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

Leave a Reply

  Subscribe  
Notify of
Mr T
Guest
Mr T
Offline

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?

Mr T
Guest
Mr T
Offline

“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?

Badpainter
Guest
Badpainter
Offline

@ 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… Read more »

Shiva H. P.
Guest
Shiva H. P.
Offline

““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… Read more »

Mr T
Guest
Mr T
Offline

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

Mr T
Guest
Mr T
Offline

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?

Kryptokate
Guest
Kryptokate
Offline

@ 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… Read more »

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

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

As is independence.

70'sAntiHero
Guest

@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… Read more »

Kryptokate
Guest
Kryptokate
Offline

@ 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… Read more »

Water Cannon Boy
Guest
Water Cannon Boy
Offline

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.

rugby11ljh
Guest
rugby11ljh
Offline

@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… Read more »

crossphased
Guest

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… Read more »

Divided Line
Guest

@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… Read more »

M Simon
Guest
M Simon
Offline

Mr T
June 18th, 2015 at 10:52 pm

What you describe is not “free market capitalism”. It is oligarchy with voting.

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

Crossphased: What did you want to do when you were 12 to 16 years old?

Divided Line
Guest

@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… Read more »

M Simon
Guest
M Simon
Offline

Striver
June 19th, 2015 at 1:00 am

It is not them. It is you. A stuttie has pointed out AWALT.

M Simon
Guest
M Simon
Offline

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.

Mr T
Guest
Mr T
Offline

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?

M Simon
Guest
M Simon
Offline

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.

M Simon
Guest
M Simon
Offline

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).

Mr T
Guest
Mr T
Offline

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?.

M Simon
Guest
M Simon
Offline

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… Read more »

M Simon
Guest
M Simon
Offline

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.

Mr T
Guest
Mr T
Offline

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!.

70'sAntiHero
Guest

@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… Read more »

M Simon
Guest
M Simon
Offline

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… Read more »

Badpainter
Guest
Badpainter
Offline

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… Read more »

M Simon
Guest
M Simon
Offline

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.

M Simon
Guest
M Simon
Offline

Badpainter
June 20th, 2015 at 1:06 am

You have of course read his Nobel Lecture. For those who haven’t:

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1974/hayek-lecture.html

So what organizing principle should we prefer: price signals and individual adaptation. What we in America generally call liberty. A minimum of government orders a maximum of individual decisions.

Badpainter
Guest
Badpainter
Offline

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… Read more »

Shiva H. P.
Guest
Shiva H. P.
Offline

@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.”… Read more »

M Simon
Guest
M Simon
Offline

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.

M Simon
Guest
M Simon
Offline

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”.

Badpainter
Guest
Badpainter
Offline

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… Read more »

scribblerg
Guest
scribblerg
Offline

@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.… Read more »

scribblerg
Guest
scribblerg
Offline

@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… Read more »

scribblerg
Guest
scribblerg
Offline

@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… Read more »

scribblerg
Guest
scribblerg
Offline

@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.

rugby11ljh
Guest
rugby11ljh
Offline

@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.

scribblerg
Guest
scribblerg
Offline

@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.

70'sAntiHero
Guest

@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… Read more »

Badpainter
Guest
Badpainter
Offline

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.

rugby11ljh
Guest
rugby11ljh
Offline
sjfrellc
Guest
sjfrellc
Offline

@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… Read more »

Mr T
Guest
Mr T
Offline

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… Read more »

M Simon
Guest
M Simon
Offline

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.

M Simon
Guest
M Simon
Offline

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.

sjfrellc
Guest
sjfrellc
Offline

@ 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?

Badpainter
Guest
Badpainter
Offline

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… Read more »

M Simon
Guest
M Simon
Offline

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… Read more »

M Simon
Guest
M Simon
Offline

Badpainter
June 20th, 2015 at 1:22 pm

My understanding of that history accords with yours.

M Simon
Guest
M Simon
Offline

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

Mr T
Guest
Mr T
Offline

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?

Badpainter
Guest
Badpainter
Offline

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.

70'sAntiHero
Guest

@ 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.

70'sAntiHero
Guest

should read. . . maximizes

Mr T
Guest
Mr T
Offline

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

Woman’s menstrual cycle is finally explained in economics.

Mr T
Guest
Mr T
Offline

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

Capitalism maximize incentives = BB
Socialism diminishes incentives = AF

Thank you

Forge the Sky
Guest
Forge the Sky
Offline

@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… Read more »

Mr T
Guest
Mr T
Offline

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.

Badpainter
Guest
Badpainter
Offline

Mr. T – “Thanks to you too.”

Explain.

Badpainter
Guest
Badpainter
Offline

^^^^Re: Above^^^^

Missed a comment upstream, suspected snark. My apologies.

Mr T
Guest
Mr T
Offline

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.

Badpainter
Guest
Badpainter
Offline

“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… Read more »

Kira
Guest
Kira
Offline

Alpha is a mindset.

70'sAntiHero
Guest

@ 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… Read more »

A Definite Beta Guy
Guest

AF/BB refers to women’s dualistic sexual strategies. It does not refer to economic policy.

Nuclear warfare is AF, phalanx formation is BB!

Pretty meaningless.

Mr T
Guest
Mr T
Offline

70santihero

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

Mr T
Guest
Mr T
Offline

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

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

Badpainter
Guest
Badpainter
Offline

@ Mr. T

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

Divided Line
Guest

@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… Read more »

Mr T
Guest
Mr T
Offline

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?

Mr T
Guest
Mr T
Offline

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.

Badpainter
Guest
Badpainter
Offline

@ 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… Read more »

Badpainter
Guest
Badpainter
Offline

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.

A Definite Beta Guy
Guest

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… Read more »

70'sAntiHero
Guest

@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.… Read more »

Mr T
Guest
Mr T
Offline

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… Read more »

Badpainter
Guest
Badpainter
Offline

@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.

Mr T
Guest
Mr T
Offline

In a non capitalist system the coast is much cheaper, if she doesn’t like a donkey I buy her a mule.

M Simon
Guest
M Simon
Offline

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.

M Simon
Guest
M Simon
Offline

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… Read more »

M Simon
Guest
M Simon
Offline

Mr. T

If you are against profit quit eating. You profit from it.

Mr T
Guest
Mr T
Offline

Incentives aren’t given to average Joe or you M Simon, incentives are given to fat cats.

Mr T
Guest
Mr T
Offline

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?

M Simon
Guest
M Simon
Offline

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.

M Simon
Guest
M Simon
Offline

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.

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

Government can create incentives to produce only by placing them against an artificial structure of disincentives which it has, itself, produced. It creates barriers to block your way, then offers you a gate which leads to where it wants you to go. The incentive is a manipulative illusion.

A man inclined to produce will do so simply because he exists.

http://www.veniceclayartists.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/bradshawfoundation.com_.jpg

scribblerg
Guest
scribblerg
Offline

@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… Read more »

scribblerg
Guest
scribblerg
Offline

@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,… Read more »

Novaseeker
Guest
Novaseeker
Offline

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… Read more »

scribblerg
Guest
scribblerg
Offline

@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… Read more »

M Simon
Guest
M Simon
Offline

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.

M Simon
Guest
M Simon
Offline

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.”

scribblerg
Guest
scribblerg
Offline

@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.… Read more »

A Definite Beta Guy
Guest

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… Read more »

M Simon
Guest
M Simon
Offline

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.

%d bloggers like this: