Just Shut the Hell Up

Hello, I’m author Rollo Tomassi.

As one of the 3 ‘R’s of the manosphere, it’s important for me to encourage more men to unplug from the Matrix that is our present feminine-primary social order, but equally important is encouraging more women to sometimes just shut the hell up.

It’s not that men don’t value your thoughts (unsolicited, they often prove our points), it’s just that we don’t value all of them.

The world doesn’t need your opinion on everything. For example, what men should do with their provisioning and catering their lives by ‘Manning Up’ to fit your overblown sense of entitlement after you’ve exhausted your prime fertility window on the Bad Boys and criminals in your 20s. Hush!

Your contrived cries of sexism over the sexiness of who the next popular video game protagonist should be. Zip it!

Whether or not the color of your foundation is called “Sunset Earth” or “Neutral Beige”. Shut Up!

So as a public service I’ve made the following list of things men no longer need to hear women’s opinions on. Please take a moment away from Instagram to jot these down:

  • 50 Shades of Grey
  • Yoga pants
  • The thoroughly disproven 77¢ on the dollar ‘Wage Gap’ lie
  • Giggling about ‘Dad Bods’ being “sexy”
  • Your confusion about where all the good men have gone
  • Fat Acceptance
  • Red Pill Truths
  • ‘Designer cupcakes’ and hand-baked dog treats being examples of ‘female entrepreneurship’
  • Christian patriarchy in an age of feminine assimilation of religion
  • Any sentence that begins with, “As a woman I,…”
  • Pleas for men’s aid in advancing your feminist ideals at the United Nations after claiming not to ‘need’ men
  • Any form of flavored martinis (or boxed wine)
  • 50 Shades of Grey (again)
  • Whether or not your feminine responsibility to engage in traditional Holiday ‘cheer’ is un-feminist
  • And the complete lack of ethics in all forms of journalism

If you can control yourselves and hold back from further expressing your opinions on any of these topics we’ll let you keep weighing in (uh, heh) on important topics like blow job techniques and pole dancing classes for housewives in shape enough to pull it off.

But that’s a huge, big “if”.

Thanks, so much.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

295 comments on “Just Shut the Hell Up

  1. @ YaReally

    Personally I avoid the dance floor entirely lol I’m old and white, I know I don’t belong on that shit.

    You don’t wanna learn to dance, that’s fine. But don’t say this rationalization bullshit. It’s like some MGTOW saying, “I’m only 5’6″ tall. Girls won’t even see me, so I’m not gonna go out sarging.”

    I’m a lot older and whiter than you are, er, also white, and I dance lead-follow dances better than almost any black, Asian, or Hispanic I see out. I’m also autistic. Claiming that you can’t dance because you’re white or old is lame.

  2. @theasdgamer – I think YaReally was being a bit tongue in cheek. Just saying that he doesn’t enjoy dancing much and doesn’t want to learn cos he gets results without it..not that it can’t be learnt.

  3. @ Culum

    I agree with what you wrote. However, I think that YaReally’s invested in the basic racial assumptions as well and was doing a half-assed rationalization. The best lead-follow dancers in the world are generally white.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Ballroom_Dance_Champions

    http://www.ucwdcworlds.com/ (country dancing)

    “I can’t dance because I’m white” is a silly trope.

    Learning to dance for a man means learning how to lead and dance leadership transfers partly to leadership in other areas of life. Dancing helps to build a man’s inner frame, among myriad other benefits. I do risky moves out on the dance floor and this willingness to risk transfers to other areas of life as well. I do ballsy moves that might cause YaReally to balk–and he has a lot of confidence. At least he would counsel other men against trying them. I counsel other men to embrace risk.

    Dance accelerates learning Game if you’re aware of its potential. Like YaReally, I’m about helping men improve themselves.

  4. The best is:

    Any sentence that begins with, “As a woman I,…”

    LOL. AWALTIAN. Hear that all the time. That and, “Speaking, as someone of color” (says the White Hispanic, White Female, or upper class A/A, who went to the best schools)

  5. @theasdgamer
    “I think that YaReally’s invested in the basic racial assumptions as well and was doing a half-assed rationalization”

    lol I’m just fucking around dude. I know a bunch of white guys who dance in various styles and get laid from it. But I don’t like to dance, don’t want to dance, don’t intend to learn how to dance, don’t need to dance, and my line is a good shit-test pass for when girls ask me why I’m not dancing lol

    @Culum
    “(Blueprint and SHIFT – PIMP I’ll probably finish before then)”

    Shit’ll make you a beast lol I’ll probably listen to Blueprint over xmas, I like to revisit it every year or two because parts of it that had no relevance before suddenly do after I have more experience etc. Plus I just like how Tyler explains things since I have a robot brain.

    “I don’t know if a BF existed somewhere else, but 100% not there in the club with her. I was 80% sure when I was talking to her, but 100% later”

    Shit-test then. That’s why I push it just slightly one more step before backing off lol Nothing wrong with how you played it though, no chick is worth getting your ass kicked by some angry boyfriend and there are definitely chicks out there who get off on the “let’s you and him fight” thing.

    “(as a side note, I didn’t connect it then, but yeah – she was one of the hottest 3-4 girls in the club and she stayed sober and left as things started to slide into drunkenness, even though this is far from a high-end social scene club”

    It’s funny when you notice that hey? It took me years to pay attention to it but it’s pretty consistent. You’ll almost never see the gorgeous 10s wasted on the dance floor at last call, they come in a bit later than everyone else so there’s an audience for their magnificence, do some laps and mingle with high-value people like staff or guys with bottle service they know or who lure them over for a free drink etc, and leave when things start to get more chaotic and the chodes all get their liquid courage balls up and start feeling like they can approach them. And a lot of times those girls won’t talk to ANYONE because there aren’t bottle service guys that night or it’s not that type of venue or anything and no one will approach them because they all assume they’ll get shot down or have boyfriends.

    A fun opener with those ones is to call that dynamic out and be like “I noticed you two earlier and haven’t seen a single guy come talk to you, what’s wrong with you guys why is everyone scared of you?” or tease them saying they look intimidating etc Usually they’ll be relieved and be like “omg I know!! We’re SO NICE!!! But no one will talk to us!!” It’s retardedly hilarious when you understand all the dynamics of why that happens…cause when they blow open like that everyone around you guys is like “holy shit that guy is a WIZARD”. Of course that’s when the other guys also start thinking “well if she likes THAT guy, she’s gonna love ME I’m way better looking than him” and the jackals start circling lol

    “but sugar daddy dating had a similar golden age from around 2012-2014 and I was lucky to be doing it then when even lots of hot girls who weren’t hookers and gold diggers were on it. In 2015 and especially the last few months I’ve noticed a *dramatic* increase in the percentage of outright gold diggers wanting cash on their profiles – *far* fewer of the “I want a fun older guy to show me a good time” profiles that I used to see..”

    This is interesting to hear because I’m not real familiar with the sugar daddy online dating scene but it sounds like it follows the same M.O. of every community: at first it’s unique and everyone on it is pretty hot and chill and having fun with it, and then all the “value-takers” find out about it through word of mouth and articles and shit and then they swarm in and take over and scare off everyone else.

    Thing is cold approach will NEVER *NOT* be a useful skillset. There will NEVER be a time where chatting up a gorgeous girl in person, lasering her, flirting, spiking her emotions, escalating etc ISN’T attractive. Phone numbers, texting, online dating, Tinder, sugar daddy sites, whatever hologram/VR dating sites we have in the future, it’s all cool when it’s new and then fades out and can even become repulsive and low-value.

    But cold-approach (direct and indirect) and social circle game will ALWAYS be attractive high-value behaviors and ALWAYS have other benefits that carry over into other aspects of your life (friendships, business, family, etc).

    That’s why it’s kind of an eye-roll when I hit the kiddie bars because there’s all these guys who are way younger and better looking than me but they’ve never learned to cold approach, they rely on texting and Facebook social circle stuff and Tinder and OKCupid and everything where they don’t have to actively put their balls on the line, so they’re just not competition. If I stand around and do nothing, then ya, they’ll get them, but once I’m doing my thing it’s like, they just aren’t equipped to deal with competition or having to step up to get/keep the girl.

    If I was a college-age dude, I would learn some Red Pill shit and run social circle game with some basic cold approach to merge girls at the bar into my social circle and just fucking DOMINATE my campus lol

    “when I did an MM course weekend back in 2006, they actually helped you figure out personalized stories (contrary to what people think, it wasn’t “run the same routines all the time” thing at all)”

    Ya Mystery flat-out says in his MM seminars that the routines are training wheels, learn the structure from them and then build your own personal ones, don’t be a bunch of little mini-Mystery clones running around. But people are lazy or don’t ever really look at the structure of his routines and focus on “the words he says are magic” and don’t want to come up with their own shit so they just keep using his.

    “trying to run normal game in swingers clubs to see how it works in that environment”

    I don’t imagine it would be difficult if you have standard game skills. Theoretically it’s just really receptive mixed sets and theoretically the guy the girl is with is already the Provider so they’re shopping for a Lover and game is designed to frame you AS the Lover.

    But careful of the “my husband just wants to watch” trap where that turns out to be a lie lol And watch out for being drugged and shit, ya never know and I’m not real worried about being alone with a chick and her being able to do much but introduce a dude into it and it’s like I dunno I’d be watchin my back.

    “although both quality and ratio of men/women is generally lower”

    I hit up some fetish club scene stuff and found there was a significant amount of hideously ugly and old lol but they have their special identity being in the scene to make up for it in their minds. I was just like “ehhh, I can find a girl who wants to do most of this just at a normal bar and she’ll be hotter” lol Was disappointed, but the people themselves were all cool and chill and had some good laid-back attitudes about sex and relationships in general.

  6. To think she’s on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Homeland Security, and drumroll, the Special Committee on Aging. I weep for our Republic’s national security on those first two. Re aging committee, I didn’t know being a gomer = special committee. Even though this was satire, no serious sitting member at the Federal level should do this.

    Since she started it, allow me to retort: my religion requires me to tell dumb cunts like yourself that abortion is murder. Sadly, you have three children. May their turn out better than you. I used to have a modicum of respect for you helping take down one of my previous employers for being corrupt. However, no more.

    The reason we men get so pissed at satire like this is we’re daily berated about how bad we are. Even those of us that came from stable, wealthy families have to figure out dating and self defense on our own. I’m no exception. So to add on to Rollo and Jack’s lists:

    1) Your opinion on national security
    2) Your opinion on humor
    3) Your opinion on the probable repeal of the 19th Amendment by the century’s end.

    Hope you enjoyed your time in the sun because it, along with all your kind, is ending.

  7. Cuntslingergregi –

    ” that shut the fuck up vid by the nog is a little too real
    considering
    white woman are being raped in the 30k a year range by blacks
    and nobody really doing shit about it
    so she saying she doesn’t want to do something and they tell her to shut the fuck up and do it anyway is way to close to real life popping off the screen that is what really happens”

    Please, go the fuck back to CH with this shit. Asshole.

    1. Women can complain or take it all I’m leaving with the remnants of a past that will never come back.
      http://eremita.di.uminho.pt/gutenberg/1/2/5/1257/1257-pdf.pdf
      “A rogue does not laugh in the same way that an honest man does; a hypocrite does not shed the tears of a man of good faith. All falsehood is a mask; and however well made the mask may be, with a little attention we may always succeed in distinguishing it from the true face.”
      Alexandre Dumas, The Three Musketeers

      @Yareally
      Cold approach is what helps the most at a rugby gathering and I find that to be immensely enjoyable especially finding ways to get better and away from things I’m used to.
      Had a hard morning but cold approaches have Been things I’ve been working on.

  8. “A rogue does not laugh in the same way that an honest man does . . .”

    What gets me into trouble is that I am an honest rogue.

  9. Looking back, the only occassion when a Woman’s opinon truly mattered in my life was when I needed help in deciphering the intentions of ‘other’ neurotic Women. Other than that, I really can’t recall an instance where a female perspective has helped me in any positive way.

    It’s a bit of shock for me to realise what a bloody chump I’ve been my whole life.

  10. I have to stand in awe of Rollo’s genius. Instead of an article on “mansplaing” he instead flips the script and demonstrates how the foolish notion of “mansplaing” is just the usual nonsensical projection of what I call “typical female bullshit.” 

    Of course we should be grateful to the Senator for providing the epitomizing example. It wouldn’t be nearly so effective without her lending the gravitas of her title to the task.

    Here’s another example of a broad who needs to STFU:

    http://goldengatexpress.org/2015/11/16/man-caves-perpetuate-patriarchy-2/

    More of the usual FI BS but in the same style as Claire’s ineffectual attempt at humor.

    On somewhat different note I’ve put theory to practice and determined nothing stops a shit test in progress like a quizzical look and asking “have gained weight?”

  11. @Sun Wukong

    “Looks like I’ll be in Toronto next month for work.

    It’s nice to get a break from Dallas, but Canada in December? Lawdy…”

    Fuck man, I LOVE Canada in the wintertime. I’m gonna be around Montreal (in the mountains) for a chunk of December, the biting cold and the fierceness of it all brings out the fighter in me. I live to laugh wildly at the icy winds.

    But maybe that’s just me being weird lol, I DO have a name/avatar based on Finnish mythology and whatnot. Hell, half of the reason I write my books is to get people to love the northern winter. I’m psyched as shit right now bc we just got our first major snowfall where I’m at and people are all complaining and shit and so I have lots of opportunities to try and replace their negativity with my enthusiasm lol, I guess I am kinda weird.

    Toronto is a lovely city, BTW. Ya might need a few more bulky garments if you’re importing yourself in from Texas tho 😉 Just plan on wearing the wool of like 1.4 sheep.

  12. Women are the greatest source of informations when man knows what to look for. We juts have to put aside our male ego.

    Man think that woman wants “confident, strong” man. Why do we think that way? Because women told us so, or we have read it in some “wise” 500 pages psychology book. Our old provider needs to believe this, so that he has some “noble” manly goal he can pursue. Of course it is very beneficial for women to have STRONG, CONFIDENT slave that protect her. Put aside our male ego, our goals and aspirationas when we want to understand women. They know that our male ego will side with them, will help them in their game. Unhampered by ego, woman can easily enslave man like that.

    Male ego tells us – we have to be strong and confident..cos it is “manly”, it si “respectable” and women SHOULD respect that! So it is a given that they respect that! While in reality…nothing is far from the truth. She wants strong and confident men as her protecting slaves but she tingles and craves for emotionally unstable man. Like attracts the like. Is tyler durden strong, confident man? He is unstable, knows weak spot of women, he can live in a moment, is more unpredictable than woman. He is emotionally inteligent more than our typical women. He behaves more like a woman than like a man. Therefore he HAS POWER over them! Is Mystery strong, confident man? Anyone who have read “the Game” knows how he was driven mad by one, single chick.

    What are the traits of men, women are madly enslaved to? Is it confidence, is it strenght? NOPE. It is unpredictability, unstability, emotional COLDNESS, psychopathy! In this case he is more unstable then her, so SHE is trying to fix the relationship, she is trying to give there some rules, some stability, some “security”. She must do all the work, otherwise there is nothing. She fills the void. He who cares less…..

    We still do not want to confess hard, dark truth about women and about ourselves. We still talk about this burden of performance, confidence, strenght, emh..POSITIVE masculinity. We still discuss with women, try to persuade them with logic, try to impress them with our “performance”, knowledge, experience. So can our man with innate need to perform rule/care less about, the realtionship? How? He is enslaved by his very need to perform which performance will be judged by women!

    Ultimate lotharios are neither strong, nor confident. They behave more like women than like men. They do not feel the need to perform, to protect, to build, to be confident, to answer, to be responsible. Take Charlie Sheen as an example. This man is emotionally damaged, unstable, irresponsible, weak. Majority of women are much more stable than him. Yet he has fucked more then 5000 of them. You think it is due to his fame? I am sure each of us know weak men, psychopatic men with no fame, yet with harems of women.

    It is still the same…discussion of slaves how to be worthy of women. Maybe mentality, maybe genetics, do not know which one more. And new generations of lambs arises…primed for slaughter as the last. We are loosing my friends, big time.

  13. @Sun – Toronto is a town teeming with young, hipster hotties looking to get plowed. It’s also a very international city with new transplants from all around the world in the majority. Even better, Canada’s mandatory Betaization indoctrination means they barely even meet an alpha man. It’s also an out of town gig for you with a hotel – perfect set up for short term pre-selection. I say you should clean up with some Canadian hotties.

    I have an intuition about how you are holding yourself back currently and it makes me think that you need to stretch yourself so you see yourself differently most of all. Why not make this trip a a workshop? Try out a new image, try new techniques. Find several venues to invest in, read The ReBirth of Vulpine – i actually can’t find the link anymore but he used to comment here. His stories and FRs on moving to a new town and reinventing himself are gold. I used his stories as a guide for inserting myself into the social scene here where I live more profoundly and it worked like a charm

    One of the things he seems to have done very well is use the social scene around him to demonstrate social proof. I use this all the time now to triangulate into a target of interest and oftentimes by the time I open an HB, she’s already giving me warm signals due to the acceptance of other. Consider YaReally’s recent comments on handling big sets – the other people do all the heavy lifting. This kind of thing is much more important than I think most guys realize. You have to DHV to make them interested and then enter into the set as “the prize” versus the pussy beggar. I was watching some sets by that ‘Natural’ guy and it’s funny, what he does is so calm and direct. He often just says, “I had to come up and say hi because you are just so cute.” He’s not “tricky” at all but rather stays super calm while he ups the intensity via tone of voice and eye contact. He manages to approach without lowering his value – something that many guys can learn from. Don’t lower your value with the nature of your approach, seem interested but only as an amusement for yourself. Don’t seem interested in meeting her criteria, seem interested in finding out if she meets your’s. This is all mental point of origin stuff and my guess is that this is where you get stuck, Sun.

    Think about it. You can reinvent yourself utterly for a month. You have nothing else to do at night (other than work). Stay over for weekends if they’ll allow it. Try different places – college bars, after work crowds, rock clubs, dance clubs, coffee shops.

    You can download Pimp for free as a torrent if you want to do a course and not pay. I say you make Toronto boot camp for returning to Dallas and slaying some of those broads who currently don’t give you the time of day.

  14. Man think that woman wants “confident, strong” man. Why do we think that way? Because women told us so

    Not this. We know that women like confident men because we observed that women fuck men like this. Athletes. “Ultimate Lotharios” like Wilt Chamberlain. Wilt didn’t act womanly, but he fucked tens of thousands of women. Wilt had status and confidence.

    Arnold Schwarzenegger. Another “Ultimate Lothario”. Was he womanly?

    Yul Brynner. Not womanly.

    Gregg you’re full of shit. Women are attracted to men who don’t pedestalize pussy. Those men can be masculine, confident, and strong or effeminate, bitchy and weak, but they must not pedestalize pussy.

    Why do we talk about pussy around here? Because so many lies have been spread about it that need to be exposed. Men want sex and need the truth.

    If you don’t want sex, that’s fine, but don’t tell other men that we shouldn’t want sex.

  15. @Gregg:

    The majority of psychopaths are the the most emotionally stable people you will ever meet. Pathologically stable.

    You will be judged on your performance by every sentient being in the known universe who is aware of your existence. Get used to it. Do you know who told you to be non-judgemental? Women. The most unstable of women.

    Do you know who doesn’t want to be judged? People who are trying to get away with something. Usually something pretty nasty. The correct way to deal with such people is to judge the shit out of them.

    Slavery is a mindset. Psychopaths make very poor slaves.

    1. @kfg = “Slavery is a mindset. Psychopaths make very poor slaves.”

      The placing of chains on a psychopath is an invitation for him to become your enemy, a word that I do not use lightly and with full recognition of the karmic impact of that use.

      Chains are evil.

      Chains are an imposition of sadism and are to be regarded as a provoked declaration of war.

      Regards,

      Ivan
      http://www.darktriadman.com

  16. @DarkTriadMan – Yeah, been trying to take you and your stuff seriously but I’m having a hard time. Here’s an insight for you. You seem to believe that all these social developments can be pushed back by men being “honest” in the world, lol. Tell me, please, where is that working? Name one social circumstance where men are pushing back the FI and the social justice/Marxist cultural revolution with “truth”?

    Here’s a newsflash for you and the rest here laboring in mentally masturbatory fantasyworlds about how you can push back the tides of social change via “truth” and other such horseshit:

    A pickle ain’t never going to become a cucumber again. Men and women who hold traditional values are a small and falling minority in the West and increasingly we are being shamed out of mainstream society entirely.

    Put more directly, you seem to not understand that by focusing on “honesty” and truth etc, you are playing right into their hands. They are springloaded to defeat such hyperbolic nonsense easily.

    Here’s the truth. Like late Rome, we are a decaying, decrepit, devolving society. Democracies always fail in the way that we are – it’s due to the disgusting reality of human nature. There is no avoiding that democracies will revert to mob rule and also attract psychopaths and scumbags and power-mad douchebags to run it. Democracy rewards such people with great power. Think about it, why would a normal person want to be POTUS or a senator or whatever? Who wants that kind of power over other people?

    The West (wrt classical liberal values) is over as a hegemonic cultural force. We are yesterday’s news and classical liberalism is already disappearing from the world. Denial will do nothing to change it and being “honest” with it is truly sophomoric. It telegraphs you don’t understand the circumstances in which we find ourselves in the first place.

    Here is a current “SitRep” (situation report): The left has intentionally overtaken virtually every major social institution in our society – or have you and others here missed that? Do you think that by homeschooling your kids and withdrawing from mainstream society into Christian dominated enclaves that you are changing society? Lol, by retreating thus you allow them to take even more ground – your entire reaction gives them victory.

    Even worse for many here, it’s the very reliance on religion/faith for your defense of our great society that enables many people to reject you as reactionaries and idiots. The tone of many here seems to imply that a great Christian re-awakening is just around the corner, and even more laughably, that Christianity holds the solution to our dilemma.

    The truth is simple. Traditionalists have already lost. The left has run the table and what we are seeing now is them consolidating their gains. What, you don’t understand that Occupy Wall Street demonstrators were at Ferguson? You don’t know that Palestinian activists flew in as well? You don’t realize it was white anarchists at the core of the violence in Baltimore? Or that Egypitian “democracy activists” (who all just happen to be socialists or Marxists) were trained on social change in conference rooms in Herndon Virgina by NGOs run by leftist revolutionaries – paid for by the U.S. State Dept? Or that this same State Dept funded 67 “democracy projects” in the Ukraine, including the 675k video studio from which the “revolution” was broadcast live. None of what is happening is accidental – the left’s revolution is already well underway.

    The saddest aspect of the “right” in the U.S. is how little they actually understand about their enemies and the tactics/weapons/strategies they employ in their war against U.S. society. Acting shocked and continuously thinking that the latest outrage will “finally wake people up” or that the left can’t get away with say electing Hillary Clinton due to her over dishonesty and criminality – stop it, wake up. They can and will. In fact, what you see now is them “dropping the mask” as they don’t have to pretend to obey the law or be about justice anymore. Just look at that Elliot guy in Toronto – on criminal trail because he criticized some feminists online. He didn’t threaten them or even call them mean names – he just criticized their actions. 3 years later his life is destroyed and is still fighting while those who destroyed him are speaking at Ted conferences and raising crazy money for themselves.

    We are like the frog in slowly warming water – it’s taken 100+ years to get here and now the water is boiling. Societal upheaval and collapse is imminent in the West. This is the way of human civilization and the move to destroying ourselves in the West began a while ago.

    Yeats spoke about it in 1919 in fact, in his amazing poem, The Second Coming

    Turning and turning in the widening gyre
    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
    The ceremony of innocence is drowned.
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity

    1. @scribblerg – A few comments in response.

      I believe you mistake my meaning.

      The power of truth is only used where it reaches a receptive audience. Where men are concerned and especially where men who are struggling with the pain and resentment and sacrifice and ugliness of the feminist dominated world are concerned, the truth is a powerful and necessary antidote. It is called “the red pill” and it is not replaceable.

      Truth is not expected to stop or even slow the advance of the feminist ideology, the collectivist dominance of the age or the returning dark world that they are the leading edge of. There’s only one thing that has ever stopped collectivists, and only one thing that ever will.

      Gunfire.

      And variants of it. Steel works as well, but you understand my point.

      Red pill men aim tighter, and fire more readily.

      As you point out, the center cannot hold. The dark world indeed returns on the tide, as it always does. Today the crest of the wave is a combination of the denouement of Marxist thought in Western universities creating a deadened, stupid wave of ignorant fools… and an Islamic leviathan of unforgiving ferocity that means every word of promised dominance it utters.

      Men who understand this truth – who swallow the red pill, and gird themselves for the existential war that we face in the West – may survive.

      The rest will be bones and ashes, drifting on the hot wind of history.

      I regard feminists as complaining, non-uniformed and unarmed collaborators. They are not the enemy; they are useful idiots of the enemy.

      The enemy are those who will kill you and have the means.

      Feminists have not seized overt State power yet.

      I judge that Islam will overtake them before they do.

      Men who see the truth – the reality of this – understand with your passionate intensity, and take it one step further.

      They rage, rage against the dying of the light.

      Arnold’s words were prophetic.

      The West must live.

      Regards,

      Ivan
      http://www.darktriadman.com

  17. @Gregg – So are we slaves to food as well? Is anything we desire our master? Of course not – stop being fucking ridiculous. Can a man not put his desire into proper perspective but still embrace it?

    I want to fuck women, yeah, and I also want to eat steak and climb mountains. It pleases me. As for your sophomoric comments about women not reacting to “confidence” all I can say is you must be a very insecure man. Social dominance (confidence) demonstrates high social value to women and status which drives their short and long term mate selection. You don’t seem to understand this basic truth which is obvious to everyone who studies the game.

    Psychopaths – actual ones – don’t usually have real relationships with people. They are emotionally broken and people are repelled by them generally. Sure what you point out is true in some smallish way – men who placate women and treat them like the prize are scorned by women. But that does not mean being a psychopath is what those of us not groveling for pussy are up to. And while you can dismiss Tyler as doing “crazy” stuff, in fact what he’s doing is exciting a woman’s sense of adventure and craving for emotional dynamics. He uses that to bring her into his frame which is much more than just psychopathic ranting, but for some reason you need to cheapen it all. Gosh, how insulting that he actually tries to actually get these girls to have some fun! Better they should be approached by tedious dullards who walk off at the slightest indication of any lack of interest. I mean, WTF are you on about?

    Why? Why does female sexual selection criteria bother you so much? In some ways, admitting it is not much more than admitting that a man’s eye will always be drawn to a nubile woman. Yawn. Even more to the point? Women have always craved cock, they were just prevented from acting on it overtly. Now they get to act on it, good for them. More for me. And I don’t have to be a psychopath to fuck them. I just have to take them off their pedestals, which many women find a relief in some ways.

    According to the stats, less men are getting laid then ever. Adopting a defeatist mentality such as “You have to be a psychopath to get laid” is surely a great formula for ending up sitting on your couch jacking off to porn and playing video games instead of dealing with reality. Just sayin’…

  18. @Gregg

    What’s with the men are slaves theme? Sounds like a logical fallacy (straw man argument) that you continually keep harping on.

    What makes you think “lothario” is the kind of man some of us want to be? (although I’m not sure if you are advocating being one or not.) A lothario is an unscrupulous seducer of woman. Unscrupulous means having or showing no moral principles; not honest or fair.

    We still do not want to confess hard, dark truth about women and about ourselves. We still talk about this burden of performance, confidence, strenght, emh..POSITIVE masculinity. We still discuss with women, try to persuade them with logic, try to impress them with our “performance”, knowledge, experience. So can our man with innate need to perform rule/care less about, the realtionship? How? He is enslaved by his very need to perform which performance will be judged by women!.

    Just because a man has an innate desire (not need) to perform, doesn’t mean he is enslaved. The Rational Male certainly confesses/explicates/describes truths about women and ourselves. Some of us aren’t shackled by knowledge of the burden of performance and having confidence, strength and positive masculinity. Some of us have found that not to be a burden. To be a low hurdle to real power. With low downside and potentially huge upside.

    http://therationalmale.com/2011/12/16/truth-to-power/

    Articles of Power

    The term Power has a lot of misapplied connotations to it. When we think of Powerful people, we think of influence, wealth, prestige, status and the ability to have others do our bidding – all of these are not Power. And as much as we’d like to convince ourselves that women are attracted to this Power, this is false. Because what I’ve described as aspects of Power here are really manifestations of Power. Here’s a cosmic secret revealed for you:

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

    When we allow our thinking, our personality disorders and our mental schemas, combined with their accompanying behaviors, to determine the course of our decisions, we relenquish real Power. The man who succumbs, by force or by will, to the responsibilities, liabilities and accountabilities that are required of him by society, marriage, committment, family, fatherhood, career choice, etc. leaves him very little influence over the course of his own life.

    Gregg you’re full of shit.

    PS. Get a spell checker browser extension.

  19. I seem to recall that ScribblerG was also impressed by Vulpine’s posts on The Castle

    Then everything becomes clear: you didn’t know what you wanted to be, you didn’t know what you wanted to do, you just didn’t know what the options were. All while, you had just been following other established paths, and you found yourself to be running around in a circle, you had been “chasing your tail”.

    Instead of worrying about your wasted life, you began to see it as exploring your options and finding out what you might enjoy. You begin to see past failures as only learning experiences from which you learned that you either weren’t good at something, or you didn’t enjoy doing it. And, you began to look around.

    http://www.sosuave.net/forum/index.php?threads/the-castle.217528/

  20. @sun

    Toronto entertainment district for all after work activities, including dinner (do not eat at chain restaurants)

    Toronto girls do the AFBB split as fast as any, do not wear a suit, and be a Texas guy looking for work in Canada.

  21. @gregg @theasdgamer
    “What are the traits of men, women are madly enslaved to? Is it confidence, is it strenght? NOPE. It is unpredictability, unstability, emotional COLDNESS, psychopathy!”
    “We know that women like confident men because we observed that women fuck men like this. Athletes.”

    And here we come to two different results because gregg isn’t entirely inaccurate that a lot of fucked up damaged dudes are catnip for girls (and not just damaged fucked up girls, hi madonna/whore complex) but asdgamer is also right. Whenever we get two different results we have to drill deeper to find the commonality.

    It comes down to the guy having an emotional impact on the girl. It doesn’t matter whether you make her feel good or bad emotions (ideally you make her feel both at various times), all that matters is that you have emotional impact on her. The damaged basketcase hot & cold guy who treats her like a princess one minute then tells her to fuck off because his life is falling apart the next is giving her a full range of emotions. So is the super confident guy with his shit together who’s running push/pull on her.

    The biggest thing no one will talk about because it sets guys on a bad path is how fucked up and falling apart your life can really BE and you can still attract and keep hot poon around. Ideally we want men to go the TRP route where they build their careers and hit the gym and don’t booze it up etc. But the reality is you can be a fucking MESS and still get hot girls, as long as you have emotional impact on them. It’s why chicks will whore themselves out for ugly pimps and go back to abusive relationships, and on the flip side it’s why they’ll leave dependable boring guys who give them an emotional flatline day to day.

    Personally I think that in the old days a chick had a baby at an early enough age to fulfill her need for crazy emotional impact drama to keep her happy and not craving it, but these days since they don’t want kids till they’re 30+ they fill that voice with the cock carousel, cats, Eat Pray Love adventures, hundreds of hours of Netflix (shows/movies full of emotional ups and downs), fucking guys like me, etc.

    But really all they’re doing is searching for that emotional rollercoaster that the guys around them aren’t giving them (stay tuned through the whole thing, esp Tyler’s fighting with the girl lol emotional impact):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXvwPa57T1M

    @The Awakened One
    That article makes it sound like those girls are an anomaly but they’re not. They’re probably 75% of hot <25yo girls these days, maybe more:

    https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-45437.html

    Because realistically why WOULDN'T they? These guys don't want anything from them (except secretly they hope for it), these guys have tons of money to blow (or DON'T, which is even sadder), these guys GIVE them the rationalization of "oh don't worry I WANT to do this for you, it makes me happy to do nice things for you!!", and they don't even have to slut it up, they just give the guy a little shoutout "thanks to my fav <3 <3 xoxo" and that guy is on cloud 9. Most of these chicks have Amazon wishlists and shit full of stuff for guys to buy them. A chick can basically pay off her student loans or go on fancy vacations and shit (where the guy puts them up in a hotel and she doesn't even MEET him, he's just happy to make her happy) to just put up some selfies like everyone else does (nothing super sexual, so rationalization and plausable deniability "oh it's just a swimsuit shot it's not PORN jeeze").

    And these girls with Instagram accounts etc have HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of guys throwing this shit at them. Hang out with a hot girl and tell her to go on her Tinder and just match random guys and you'll see LITERALLY every single guy she matches has matched her (whereas a guy can match like 100 girls and only get a few matches out of it). She doesn't even match a lot of guys because there's no reason to, they're infinite, when she wants attention/sex she can just pick the one she wants and get laid. Done. I don't think guys can even wrap their heads around that level of abundance and this is pretty much any girl from a 6 to a 10, even some 5s if they take good MySpace angle pics or show some cleavage.

    Still want to compete on the money angle? Break your back working overtime through your 20s so you can STILL be competing against guys who will just toss thousands of dollars and gifts at these chicks just for existing?

    But hey maybe we can compete on the looks angle, 'cause all these guys are obviously disgusting trolls right? Gross internet online dating nerd loser neckbeards right?

    http://www.people.com/people/package/article/0,,20957461_20967205,00.html

    https://www.google.ca/search?q=tinder+shirtless&tbm=isch

    lol. You gonna get jacked like Arnold to compete with these guys? And half of these guys have money and amazing careers ON TOP of their looks. Aw shit, now you'll never get laid!!

    …unless you understand what girls ACTUALLY want. Ditch the online shit and go cold approach HOT women (the ones who appreciate the balls it takes to cold approach them and know most of these other guys are lame in the long-run and get clingy or beta, VS the 6/10 girls who are dazzled by them all) and learn to make an emotional impact on them and that same hot chick will ignore her phone flashing with texts from all these guys to interact with you because you're there, right in front of her, making her FEEL an emotional rollercoaster that makes her not even THINK about her phone, even if you're not as good looking or not as rich as these other dudes.

    @Sun Wukong @scribblerg
    "You can reinvent yourself utterly for a month."

    Skip right to Month 2 'cause I assume you only have a month:

    http://yareallyarchive.com/2012/12/#comment-heartiste-397072

    Whenever I travel I use it as a chance to try out new behaviors, it's a great opportunity. And then you take the stuff that you liked back home when you return.

  22. @gregg – what you say resonates with me. I am for the egalitarian, (equal fundamental existential worth of individuals), as the best conviction to center one’s life around, and for most of life, it seems to provide the most benefits, in many, obvious and very deep ways. Except within the realm of sexual attraction and sexual expression, which isn’t so much anti-egalitarian, as not having anything at all to do with it.

    I’m starting to wonder whether my problems with not fully understanding women haven’t been more about this dynamic of the egalitarian (if this is the conviction you prescribe to – some people don’t) for most of life’s aspects (call it aspect 1) vs. something way less psychically ordered for the sexual attraction and sexual expression aspects of life (call it aspect 2), paired with average male response to the environment occurring in ways that flavor aspect 1 as being more free of aspect 2 influence (than is the case with women), but also flavoring aspect 2 to come on full-on strong, and as such being more free of aspect 1 influence, than is the case for women. If this is true, then, normatively, women would not be as fully turned off or turned on, with respect to sexual attraction and sexual expression, within the rhythms of their lives as compared with men (except perhaps within the confines of orgiastic release, for which there probably aren’t qualitative gender differences of spike strength, but there may be wider female variation with respect to spike strength than there are for men), and also, women would not be as subject to firmly holding themselves to principles around convictions of personal integrity, as men.

    If the western culture prescribes to the egalitarian conviction, as the healthy default setting for aspect 1, women will therefore be less bound by that during aspect 1 activities, but it’s subtle influence will be more prominent for women during aspect 2 activities.

    And to complicate the dynamic, since this is normative, a minority of men and a minority of women will not be subject to this gender-specific quality of emphasis for aspect 1 (being free of aspect 2) vs. aspect 2 (being free of aspect 1), to the same degree as most of their peers.

    And to complicate matters further, for each gender, the frequency of cycling between aspect 1 and aspect 2, normatively, probably has alot of variation.

    And to complicate matters further, for aspect 1, the egalitarian is not the only way a culture could order individuals for social interaction (there are many, many people among us that instead see aspect 1 activities as either more about upper-hand or lower-hand but almost never even-hand (harder to develop trust with such individuals).

    So Gregg, yes, certain men (even if their physicality and demeanor are very manly,) seem to live in the women’s realm of aspect 2 bleed-thru into aspect 1, more so than other men, and this way of being can be due to a variety of underlying propensities as described above.

    Sorting it out this way, and attempting to see people (both women and men) as to how they operate for:

    A) aspect 1: where they default to on the egalitarian gradient

    B) aspect 1 vs. 2: where they default to for the all-on, all-off vs. some bleed-through gradient

    C) aspect 2: frequency of cycling into this #2 mode (and I think there is more than one rhythm at play here, at least for men, because speaking for myself, there are micro-spikes of aspect 2 throughout the day, some of which are of vanishingly small duration, most of which do not escalate into full blown unremitting desire, but then there is the larger cycle of unremitting desire as well)

    The above noted flavoring of A, B, and C is something I think may be worthwhile to ask oneself of the people one deals with. Because getting this right could probably then allow one to get better at predictive skills, socially. I am just starting to see it this way though so can’t say for sure how helpful this approach will be (i.e. – looking for tells among individuals around this).

    But it does seem to be very helpful to just notice that generally, women have different propensities than men for (B), for sure, and probably (C) as well.

  23. Claire McCaskill is a strong, independent woman. She is filthy rich. And she “earned” it the old fashioned way — on her back.

  24. What’s with the men are slaves theme?

    http://therationalmale.com/2011/11/29/the-paradox-of-commitment/

    Whatever you cannot say No to is your master and makes you its slave.

    This is a favorite go-to trope for moral arguments where there’s a clearly defined right and wrong, however, by this definition then, does not commitment make you a ‘slave’ by default? If by the circumstances of a commitment you cannot, figuratively, say “no” to the that (or due to that) commitment, are you not then a slave?

    “Men are slaves” is the motto of the MGTOW. As soon as I see some variation of this I know who I’m dealing with. You’ll pardon me if I find this typical of MGTOW defeatists and isolationists.

    I don’t think Gregg is necessarily wrong with his assessments of psychopaths being sexy, but even a hot mess like Charlie Sheen is still performing to a preset standard that gets him laid. My doubt is he’d get laid as much if he weren’t a famous, somewhat (at a time) good looking actor with a ton of social proof.

    But, point taken, that roller coaster of emotion that women love to ride is irresistible. The real question is what is Charlie a slave to? What can he not say ‘no’ to? It’s always a matter of degrees Gregg.

  25. “I am for the egalitarian, (equal fundamental existential worth of individuals) . . .”

    Hypergamy doesn’t care what you are for.

  26. “I judge that Islam will overtake them before they do.”

    The weak are simply an invitation to the strong. Ask any Briton – if you can find one.

  27. @Triaditudinal Man – Why must the West live? Because you want it to? Because it serves you? Nah. The west was an idea and that idea is now gone. What’s left is the collapsing husk of a once great society.

    How it plays out is impossible to predict. So many whirling forces, so many changes, so much decay socially and politically and economically, so much regression, so much nationalism and religious and ideological fervor – it’s like a stewpot of explosives. What I do know is this. We have a lot of people on all “sides” who have had it and are ready for some kind of revolution.

    The elites are the only ones who want to save this shithole of a society as the status quo serves only them. When this condition obtains, it’s always a signal of that revolution is imminent. Gunfire indeed, but bullets have no ideology, only trajectory and energy and bravery is only a concept relevant to the living.

    1. @scribblerg – “The west was an idea and that idea is now gone. What’s left is the collapsing husk of a once great society.”

      Shrug.

      Did you want to live forever?

      All empires fall. All civilizations collapse.

      We will either survive and meet again on the other side, or we will not.

      In the meantime, happy hunting. The collapse is a fertile hunting ground, and there are always fortunes made in the darkness.

      Regards,

      Ivan
      http://www.darktriadman.com

  28. @ YaReally

    It’s not just emotions. Broad run each other through the emotional wringer all the time and don’t do lesbo sex. Masculinity has to be pinged as well. Confidence, status, strength, and/or violence will do.

    Men who pedestalize pussy dessicate vaginas.

    ZFG is the lube of lust…the cupidity of cunts…the vitality of vulvas.

    Yeah, you don’t have to be Mr. Igotitalltogetha to slay poon.

    Thanks for the encouragement to have fun and play with girls’ emotions. I’ve been having a lot more fun going out and messing with girls’ emotions.

    Did a post about one episode which delighted me: “To Spank or Slap?”

    https://theasdgamer.wordpress.com/2015/11/22/slapping-her-silly/

  29. “The weak are simply an invitation to the strong. Ask any Briton – if you can find one.”
    Still plenty of us knocking about, even in our native islands. It’s just that we’re not inclined to moan a lot, but we are rather partial to a bit of aggro. Appeasement never works with overt declarations of hostility, terrorists and invaders. Withdraw, consolidate and strike from the hills. Contain and starve.
    This current set of muppets is remarkably unsuited to our climate, social arrangements .. and notoriously long-term historical overview. What’s keeping us schtum at the minute is the obscenely overwhelming power of the Security State, which we do fear, for obvious reasons.
    The State has decided that we are to be supplanted by dimmer, lazier serfs. So be it. It ought to remind itself that it only exists as a massively rentier apparatus.
    Good luck taxing those idle fuckwits, we’re not all that interested in Performing any more. And no, you won’t hear a peep of complaint, that’s not our style. We’re probably gone fishing.
    All it takes is to cut off the dole and free housing/heating/medical, see how long that lasts.

  30. I think more men should bite back at women particularly this low SMV monster we see in this video!!!

    We see a totally different side to women when confronted with marginal dread, this video obviously insults men! Any man with too little testosterone to bite back at this needs to think twice!!

  31. @kfg

    “Hypergamy doesn’t care what you are for.”

    I know and I wouldn’t expect it to, or for any particular woman to necessarily care all that much if at all about my convictions, but I care about carefully choosing my personal convictions nevertheless, and I do think some women do have a better appreciation for the egalitarian as compared to other women, as defined as – not the duplicitous politically correct stand-in fake model (as prescribed by the so called “shitlibs” as they would label such sentiment over at CH), but instead an appreciation for the egalitarian-genuine-article (as I have already defined here in past commenting, from many different perspectives). However, as explained in my post above, for the women with such proclivities for appreciating the egalitarian, I do see that they often confuse the politically correct version with the genuine article, and probably do need some masculine influence to help them tease the difference out better, if they are so interested, and nevertheless will probably not be as truly passionate about this conviction as men who are so predisposed.

    I am starting to be less jaded now. I am starting to be less suspicious of ulterior motivations of such women. But I do need to get better at differentiating individual women’s (and men’s) propensity for appreciating the egalitarian-genuine-article (alot of people don’t give a fuck).

    We should give a fuck. Now I am moralizing and preaching but I’m starting to see where Rollo has drawn a line here, and so I don’t think this site is the place for that. So I will shut up now around “preaching” re the egalitarian (and save that for CH).

    Suffice to say though, I have come to the conclusion that women are no different than men, normatively, with respect to innate traits needed for appreciation of the egalitarian, but there is differences in trait emphasis, and alot of differences with respect to social feedback loops for accentuating the use of these traits. Coming to this conclusion has allowed me to feel more optimistic again (I am an idealist at heart – feels better than nihilism and pessimism).

    I notice that many here do not hold this more balanced view re women but instead think women are innately handicapped around moral agency to such a degree that it makes them incapable of undertaking the same adult responsibility around moral agency as men, and I noticed a tendency here, among some of the commenters, to therefore excuse women around issues of moral agency. To me excusing as such is both enabling and condescending and is rather of the co-dependent relationship flavor. This excusing I have noticed as bothered me alot. I can see why some men would see it this way (I wasn’t sure myself for awhile due to some pretty shitty things occurring in my life causing me to reexamine everything), and I can see that the Feminine Imperative dynamic, that Rollo has done such a good job in defining, and which is in rising ascendancy within our western culture, does not help at all around clarifying this issue (because the Feminine Imperative’s tendency is instead to obfuscate, so to expect social buy-in for a different type of excusing of women’s responsibility around moral agency, masquerading as not excusing – this politically correct shitlib crap).

    So there you have it (redpill according to Wild Man).

    @Rollo – you still haven’t explicitly stated whether you agree with me on this, re a more precise description of women’s innate aptitude and proclivity for using or avoiding moral agency, but I suspect you do.

    1. @Wild Man, I think you’re still tenaciously clinging to a Blue Pill hope for egalitarianism. The cultural, technological and really a sum total of the humanities we experience in this era are the result of a process that was built upon a complementary intersexual dynamic among the sexes.

      The want for an egalitarian ideal is a forced situation that quite honestly is doomed to failure in a species that evolved for complementarity. Can men and women aggressively make egalitarianism work? Possibly, but they will always be fighting that natural evolved predilection for complementarity that’s hard-coded into our DNA.

      From In Defense of Evo-Psych:

      6) Yes, but…that is only true in the United States. Americans happen to live in a culture with conspicuous gender stereotypes about mate preferences that the rest of the world does not share. If you look at more gender egalitarian cultures, in Scandinavia for instance, sex differences in preferences for status-related attributes “disappear” (as claimed by Marks[45]).

      Actually, no, they do not. Numerous studies have found sex differences in mate preferences for status-related attributes are prevalent across cultures[46] [47] [48]. Lippa[49] conducted an internet sampling of 53 nations and Zentner and Mitura[50] conducted an internet sampling across 10 nations and both studies found 100% of cultures displayed expected sex differences, with women demonstrating especially heightened long-term mate preferences for good financial prospects, social status, ambition, and older age.

      Some researchers have found the magnitude of sex differences in mate preferences for status-related attributes shifts from a large/medium effect size to a more moderate medium/small effect size in nations with higher gender egalitarianism. Zentner and Mitura found exactly this pattern of results after placing nations into three groups, low gender egalitarian cultures (within which women valued Ambition-Industriousness moderately more than men, d = -0.65), medium gender egalitarian cultures (women valued Ambition-Industriousness moderately more, d = -0.53), and high gender egalitarian cultures (women valued Ambition-Industriousness moderately more, d = -0.48). Hence, sex differences in the preference for Ambition-Industriousness in long-term mates were reduced (though not by much, and were still medium in terms of effect size) in nations with higher levels of gender egalitarianism.

      Most other sex differences in status-related mate preferences also were attenuated from larger to more moderate levels in Zentner and Mitura’s sample of nations that were higher in gender egalitarianism (e.g., Good Financial Prospects went from d = -1.04, to d = -0.84, to d = -0.55; Favorable Social Status went from d = -0.67, to d = -0.42, to d = -0.31). In most cases, these reductions were caused by women preferring status-related traits less in high gender egalitarian nations, though in many cases men’s preferences for status-related attributes also were reduced in high gender egalitarian nations (which seems counter to the logic of men appreciating women’s status-related traits more as women enter the workforce in high gender egalitarian nations). One thing is clear, sex differences in long-term mate preferences for status-related traits do not “disappear” in gender egalitarian cultures. They may only be moderate in size, but we see them just fine.

      Importantly, Zentner and Mitura also found in low gender egalitarian nations, men valued Good Looks only a little more than women, d = 0.24; in medium gender egalitarian nations, men’s valuation of Good Looks was higher still than women’s, d = 0.43; and in the highest gender egalitarian nations, men’s valuation of Good Looks was the most different from women’s, d = 0.51. Thus, contrary to the expectation that gender egalitarianism always reduces sex differences, Zentner and Mitura found sex differences in Good Looks are largest in nations with the highestgender egalitarianism. What!? Actually, these findings are not unusual, as high gender egalitarian nations also exhibit larger sex differences in Big Five personality traits and the Dark Triad traits of Machiavellianism, Narcissism, and psychopathy; in romantic attachment and love styles; in sociopolitical attitudes and personal values; in clinical depression rates and crying behavior; in tested cognitive and mental abilities; and in physical attributes such as height and blood pressure[51]. If the sociopolitical gender egalitarianism found in Scandinavian nations is supposed to produce smaller psychological sex differences, it’s not doing a very good job of it.

      Egalitarianism, like feminism, fails because we’ve evolved for competition and complementarity. Those realities are cruel, Hypergamy can be as well, but idealistic wants for equalism and the hope that women will rationally play on that same even playing field is unrealistic.

  32. “I notice that many here do not hold this more balanced view . . .”

    Natural law does not care about your view of balance; it generates balance by opposing forces, not by aligning them.

    1. @kfg – “Natural law does not care about your view of balance; it generates balance by opposing forces, not by aligning them.”

      You are completely correct. It is important for every man to understand the fundamental and inescapable importance of what you just wrote.

      You will never balance the world or balance cultures or communities or dialogues. You will only ever be a part of them.

      Do not strive to balance. Strive to be a clear voice.

      The scheme of totality will take care of its own balance without your worry. It has done so for eons before your birth and it will do so for eons after your death. And it has, and will, notice neither.

      Learn the opposing forces of nature. Learn the dark and the light, the male and female, and the joy that exists in the mingling.

      Do you wish a practical example?

      Get laid under strobe lights. It is raptly exciting. I highly recommend it.

      Regards,

      Ivan
      http://www.darktriadman.com

  33. I guess if I’m going to cite Yeats, I should provide the entire poem.
    THE SECOND COMING

    Turning and turning in the widening gyre
    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity.

    Surely some revelation is at hand;
    Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
    The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
    When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
    Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
    A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
    A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
    Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
    Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.

    The darkness drops again but now I know
    That twenty centuries of stony sleep
    Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
    And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
    Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

    The collapse of liberalism was already afoot when he wrote this.

  34. I am repeating that because I see the same pattern over and over. Guys becoming something they believe would attract women, without givng a single fucking thought of what women respond to. In the past we were told that we had to protect and provide….to become softer. And women loooove soft men! So we did. Now we are told that we have to be confident, strong, masculine…you name it, because this time, ehm..women love strong guys. So men are trying to do it.

    @yareally

    “The biggest thing no one will talk about because it sets guys on a bad path is how fucked up and falling apart your life can really BE and you can still attract and keep hot poon around.”

    This! Know that, been there.

    I thought that this blog was about naked truth and not comfortable lies.

    So you are willing to do all that hard work, build yourself from the bottom up just to…fuck women?? You can pretty fuck them WITHOUT IT all!!!! If our goal is just to fuck women, hot women, do not waste time with positive masculinity, confidence, building yourself and other crap. Behave like women – go fucking out there, enjoy your time, socialize, enjoy yourself, observe and learn emotional manipulation.

    The darker, the less responsible, the more calculating and manipulative you become, the better for this shit.

    That´s pretty fucking all.

    Google roosh “you did this to me”. He understood it.

    If you want to build confidence, to perform, to be a better, confident, stronger man, perfect, its is manly, masculine to the core… but do it for yourself, not for a woman. It will help you in business, makes you more respectable in community, many good things. It will bring results I recommned it. But it will not give you the magic power over woman. Understanding emotions of women, their primitive attraction triggers and manipulation, become more emotionaly calculating, cold and ruthless, than she is, WILL!

    If you want both, mix it…confidence and strenght for the male world, emotional manipulation and games for females.

    enough from me..

  35. @gregg
    “I thought that this blog was about naked truth and not comfortable lies.”

    To be honest I’m not sure why you’re getting pushback. I don’t LIKE giving the message to newbies that you can be completely fucked up and still slay hot girls, but it’s true.

    It’s like no one here has hung out with a Natural who’s pretty much a piece of shit in most aspects of his life but is still fucking hot girls and having them pay his rent and buy him shit etc. They’re not that uncommon out there lol

    It’s not something to aspire to, in that ideally we teach men to build up enough of this other stuff so that their Red Pill lives are sustainable (ie – become Charlie Sheen minus the money and you’re unlikely to live a long healthy life), but in sheer truth-bomb terms you don’t need most of this stuff to get or keep hot girls.

    Confidence with women is the vital one (as in confidence to approach them and run all this shit on them and expect it to go well) but other types of confidence (business, climbing mount everest, gym gains, etc) really aren’t necessary to just get laid.

    “So you are willing to do all that hard work, build yourself from the bottom up just to…fuck women?? You can pretty fuck them WITHOUT IT all!!!! If our goal is just to fuck women, hot women, do not waste time with positive masculinity, confidence, building yourself and other crap. Behave like women – go fucking out there, enjoy your time, socialize, enjoy yourself, observe and learn emotional manipulation.

    The darker, the less responsible, the more calculating and manipulative you become, the better for this shit.”

    Ya, I don’t disagree with any of this. I’d still prefer men learn to go about this the healthy way because just getting the girls is fun but if you don’t have that other stuff maintaining that lifestyle can get tougher. But in terms of sheer “pulling hot poon” none of it matters. I remember one guy in the PUA community who just travelled around living out of his van banging girls in it and shit as he drove around lol They don’t care about that stuff (unless they’re gauging your ability to be a Provider), just the emotions you give them.

    Now a Don Draper might passively give them some default emotions as he walks through the room, which is cool, but it’s not necessary and you can dwarf those emotions with pro-active gaming and purposely causing more intense emotions, without having to be a CEO or buy a suit.

    But the reality is a girl will be obsessed with a puppy, her girlfriends, some retarded Twilight character, some song she HAS to run out to the dance floor to dance to etc not because she wants to fuck all those things (although that’s debatable if you’ve read My Secret Garden and the followup lol) but because whatever has the most emotional impact on her takes up her Reticular Activating System in that moment and she gravitates towards it. If it happens to ALSO know how to sexually escalate, cool, time to get laid, but like, it’s not about masculinity.

    There’s a reason if you ever hang around lesbian chicks who “convert” straight girls you’ll find they’re usually SUPER aggressive (way more than most guys really, guys can learn a thing or two from them lol) because they KNOW that if they spike the girl’s emotions off the charts and escalate and lead (so the chick falls into her frame) and handles a little LMR etc she’s probably going to fuck them whether that girl was thinking about “I want to fuck a girl” or not.

    “If you want to build confidence, to perform, to be a better, confident, stronger man, perfect, its is manly, masculine to the core… but do it for yourself, not for a woman. It will help you in business, makes you more respectable in community, many good things. It will bring results I recommned it. But it will not give you the magic power over woman.”

    It helps but it’s not necessary, when you get down to the brass tacks of how attraction works. So ya, I can’t really disagree with this.

    “If you want both, mix it…confidence and strenght for the male world, emotional manipulation and games for females.”

    This here is the message I would ideally promote though. And it’s why PUA/TRP/etc spills over into other areas of your life, because it teaches stuff that helps in the “male world”, and ultimately creates better well-rounded men.

    But ya, you can throw a LOT of shit out of the window if you want to get down to legit “what’s the absolute bare minimum required to get laid by hot girls”.

    But then, no one will believe it so it’s almost pointless to bring it up lol It’s hard enough convincing people looks and money don’t matter, let alone EVERYTHING except emotional impact.

  36. (plus most guys who don’t HAVE some of that other stuff handled (health, money, etc) don’t feel ENTITLED to approach and create emotional impact on hot girls, like even if they approach they feel like “I don’t deserve her, she wouldn’t want me”, so getting guys to handle their shit a bit helps build that “confidence with women” entitlement that allows them to do this stuff.

    but if you COULD like, jump into a guy’s brain and deactivate the wiring that says “if you don’t have a 6-pack and money you should feel inadequate and unworthy” that social conditioning has built in it, so that he could walk up feeling entitled to throw emotions at hot girls, he would slay it with women)

  37. “To be honest I’m not sure why you’re getting pushback.”

    Because this, “you can be completely fucked up and still slay hot girls,” is not what I’m pushing back at.

  38. @gregg @doubtersOfGreggLol

    7:25 into this vid Tyler talks about how you don’t need a balanced life:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opUT4lSM2dc&t=7m25s

    Alex talking about it in-depth:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=028W7vthkuo

    Dirty dark “secret” of pickup lol (if you ignore these videos and the mentions of this concept where it’s not really a secret, that is)

    Like I say, it can have a lot of consequences down the road to go this route 100%, but it’s how shit works. This is why I keep stressing for guys to just go out. Because all the keyboard philosophizing and planning and reading and watching and lifting and businessing(? lol) etc is great but at the end of the day getting laid consistently by hot girls comes down to “are you infield, are you approaching hot girls, and are you giving them emotional impact?”

  39. @kfg
    “Because this, “you can be completely fucked up and still slay hot girls,” is not what I’m pushing back at.”

    lol I might be off on a random tangent then, I kind of only half-understand what he was trying to say and have no idea what he’s talking about with the slave stuff.

  40. @gregg is correct that men can be slaves to the wrong solutions

    Often we see “lift” and versions of “stoic” as solutions, when these are not sexual success factors. Clearly being free from passion and unemotional is counterproductive, and if women needed a rock they would get a ring. Lifting can’t hurt, except for the time investment, but women are not flooding gyms trying to catch a lifter.

    However you can be the irrational male and be attractive, but that would necessitate changing Rollo’s brand. Speaking of which, I was wondering if Rollo was doing a three day shoot of a commercial for the red pill, what it would look like (and why three days, were two days the after party using the product?)

  41. Following up on what Rollo brought over from the blog post on Evo Psych, there is this very nice documentary from Scandinavia
    https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1vuho8/the_documentary_that_made_scandinavians_cut_all/

    I think anyone interested in the topic of gender equality would do well to see the first episode (but the other episodes are also very interesting), where, among other things, they look at the would-be “Scandinavia Equality Paradox” that in more “equal” societies (like in Scandinavia) there is a clearer gender divide on women not going for “male jobs” (like STEM) and men not going for “female jobs” (people-oriented jobs, the example in the documentary is nursing). This is compared to less equal societies, like India, where lots of women are going to STEM. The possibly correct interpretation is that in the “less equal” society, women can’t afford the risk of doing what they really want to do if it jeopardizes her earning potential and therefore her material well-being, whereas in Scandinavia where there is no risk, people are really free to pursue what they want to do as a job.

  42. @kfg ; @Dark Triad Man

    “Natural law does not care about your view of balance; it generates balance by opposing forces, not by aligning them.”

    I agree, and Dark Triad, I agree with your take on it – “Strive to be a clear voice”.

    But for the sake of what I defined as Aspect 1 of human activity (the non-sexual realms), balance, or equanimity, is highly valuable – personally, for seeking those to surround oneself with, and for the ordering of a civilization.

    As human beings we believe we have agency. It is hard to reconcile Agency with Natural Law (defined as you have insinuated). The power of Agency cannot be wholly defined within deterministic arguments. There is an aspect of Emergence to it. I think this idea of Emergence is actually part of the natural order, and therefore the definition of Natural Law, must be expanded (beyond a deterministic definition).

    As such who knows where human agency will lead. For now, via it’s powers, it has lead to an equanimity, so to speak. Let that flourish, and higher order ecstacies may await such men, in the future.

    The current human equanimity that has arose via agency, and brought us fruits, has revealed an ongoing tension of male/female agency. Do we see it as this agency around gender as primarily complimentary but still commensurate, or primarily complimentary but non-commensurate. That is the precise point I was clearly driving at in my last comment above. So let’s not skirt this issue but again. Because the precise realistic answer, and the precise way each person chooses to answer, has many implications, as to how we view ourselves and others, personally, socially and as members of civilization, and thus will ultimately either soften some of the tension around this question leading to a strengthening of the equanimical circumstance we find ourselves in, or alternatively will require a reordering, outside of the dictates of the egalitarian.

    This is coming to a head now, our current human circumstance is begging for an answer to this at this particular juncture in human events. Pretending that it really doesn’t matter in the whole scheme of things, and that Natural Law will resolve it one way of the other, is true from some super-metaphysical perspective, but is still skirting the issue, because the question our circumstances are now demanding we answer, is with regards to the question of agency. To refuse to answer is to refuse agency. So from the humancentric perspective, it does matter. I am not the bluepill guy,or the pollyanna idealist guy, or the politically correct shitlib guy for asking this question, and you cannot pretend to a more sophisticated outlook if you choose to avoid answering this question for yourself.

    1. As human beings we believe we have agency. It is hard to reconcile Agency with Natural Law (defined as you have insinuated). The power of Agency cannot be wholly defined within deterministic arguments

      Actually it can be:

      There are plenty more very convincing arguments about the evolutionary adaptation that is “free will” or ‘agency’ if you like that term better.

      I’m not saying I’m convinced, just that I see the logic holds up. However, irrespective of that, I think you’re convoluting things that don’t need to be.

      My physical reality is that I get hungry. I can employ my ‘agency’ and starve myself to the point of death or I can do the same to hold my breath until I pass out, but that doesn’t change the physical rules I have to play by to stay alive. It’s simply how I work.

      Similarly, as was mentioned, no amount of my agency will allow me to give birth as a man, and no amount will fundamentally change my neural wiring so I can experience the existence as a woman experiences it. It’s not rocket science.

      So while I may have agency, that agency has limitations. In the prior thread I explained that value or worth is subjective to the challenges being placed upon that individual. If there are 10 men and 1 woman left on planet earth, that woman has far more value than the individual men because she can physically do what they cannot. The environment dictates value.

      I realize that’s kind of a harsh reality, but it doesn’t change the fundaments. I too learned that we’re all equal in the eyes of God, but that doesn’t mean your very rational explanations of an ideal egalitarian society in any way change the physical operative conditions we exist in.

      In fact, the only reason you believe you have agency or grasp a concept like egalitarianism is because it was taught to you as an ideal, not as deductive conclusion you came to because of your physical conditions.

  43. “As human beings we believe we have agency. It is hard to reconcile Agency with Natural Law (defined as you have insinuated). The power of Agency cannot be wholly defined within deterministic arguments.”

    There is such a thing as a tightly bounded infinity. In fact, there are infinitely many of them.

    Flap your arms and fly south for the winter, while using the compass built into your brain to navigate. Survive a 100 year drought by dehydrating yourself and reviving by the addition of water when the drought ends. Hibernate your fat away, and without losing any muscle mass. See with your ears.

    These are all within the realm of natural law, and all things, although your agency may allow you an infinity of choices, that are not within the realm of your agency.

  44. @wildman

    It is pretty clever to embed the question into walls of text devoid of a single question mark. To be precise it is like you are answering while skirting the question.

  45. ” Natural Law will resolve it one way of the other, is true from some super-metaphysical perspective . . .”

    This is a remarkable inversion of not only my position, but your own at the same time.

    “To refuse to answer is to refuse agency.”

    I have a supply of ammo. If you do not, my agency trumps yours.

  46. @ YaReally

    To be honest I’m not sure why you’re getting pushback.

    Because he’s a fucking imbecile. You preach cold approach. How can you cold approach without confidence? Duh. Do women appreciate confidence? Is showing confidence a DHV?

    Lol. Where’s the other YaReally?

  47. a Natural who’s pretty much a piece of shit in most aspects of his life but is still fucking hot girls and having them pay his rent and buy him shit etc.

    My first lay gave me a place to stay and brought me food from the cafeteria when I was a student in summer school and had no bucks. I’m not arguing that you have to be Mr. Igotitalltogetha to get laid. But you don’t need confidence? Puhleaze. I got my first lay because I had the confidence to tell the broad that I wanted to fuck her. No negs, Didn’t tell her jokes to make her laugh. Isolation, drama (from waiting), a little kino, and the confidence to boldly ask say what I wanted is what it took. She giggled a little while waiting for me to stammer out what I wanted, so there were some emotions generated.

  48. “Do we see it as this agency around gender as primarily complimentary but still commensurate, or primarily complimentary but non-commensurate. ”

    @WildMan
    Non-commensurate. I think it was in the Plate Theory posts, the thought is: In any relationship, the person that needs the other person the least is the one with the most power. Obviously to satisfy her hypergamy the person with the power needs to be you. Somewhere Rollo said that a rough guide is that there should be a 3/2 her/you division of labor. She wants to know that you could just ditch her for another girl.

  49. @ Rollo

    Charlie wasn’t my example. I’m not arguing that you have to be respectable to get laid. Really, you don’t have to have confidence if you want to use hookers.

    Confidence or some masculine quality is needed to stoke female attraction, though.

  50. @ kfg

    The ASD Gamer: A woman’s fore brain advocating egalitarianism is her hindbrain seeking power.

    Lol, or maybe it’s socialists trying to get support from women to increase the power of the Apex Alpha which is the socialists.

    Seriously, the amygdala isn’t very rational. If a man believes in egalitarianism and attempts to seduce a woman according to the principles of egalitarianism, he will fail miserably. The woman’s hindbrain will hate him.

  51. @theasdgamer
    “Do women appreciate confidence? Is showing confidence a DHV? Lol. Where’s the other YaReally?”

    Like I said: “Confidence with women is the vital one (as in confidence to approach them and run all this shit on them and expect it to go well) but other types of confidence (business, climbing mount everest, gym gains, etc) really aren’t necessary to just get laid.”

  52. Pertinent to the discussion on complementarity: the Brookings Institute says men should try to be women and be happy marrying down and being stewardesses and kitchen bitches doing choreplay. Dressing like Pajama Boy is optional. Prof. Reeves posits that millions of years of biological instincts and evo-psych can be overcome in a few easy lessons through doubleplusgood-think (TM):

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/opinion/sunday/mens-lib.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0

    Like all such articles, the paradigm is women have no agency and don’t have to do anything, it’s men who for the good of gen-kind must shape up and man up. If they object they’re just chauvinistic crybabies.

    One commenter even posits that “complementarity = chauvinism”. A “thanks for shaming” statement that indicates he has no concept what the definition of chauvinism IS. So be on the lookout for that shame-fest if you use the “c” word.

  53. @Rollo and others – yes I agree with the redpill advice as to how to manage a woman’s hindbrain, and to manage my own, but I am otherwise saying something so utterly simple that maybe my meaning it is eluding everyone.

    – Men and women are different but equal.

    If you want to argue about the unequalness of certain attributes, that is obviously there (no argument), but due to the complimentarianism, from at least a birdseye perspective, it balances out.

    Like Dark Triad Man said:

    “The scheme of totality will take care of its own balance without your worry. It has done so for eons before your birth and it will do so for eons after your death. And it has, and will, notice neither.”

    So because I believe (and so does everyone else) that human agency is a real abstraction, I do get to ask myself how much of a birdseye view I will decide to take with respect to how to value any woman I am with. What I am saying is that, for me (and I think it should be obvious to others, but if it is not, then it is good for me to know this) I should be (1) – striving for the perspective of valuation as per the birdseye egalitarian view that Dark Triad Man was pointing to in his quote above. As an agentic being, I do get to decide on this, for myself (or instead (2) – decide on the alternative that I should value myself as a man, as more valuable, or god forbid, to (3) – value myself as a man, as less valuable).

    I understand the benefits and the disadvantages of this birdseye egalitarian perspective. If I don’t make it my business to know the benefits and the disadvantages, I am doing myself a disservice. I understand that. If you hold this birdseye egalitarian perspective, it is best to be aware of our redpill nature (as outlined by some of the findings in evopsych).

    Why does this make me bluepill? If I am described as bluepill for this reason, then it is only proper that I should be within my rights to ask such describer, what perspective they use their own agency to prescribe to, for themselves, with respect to the 3 alternatives I outlined above?

    Emotionally healthy women (which would indicate they are not shitlibs) do not think men are complimentary but superior (from the birdseye perspective, which is the vantage they seem to go to). So if you want to prescribe to that perspective, then I think it is not impolite to also ask how you reconcile your view with the healthy women’s view?

    It seems to me that if I viewed myself, from the birdseye view, as complimentary but superior to any woman I let into my life, then, naturally, the most straight forward and honest attitude I could adopt around that, would be to just game them to get my needs and desires met, perhaps allow for a meeting of their needs and desires in so far as that provides me with positive feedback loops with respect to my own needs, but ultimately, seeing their needs as unimportant as compared to mine, so as to see this person as someone useful to me, but relatively unimportant. If I am mistaken about how this (2) perspective best plays out for those that adopt it, I would like to hear where I am mistaken.

  54. “Why does this make me bluepill?”

    Because you place your metaphysics ahead of your physics.

    “If I am mistaken about how this (2) perspective best plays out for those that adopt it, I would like to hear where I am mistaken.”

    It’s babies all the way down.

  55. @redlight – you got it. (she is probably also marginally superior to you in other small ways as well). This is not hard stuff. It is so obvious.

    @kfg – So you do (2) and value any woman you are with as lower value than yourself, due to her inferior nature? Or do you (1)?

  56. @wildman

    sorry, I should have used the past tense there, since she already had our kids, and now getting pregnant again would be vastly inferior, much like I expect YaReally does not value pregnancy at this time

  57. Emotionally healthy women (which would indicate they are not shitlibs) do not think men are complimentary but superior (from the birdseye perspective, which is the vantage they seem to go to).

    I think you got this a bit wrong. They think men are complimentary but only if they’re superior to her. That’s what Hypergamy is: a desire for a man who is her superior to complement her. No one wants to be lead by their equals or inferiors, after all.

  58. Rollo,

    Totally random thought here. But has anyone characterized the work-ethic between the sexes when there are no performance requirements? I would bet that the need to perform is actually inbred into males, to the point that males are more likely to simply take up something valuable to do when they have nothing, whereas women likely default to making themselves feel better about who/what they are.

    I would bet that the best way to do such a study would be to study the activity differences between male prison populations and female prison populations. I’d bet anything that male prisoners are many times more likely to take up a hobby, learn a new trade, or just be internally motivated to do something that betters themselves. By contrast I’d bet the female prison population likely does a lot less on their own.

  59. @kfg – , your other comments, you are misinterpreting agency. Agency is the power to willfully decide non-deterministically.

    @Rollo – I disagree with the likes of Sam Harris on freewill. It has been a while since I studied him, but if I recall correctly he argues for a deterministic fee will and is extremely convoluted in his approach and via that approach butchers the concept. His arguments about prior brain events of so-called free-will events, is foolish (see Noam Chomsky for refutation of that argument).

    @Rollo – the way I see it, free-will is a real abstraction, in the sense that is an emergent property of the strong variety, and we do not yet possess all the mathematical and logical tools to properly examine this phenomenon (that appears everywhere particularly in biological beings, but also mysteriously, within the realm of maths – Stephen Wolfram – cellular automata). I think alot of headway is still to be made with respect to the applying of the concept of emergence in a coherent way, paired with the empirical method. I think humanity does have the capacity to make headway here (you know, not just in a theological way, which I don’t find helpful).

    @Rollo – everything you have counseled about redpill is right as far as I can tell. Under conditions were hypergamy is allowed to flourish, fewer and fewer men will breed. Under such conditions we would more tend toward the tournament sexual selection pole of the pair-bonding vs. tournament gradient of sexual selection. Some may see this as harsh (I don’t). But that still does not excuse women from responsibility around moral agency, in my books, unless we all agree to bow down to the uber man – but men of the egalitarian propensity, even those that don’t get to breed under uber-man conditions, would ever stoop to that.

  60. “So you do (2) and value any woman you are with as lower value than yourself, due to her inferior nature?”

    No. The very idea that she is inferior is contradictory to complementarity. Which part of “babies” did you not understand?

  61. @Rollo – I have some psychological reasons for adopting the egalitarian view. I had an existential meltdown when I was 12 and nearly went insane. As a way out my terrible quandary, I ended up carefully weighing out evidence for the egalitarian view with the solipsistic view, that my mind was demanding I consider. The evidence for the egalitarian is not as strong as you would think, but that is how I ultimately pulled myself away from the brink of insanity (or perhaps left unresolved that may have morphed into psychopathy), by forcing myself to undertake an existential philosophical audit. There is just slightly more evidence for the egalitarian ontological perspective, but it is enough.

    1. @Wild Man, So lets see if I’ve got this straight, your overly detailed and subjectively metaphysical conclusion to whether egalitarianism is more valid than a provably evolved complementarity that’s resulted in virtually every human advancement for millennia was inspired by the unformed mind of a prepubescent 12 year old’s existential crisis?

      You’re not winning me over here.

  62. @wild person

    Rollo … The evidence for the egalitarian is not as strong as you would think

    who is on what side here?

  63. @Wild Man:

    And so your ego clings to that view, because it holds it equal to sanity, even though it may not be true. There are views other than those of your false dichotomy.

    The simplest of these is; what is, is.

    But that still does not excuse women from responsibility around moral agency, in my books , , ,”

    And I can’t recall anybody ’round these parts suggesting that it does. What is suggested is that women will not be the agent of enforcement. The bank robber does not typically incarcerate himself. Catch him if you can.

    “. . . unless we all agree to bow down to the uber man – but men of the egalitarian propensity, even those that don’t get to breed under uber-man conditions, would ever stoop to that.”

    A man who will not stoop to an Übermensch is an Übermensch. Alpha is a mindset, not a demographic.

  64. Funny how the “you go girl” woot-woot empowerment script turns into rank bigotry and patriarchy when you flip the sexes. No bigot ever likes to think that they’re bigoted…

  65. Who are the other “R”s in the manosphere?

    Romanticisation, Realisation & Responsibility

    wait, that’s wrong, it’s

    Rollo, Roissy, Roosh

  66. @Matadoro:

    That’s a bit of an inside joke, but the other “R”s are Roissy and Roosh:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK2UMK9ohpo

    Roosh pulled a sudden but inevitable betrayal, throwing nearly all of the manosphere under the bus, and when they responded with, “Hey! That’s not cricket,” accused them of turning on him.

    Because God is on his side, or . . . something.

  67. Jeremy – “Totally random thought here. But has anyone characterized the work-ethic between the sexes when there are no performance requirements? I would bet that the need to perform is actually inbred into males, to the point that males are more likely to simply take up something valuable to do when they have nothing, whereas women likely default to making themselves feel better about who/what they are.”

    I have anecdotal observations and some thoughts on this. My observation of the Stay At Home Dad backs this up. Assume the performance requirements are easily met such that they exist only by virtue of the alternative being a domestic version of Thunderdome.

    I have got three friends, now all divorced of course, who went through lengthy periods of being the Stay At Home Dad (6-9 months). They all went through a similar process of adaptation and growth that was marked by several steps.

    1. Disappointment and mild depression at no longer being the breadwinner, or from no longer filling their previous primary economic role. Domestic chores barely get done, and without any sort of focus.

    2. Adjustment to and embrace of their new domestic role. Skills mastered to the point they have free time, and lots of it compared to their previous employment.

    3. Boredom and the search for something that needs doin’

    4. Home improvement projects and advanced culinary skills

    5. Renewed and vigorous search for work outside the home.

    6. Return to gainful employment.

    The first two phases were a mix of willful refusal, resignation to task and eventual mastery of task accompanied by all manner of carping by their wives about spots on glasses, stains on clothes, children not color coordinated.

    At phases three they all had achieved mastery of the basic chores such that the continued carping of the wives was now petty sniping. They turned their focus to the kids. With consistent discipline, and lots of daddy time the kids were better behaved and were even enlisted to help with things around the house. Wives complained about office life much like they’d complain about domestic life, but with the added laments about time away from the kids.

    Boredom transitions to stage 4 with regular home cooked meals, and simple home repairs. The proceeded to more intensive repair and upgrade projects and more complicated recipes. As well there was a distinct sense of pride in these tasks, and a desire for greater challenges. The fact that doing these things contributed to improvements in the family’s financial health through cost reduction was also a visible source of pride. The wives offered hollow praise about the new projects and mild gripes not getting to dine out. The wives noted any imperfections and laughed them off as what happens when the men are left home alone. Not much was said about the new menu, since that was far better than the wives had ever attempted. The husbands making meals for groups of friends seemed to be taken by the wives as sort of rebuke and criticism of the wives domestic skills creating bad feels. Thus these men entered stage 5.

    Eventually the men began searching for any kind of work outside the home. No matter if the wages would be entirely consumed by day care and restaurant bills. They all seemed around month five to feel a tremendous external pressure to get a job. Any job. Discussion with them always hinted at, and sometimes outright stated the wives were unhappy and they feared the possibility (reality in two cases) of affairs. Eventually paid employment was secured. Within 18 months of finding work all were separated and headed to divorce.

  68. “They all seemed around month five to feel a tremendous external pressure to get a job. Any job.”

    And this is where their error occurred. If the net financial gain is going to be zero, any activity where you can at least break even will do. Might as well pick one that actually scratches your personal itch. An actual mission.

    “Within 18 months of finding work all were separated and headed to divorce.”

    Q.E.D.

  69. @Rollo – so do you believe everything you do is pre-determined? How do you define yourself? What should you do?

    The existential meltdown I suffered (for 2 long months) was around the egalitarian vs. the solipsistic.

    The complementarity concept isn’t really within the existential realm (and if you mean it that way then it is there as a colleague of the egalitarian).

    It really boils down to – do you think everybody is just as real as you are or not?

    That is the simple question. Working out the answer is not so simple as some may think. You can demean my efforts in that respect if you like, but I won’t be convinced otherwise unless you can bring more to the table than that.

    Ask yourself the existential questions.

    Some of the commenting among your guests here does smack of the solipsistic. I am not wrong to point that out.

  70. ” – do you think everybody is just as real as you are or not?”

    In conflating materialism with egalitarianism you escaped solipsism through . . . solipsism.

    You’re snapped in a trap and it won’t let go.
    The game warden’s comin’ you can see him down the road.
    You got a fish on the line, two in your hand,
    for the next few minutes you’ll be a busy man.

    In trying to penetrate your pseudo-academic verbiage I thought you were confused. I was wrong. You are just as messed up as you were when you were 12, but you have found a workaround that at least allows you some degree of functionality.

  71. Some of the commenting among your guests here does smack of the solipsistic. I am not wrong to point that out.

    you are wrong to point it out like a pussy. quote people, and say what you think.

  72. @kfg – Yes, Nietzsche’s concept of the Übermensch, is what the egalitarian man aspires to, but without the will to dominate anyone but himself (and even for himself it isn’t dominating, it is a very high degree of self-respect, a desire to know all of himself, and humility, in clearly seeing the limitations).

  73. @Wild Man

    so do you believe everything you do is pre-determined? How do you define yourself? What should you do?

    Yay! Conflation of determinism and fatalism!

    1. @Wild Man, I’ll tell you what I believe, I believe that there will always be a conflict between what we ideally believe is, or could be, our “higher selves” and the machinery that is our physical existence.

      I believe that is the crux of a great many other conflicts that stem from it. Dalrock had a great post once titled something like “Feminism would be great if only men would cooperate with it”. That’s one of these conflicts; an in my opinion misguided idealism of some fantasized feminine-primary social order conflicts with the machinery of men and women.

      Yes, on the base of it the FI changes its colors as it finds it convenient, but the true reason feminism (and a social order founded on Hypergamy) will fail will be attributed to men simply being physically hard-coded not to want the same things. On a physical level our sexual imperatives don’t align with women’s and vice versa.

      The same can be said of an idealized egalitarian state. That ‘higher order’ esoteric want for comparative worth simply conflicts with the machinery and the complementary social and gender order that extends from it. We are the apex species on this planet because nature needs inequalities in order to grow and adapt and survive in a changing environment.

      This is also why I don’t believe in predetermination. The only universal constant is change, and thus adaptation and improvisation are necessary elements to survival.

  74. Jeremy’s question @5:26 got me re-reading the last five chapers of Jack Donovan’s “Way of Men” which speaks to the hard coding of men’s hind brains.

    This excerpt echoes what Rollo just explained:

    “Later in the Epic of Gilgamesh, after Gilgamesh killed the Bull of Heaven and overthrew the monstrous Humbaba, his comrade Enkidu died. Gilgamesh was distraught, and he searched for a way to cheat his own death. He met a young girl who made wine, and she told him that there was no way for him to avoid death. She told him to fill his belly with good things, to dance and be merry, to feast and rejoice. She told him to cherish his children and make his wife happy, “for this too is the lot of man.”

    This too, is the lot of man.

    In times of peace and plenty, when their bellies are full and they feel safe, women have always advised men to abandon manly pursuits and the way of the gang, to enjoy the safe pleasures of vicariousness and to join women in domestic life. When no threat is imminent, it has always been in the best interest of women to calm men down and enlist their help at home, raising children, and fixing up the grass hut. This is The Way of Women.

    Men are people, too. It is not my intention to characterize men as soulless monsters who care about nothing but blood and glory. Men do love; sometimes more passionately and more unconditionally than women.

    Men can be tender and nurturing; any man who disputes that hates his father. Men write and tell stories and create things of remarkable beauty. All of these things can be part of being a man.

    Men and women share much in common, but this book is not about the things that make men human, it is about the things that make them men.

    Feminists dismiss biology and “outdated” ideas about masculinity and argue that men can change if they want to. Men do have free wills, and they can change to some extent, but men are not merely imperfect women. Men are individuals with their own interests, and they don’t need women to show them how to be men. Women are not selfless spirit guides who have no interests or motivations of their own. Men have always had their own way, The Way of The Gang, and they’ve always inhabited a world apart from women.

    “Can men change?” is the wrong question.

    Better questions are: “Why should men change?” and “What does the average guy get out of the deal?”

    When pressed to answer this question, feminists and men’s rights activists never seem to be able to come up with anything but promises of increased financial and physical security and the freedom to show weakness and fear. Masses of men never rushed to the streets demanding the freedom to show weakness and fear, and they never braved gunfire or battle axes for the right to cry in public. Countless men, however, have died for the ideas of freedom and self-determination, for the survival and honor of their own tribes, for the right to form their own gangs.

    Feminists, elite bureaucrats, and wealthy men all have something to gain for themselves by pitching widespread male passivity. The way of the gang disrupts stable systems, threatens the business interests (and social status) of the wealthy, and creates danger and uncertainty for women. If men can’t figure out what kind of future they want, there are plenty of people who are ready to determine what kind of future they’ll get.

    They’ll get a decorated cage.

    They’ll get a Fleshlight®, a laptop, a gaming console, a cubicle and a prescription drip.

    They’ll get some exciting new gadgets.

    They’ll get something that feels a little bit like being a man.

    Women will continue to mock them, and they’ll deserve it.

    Lionel Tiger wrote that men “don’t get what they’re about not to have.”The world is changing, and men are being told that newer is always better, that change is inevitable, that the future feminists and globalists want is unavoidable. Men are being told that their future is logical, that it is moral, that it is better and that men had better learn to like it. But who is this new world really better for?”

    Pretty much anyone interested in the original post “Just Shut the Hell Up” and the comments as they have flowed would do well to go and read The Way of Men for the first time. (Or re-read it. It’s been two years 2 1/2 years since I first read it and it is a perspective game changer for sure.)

  75. @Rollo – Thanks for the comments. I basically agree with you here (that we operate beyond the realm of predetermination – life itself is an emergent property). I agree the future may be wide open for humanity, and through ongoing adaptation and improvisation I think we are just going to become fucking much cooler if we keep our wits about us.

    A small point of clarification with respect to your depiction of my views – my ideal isn’t for a feminine-primary social order, but for a truly individual-primary egalitarian social order, and yes, right now that is more or less a fantasy, and women would have to want this as well, and I am well aware how far we truly are from that at the present time. As well, just to clarify what I mean by this ideal, I do recognize that if it ever is achieved, there will always be tension with this aspect (1) (as I defined in a comment above) – the egalitarian ideal, with the aspect (2) (sexual attraction and expression which has nothing at all to do with the egalitarian).

    Sexual attraction and expression is endlessly fascinating and I think it is even more nebulous as to the psychic underpinnings (though of course I agree that the behavioral underpinnings have been worked out to some degree now via evolpsych and redpill), than even a concept like emergent non-deterministic human agency.

    I have to admit I don’t even know where to start a cogent exploration of the psychic underpinnings of sexual attraction and expression. (Perhaps via the sexual fantasy life of humans?) This stuff is extremely deep and sort of beyond consciousness to a large degree (Freud and others tried but didn’t really get too far). WE need to make headway here.

    This emergent non-deterministic human agency can be exercised and strengthened via self-reflection (by exchanging here, that is actually what we are doing I think). I think this aspect of humanity is the golden key to our best future (hey – I’m and idealist).

    We may be disagreeing still as to how much power for directing human affairs, the emergent non-deterministic human agency (i.e – the willpower to take non-deterministic decisions) actually has. And I can’t pretend to know the answer to that. We still don’t really know if this power is strong enough to make that kind of difference. The way I see it though, I know I have this power, I know others do, and so I am of the camp that has a deep desire to try (I am assuming there is a good chance that trying could possibly be met with success at some point).

    That is why it is important to me to order my life accordingly. Supporting the true egalitarian ideal is but the first step at trying for this. Exploring it’s nature as an emergent property is another step. In the end, it may make no difference, no one really knows, but I (and others) will still try. I’m pretty sure that doesn’t make me bluepill (but I think it makes me a very hardcore humanist and extremely idealistic – guilty as charged).

    Have a good evening.

  76. Egalitarian equalism is just giving the Feminine Imperative an inch. And then they’ll take a mile.

    Complementarianism (and the Feminine embracing an equilibrium with the Masculine) is the way Humanity was designed. Anything else is just a kick in the balls to men.

  77. @DarkTriadMan

    The placing of chains on a psychopath is an invitation for him to become your enemy, a word that I do not use lightly and with full recognition of the karmic impact of that use.

    Chains are evil.

    Chains are an imposition of sadism and are to be regarded as a provoked declaration of war.

    Yep. (paraphrasing Deida:)

    A man’s basic motivation is to be released from constraint and experience the freedom on the other side.

    The essential masculine ecstasy is the moment of release from constraint.

    War, which is motivated by the desire for freedom, is a quintessential masculine pursuit.

    War pretty much resonates with the core of masculine men. Men being at their edge, giving it all they’ve got, up against death itself, motivated by a higher cause sure evokes intense emotion in men.

    The capacity to face death for the sake of freedom is the ultimate masculine act.

  78. ” – my ideal isn’t for a feminine-primary social order, but for a truly individual-primary egalitarian social order . . .”

    Perfectly well understood, although that is not a metaphysical. It’s a desire to impose metaphysics upon physics, ironically, removing you from the class of egalitarian men as you have defined them above.

    All egalitarians end up being totalitarians under the mask, because . . .

    ” . . . women would have to . . .”

    . . . cease being women. In fact, mankind would have to cease being mankind. It would have to be engineered into something else. If the people just won’t behave correctly we’ll just get a new people.

    ” . . . right now that is more or less a fantasy . . .”

    Which you describe as how you see reality.

    Q.E.D.

  79. “War pretty much resonates with the core of masculine men.”

    Col. Jeff Cooper, soldier, the godfather of modern combat pistol technique, the author the firearms safety rules and an academic historian spent twenty years contemplating the question, “Why is there war?”

    The answer he finally came up with is: “Men like to fight.”

  80. @ kfg – man are you a tough nut to crack.

    Women are cunts but then again more than just cunts. Men are brutes but then again more than just brutes. What aspects of each of these dynamics is better to focus more attention on – really (without ignoring the importance of the cunt aspect and the brute aspect)?

    kfg – as a man, I really want to fuck everything that moves, I want to dominate, I want to kill those that refuse my domination, I want to make myself as a god. But that isn’t all that I am.

    This is just so easy to see. We are just so much better off together than at each others throats. I really can’t argue about it anymore.

  81. “as a man, I really want to fuck everything that moves”

    I cannot empathize.

    ” I want to dominate”

    I cannot empathize.

    “I want to kill those that refuse my domination”

    I cannot empathize.

    I want to make myself as a god.

    I cannot empathize.

    “We are just so much better off together than at each others throats.”

    In individual cases I can agree, but I strongly suspect that as a species we are better off together at each other’s throats. It is only through force that things move.

  82. The Choir: So suppose you have a shovel and a sword….
    Wild Man: What is the existential value of a shovel versus that of a sword?
    The Choir: ….One is a shovel. One is a sword. What’s this ‘existential value?’ What does it matter?
    Wild Man: What’s the point of having both a shovel and a sword if they are not equivalent in value? I see no point in having both if we cannot deem them both equal.
    The Choir: So, um. Suppose some motherfucker is running towards you screaming he’s gonna use your skin as a cape. It matters quite a lot which one you’re holding, wouldn’t you say?
    Wild Man: Yes, yes, I understand that they have different uses. And that you should be able to recognize when to use one or the other. But when you add all their uses together, is that usefulness equal?
    The Choir: This seems to be a rather bizarre heuristic.
    Wild Man: It’s not! Whether or not a shovel and a sword are equal fundamentally changes how I would choose to use them!
    The Choir: Wait, we changed arguments somehow. You say that you’re interested in a thing’s intrinsic worth apart from its temporary and changing usefulness. But now you’re saying that its intrinsic worth can be measured by the sum total of all its uses?
    Wild Man: This is so simple! Do you agree with point 2.a under subheading ‘external characters’ I wrote above, or do you not?
    The Choir: Why do you even care? I’m calling a spade a spade, if you’ll forgive the aphorism. I’m not going to go beating all my swords into shovels. Why does everything have to be a heirarchy?
    Wild Man: This is quite important to me, actually. See, if I can view any one thing as being of fundamentally greater worth than any other, there’s no reason that I should but proceed to view myself as the greatest of them all – for don’t I encompass all my perceptions and reality? This is the great trap, the megalomania that every mind may mire itself in. It is the perilous play of ego against agony and angst, that shuts out all other persons or places or possibilities, and leaves you

    locked

    in void.

    The Choir: It seems like you’re dealing with deeper shit than women here, bro.
    Wild Man: There is no ‘real’ outside of myself, if those outside things are not as strong as I am.
    The Choir: So you acknowledge no inferior? Like, the only way you don’t get locked in your head is to insist upon all things being equal to you?
    Wild Man: Well, that’s not quite it. But other people need to have the same existential value as I do.
    The Choir: So you create an abstraction of those people you call their ‘existential worth,’ and then imagine that that ‘existential worth’ is precisely equivalent to yours, just so that you can acknowledge their existence outside of yourself? Don’t you see how flawed that is? I mean, this ‘existential worth’ thing is something you made up. You’ve never experienced it directly. All you’ve done is attributed a value to people that does not, in fact, exist – and learned to pretend that they aren’t you based upon that fact.
    Wild Man: What?
    The Choir: You’ve just gone in an existential circle, man. This is simple, but impossible to explain. What you need to do is WAKE UP from the nightmare. There’s a real world out there, outside of your head. You never saw it, but you tried once. That gives you hope. Just open your eyes. Feel. Be.
    Wild Man: I’m not a solipsist. I’m an idealist. You’re a solipsist.
    The Choir: You tried once. You can try again.

    kfg: There is no try.

  83. @kfg – you can’t empathize? I have a deep exuberant aggression (feels fucking fantastically good). That is the source of my power as a man. I have put that in the service of the egalitarian. That was the right thing to do. I thank the incomprehensible powers I managed to find a way to do it. I’m not going to change my conviction. If I do – I will go to hell on earth. I know what that is. It is wrong. I will never do it (unless I truly have no choice)

  84. @Forge the Sky – Humans are what is of value. Nothing else really. Without humans I am all alone. Same goes for you. That makes us brothers. There is nothing else. Everything I do is for humans. Everything you do is for humans. Nothing else. If you think otherwise you are fooling yourself.

    1. The wolf makes the deer swifter, cautious, evasive and alert. The deer makes the wolf stronger, more enduring, patient and cunning.

      Individually life is a messy and cruel affair, but together as adversaries they make the other a better version of itself.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: