up birth control and abortion on demand? On the eve of electing Hillary Clinton? The mansophere needs to get that we are a tiny backlash against a social tsunami that has been engineered to overrun us in every way possible. Guys here prove it all the time when they discuss how hard it is to even get other men to get this at all, let alone seriously try and change. The social programming men are subjected to runs quite deep. Just turn on the TV and it screams at you. Find a show where a man is shown as a 100% good person, I dare you. Even when we are portrayed as heroes, at best we are a flawed hero being hectored back into “good man” line by a female, sometimes even a female child.

    The politics are becoming uglier all the time, and this is related because the media is setting up social justice ideology as a norm now – it is our universal standard of justice. It’s not just “one side” of a debate, it’s truth. And feminism is intertwined with every bit of it, petitioning govt for female privileges, along with the rest of their insane agenda wrt gender, race, immigration, and the culture in general.

    Guys, we are the exceptions, not the rule. It’s not a coincidence that many men here are quite smart. This is non-trivial shit to figure out. I also think many of us suffered uniquely poignant and painful episodes wrt women in our lives that left us scratching our heads and reeling.

    So, I don’t see myself as in the vanguard of some new dawn of a movement. I see myself adapting to reality. Roosh is reactionary (n the true sense of the word), not adaptive. He’s simply freaking out because his life is empty. I empathize but not with neo-masculinty. I’m here to win for my purposes, not societies or women’s. And my purposes have nothing to do with slapping the “good man” bit back in my mouth.

    Okay, back to being a selfish prick – wait, do I ever stop these days?

  50. Novaseeker
    June 21st, 2015 at 9:15 am

    Aside from the obvious “don’t pillage and rape” the only other part of religion we need is “don’t lie”. That is all that is required to be a “moral people. Belief is some outside agency or force is strictly optional.

  51. And when I say “don’t pillage” I do also mean don’t get some one else to do it for you so you can claim your pirate’s share. A woman once explained the limits of pillage.

    “You eventually run out of other people’s money.”

  52. @Novaseeker – So how did the Romans’ and Greeks implement democratic principles and institutions in the absence of Christianity’s calling for men to be good, honorable and charitable to one’s brothers?

    It seems to me that this is yet another desperate evango Christian attempt to grab liberty for itself. Rome only goes completely down the shitter after Christianity is imposed, in fact. What is true is that democracy and liberty require the embrace of reason actually, not faith. Liberty arises from reason, and is the basis of all modernity and if you don’t get that, you are quite fundamentally confuse. The religious can’t have reason and faith. You’ve chosen faith which axiomatically means you’ve given up reason. Be bound by your own decisions, please.

    One has to get how breathtakingly arrogant it is for Christians to claim the mantle of liberty itself for themselves. The very idea of “individual sovereignty” arises in opposition to Christianity and the power structure it imposed on the West. It resulted from the application of reason, not faith. It sought to put constraints on the “divine right of kings”. Why is it that the Catholic Pope formally shunned the Magna Carta when first signed? Because it sought to limit the authority of rulers by law when it posited that rulers gained their power from the divine, from God himself via his vicar on earth, the Pope.

    Christians in Alexandria sacked the great library there in what, the 6th century? Calling the Romans and others who studied the classics there “pagans” and killing them. The sack of the libraries of Alexandria and the killing of Hypatia were all direct assaults by Christianity on reason itself.

    Too far you say? Then you don’t know what Hypatia was teaching. She was renowned for her study of Lucretius’ On the Nature of Things, his Epicurean masterpiece. You know, the document which shows how Greco/Roman thought had advanced to the point of positing atomic structures and randomness 2000 years ago?
    And even when Poggio, the Italian sometimes cleric and court player who rediscovered De rerum natura, its exposition and study were formally fought by the church.

    Individual liberty means I own me – I’m not owned by some God. One need only look at how liberty evolved in New England. One can readily see how the Puritans of the Massachussetts Bay Company were totalitarians and authoritarians, repressing liberty in myriad ways. But the liberty we ended up with rejected all that and in fact sought to correct Christian excesses with Roger Williams’ idea of liberty and that vision of the role of any Church in a free nation. Had we only followed his lead in how we dealt with native Americans, we would not have so much blood on our hands. It seems the Christians were all to ready to see their destiny as manifest too. Some liberty lovers.

    I could go on, the conflicts and absurdity are endless. Surely, free men need to understand what it means to be free and the basics of classical liberal morality. What we are going through is not about abandoning Christianity, it’s about adopting prog-marxist-sjw ideology and abandoning classical liberal ideals.

  53. Scrib,

    Social Justice as a meme is in its infancy. Less than a decade ago most states petitioned for an amendment banning gay marriage and passed laws demanding such in their state constitutions. There’s no need to overreact to every passing trend.

    The Romantic Movement as such had little to do with romance in the sexual sense.

    The movement emphasized intense emotion as an authentic source of aesthetic experience, placing new emphasis on such emotions as apprehension, horror and terror, and awe—especially that which is experienced in confronting the new aesthetic categories of the sublimity and beauty of nature. It considered folk art and ancient custom to be noble statuses, but also valued spontaneity, as in the musical impromptu. In contrast to the rational and Classicist ideal models, Romanticism revived medievalism[6] and elements of art and narrative perceived to be authentically medieval in an attempt to escape population growth, urban sprawl, and industrialism.

    This is a reaction to the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution, not to women’s foolish sexual choices. “Oh I need romance now!” Then Thoreau it and backpack through the goddam Smoky Mountains. Romance=/=candle-lit dinners.

    If you want to be selfish, go ahead, just don’t be surprise when you end up in some Third World Favela.

  54. A Definite Beta Guy
    June 21st, 2015 at 10:05 am

    Selfishness is exploitation. Henry Ford was an exploiter. Westinghouse was an exploiter.

    All the great efforts were accomplished by people willing to exploit and the willingly exploited. Where it comes a cropper is when there are efforts to exploit the unwilling.

  55. scribblerg – “Rome only goes completely down the shitter after Christianity is imposed, in fact.”

    YES!

    BUT, Rome in the west was already circling the bowl when Constantine decided to embrace the new one true faith. The secular view is that it was necessary to keep his army in line, as they were already Christians. For the declining west Christianity was last minute fix for the problem of moral and therefore political corruption that had eaten the soul out Rome. The moral ideals of the Republic were killed with Julius and simply took longer to die. Any secular failures of the Christian faith are actually failures of men since the faith and teachings are not a political/economic/social programs.

    – “What we are going through is not about abandoning Christianity, it’s about adopting prog-marxist-sjw ideology and abandoning classical liberal ideals.”

    Very much true. Classical liberal ideals, especially the moral structures are not in serious conflict with Christianity (Pope John Paul II), other than a pointless debate about the source of those moral ideals. On the other hand it’s not difficult to con any number of Christians to believe that the faith actually supports a prog-marxist-sjw ideology (Pope Francis anyone?).

  56. M. Simon – “I have been running into a LOT of men’s sites lately with links to Reason.”

    I’ve noticed something similar with ‘sphere. More right of center political blogs referencing Redpill ideas, but without links. Numerous links to Vox Day’s blog regarding the Hugo kerfuffle, which is only a click away from the ‘sphere writ large. Comments sections on all manner of blogs overtly spreading Redpill ideas. A bluepill friend who excitedly told me about discovering Helen Smith and Men On Strike. My favorite political forum has a now active thread about the evils of Third Wave Feminism.

    The cross pollination of ideas is fascinating to watch.

  57. The Red Pill and Libertarianism are memetic anti-body responses to viral infections. So they are both affiliated with the Alt-Right and naturally linked, but their growing strength has more to do with the strength of the FI and Obama-style socialism-lite, rather than their own legitimate strength.

    Libertarianism in particular has its own story. It had its political hey-day back in the 1970s, with a Fed totally subordinate to political incentives and a Republican President who froze every price in the nation to stop inflation. It got wrapped up in the Reagan Revolution and has since had more of a resurgence with the 2008 ascension of the Brosiah. Which is also how you have the really strong 2010 Tea Party movement, which has continued to the present day.

    Red Pill is younger and online: it’s growing in part because it’s in the early adoption phase, and it is a definite reaction to a society where a woman lies about getting raped so she can get an A on her art project and Senators canonize her.

    If you plot google trends, you can see Manosphere and Red Pill have generated some limited interest over the last few years especially.

  58. “Isn’t neo-masculinity simply saying ‘put that bit back in your mouth and pull you no-good motherfucker’?”

    Or, as NoHoldsBarred put it: Man up, bend over, and take it like a bitch.

  59. “The Red Pill and Libertarianism are memetic anti-body responses to viral infections. So they are both affiliated with the Alt-Right and naturally linked, but their growing strength has more to do with the strength of the FI and Obama-style socialism-lite, rather than their own legitimate strength.”

    Vedanta(the school of thought based on knowledge in Hinduism) has always declared that world is real and an illusion.
    The world exists but what your perception of it is illusory. it is clouded by the biases that have been taught to you or you assimilated on your own.
    Its considered the destiny of every human to be able to see through all these lies, be free from them and get a stable frame of mind. Using tools to yoga(asanas), pranayama(breathing), meditation and finally reflection(critical thinking).

    As Jesus said,”Only truth can set you free”. (Despite this Christians run around hither-tither lying about everything or busy constructing lies or misappropriating credit. eg: Christian Yoga)

    The entity which has a vested interest in lying to know can keeping you misinformed is the Society.
    The things you see right now as viral infections are just various mutations of the lies spewed on humans by the society.

    Its just that every lie has a shelf life and the society just needs a newer and newer lie to keep people motivated and subjugated.
    For thousands of years across the world, FI in its various manifestation has been only one aspect of the lie.
    Society lies about religious, economic and political paradigms too.

    The job of humans is to ceaselessly fight and tear down these viral infections but new ones will keep coming.

    ” has more to do with the strength of the FI and Obama-style socialism-lite”

    These are only as strong as your belief in it. Vote with consent and starve the beast.
    When the speakers of and those who live by truth DHV; lies fall apart rather quickly.

    @scribblerg,
    A mix and match of capitalism and socialism does work. I will later when I got time will elaborate a system that worked well for thousands of years whose back was broken by dual assault of colonization and industrial revolution.
    That system can manifest a good comeback now that colonization is out of picture and despite of the patent and copyright despotism.
    We might be moving in that direction.

    Comparing economics systems is more like comparing martial arts, which one is superior. Of course, the one whose teachers and students out compete everyone else , Right now.
    And who said non-pure mixed martial arts are not possible/worthy enough.

    Capitalism does not just encompass property right. Even then property right really have no other basis than war, govt. and piece of paper called contract, enforceable by a govt.
    Else the native americans be declared owners of all land of US and be provided reparations for driving them into reservation and having usurped their “private property” right.
    Lets say, the chinese tomorrow colonize the US and drive current US citizens to reservations or Pheema camps, what is your private property right worth ?

  60. “That system can manifest a good comeback now that colonization is out of picture”
    Colonisation by Europeans and their diaspora, granted. I wouldn’t like to take a bet on the other guys, though. Would you?

    “.. and despite of the patent and copyright despotism.”
    If it didn’t exist, it would have to be invented. Or else nothing that isn’t blindingly obvious gets invented, see?

    Think about, for instance, something as trivial as a portable mechanical clock, which goes back all the way to the Antikythera mechanism, it could be argued. Common Knowledge, the birthright of any civilised or at least numerate person, one might think?
    And here you’ve got some silly old spergelord of a Yorkshire carpenter, fiddling away at the thing trying to stabilise the works to some sort of consistency. But only in an attempt to gain a (fairly notional) prize from The Monarch’s placemen, and the subsequent licenses of manufacture, which is the real ker-ching moment.

    “Whilst Harrison did not patent any of his clocks, John Arnold went on to simplify Harrison’s design enabling accurate marine chronometers to made cost effectively in large quantities and did protect his advances with patents.”
    because there were only a handful of Harrison’s prototypes, made by him for, and in the possession of the Admiralty where they were guarded like an 18th-century Enigma machine.
    Result? Worldwide exploration, mapping, global commerce, outwitting the Frogs and Dagoes at sea (the only game in town, ever and always) and .. der-der-derrr .. Colonialism (see: outwitting the Frogs, etc.)

    Otherwise why bother? Better off staying an honest chippy, hang about the taverns playing cards, mucking about with wenches, and smoking baccy. Like me.

  61. ” . . . the real ker-ching moment . . .”

    . . . was when Galileo stared at a chandelier and understood what it meant. The rest is just commentary.

  62. kfg, I meant kerching as in cash-register, not lightbulb, moment. God you lot make me feel old sometimes. You know, the ones a bit like a Remington typewriter, where the tab pops up on top with “10/-” or “3d” as the drawer pings open. Oh hell am I going to have to explain typewriter now? Hole, stop digging, Tam.
    Anyway Galileo was killed by an elevator on the orders of the Inquisition, dontcha know? (Authorized History of The World Literally Millennia of Female Oppression – SJW abridged edition)

  63. Shiva – “Even then property right really have no other basis than war, govt. and piece of paper called contract, enforceable by a govt.”

    As it should be.

    The basic property right is a man’s right to his physical self, his own mind, and products of his labor. Of course enforcing that right means a willingness to do violence in self defense of body, mind, and products of labor.

  64. “Oh hell am I going to have to explain typewriter now?”

    Nobody who has moved an old money cash register or a Remington typwriter is ever likely to forget them. I even remember why it’s called “Carbon Copy” just fine as well, thank you. Might even still have some around somewhere.

  65. M Simon.
    Taxes are theft .
    As you know, I’m not an economist and I’m no body.

    There are Alpha Capitalists (banks owners /wall street billioners) who were responsible for the 2007-2008 crisis.

    And there are Beta Capitalists (a couple of millions) who ended up paying for the ” bail out”.

    Now who do you think benefited from the incentives before the crash, and who ended up balling out the biggest HEIST in history?.

    Where did that heist go?.
    Wasn’t that AF/BB!.

  66. “Of course enforcing that right means a willingness to do violence in self defense of body, mind, and products of labor.”

    That is the fundamental right. The rest is just commentary. It is not a social construct. Even a juvenile cockroach understands it.

    “Yah. This bit of chocolate chip cookie? I found it. It’s mine. Ya wanna make something of it, molon labe.

  67. ” . . .who ended up balling out the biggest HEIST in history?”

    Capitalism would have strung the bankers up from the lampposts.

  68. kfg – “Capitalism would have strung the bankers up from the lampposts.”

    Plutocratic oligarchy is no more capitalism than voting is democracy. I never cease to be amazed that most people can’t make those distinctions. I guess I am either an optimist or not cynical enough.

  69. A Socialist is unhappy about being exploited by a capitalist, and a capitalist is furious being exploited by Plutocratic oligarchy !

  70. Kfg
    “Capitalism would have strung the bankers(oligarchy) up from the lampposts.”

    You are taking like a true Socialist.

  71. I’m confused now,see capitalists, now you know how a socialist feels.

    So socialists want to defeat capitalists, and capitalists want to defeat the oligarchy!
    Poor socialists, ,they have two enemies to defeat! It is hopeless.

    Poor capitalists, they have two enemies to defeat too.
    Or, why not capitalists and socialists let the by gone be by gone and gang up against the oligarchy?
    If I were a socialist I’d gang up with the oligarchy against the capitalists ,I find the oligarchy less ideologically stiff and they are not angry an dismissive.

  72. @ Mr. T

    (imagine robust applause)

    Bravo! Sir. Bravo! No one else I have seen here can copy the logical structure of Insanity like you have done. A brilliant mix of willful ignorance, sophistry, snark and near complete lack of irony or good humor. Masterfully done. Really, I am in awe of your performance.

    (applause fades)

  73. Hey Happy Father’s Day.

    From Rollo’s bitter Daddy Issues referenced in a Tweet today.

    “A good Father goes about the business of being a father without concern for accolades. For Men, like anything else, it’s not about awards on the wall, but the overall body of work that makes for real accomplishment. A Father is a good father because he can weather an entire world that constantly tells him he’s a worthless shit by virtue of being a Man with a child. He just ‘does’, in spite of a world that will never appreciate his sacrifice and only regard his disposability as expected. And even in death he’ll still be expected to be a good dad.”

    Makes me want to reflect and sit on the brick paver patio with a cigar and some bourbon with a good song playlist on the boombox and reflect on my legacy.

    And that’s what I am doing. Fair well my children. As David Bowie’s Young Americans plays in the background. Very anti-climactic as it is written in the script of a man’s life.

    http://freenortherner.com/2012/09/06/die-when-youre-done/

    http://freenortherner.com/2012/07/31/the-bookshelf-the-way-of-men/

  74. A Definite Beta Guy
    June 21st, 2015 at 12:15 pm

    The hey day of libertarianism in America was 1776. It is getting a resurgence due to Prohibition with its attendant racism. Oligarchy is not helping either. The insurance companies own Ocare.

    And the passing of the TPP despite the fact that generally – Americans are against it – will be another boost.

    We now have a 3 Party Congress. Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarian Republicans (LR). The LRs are a swing vote. Sometimes they vote R, sometimes D. And the Rs – who wish to retain power do not want to push them out. But the hatred is palpable.

  75. Badpainter
    June 21st, 2015 at 6:06 pm

    Ironic that Mrs. T sees things the same way I do. See my June 21st, 2015 at 6:12 pm. I had not read his before writing mine. He just sees it from the SJW perspective. Well there is a lot of free pussy among the SJWs. And when I was young I used to mine that as well. And I was a believer. But I woke up to the fact that long term it had to lead to mass murder. That soured me on the whole enterprise.

    When wealth creation ends you NEED mass murder to balance the books. Not my cuppa.

    The very best tool for wealth creation is liberty.

  76. Mr T
    June 21st, 2015 at 4:27 pm

    You know nothing of the origins of the 2008 crisis. I have no love for the bankers. But it wasn’t them. They just played along with the game because that is where the big profits were.

    The game went something like this –
    SJW “there are under served minorities
    Bankers – “their record of repayment is not good”
    SJW – “we will rate their paper at AAA and the government will buy it”
    Bankers – “we will serve even liars and foist the bad paper produced on the government” (to themselves “the payday will be HUGE – suckers”)

    In 2008 reality and fantasy collided. Reality won.

  77. ” . . . (oligarchy) . . .”

    You have made an insertion into my statement that changes the meaning, but included it in quotes as if I had said it.

    “You are taking like a true Socialist.”

    A good idea is a good idea, no matter who has it.

    ¡No pasarán!

  78. US citizens to reservations or Pheema camps, what is your private property right worth ?

    Molon labe.

    “You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.” – Author unknown.

    Even a two year old understands it. Mine. Mine. Mine. (It is not about mineral extraction – directly).

  79. A Definite Beta Guy
    June 21st, 2015 at 12:15 pm

    I should add that your analysis of the current scene – since the advent of Nixon – has much to commend it.

  80. Heritage – notoriously right wing and pro-Prohibition – has come out (mildly) against Prohibition based on Prohibition’s destruction of property rights.

    If asset forfeiture is ended (the without a criminal finding type) the main remaining incentive for keeping Prohibition ends.

  81. M Simon
    “I have no love for the bankers. But it wasn’t them”

    You have no love for bankers! Coming out of the mouth of a Capitalist!

    But it wasn’t them?
    Of course they played along for the profits ,isn’t that what you advocate for?

  82. kfg – “Capitalism would have strung the bankers up from the lampposts.”

    I meant : You are talking like a socialist.

    Ps
    No harm intended.

  83. Getting back to the Kirk versus Spock comparison…

    I believe Nimoy wrote two autobios, “I Am Not Spock” and “I Am Spock.” That seems to show the quality of at first fighting and then accepting one’s nature. Going from the TV show to the movies, I think they tried to show the older Spock mellowing and accepting things. That he’d been wrong in his stridency. But he was still Spock.

    Kirk never had that life path, so how can they be the same man? Spock can modify his ways, but it’s asking too much in my view to expect him to become Kirk.

    So I relate to the Spock character as someone with regimen, obsessed with doing the “right” thing, obsessed with performing to a perceived moral standard. Kirk had a much more active approach and consistently set his own path. Though Kirk was also an idealist.

    Kirk mostly had “women of the week,” so he kept his women out of his larger life circle. There were some exceptions, but they tended not to work out too well. Only one known child, and he didn’t know about that kid until the kid was grown up. Sometimes it comes across that “red pill” = nihilism, and I guess Kirk was an example of how not to do that. But no families.

    So on more mundane topics, a busy week for me. Turned 50. Had a pub crawl on Saturday to celebrate, and that went great. Couple of des. drivers, I reached out and invited some people, got really into the spirit, drunk, and had a great time. Just how it should have been. Wasn’t that guy 10 or 20 years ago. Unfortunately, all of the friends have been married 20+ years, even the one that was divorced once. So that’s a lot of my peer group, marrieds. Don’t know a lot of divorced except through specifically targeted groups.

    Within a month the family home will be sold. Soon to be ex already has a place her parents bought for her. She was sort of helpful and about two days before we accepted the offer, tried to see if I could stay in our house. I decided not too. I would have had to buy her out, but with over a thousand in support every month it would be too hard to make it here and I’d have no cushion in the bank besides, everything tied up in the house. Now our washing machine blew out this week, so maybe a good move in that sense.

    Now losing the house has downsides, in that there’s more turmoil for me and the kids. I’m moving farther away from kid stuff like the school, though kid stuff is close to my work. I was proud of the house, and the new place will be a downgrade. Wondering now if I ever will have a home I am proud of again. Or ever share a home with another partner again.

    So I can have knowledge of different methods, but life is short, and at some point acceptance of one’s path and SOME limitations therein come into play. We can’t all be Kirk. It’s probably a 50/50 proposition at this point of me finding a marriageable woman (I would be vetting as best I can,) but if that’s an unchangeable part of my nature…

    I don’t necessarily expect to be rewarded for any virtue I may continue to hold. It’s going to be my choice. I don’t think I can embrace nihilism.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: