Evolving Hypergamy

propose-woman

Novaseeker had an excellent breakdown of how Hypergamy has developed and is radically altering a long established social order in favor of one centered on the female sexual strategy. This was timely for a post I was working on, so rather than allow it to be buried in the last thread I thought I’d riff on it a bit here:

So in my head, I tried to think of what the best response to hidden estrus would be from a male perspective, and the only thing I could think of was essentially hiding male horniness, I used the word stoicism. The only way to balance the effects of hidden estrus is for all men to simply appear to not want what a women are offering, to appear uninvested, uninterested, etc.., because this again gives the perception of a lack of abundance to the women and re-balances things. Eventually such behavior would become selected for to some degree, and male emotions would become less prominent.

I agree with what you are saying, although I think it’s important to bear in mind that the expression of female sexuality historically was quite restricted, once we were at a level of more complex social organization beyond the rather small. Things did vary by community and culture somewhat, but once things reached that level of social advance, in most places a woman’s family/kin had a huge control over the expression of her sexuality, with the parents (largely the father) and to a lesser extent her male brothers exerting substantial restrictive pressure on the expression of her sexuality.

I should note here that while there is a definite social structure built around various strategies of mate guarding, these social mores and familial repression of women’s Hypergamous impulses does, in fact, stem from evolved, behavioral adaptations.

Kin Affiliation Across the Ovulatory Cycle : Females Avoid Fathers When Fertile Consider that girls will make subconscious efforts to avoid their fathers during the proliferative phase of their ovulatory cycle. Also, consider girls enter puberty at an earlier age when their fathers are not present in the family. Both of these are examples of phenomena that have a physical manifestation and a latent evolutionary purpose, but socially we build moral/social frameworks around buffering for (or sometimes accommodating) them.

Likewise, there are social controls that span all cultures that have the same purpose of buffering against the predations and mechanics of women’s Hypergamous natures. The most stringent of these might be repressing of women’s sexuality, but the latent purpose is still the same; controlling for paternity assurances.

There was, of course, cheating of the system that took place in terms of women bucking the system covertly, but most women were not sexual free agents in most places most of the time historically, and so were not acting on their estrus, concealed or otherwise at these later points in history. It does seem like something which likely occurred prior to the time we developed significant social organization (which is unclear when it precisely happened, but likely happened gradually quite some time before the development of large-scale agriculture), and is inherited from that earlier time, while the later social structures mostly, or at least in many cases, served to rather severely hem in the expression of female sexuality and free sexual choice to a large degree.

The Feminine Imperative that exists today still uses these historically extreme controls as a baseline for provoking an emotional response among women (and feminized men) today. In spite of the realities of Open Hypergamy and Open Cuckoldry, and paired with the fact that we live in the most sexually permissive society the world has largely known to this point, there is still a necessity to sell a narrative of sexual repression in order to perpetuate a social condition of ‘victimization’ among women and thus perpetuate a status of concern and primary importance.

So I guess my perspective is not that what you are suggesting is incorrect, in terms of the deeper evolutionary inheritance, but that the response of men to this eventually evolved, socially, into the use of social/legal/moral structures that acted as a counterweight to the inter-sexual issues raised by concealed estrus, and that, being social animals, this was itself also a powerfully selected thing (tribes that did not adopt similar restrictive measures did not generally survive except in relatively isolated areas where they were not exposed to the same degree of competition with patriarchal tribes and their sexually restrictive cultures). I suspect it dawned on the males in some tribal groups that the gains to be had from a kind of system of “one girl for (almost) every guy (who isn’t killed in war, or banished or enslaved)” when it came to women, in terms of reducing sex-related conflict among men, became more important when the scale/size of social organization grew beyond the small and moved to a larger, more complex scale, where different structures were needed to ensure cooperation and alleviate conflict which could undermine that cooperation and the scale made possible by it. So in other words, the strategy that men adopted had to do with the needs of the social order and the need for greater cooperation and less conflict once the scale grew to the point where close kinship among the males could no longer feasibly serve as a conflict-reducer effectively.

This was done, of course, at the direct expense of the female sexual strategy, and females have been scratching and clawing against that result in various ways ever since that time, but really have only recently had the success of overturning pretty much all aspects of that restrictive system (while retaining selective elements of it in form, mostly, as it serves their own interests) with the collaboration of most men, by the way, in the process (for various reasons, many of which Rollo has detailed in various posts on this blog). The resulting system is therefore new, and requires men to adapt, which is what we are about doing here, of course. The idea is to have a system which is of a large scale and complexity, socially, and which requires high levels of cooperation in order to function, while at the same time removing the last vestiges of of the “one girl for (almost) every guy” sexual system and replacing it with the freest, most open and adversarial system of sexual competition among males that our species has likely seen since long before the time we evolved into socially-based human groups.

I’ve covered most of the male adaptiveness that Nova mentions here in the Adaptation series of posts. For the short version, however, it’s important to note that even the sexual restrictiveness of women in prior eras were themselves adaptations meant to buffer against women’s conflicting sexual strategy. As I stated in the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies, for one sex’s strategy to succeed the other must either be compromised or abandoned. Prior sexual restrictiveness was a repression meant to force women to abandon and later (in monogamy) compromise their own Hypergamy (Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks).

It remains to be seen how feasible this is, longer term, because it is still so new. And the adaptation required by men is substantial, because the change is gargantuan from anything we have experienced in thousands upon thousands of years, in terms of sexual system and related mores. I think relatively few will adapt, and the majority of men will fail at the system, in terms of actually getting what they want. I don’t mean most guys will be incel all their lives, but that their relationships with women will be extremely skewed to the women’s terms, through a combination of outright duping, indoctrination into wishful thinking, and a steady move towards ever more libertine sexual morality for women as a part of the further expression of the Feminine Imperative.

And that comes back to the concealed estrus issue, because the social solution that men in certain groups came up with a long, long time ago (substantial restrictions on female sexual expression) is now pretty much completely removed in this culture, meaning that it is playing a bigger role in human inter-sexual relations than it has been permitted to play in a long time. In fact, the development of reproductive technologies and the related legal regime supporting their free use has augmented the ability of women to utilize this aspect of themselves to tilt the field in their favor, well beyond what nature provided them, in terms of controlling who among the men gets to breed. Again, most men will not be able to adapt quickly enough and will be in lopsided relationships as a result. Other men, like us, are able to adapt and thrive under the new system as individuals, knowing full well we can’t really overthrow something like the sea change in sexual system that we have seen occur, even if we thought that was wise, which it may very well not be. Every man, once he comes to this realization, therefore has a choice to make, really, and a fairly stark one. Most guys have no chance, however, because they are totally subsumed by the feminine primary and never come to a realization of things as they are, and just what the heck happened in the culture, sexually, over the last 100 years or so.

Although my last post may have been on the melodramatic side, the exaggeration is still founded on the same dynamic Nova is getting at here. Since the time of the sexual revolution there has been a complete social abdication on the part of men to have any say in exercising, much less advocating for, prioritizing their own interests in the sexual strategies equation.

It’s gotten to the point that even men’s initiating an approach at the most marginal form of intimacy runs the risk of not just rejection, but legal and social punishments for even taking it upon himself. The onus of sexual selection, as per every legal mandate, is unilaterally placed upon the part of women. The latent purpose of this is to prioritize women’s sexuality and women’s sexual strategy (Hypergamy) above men’s – all while clinging to the pretense of the sexual repressions that they believe still characterize the condition of women.

If you ever wonder at the declining marriage rates, the delaying of marriage until well past women’s prime fertility years, male suicide rates being four times that of women or the rise of men who’ve contented themselves in being single for their lives look no further than this reprioritization of women’s Hypergamy as the socially predominant sexual strategy.

[…]

I would say that attempts at overt male control of covert female sexuality oftentimes amount to window dressing that only serve to help convince the men of their paternity, even when they’ve no reason to be assured of it. Only in cultures like those established by strict Islamic doctrine/Sharia Law can paternity be (mostly) assured by social forces. Outside of that, women can oftentimes have free reign at getting away with good old-fashioned cuckoldry.

 

In a social order founded on Hypergamy, that dynamic demands that men’s utterly abdicate their sexual and biological imperatives to women. This means any paternity assurances, or even the idea that they should matter to a man, must be surrendered to the point that they are literally conditioned and bred out of the consciousnesses of men.


 

I’m hitting upon this in the hopes of prompting some discussion about the aspects of Hypergamy Novaseeker mentions here, but also because I will be discussing much of this with Alan Roger Currie this coming Thursday night on his podcast.

We’ll be talking at 10pm EST/7pm PST and this will be a live call-in format, so if you’d like to participate I’d encourage you to do so. While my appearance is not necessarily an endorsement of Mode One or anything else Currie is selling, I respect him as a thoughtful interviewer and he’s been asking me to appear for some time now.

925 comments

  1. Wow, a brilliant post and a deeper explication of hidden estrus and hypergamy which extends the already great discussion from the previous thread.

    There is only one choice for a man in this terrain. Adapt and play back at what’s going on intelligently, on every level. It requires a diligence and being uncomfortable that i didn’t expect to have to engage in at my age but so what? What else was I going to do with my life anyway? In a very real way though, I have not been mentally prepared to do so. Somehow or another, at a very basic level, i’ve been hoping to hit a glide path to chill-dom and just ride out the last act of my life (a 3 act play) without really struggling and striving.

    When I really look at it, I haven’t been able to shake off my sense of injustice about it all and that is the final residue of my idealism, my Blue Pillness. Even the “Why not me?” bit I play out isn’t enough. That’s just another way of feeling sorry for myself. Which is a great excuse to let myself off the hook. And in the game the world has put in front of me, the game I want to win now, at this point in my life? Nothing short of my very best has a chance. I think I’ve actually known this for a while and have been taking out living a high performance life for a test drive here and there, playing at ambition but with one foot still in complacency and regret and victimhood. That posture is simply insufficient.

    With Game I have gotten a whiff of victory and the joy of the fight again, along with a real sense of the great game of life and man’s place in it which I’d lost previously without knowing it. Thankfully I’m not drawn to lament nor self-loathing anymore but I haven’t been willing to face it either fully until now. Right now.

    Stoicism isn’t sufficient either. Not in the face of female hypergamy as one can’t fake abundance by sucking it up. No, men will need to actively engage and monkeywrench this hypergamous shitstorm if each of us is to not just survive, but actually thrive. Patriarchy might have been good for us in some ways, but the truth is that in others, it was so constraining. Just consider monogamy – who in the fuck ever actually wanted that? Or a life of service to a woman? Subjugating our very natures and supplicating ourselves.

    No, we have something much greater in front of us if we choose to do so. Consider what the likes of YaReally and Rollo are laying out in front of us. We are not the men of old – we understand female strategies now. We can counter them to our benefit and turn women to our purposes once again. Consider Jeremy’s last comment on the previous thread. Emily and other women’s system of evaluating value is hidden from her and them too. They don’t know what real value is – even to themselves. Even better? Social conditioning convinces them they don’t have hypergamous natures in an overt sense, so they can easily be gamed to the ends we seek. Happily so, it turns out, he he, which is of course better for us all.

    But here’s the thing. It isn’t fucking easy. Social conditioning has really overwhelmed most of us here who aren’t master PUAs. Sun, me, many others – we are either making slow, unsteady progress or none at all. And this conditioning will not be overcome by modest, inconsistent effort. Rather, it has to be worked at and worked hard.

    Getting good at dealing with women means getting good at being socially intelligent and getting what you want in life. It means being less instinctive and more proactive and consciously competent socially, in all areas of our lives. I watched that summit video Ya shared on the last thread and you know what? All the guys on that stage have something more than just the ability to go pull women. They have the confidence born of being able to navigate our social settings and conditions intelligently. They are like the SpecOps of social inteligence, calibrating, and harnessing their true power to shape the world around them. They have shed the Blue Pill awareness that makes us uncomfortable and lost and awkward by busting out of that constraint.

    I want that. At 53, I still want it all. And I have real work to do across the board, and I’ve been half-assing it. I’ve made progress, don’t get me wrong but my level of “game” in my entire life has been insufficient to overcome the obstacles on front of me. To really change this social conditioning that has me want to slump in my chair and watch some more fucking Netflix or Youtube – or even comment here (thankfully I don’t participate anywhere else in the Manosphere but still). I also realize, as Novaseeker points out, that this new reality puts men at greater competition with each other than ever. To win, we need to play harder and smarter as the bar is going up. That’s just the fact of it.

    It’s almost like I’ve been waiting for something to happen, to make me who I need to become. But it will never happen that way. I need to go charge at it and work really hard. I have to really let go of my old self and POV to do that, as it doesn’t work for me anymore.

    I’m not scared though. I’m calm. I can see the work and the field ahead, and the entire game now. I don’t have to feel small in the face of it as the BP world always wanted me to. I can play big, again. It’s not over for me.

    Damn. Perhaps I’m starting my second awakening now, finally.

    I’m seeing so clearly that much of this comes down to actively fighting and discarding my social conditioning and grooving in new behaviors and thought patterns. That’s why gaming is so crucial – it’s like boot camp for reconditioning myself socially and my very identity. To do that takes immense, sustained and serious effort. Got it. Fucking about will simply make little to no difference. I can pretend and LARP and keyboard jockey, sure, but is that what I want? Really?

    Nah. No fucking way. Good night guys, I have lots of work to do.

  2. “In a social order founded on Hypergamy, that dynamic demands that men utterly abdicate their sexual and biological imperatives to women.”

    Biology demands the opposite. If 80% of women and 20% of men are getting their genes into the next generation, the selection pressure is much stronger on the male side, male-specific traits will evolve faster than female-specific traits, and genes expressed in both sexes will evolve in ways that make males more likely to reproduce.

    This is why a successful civilization is one where monogamous men are firmly in charge; woman retain too many instincts better suited to monkeys. The only useful instinct women have is submitting to a dominant male, so make each man dominant in his own house, and his wife will happily serve him.

  3. The intention of having women firmly in charge and control of all sexual interactions is the main reason behind feminism hence attempts to criminalize and humiliate men who approach women unsuccessfully. But this is another example of women demanding something yet not thinking of the consequences, the end game could be no man approaching women at all which Western women would hate, Western women love attention and love men who take the lead yet they are making laws and a social enviroment that doesn’t this to happen. Of course uf this happens men will get the blame dor not having the balls to approach women and “where have the confident men gone” will start going around.

  4. @Rafael,

    That is largely the point. If you turn pursuing women into such a high-risk minefield, many men will be scared away altogether. But the type of men who are more likely to be scared away are those that women are less attracted to anyway, i.e. betas and more sensitive types. The kind of men who will still aggressively pursue women in this type of Stalinist environment are more likely to be the kinds of men that women are actually more attracted to, i.e. the cads, dark personality types, risk takers, those with the resources to navigate the minefield, and those that ignore women’s stated demands. So it makes sense in the short term. Feminism is a kind of severe fitness test for the male population.

    Yet as with all things, women will still reserve the right to play victim even when they are getting exactly what they bargain for.

  5. Rollo has covered a lot of this, but indeed how can we evolve?

    There is learning Game and increasing our Value and there is opting out to the extent that it is possible (there are still females around pretty much everywhere, at work etc. even if you try to stay away from the “market place”).

    Some technology could make opting out marginally better, but the FI of course opposes that kind of stuff because Betas are still very much useful after the epiphany phase.

    On the other hand, learning Game is not just hard work, but increasingly risky. Those that are already decent can avoid most of the risks and improve further.

    I can tell you that at the moment, if I ever get divorced and get actively into pick-up, that those “legal and social punishments” for initiating an approach are very scary for me. It is probably mostly irrational fear (from when approaching the wrong girl could get your head bashed in by another male) but it starts to become less irrational when the FI has tilted the field so that certain false accusations (harassment or worse, rape) are taken to be “true” by society by default.

  6. I think it’s important to bear in mind that the expression of female sexuality historically was quite restricted, once we were at a level of more complex social organization beyond the rather small.

    It’d probably be useful to unpack the truth in its entirety. These expressions were restricted mostly by other women, mainly older ones, or self-restricted due to shaming or self-interest. Expression of male sexuality was also restricted to the same degree, mostly by other men, mainly older ones, or self-restricted.

    This was all done for the practical reason that, in those economic circumstances, there was no other way to secure reliable provision for women, which was obviously necessary for human reproduction.

    The two main social changes since then are in front of our noses:

    1. Human reproduction no longer has any importance. This is already at a point where women are encouraged to get involved in activities that harm or destroy their reproductive capacity, like careerism and promiscuity. Breeding itself is seen as yet another crummy job that is to be outsourced to immigrants. And when women’s reproductive role loses its value, it becomes unnecessary to control their sexuality in any way.

    2. Male engagement in society is seen as largely unnecessary as well. When men are no longer needed as laborers, farmers, protectors and soldiers, there’s no need anymore to prepare them for marriage and fatherhood.

  7. If you turn pursuing women into such a high-risk minefield, many men will be scared away altogether.

    That’s just one aspect of it. Western societies have been at a point for years where women are increasing their demands in the mating market while at the same time their average value and quality as potential partners is dropping due to the obesity epidemic, the single motherhood epidemic, the alpha widowhood epidemic and feminist indoctrination. It’s not so much fear as simple cost-benefit calculation.

  8. Since this post quotes Novaseeker’s comments, for good reason, I’ll do the same here, without trying to be off-topic:

    It’s because the underlying exchange of resources for sex, from the female point of view, occurs in these relationships, too, even though they are not hard monogamy, but serial monogamy. Women feel “stiffed” when they are not getting resources in exchange for sex, even if they don’t articulate it in those terms. Therefore to the extent that men retreat from marriage, other forms of relationships between men and women that involve sex will also begin to involve state mandated resource transfers. We’re already seeing statutes/cases like that pop up in some places. Note that these differ from the old “common law marriage” in that common law marriage generally required that the couple hold themselves out as H and W, whereas these new laws are simply aimed at people who shack up for a certain period of time. The state will enforce male resource provision in exchange for extended sexual access, whether it’s a marriage (common law or otherwise) or not. This is the FI in action.

    alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2013/05/entitlement-personified.html

    The TLDR version:

    There is no way society will tolerate men having sex on the regular with a woman and then being able to get away without paying.

    dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/02/13/the-cult-of-womens-self-esteem/

    He made a similar observation on paternity testing in the earlier thread here:

    therationalmale.com/2016/03/25/children-and-cornfields/comment-page-4/#comment-149163

    This is the likely future we’re facing. The establishment is slightly annoyed by the scale of male disengagement from society, because it frustrates women’s priorities, so it makes attempts to curb it, but the only conceivable result is even more male disengagement, because men will have even fewer incentives to seek longer-term relationships with women. This seems to be a general trend in human history. Whenever a social system sees itself as threatened by decline and tries to fight it, it ends up declining even faster.

  9. @Hoellenhund2: I think it is more accurate to say that the state/government is annoyed by male disengagement, not because it frustrates women’s priorities, but because it frustrates the priorities of the state/government. Which sometimes are aligned with women’s priorities for whatever reason (wanting their votes, wanting more children, wanting transfer of wealth from males to females for the sake of the economy or whatever).

    This reminds me of the discussion a while back about adverts (or movies) from corporations that were in line with the FI / overt hypergamy etc. It is not necessarily the corporations being subjugated by the FI, more likely is the corporation doing those advertisements for the sake of profit, and it just happens that women as consumers are at this stage better targets for advertisement.

  10. I think YaReally’s post (you can find it by clicking on YaReally under Tomassi’s blogroll and read the June 17, 2013 post entry under the heading Theory – “Introverts” hide behind the label to avoid their own comfort zones. Towards the end of that post YaReally breaks down his strategy with women. This new evolving hypergamy has females gravitating more towards what may be a more opitmal sexual strategy for them going forward. The new strategy would serve to augment more and more the old strategy (serial monogomy with orbiters in the bullpen) to involve having a secret relationship all along with her alpha of choice while test driving beta male provisioners of the same sex for the “big prize” of marriage. This strategy of luring the best beta from her bullpen friendzone into marriage and a commitment of material and child rearing provisioning will continue on. She can still friendzone and bullpen 1/2 dozen guys or more and wait to see which one “goes to the show” and becomes materially/socially successful. She then lets her hamster loose and mysteriously develops “feelings” for the one that makes it to the big leagues and agrees to marriage with him. So one (beta) man to provide for her material needs and another (alpha) on the side for her sexual/emotional impact needs. The beta who goes to the show is of course the sucker in all of this. Because of his BP denial and ego investment in BP reality, he is in the unfortunate position of deserving this sucker status and remaining a clueless tool for his hypergamous wife. YaReally points out that the optimal outcome for the female is to give birth to the alpha’s child without the beta learning of it (stonewalling a paternity test). Evolution and natural selection is truly harsh but it would succeed in passing on the best genes. Mother nature would look the other way as well, since this approach would ensure no compromise of the biological linear non-solipsistic formatting that is hardwired in most men’s hindbrains. There would be no risk of RP fathers’ circumventing/hacking -via the neocortex – the hardwired BP malware from the hindbrains of their own sons since it would be the BP men raising them. The BP indoctrication/conditioning of the children by a gynocentric indoctrinated society would therefore be able to continue. This would allow for the reinforcement of the malware predisposition they were born with which is all that mother nature cares about. I can’t help but think of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. In that book I believe there were two types of TRUE alphas in that society. The ones that wanted to fuck and enjoy life (nothing wrong with that) chose to remain in that society with their A, A+ and A++ on their shirts. Some of those men were awake and some weren’t. The ones who just didn’t give a fuck anymore or got tired of all the pretense and bullshit went to live in Iceland where they could be left alone to pursue other interests (MGTOW). That was a great post by YaReally.

  11. As a young man, I always judged my father for visiting service providers. As a father myself now,

  12. @ misanthropist

    I agree with that feminism is basically a giant shit test to see what men are high value but it still seems like women are limiting their options by making the environment so anti male.

  13. It looks like we are witnessing a return to the “natural” mammal mode of reproduction with difficulties to most males to reproduce. If less (= only the best) males reproduce, the genetic information passed to the next generation is of higher quality, which of course is what nature wants. Those males will naturally have more than one female while others will not reproduce (=mate). It looks like this is already happening more or less and it looks very much like a return.

    It might be argued that the (historically very short) period when society managed to control the natural reproductive urges and artificially promoted the one-to-one model to a large part of humanity has been just an outlier in an otherwise normal sexual dog eat dog atmosphere.

    BTW: What many seem to forget is that the monogamous model thwarts the male sexual strategy just as much as it does the female. In fact the strategies seem quite symmetrical: ideally one wants to have unlimited access to all of the members of the opposite sex while all the others would ideally be able to choose just the one.

  14. Oh yeah, the protagonist in the book Brave New World (you know, the savage who believed in true love) committed suicide at the end of the story over that chick he was trying to white knight for (atleast in the movie version).You could say he represented the good old fashioned traditionalist type of BP man. I never really thought of that book in this light. It makes you wonder about gynocentrism and the potential for using it as a tool for the systematic social engineering of an entire society. I’m not convinced that it’s anything that sinister. If Feminism is simply nothing more than hypergamy out in the open and in the raw, then the male version of hypergamy (polygamy) should gradually manifest itself in a men’s revolution/movement (as it is starting to with RP MGTOW and PUA culture). The old traditionalist institution of marriage as we now know it will gradually whither on the vine over the course of future generations. Which will be a good thing. The first blow to traditionalism was the women’s movement. The knockout blow will hopefully be a men’s movement once enough BP men see just how harshly they’ve been played/gamed by the opposite sex and develop a good flare-up of RP rage in the male population. Mother nature might not like that………….

  15. @ Juster

    I agree with you about nature’s desire for the 80/20 Pareto principle. It should be interesting to see how it plays out for humanity in the future with technology thrown into the mix if men ever wake up and hack there hindbrains and societal conditioning in mass – i’m thinking that 5 beautiful android robots should be enough for me on my dyson disc 🙂

  16. This concept reminds me of the woman riding on the back of the beast in Revelation. The angel rebuked John from being enthralled by her. Hiding/unveiling enthrallment is the only proper response.

  17. In my experience, the inner cities are the end result of open hypergamy. The vast majority of teen girls and young women are rewarded for becoming baby mommies. Without a need for resources, they are overwhelmingly selecting the thug as their baby daddies. I knew one guy with 29 babies and counting. He was more of a PU than a thug. A friend works at a community center where it is not uncommon for some men in their early 20s to have a dozen babies. Of course, this means that most men are not reproducing at all.

    This system requires money from outside the communities of publicly funded and entitled women because men who are not fathers opt out of the system. The Federal Reserve is currently funding the entitlement program across the country, but there is a limit. The system is inherently unstable. We know this just by observing the results of the inner cities, which have become social wastelands.

    There is no way any political force will even attempt to regulate open hypergamy. Politicians get elected by promising free stuff to women. No one gets elected by asking women to be responsible. Male birth control may change the dynamics, but possibly for the worst. Male birth control will likely protect those men with intelligence and the resources earned with intelligence, and will take them out of the gene pool. It will not disincentive men with nothing to lose to become baby daddies.

    The paternity rates of the other great apes is something like 3 females reproduce to 1 male. This seems to be consistent with the inner city paternity rates, but that’s just from my personal experience. I’ve not seen a study to confirm this.

    Children raised by single moms are overwhelmingly likely to become idiots especially if they are born to teen moms. The end result of this system is a weakened society, and the eventual over run by a more masculine oriented people as has happened countless times though out history. Perhaps we are even seeing this now in Europe.

    There will always be the poor of the world, and in those areas, masculine values are required and rewarded. Feminine values are rewarded only when there is safety and resource abundance. This means that great civilizations will continue to rise and fall.

  18. What Scribbler wrote. +1

    Adapt and evolve.

    Does seem almost as if it is one giant shit test for the male half of our species. The burden of performance never ends, isn’t that what has been said over and over here?

    This:
    “This is why a successful civilization is one where monogamous men are firmly in charge; woman retain too many instincts better suited to monkeys. The only useful instinct women have is submitting to a dominant male, so make each man dominant in his own house, and his wife will happily serve him.”

    Not to be dismissive Dave, but that almost seems too simplistic. Like let’s just go back to how things were in the past and everything will just work out ok. If women are not so smart and limited in their usefulness they sure as fuck were clever enough to play to their strengths to create (with help from willing men) this new social order.

    Is that a gigantic ego buffer? Just wish we could have that nuclear family and the women submit because we want that? How much of the past social order that men imposed to try and put boundaries on hypergamy was not just for the sake of the tribe but their ego? It’s not like we all the sudden just got egos in the past 100 years. That part of being a male has been with us since the first caveman returned from a hunt and found “his woman” humping his competitor that returned before him because his competitor was more skilled, stronger etc… at the hunt and she picked the best option for mating. Sure enough it pissed off the slower less skilled male and calamity with skull cracking ensues. Yes the evo of the tribe’s survival was paramount, but let’s not fool ourselves and think that primitive ego wasn’t bruised as well while the stronger and more skilled alphas thrashed “his” woman about in a hump fest when she was in estrus. Ya snooze ya lose. Boy that sorta sucks huh?

    I can’t help but read Scribbler’s post and think we simply do not know where this is all going to go but we sure as fuck need to adapt and play to our strengths and not our weaknesses.

    Maybe I’m being too simplitistic, but men can’t simply feel entitled just because we are stronger, better at STEM, are better leaders etc…we can never rest on our laurels. That’s the lazy approach. Recently Blaximus wrote something about keeping your partner/wife/gf/lovers well sexed or they might wander to the Plan B orbiter for solace, Chad’s dick or whatever. We have to nut up and use BOTH heads in order to evolve and adapt otherwise we are fucked and have nobody to blame but ourselves.

  19. This is a hot sports opinion Rollo,

    “This means any paternity assurances, or even the idea that they should matter to a man, must be surrendered to the point that they are literally conditioned and bred out of the consciousnesses of men.”

    I would say this works out for the “Alphas” of our society. And we already see this happening. Alphas are the ZFG dudes doing 80 percent of the women after all.

    But what about the Betas? I would say we need a solution for them or our society is toast. Obviously the European experiment of importing Alphas to breed with entitled European women is a disaster.

    I come back to what a man wants. And a man wants progeny. A man wants a spreading tree. (If you are thinking the opening scene of Idiocracy… watch it again and think about who would be population breeding like rabbits today)

    Anyway, truth be told I gave up on American women years ago. The mother of my children is European. And my Son will be encouraged to get a white European wife as well. Because I want white grandchildren, grand children that will look like me… and truth be told if I allow my son to be indoctrinated in the American view of family… well I’ll be lucky if he as one kid.

    If a man were to travel to Asia, Eastern Europe or a few other places. He would see in contrast the literal crap American women are these days.
    American men should not be putting up with the cards that are being dealt to him by Americas fem centric society.

    I mean really we are inches away from having Woman president. With the middle east in flames and the governments there having zero respect for women. We are going to elect a head of state that a large segment of the world will have zero respect for.

    Germany has tried this for over a Decade… how has that worked out?
    Brazil is trying that… how’s that working out?

    Europe is on it’s way to being engulfed by the backscatter from their Colonial Empire building history. There is no reason to join them on their Funeral Pyre.

  20. Radium

    “No one gets elected by asking women to be responsible”

    True, appeals to the forebrain are damned. However women will be led by a dominant man. This is the future of western politics if we are to survive. Trump … Putin… and ISIS are the very beginning of this… Commands to the hindbrain will work.

  21. I would suggest that the traditionalist beta concept of chivalry/monogamy plays right into the hands of women and their open hypergamy. Now that open hypergamy (i.e., Feminism) has been let out of the genie bottle it will not be put back into that old defunct bottle nor should it be since that is just how women evolved. The stubborn loyalty to these traditionalist tenants by BP men will result in the proverbial falling on one’s own sword by these same clueless white knights as the RP men stand by helplessly to watch until their BP brothers cleanse their lens’ of perception and see things as they truly are. This is beginning to happen now and it is a good thing from a broader perspective. Wow, did I just call myself a male feminist? LOL, I guess I did. Okay, I accept hurricanes as a reality too – that doesn’t make me pro-hurricane. But you see what I mean? The parable of the frog and the scorpion comes to mind. “Of course I lied to you and stung you, silly. I’m a scorpion. What did you expect?” So the PUA/MGTOW crowd will tote them around on their backs but just won’t cross the river (i.e. marriage) with them on their backs. Why? Because we’re not stupid, silly.

  22. Very interesting that you said how emotion would be selected out. There’s a sort of grimness in your words. Sociopathy being the most successful sexual strategy in the current sexual market means we’re slowly but surely going to hell as a society, and that no matter what red pill men do, the are still subject to the whims of women and their hypergamy, that freedom is an illusion. We’re basically slaves in a plantation who know that the are slaves, but can’t do anything to earn their freedom. It would take a society wide fallout and reestablishment of patriarchal norms to get things going in a better direction. Every post I read from your blog suggests that mgtow is the only way to go. That there can only be freedom, rationality and virtue in a world where women do not have rights.

  23. I told a female co-worker that her cat didn’t really love her the way that her dog did. In her own solipsistic way she understood the difference and she seemed to adore that observation while playfully denying it. Strangely, I prefer cats to dogs. Dog lovers like to be loved. Cat lovers like to be entertained and amused – that’s why they like cats. BTW my solipsistic cat does not care about this stuff and neither do most women. That’s why in the long run men will have the advantage once we get over our unconditional hardwired hindbrain puppy love of the opposite sex.

  24. “That there can only be freedom, rationality and virtue in a world where women do not have rights.”

    Cheer up people. Taking away women’s rights, or enacting some sort of social shaming is just a band-aid. It doesn’t work long term. We’ve proven that haven’t we? Learning game man by man and passing it on to subsequent generations is the only sustainable solution.

  25. Sentient

    “True, appeals to the forebrain are damned. However women will be led by a dominant man. This is the future of western politics if we are to survive. Trump … Putin… and ISIS are the very beginning of this… Commands to the hindbrain will work.”

    I agree. However, there is enough resource scarcity and / or threats of physical violence in Russia and the middle east to make this work. Women look to masculine men when these conditions prevail. We have far more resource abundance and security than those regions have. It will be very difficult for even Donald to make this appeal. The media is already hammering him on his treatment of women. This will eventually create enough of a negative impact to allow even Hillary to beat him.

    In addition, we also have a media and academic system with a vision of a feminized Utopian world. All social messages are filtered through these systems. Thomas Sowell discusses this in detail in his book “the vision of the anointed”. It takes an engaged and informed public to see through the messages of the media and academia, which we don’t have. Instead, the people of the western world are more interested in reality TV and social media.

  26. “truth be told if I allow my son to be indoctrinated in the American view of family… well I’ll be lucky if he as one kid.”

    Ang- European birthrates are below replacement levels… what is different in your view?

  27. @Andy: I’m not sure lots of men / every man learning game is a solution. If that would happen without any other changes, only the top 20% (or 10%) get laid anyway, it is just that the ones not getting laid understand better why not.

    So at best the ones at bottom 80% that are now game aware and somewhat competent at it but not good enough compared with the other 20%, are more aware and are not willing to be Beta Bucks (or some of them might even knowing what they are getting into, as long as they are sufficiently sure they get their own offspring out of it, some men really want to have kids).

  28. “So at best the ones at bottom 80% that are now game aware and somewhat competent at it but not good enough compared with the other 20%”

    Here’s where I disagree. The more guys that have game, the wider the distribution of pussy. That pareto distribution isn’t a rule.

  29. Radium

    “We have far more resource abundance and security than those regions have.”

    As a country yes, as a household…. ermmm not so much. How much abundance and security does your average 28 YO single woman have? ever looked at their “finances”, their net worth? Negative.

    Same with the average family of 4. The frail economy, the lopsided economy is THE story of this election cycle, and only sanders and Trump are hitting it.

    The rest – well it’s all bout dem fiat dollaz yo!

    “In addition, we also have a media and academic system with a vision of a feminized Utopian world. All social messages are filtered through these systems”

    when those dollaz ain’t there no mo’, these systems ^^^ perpetuating these messages will collapse.

    womenz still gotta eat… the hamster will deal with the cognitive dissonance as always. Trump is very electable.

  30. I agree with you Andy. We can’t go back – only forward. Every RP man has a responsibility to pass this knowledge on (or at least make an attempt). I do not have progeny of my own but I do have a BP friend who is married with two son’s and I plan on giving each one of them Rollo’s two books on their 18th birthdays. I only wish there was a way I could tie them down and force them to read the material contained in them but one can only try. As an adult it ultimately becomes each man’s responsibility to seek out the truth and overcome the brainwashing that was programmed in by society/culture. Having a victim mentality, well, that is just another brick in the wall.

  31. “It’s gotten to the point that even men’s initiating an approach at the most marginal form of intimacy runs the risk of not just rejection, but legal and social punishments for even taking it upon himself.”

    “This means any paternity assurances, or even the idea that they should matter to a man, must be surrendered to the point that they are literally conditioned and bred out of the consciousnesses of men.”

    “Since the time of the sexual revolution there has been a complete social abdication on the part of men to have any say in exercising, much less advocating for, prioritizing their own interests in the sexual strategies equation.”

    Right on Rollo all three phrases resontate deep within my being…

  32. “Having a victim mentality, well, that is just another brick in the wall.”

    Exactly. The beautiful thing about it is that it will make you a happier and more complete man anyway. Independent of any socio-sexual power struggles.

  33. @Eeeeeeee

    “Very interesting that you said how emotion would be selected out. “

    Jeremy actually said that (the 2nd paragraph in the OP) in regards to Stoicism being a potential male strategy against concealed estrus. He meant men’s emotions should be selected out as a praxeologic strategy.

    “So in my head, I tried to think of what the best response to hidden estrus would be from a male perspective, and the only thing I could think of was essentially hiding male horniness, I used the word stoicism. The only way to balance the effects of hidden estrus is for all men to simply appear to not want what a women are offering, to appear uninvested, uninterested, etc.., because this again gives the perception of a lack of abundance to the women and re-balances things. Eventually such behavior would become selected for to some degree, and male emotions would become less prominent.-Jeremy

    It’s really is just basic Outcome Independence (from PUAlingo):

    “A better approach to take is to be outcome independent. By not caring about the outcome of any specific interaction, a PUA comes across as less needy and does not put too much pressure on a woman. This detached approach of indifference paradoxically makes women more attracted to the PUA because they don’t come across as desperate. They also become more of a challenge for the woman to win over.

    Outcome independence goes hand in hand with having an abundance mentality. By realizing that there are more attractive women than can ever be met in a lifetime, the PUA is able not put too much significance on any specific set or interaction, which allows him to relax and have fun—attractive qualities.”

    There’s a sort of grimness in your words.”

    It just shows you are still in one of the Five Stages of Unplugging. Grimness=Grief. Keep working through to Acceptance and be aware of Buffers to your emotions if they keep you from getting real power. Be aware of what those emotions are telling you in your own strategy and get some ego distance from them, while understanding them.

    MGTOW is on of the five stages of Grief. Don’t be so grim.

  34. @Rollo

    Although my last post may have been on the melodramatic side, the exaggeration is still founded …

    okay, so less melodrama this time perhaps? Then you close with:

    In a social order founded on Hypergamy, that dynamic demands that men’s utterly abdicate their sexual and biological imperatives to women. This means any paternity assurances, or even the idea that they should matter to a man, must be surrendered to the point that they are literally conditioned and bred out of the consciousnesses of men.

    First regarding “men utterly abdicate” (dropping the ‘s or you could change to “abdication of”), abdicating is enough, no need for utters.

    Second, conditioned is fine, to the point one could rewrite 1984 into 2084 with a sex crime twist. However “bred out of the consciousnesses” is over the top. They are going to use genetics? They will only get pregnant by betas until they have a docile male population, the females the bulls and the males the cows?

    This post did not riff like it could have. Now that you have clearly defined the FI matrix, in many posts, books and interviews, next up is how do men adapt? Having lots of plates doesn’t have any paternity assurances, and neither does doing without women.

  35. “It would take a society wide fallout and reestablishment of patriarchal norms to get things going in a better direction. Every post I read from your blog suggests that mgtow is the only way to go. That there can only be freedom, rationality and virtue in a world where women do not have rights.”

    I call BULLSHIT on that.

  36. Sentient

    “womenz still gotta eat… the hamster will deal with the cognitive dissonance as always. Trump is very electable.”

    I don’t disagree with anything you said. I think the uncertainty of how this will play out is going to be in the effectiveness of the spin. There is a tremendous amount of anger out there. However, all messages are filtered to some degree through the main stream media, which believes in a feminized united world Utopia.

    The average 28 year old woman has negative finances because she is only concerned about her immediate wants. She will spend her retirement on a new outfit or a visit to the spa without a second thought. If she is willing to trade her retirement for her immediate wants, why would she be concerned about the fate of her nation? Whether she votes for Trump is going to depend on the spin. Can she be convinced that Trump will provide her with more stuff and more security?

    The “war on women” spin worked in spite of a massive tax revenue redistribution from men to women. Any curtailing of the redistribution is seen by the vast majority of women and a significant number of men as an attack on women. The democrats have a proven track record of providing free stuff to women, which is why they overwhelmingly get the single woman vote. And single women is a growing demographic.

    Of course this will come to an end. We’ve become a society that no longer cares about the legacy we leave the next generation. We are burrowing from them to fund our current social destruction.

  37. @SJF

    I think that final step of transforming ones’ RP rage into entertained amusement is where many MGTOW’s get stuck. I took the RP almost 4 months ago and devour this material like a starving man at a buffet. it seems the RP rage still hits me in waves as I replay 45 years of memories in my head. It is indeed a very bitter pill. I have no regrets though and feel more free and liberated by every day that passes.
    Sometimes I feel like an anthropologist while observing the behavior of my female coworkers as it has become a more and more entertaining past time to just quietly listen and observe them. Quite fascinating to try to wrap ones head around the female psyche. Listening to them talk politics it’s easy to see that it’s all about resources for them and what they can get at the expense of others.The older ones are more Tea Party-ish types who want to hold on to what they have. Women seem to be magical thinkers who believe what they want to believe because they want to believe it with no real care or concern for any objective reasons. I know there are those Ayn Rand type female exceptions but even Rand seemed a little autistic with her inflexible binary black and white reasoning and under developed fictional characters. Sometimes I think we are just as much a mystery to them as they are to us.

  38. @Roused – Indeed. The real problem for men today? Monogamy and Patriarchy and mass prosperity gave Betas something to bargain with. Now they are losing their bargaining power. Sucks to be a Beta…

    Best part? Beta and Alpha are not real or even accurate (go see a female Alpha wolf pack leader, not uncommon at all). They are merely indicators, pointers, a shorthand we can use to get a handle on social hierarchies and dominance/submission.

    The Mission Going Forward For All Men: Break your social conditioning – it’s working against your interests personally and collectively. Blue Pill “Betaness” is required for female sexual strategies to succeed. Betahood/Alphahood is not given deterministically, it’s signaled by your appearance, behavior, communications and subcommunications. You can “Game” it. But you have to do deep, intense, hard, painful work to change your social conditioning. Game is one way to do it that works. But listen to the guys who have actually done so – it takes a couple of years of sustained effort, 20+ hours a week, with a ton of failure and frustration.

    It was only when I started gaming that I recognized that the real problem with me getting laid is who I am as a result of my social conditioning. The work is not about developing “technique” to get laid, it’s about BECOMING HIGH VALUE TO OURSELVES first. This is the first level of social conditioning that has to be broken. And we can and should do so for no “reason” at all, just because it serves us. Of course, also develop social intelligence for all purposes in your life – and to get laid too. Since sex is so important to men, this is a great place to start.

    Betahood is choice ultimately. And while yes, it will always be a competition in which some men will lose, we can greatly shift the tilt of the field which currently is vastly in favor of women’s sexual strategies. Yes, it still will be somewhat relative at the margins in terms of women’s choices but imagine they are choosing from 70% of men who are activating their attraction and arousal versus qualifying as a provider?

    More important? Even if that isn’t possible, the solution for any man is the same.

    Bonus Round: Huge problem/trap for men in the Red Pill world is getting caught up in analysis and talking about this, or even just playing about with it (for me too for sure). You will get a different POV and even some different results socially but without destroying your current social conditioning, nothing fundamental will change. The entire point of the Red Pill is not to see our social conditioning and how female sexual strategies are succeeding at the expense of male sexual strategies, the point is to CHANGE OUR SOCIAL CONDITIONING.

    The monkeywrench strategy will only work if enough men change individually. And that will take an immense amount of work by each of us, for our own purposes. Everything else is just fucking noise and scenery.

    Just sayin’…Second unplugging indeed!

  39. @Andy: “Taking away women’s rights, or enacting some sort of social shaming is just a band-aid. It doesn’t work long term. We’ve proven that haven’t we?”

    You have it exactly 180 degrees backwards. Taking away women’s rights IS the solution and Game is the band-aid. Game hacks hypergamy indirectly. Stoning unfaithful women who are not haaapppppy is just a bit more effective- which we have proven by every long-lasting civilization in world history.

  40. We’ve discussed this before, but keep in mind full implementation of the 80/20 principle, while natural in nomadic contexts, creates the dynamic which over time transforms cultures/societies, and leads to certain unpleasantries like peasant revolts. Such as in feudal times (the royalty selected the women, 40% of the male peasants did not mate) and middle-eastern polygamy culture (which predates Islam but was grafted into it) – whereby the sheiks got four wives, but the proles who can’t get arranged marriages opt to blow themselves up for the promise of pussy in paradise. In other words, not recipes for long-term stability.

    Formal marriages in the West will be for UMC couples who can put wedding announcements in the NY Times, and for gay people. (Monogamy/fidelity? YMMV). No one else can afford it or be bothered with it. The most stable family structures amongst the maturing non-ownership young folk will be Swedish-style couplings of convenience, with variable longevity. The stability of the unit will depend not on raising children properly, but where the jobs are, or the parents’ respective feelz. The social controls once imposed by local leaders and family matriarchs/patriarchs will now be done via Twitshaming and Facebook clucking (you let your child walk out alone? NEGLECT! ARREST! JAIL!).
    .

  41. You may not need to hide horniness because I’m thinking all this is going to play out in the midst of an increase in obesity rates, even more than it is now.
    An old article when I used to look at Return of Kings was about women’s general laziness.So the FI, the maximizing strategy while the other is minimized, the fat models in men’s magazines. It all has a common element of women don’t want to have to do anything or keep up anything about themselves. They want it to default to them as the prize because they’re female.
    The fat model that’s now trying to be included in the sexy, they’ll later want it to be the sexy.

  42. @SJF – My above post can be summarized as what happens after KR grief phases? What is the plan of action? I love the way you break it down and I wonder how you might riff on a program for changing one’s social conditioning? You synthesize all of this so well while I’m obsessed with internalizing it and making it personally relevant. The two of us could create an amazing “Red Pill Transformation Plan” I think. Gaming is important, but I wonder, are their other experiential things one can do? Of course, “the field tells all” is right but that is the brute force, trial and error approach. It has to be a huge part but I also think certain ideas and concepts and belief systems can be hugely helpful.

    Think top down and bottom up behavioral change.

  43. @EEEEeee: “That there can only be freedom, rationality and virtue in a world where women do not have rights.”

    There is a stark difference between taking away SOME of “women’s rights” and saying women should not have ANY rights. Under the Patriarchy women had HUGE levels of rights. They were protected, fed, employed, and productive. There were social conditions in place to protect women. An abusive husband was likely to have a “talking to” by the abused woman’s brothers.

    So I think the ONLY “right” and privilege that must be taken away from women is the right to seize control of a marriage by using the sexual denial tactic. Marriage means conjugal union and if you don’t want that, then don’t get married.

    We can experiment with tapering back the custody/support/vaginamony laws but the central one I see is the sexual denial weapon.

    Does that make BPP a shitlord rapist? By no means! I would only tell women that repeatedly denying sex in a marriage means an automatic annulment with custody presumed in the father and NO vaginamony for women who pursue this course. This would also the the presumption in cases of adultery for both sides so cheating men get presumed vaginamony and support and he loses custody. More importantly, such annulments must be public record so that future victims are made aware this is THAT type of person (sex denying woman woman or cheating man) which would fully disincentive this behavior, restore marriage, and change society.

    Many marriage counselors suggest having more sex in order to repair the marriage and this cosmetic change will reinvigorate the institution of marriage. FORCING women to submit to their husbands, perversely enough, is also a major turn on for the little sluts so the strategy is win-win for everybody except the 22 year old slut on the CC.

  44. “The Feminine Imperative that exists today still uses these historically extreme controls as a baseline for provoking an emotional response among women (and feminized men) today. In spite of the realities of Open Hypergamy and Open Cuckoldry, and paired with the fact that we live in the most sexually permissive society the world has largely known to this point, there is still a necessity to sell a narrative of sexual repression in order to perpetuate a social condition of ‘victimization’ among women and thus perpetuate a status of concern and primary importance.

    That was stated by Misanthropist, and agreed with by Insanitybytes, in the Children of Corn post. Society’s fault for the increase in false rape claims because it hasn’t understood women’s sexuality yet.
    So not her fault, society makes her feel guilty.

  45. @Bluepillprofressor,

    So we’ve been told by those with more experience and learned that we cannot negotiate desire….but we can legislate desire? Somehow I don’t think laws are going to make panties wet. That’s job of the man, thus the burden of performance.

    Agreed that custody laws, alienation, support and such need overhaul. I’ve got the fucking t-shirt on that. Desire? Nope. The man either can keep her interest with frame, game etc or he can’t.

    Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, I am still a rookie at this, even though I’m 52.

  46. Hi Rollo,

    you mentioned suicide rates being way higher for men than for women. One might argue that this is a somewhat natural phenomenon the same as higher diffenrences in IQ, height and other things among males (or driven by these things).

    I tried to find long term data on this which seems to be somewhat hard.

    I came up with these sites:
    #1 http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/unitstates.pdf
    #2 http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html#death-rates (different numbers compared to #1)
    #3 http://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/ –> recent numbers show an overall increase since 2005, but no split by gender on this site

    Overall I would argue that they are somewhat stable and there is no effect of the changed social environment (there is a strong increase in male rates between 1975 and 1995 and between 1965 an 1975 for females which both dropped back in 2000). What do you say?

    Thanks!
    Marcus

  47. Marcus, whatever the prompt, the fact still remains that more men than women commit suicide, and presently that’s a 4 to 1 margin. Even if it’s relatively constant overall, men see suicide in a different way than women.

    What prompts that difference?

  48. This is interesting pillars of civilization stuff.

    Makes me wonder if even the hard core racist groups still white knight and tip toe around their women. For all their talk about a stronger civilization that are impotent to get the biggest puzzle piece right, because the state will stop any such use of force.

    The Mormons will stay strong if they can keep their piece in place through harsh social stigma. Young daughters are married off to successful older men or face family exile and told they are disobeying God. It is painful when lies pragmatically get greater conformance to the truth.

  49. Who would have thought Miss E would be 2-faced?

    A lot of us post on multiple platforms, but have the same message, because of integrity and character.

  50. Scribblerg

    “Think top down and bottom up behavioral change.”

    Do this… pursue the Platinum Rule [Do whatever you want to do whenever you want to do it]. That’s it. That will drive all other changes.

    For everything you do ask – why am I doing this? Whose frame is it being done in? For whose benefit? Who is directing? What do I want from this? etc.

  51. ” Stoning unfaithful women who are not haaapppppy is just a bit more effective- which we have proven by every long-lasting civilization in world history.”

    YET, here we are…

    “Game hacks hypergamy indirectly.”

    Indirectly? How could it be more direct than game? Do you ACTUALLY think that hypergamy was ACTUALLY controlled in any of these historical utopian fantasies that everyone is having? Do you think that the threat of “stoning” is actually going to have any affect on a woman’s thought process when we know that current emotion in the heat of the moment is the ONLY thing that matters? Give. Me. a Fucking. Break. The only thing those historical utopias did was force hypergamy underground to pander to the beta’s madonna/whore complex and make them feel better about being lazy bums. I don’t care WHAT society looks like, no man is going to get a free pass on his burden of performance.

  52. Riffing on “paternity assurances”, the popular book Sex at Dawn attempted to take us back in time before the patriarchy (before Nova’s “once we were at a level of more complex social organization beyond the rather small”). The authors attempted to argue, in part, that the tribal structure resulted in partible paternity:

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

    In no surprise this seems to follow FI themes. As this book review of Sex at Dusk (a rebuttal) discusses there were some holes:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2013/04/book-review-sex-at-dusk/

    … partible paternity does exist, but the societies that practice it aren’t hunter-gatherer hippie communes, nor is it ever about women trying to create a mix-and-match baby from all the best men of the tribe. It always plays out in one of two ways:

    (1) Women with children will offer sex to an unrelated man as an enticement for him to give extra food to her and her family, as well as a kind of insurance, giving him incentive to shelter and provide for them if her primary husband dies. This runs completely counter to Ryan and Jetha’s argument, which insists (and I’m using their terminology here) that women evolved to be “sluts” rather than “whores”, i.e., having sex purely for pleasure and social bonding, rather than strategically, in exchange for resources.

    Nor are these arrangements indefinitely extensible. While it does happen, there is also jealousy and possessiveness, and if a woman has sex with other partners too much or too often, her primary partner may reject her or her children. As Saxon writes about one Amazon society, the Curripaco: “…if a woman has sex with various men they say there is the risk that no one would recognize the child. When the child is everybody’s they mean in effect that it is nobody’s” [p.114]. This is just what evolutionary theory would predict: when the odds of their being the father are too low, men will no longer have a genetic incentive to invest in a child.

    (2) More disturbing, partible paternity can take the form of, essentially, societally sanctioned gang rape, where young unmarried women are shared by the men of the tribe to promote social bonding among those men. The woman’s consent isn’t required for this …

    Sexuality is an explosively powerful force, and social norms and taboos controlling its expression have been part of every human culture that’s ever been observed in history. Effective contraception has arguably diminished this somewhat, but especially before the existence of that modern innovation, the idea that there could be a society where no one had any concern about who’s sleeping with whom simply flies in the face of evolutionary reality.

    So, in other terms, even when social organizations were small, men still cared a lot about paternity assurances.

    On a side note, you can see why it is more appropriate to call them attention whores instead of attention sluts. Likewise anybody trying to plead here that women have sex purely for pleasure and social bonding, is just part of the FI matrix.

  53. “If she is willing to trade her retirement for her immediate wants, why would she be concerned about the fate of her nation? “</i<

    She never will be concerned about her nation, just her own personal security. Eeeeekkkk! Spider!!!!! every.damn.time.

    “Whether she votes for Trump is going to depend on the spin. Can she be convinced that Trump will provide her with more stuff and more security?”

    Not because of the spin, but in spite of the spin. She will be convinced because what else will SHE (and by proxy beta men) do with the spider? Who’s going to kill it? who has been the only one to ever kill it?

  54. @SJF

    Jeremy actually said that…

    Ya, but I honestly don’t see discussion of evolved emotional control in this post, unless I’m missing something. I’m not certain where eeeee was getting that from.

  55. at the risk of muddying up this thread, feel free to post whatever you’ve got on Emily here

    Walk away from the dark side Rollo. Starve the troll of attention. I have faith in you… You CAN do it.

    e I will be discussing much of this with Alan Roger Currie this coming Thursday night on his podcast.

    We’ll be talking at 10pm EST/7pm PST and this will be a live call-in format, so if you’d like to participate I’d encourage you to do so.

    This should be very interesting. I might have to call in on this one. Be sure to practice your “mooooooooooooode oooooone”

  56. So Emily is a Blue Pill Troll! Just don’t color me surprised. Her attempts to ingratiate herself with this group have been fatuous. It is one thing to doubt the efficacy of our methods and raise the typical feminine objections- it is quite quite another to study anti-red pill tactics and attempt to troll the men of TRM.

    TLDR: Zap the troll Rollo.

  57. Rollo —

    Thanks. I’m looking forward to your discussion later this week!

    Also, little Em is a gift that just keeps giving, isn’t she?

    Fred —

    I agree where we are going — that is the slouching towards chaos type of thing. But tech is always a wildcard really.

    Everyone —

    Great comments and great discussion.

  58. @Rollo – Shot my wad on the last thread. I clicked on the Reddit link and well, all I can say is that other people should do so too. I’m done with her and realize even yesterday was stupid. She’s not influenced or shamed by her behavior. Engaging her is useless, and as i said ‘all I proved is that she’s beautiful’. Thankfully, as I’ve mentioned here before, I’ve been privileged to know great, chaste, Catholic women. They would take pity on Emily, fyi. Me? I’m all out of pity for her, and anything else for that matter.

    Only point of yesterday worth reiterating is that I applaud LeeLee for having the courage to speak about her own experience and defy the FI’s interpretation of the events. Her blog is really good and she writes well. I think we need to encourage and support people like her while shunning the likes of Emily. That said, as my other posts indicate, I’m having a real Red Pill growth spurt of as a result of seeing more deeply into the social conditioning I’m fighting and how deeply it’s rooted in things like hidden estrus. I see how male identity itself is confounded by the FI and how much effort it will take to overcome all that.

    Which is quite enough for me at the moment.

  59. @ias

    “I’m not sure lots of men / every man learning game is a solution. If that would happen without any other changes, only the top 20% (or 10%) get laid anyway, it is just that the ones not getting laid understand better why not.”

    this isn’t true. GO OUT.

    maybe the top 20% are the only ones who can go out and get sex and engage in more short term relationships (meaning they are attractive enough to a wide enough variety of women that this is a viable option)

    but the other guys get laid too.

    after 6 dates minimum.

    on her terms.

    with her legs down flat against the bed or maybe one leg raised up a little bit if it’s his birthday.

    and only if they kiss her ass.

    the guys who need to learn ‘game’ are guys who are driven to more drastic measures. like….probably bottom 40%. 40-80% probably gets laid just enough and gets sex just enough for them to buy-in to the Disney beta bullshit.

    i’d say like bottom 40% and the bottom of the top 20% are the most likely to try and learn ‘game.’

    @Dave

    “If 80% of women and 20% of men are getting their genes into the next generation”

    ok well im not sure if there’s any evidence of this. even the oft-repeated ‘40% of men have historically reproduced’ line is based on pretty flimsy evidence — i think it’s a single paper and the inference is pretty indirect.

    the only trend in this direction starts to emerge when you see agriculture — i.e. more rigid societal structures i.e. SOCIAL PRESSURE i.e. ideas forced on everyone about who deserves what, etc., then suddenly only a small number of men are WORTHY.

    there’s simply nothing about women or how sex works (or any of these just-so evo psych stories) that has even come close -convincing- me as a matter of -science- they’re designed to be particularly picky. they get aroused by everything. they are designed to have sex all the time, even when they are in their infertile stage of the month…..seems like the primary competition occurs at the sperm level and that’s it.

    in hunter gatherer tribes there’s not a lot of ‘alpha’ or whatever. it’s just people cooperating and fucking and laying around and doing whatever they want.

    having said that…hypergamy etc., is undisputedly, at the very least a hardcore present-day cultural phenomenon.

    @andy

    “Here’s where I disagree. The more guys that have game, the wider the distribution of pussy. That pareto distribution isn’t a rule.”

    ya

    how men obtain pussy is just a function of social norms. if every guy had game (acting in accordance with social norms that allow women to sleep with a man with less social consequences), a lot of guys would get pussy. the problem is that current society LIES to people and communicates a lot of messages COVERTLY

    so…

    to women: you like X, Y, Z

    to men: women like A, B, C

    so it’s on men to either somehow naturally be X Y Z to get pussy, or for men to learn what the real deal is for themselves.

    this stuff about wanting these specific traits to be the eternal things for all time or whatever is just vanity. it’s a need to have others acknowledge an identity you want.

    if you move that aside and just create a space where you’re like water and anyone can be whatever they want in your presence…you will get very far. and a lot of these dogmatic ‘IT IS SCIENCE STRAIGHT FROM THE DARWIN’S MOUTH’ get in the way of a lot of dudes’ progress.

  60. @Sentient – THIS! “Do this… pursue the Platinum Rule [Do whatever you want to do whenever you want to do it]. That’s it. That will drive all other changes.
    For everything you do ask – why am I doing this? Whose frame is it being done in? For whose benefit? Who is directing? What do I want from this? etc.”

    Seems simple but in fact, due to our social conditioning, men adopting this POV would beget a social revolution. Imagine, men spitting the bit out? Lol, me first….

  61. Recently, life has put me in situations that mirror my father’s situations years earlier. As I worked through these situations, many dormant fem-beta attitudes about my dad rose to the surface, wanting for me to confront them. It was easy because I stopped hating him, so the truth of our shared experiences could be recognized and appreciated. But you’re right. You could point out the problem to a 16 year old me but I hated him and “masculinity” so much that it would do no good. I was a real feminist pussy. You need that hard introspection and courage to act on the truth of our male experiences. I don’t think a fem-centric mind can do that. It’s too much deep accountability for a fem mind that holds its locus of control as 100% external.

  62. Shot my wad on the last thread. I clicked on the Reddit link and well, all I can say is that other people should do so too. I’m done with her and realize even yesterday was stupid. She’s not influenced or shamed by her behavior. Engaging her is useless,

    I’m gonna be a dick here and point out that this was obvious back in December, and I said as much then. Just like most red pill lessons though, many have to be learned the hard way.

    It’s not just her though, in general, it’s useless to engage women on a red pill comment thread. Solipsism and “in the moment truths” are a real phenomenon, and not just some abstract concept we talk about here. Even the agreeable female commenters, like Liz, are largely just speaking to a momentary truth. For whatever reason, if Liz should find herself necessitous of landing a beta bucks,I would not be surprised if she started denying all of the red pill dynamics she had previously agreed to.

    Generally, it’s better to sae your argument energy for a dude who your arguments might actually have a lasting effect on.

  63. @ Jeremy

    ,

    “Ya, but I honestly don’t see discussion of evolved emotional control in this post, unless I’m missing something. I’m not certain where eeeee was getting that from.”

    I thought the same thing and hence the clarification of what you and he were saying. But I think I know where he was getting that. He was wishful thinking.

    Evolved emotional control for men=That mythic “pill” that can mute testosterone’s desire for sex with women without making MGTOW’s less of a male. That has to be something that bob’s to the surface consciousness often in a MGTOW’s mind and needs to be pushed down into the subconscious for congruency’s sake.

    And I don’t want to be judgemental/pejoritive towards EEEEE regarding MGTOW or Kubler-Ross Stages, merely to illuminate thoughts and underlying motives.

  64. Of interest wrt to the topic of this post is that men are subliminally aware of ovulation:

    http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/03/hormones.aspx

    Our bodies are often doing things for which we may just make up inaccurate rationale for, after the fact, but this does not necessarily preclude one from obtaining more accurate conscious self-awareness around the subliminal activity.

    With the women I have been with (particularly my ex-wife of a 20-year marriage), what I soon came to notice over a bit of time, is that I can become consciously aware of the ovulation signals, by way of subtle changes in her, as well as subtle changes in the way I feel desire-wise about her, as later proved out by my conscious analysis of her cycle, which women find very weird and off-putting if you let on you are working this out consciously, as well, by way of empirical analysis (so don’t let on about the empirical analysis – you know – you are just supposed to get it about her desire-feelz I suppose, even though she often isn’t consciously aware). It seems many women are largely unaware that they are actually ovulating at that time – for some reason they don’t link the particular “feelz” of their body with an empirical fact (i.e – “I am now ovulating”), like you think they would.

    In my marriage, I have to admit that I used this extra knowledge to:

    1) Ensure I was well timing things, (i.e. – focusing on inter-relationship good feelz only more-so around ovulation) to ensure I wasn’t missing out on what promised to be wilder, more satisfying sex (because I really get turned on by my partner being turned on – the more crazy that’s happening with my partner drives my sex pleasure response to insane levels).

    2) Mitigate my perception of the overall moodiness that would often occur during other portions of the cycle (i.e. – putting it in the perspective that the moodiness was partially biological, helped me in my efforts to be less reactive to the moodiness).

    I guess (1) is sorta redpill and (2) is sorta bluepill (because it is akin to making excuses for her – not good), and when I was married, that definitely was me, a messed up mixture of redpill and bluepill. Anyway, it never occurred to me during that marriage that I also needed to be aware whether I was getting attraction signals from her, during the ovulation phase, to track the health of the relationship (because it never occurred to me that she wouldn’t be attracted to me when she seemingly unknowingly wanted it the most – around ovulation). I was naive in that respect – and guess I was lucky that my woman, that was very very pissed at me at times, (because as she would say – she thought I was an arrogant fucker who didn’t care about her feelings enough – which actually wasn’t true – I don’t really think I was or am arrogant or insensitive), her body probably liked my body all the way through (and that was mutual – even when she put some weight on for a time before deciding to do something about it and then lost the weight – through that whole time, I still had strong desire for her – it really never abated).

    Before and after marriage, in other relationships, I have been subject to the more duplicitous thing a couple of times (once before marriage and once after marriage) – you know – not being seen as the alpha fux guy at times with the woman you are fucking, but this being presented to you in just covert terms, and man when that has happened to me – that shit really had me going ballistic, and also somewhat in denial about that, which is probably partly a safety valve mechanism for men, so as to mitigate the ballisticness, until things can be viewed more rationally, so as to allow for a more mediated ending without something too fucked up happening (besides just going out and getting stink-drunk or something).

    This redpill knowledge provided here and elsewhere has really helped me see much more clearly what the covert duplicitousness is, so as not get so angry about it, so as not to have to go into partial-denial mode about it. It just is what it is (it is the nature of many people to be two-faced – we all are to some degree, and women do it differently than men and for different reasons). Seeing it this way helps me be more outcome independent overall (you know – the world is full of people, not everybody is going to click with you – that is part of the fun I suppose).

  65. In order to understand the future, it is best to look at the past. Thomas Sowell has written that a generation of welfare did what 300 years of slavery and jim crow could not. That was to break the black family. Thomas Sowell has written that black marriage rates from 1890 (first census with marriage data) to 1940 showed a similar or slightly greater marriage rate for blacks than for whites. However, by 1960, the black marriage rate dropped below that of whites, and then plummeted well below that of whites after that census.

    Thomas Sowell has also written that LBJ’s great society doubled the welfare spend. He did not state when welfare began. I suspect the soup kitchens of the 1930s probably did not include much of what we would recognize as entitlement welfare, which is probably why the black marriage rate of 1940 was so high. I know there were housing projects starting in the late 1940s so I suspect this is the beginning of welfare as we know it today.

    In “black rednecks and white liberals”, Thomas Sowell discussed the migration of industry out of the inner cities and into the suburbs due to inner city social problems. This correlates with a generation of welfare. Businesses in the inner cities moved out or became smaller mom and pop stores with much higher security costs and lower profit margins. Crime and social problems increased, and these areas became dependent on outside resources.

    Welfare allows women to separate genes from resources. Throw in the birth control pill, and the consequences of banging the alpha jerkboy becomes very low. Without a need for resources from a husband, why maintain any responsibilities toward a husband? This is the rise of feminism with the social chaos that it causes.

    So where is this open hypergamy going? The system of open hypergamy is inherently unstable. When you take fathers out of the home, crime and social problems increase exponentially. The children raised in these environments are functionally unemployable. Its sustainable only as long as the government can burrow and spend or resources can be redistributed from other areas.

    2010 was the first time more babies were born to single mothers than to married mothers. Many of these babies have contact with their fathers, which will lesson the social destruction, but I’ve seen estimates that a third of all children have little to no contact with their fathers. This is a time bomb. The social costs will not be observed until there is no one to contribute to the tax base.

    A few months ago, Dalrock posted a graph showing income by demographic. It was married fathers who were overwhelmingly creating the gender wage gap. All groups were making approximately the same amount except for married fathers.

    Of course, the solution to this is to impose a Soviet style quota system for unmarried fathers who may or may not have access to their children. This works for about a generation, and then young men realize it’s in their best interest to work only enough to get by, which may be why college graduates are almost 2/3s women and so many young men are living in mom’s basement. The collapse of the western democracies may come about as quickly as the collapse of the inner cities.

    I see no way open hypergamy will lead to anything other than social chaos and destruction. Perhaps this is the reason that civilizations rise and fall. Masculine values are required in areas with few resources and low security. Feminine values are able to spread in areas with abundant resources and high security. With feminine values comes open hypergamy. I see no reason to think that this process will not continue to create and destroy great civilizations.

  66. “The daughter was sent out to the lake, dressed as a bride, to be fed to the dragon”

    In the story, St George slays the dragon. Alpha or beta? Not sure.

    IRL the woman would have fucked the dragon of course… hypergamy + safety = chance to procreate and perpetuate = biological purpose fulfilled.

    Reminded of a very vivid dream I had, waking with the understanding that ultimate Alpha is not the power of life but the power to take life. Blessed are the life takers, for they shall inherit the world, perhaps?

    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/07/26/the-myopia-of-iq-fetishism/#comment-592770

    Game distilled down in a dream last night. Yes it was an actual dream, but bear with me, it was quite profound.

    I was dreaming I was on a large sportfishing boat, somewhere in Baja Mexico. I was with a woman I have fucked countless times and know very well. Know all of her mannerisms, prudishness and vanilla likes of sex. a good women nonetheless. There was a Captain on the boat, and some misc crew members. The captain was fairly alpha in the dream, but I held my own with my knowledge of offshore fishing and am blunting his good natured attempts at AMOGing me. The woman is enjoying the show and the excitement of offshore fishing.

    We need to cast a net for some bait, so we pull into a narrow cove, backing the boat up near the shore. The shore here is very steep, covered in desert scrub. while the crew are casting nets from the bow, the Capt and I and the woman are looking out from the cockpit. Suddenly we hear a loud growling rumble, the sound of a large cat. we see in the scrub a mountain lion near the shore, then it jumps into the boat.

    The big cat is large, clearly old and obviously blind. The blindness blunts its purely predatory presence, we know it can’t see us (somehow) so are more relaxed, but on edge. The cat pads around the boat (in the strange way of dreams, the boat shifts shapes, so there are numerous corridors) and we stay just ahead of it. It’s power is awesome, it is fairly rippling with Alpha… an electric spark coming off of it.

    The three of us are in a large lounge, the cat is growling again, pads into the lounge, turns and goes out. The cat comes back into the lounge, to a spot where the woman was sitting earlier in the day, sniffs it and then pisses on the spot and leaves. The captain turns to the woman and says “He wants to fuck you Lucy”. I turn and look at Lucy, the woman, and note her swallow and lick her lips at this statement, and that she does not move.

    I am surprised, because she should be terrified that this animal is on the boat, and even more so at this statement. But she appears to me in the early stages of arousal. This is a woman who has sex, but does not lose control (often) and displays no observable kinkyness… I am shocked she is not screaming and crying and running for the hills.

    I look back at her now, she was sitting on a couch, and now she is laying on her stomach, hands in front of her outstretched on the bottom of the couch and her legs bent at the knee so her feet are at her ass… she appears to be transfixed, possibly rubbing her pussy on the couch? The blind beast pads back into the room again, coming into the center of the room and sniffing the air, then pads out again. The Alpha coming off of him is crackling, the air is thick with it.

    I now look back at the woman, she is getting up from the couch and taking off her skirt. she walks to the center of the room, to the last place the lion came in and sniffed the air, she gets naked in front of the captain and I and lays on the floor with her legs in the air. Like we didn’t even exist.

    The lion starts coming back down the hall toward the lounge… at this point I begin to come out of my dream (LOL right?) and some profound game shit hits me, that ties in Alpha, women’s solipsism and hypergamy with real clarity…

    We know women crave Alpha, but often see this trait distilled into things like good genetics, a chance for a women’s offspring to have power, wealth, success, everything towards a better life for the woman and her young… so she puts herself first always and looks to trade up. Alpha/power as life affirming.

    But this is the true attraction to Alpha… when you understand that women are the weaker sex, defenseless… solipsism is a survival mechanism, as is hypergamy… but it is not to a better LIFE, but to avoid the real Alpha power, the power to TAKE life, the power of death.

    And for this they will prostrate themselves, and in so doing, continue to survive and propagate.

    All of game is just a facsimile for the presentation of true Alpha power…

    TLDR: She would fuck the lion not because he was handsome or had money or was charming or other women wanted him, she would fuck him so he wouldn’t kill her.

  67. @Radium

    So where is this open hypergamy going? The system of open hypergamy is inherently unstable. When you take fathers out of the home, crime and social problems increase exponentially. The children raised in these environments are functionally unemployable. Its sustainable only as long as the government can burrow and spend or resources can be redistributed from other areas.

    I think it was in the 90s I was reading about the problems that animal reservists in West Asia were having creating stable populations of Elephants. It seemed that every time these guys imported a “family unit” the first generation males were prone to extreme violence and bouts of destruction that were harmful to people, property, and occasionally other elephants. They couldn’t figure out what was going on for the longest time, until they recognized that they were importing family units without Male elders. I don’t remember what the justification was for transplanting a family of elephants without the eldest male, but they didn’t do it, they brought in females and the young elephants, no elder males. This went on for a while, with multiple generations of male elephants who just did not behave properly. Finally someone suggested importing an older male elephant, and immediately the problem resolved itself.

    In the U.S., we’ve now had 5 decades of women able to eliminate fathers from the family unit with not only the government’s blessing, but open encouragement, and now we have the largest prison population in the world.

  68. Why is it only men that we see in line for soup kitchens? Does this imply that women were actually getting some form of welfare in the 1930s? I had assumed everyone who wanted aid was going to the soup kitchen, but perhaps I am mistaken.

  69. Radium

    “Feminine values are able to spread in areas with abundant resources and high security”

    There is more to it perhaps… CH has coined the term pathological altruism, and the theory that European whites carry this genetic defect above all others.

    Looking at Asia, for example, I’d have to agree. abundant resources, high security and much lower levels of feminist thought and action intra society.

    On your timeline though, you have to question the start dates… not as post WW2 but to 1920. what collective madness drove the majority of the west to give women the right to vote? The same spirit that fostered the marxist revolutions of the times? IDK.

    I’ve yet to see a RP explanation for this. Everything else stems from this, 1920 is Year Zero.

  70. I know a lot of people respect Thomas Sowell and his opinions/research, but as a black man that has pretty much a front row seat to the destruction of black communities, Sowell misses so much that it makes his writings highly suspect imo. I would caution others to take his explanations with 2 grains of salt. Even I am old enough to remember that the first ” projects ” were inhabited mainly by people of Jewish decent ( they coined the popular term ” ghetto ” that I always chastise black people from embracing, and they were followed by Italians and Irish.

    Sowell always conveniently misses this in his analysis.

    I agree with much of his description of welfare ( I’d end it all today if I had the power ) but he ignores state and federal govt complicity in practically rounding people up and herding them into isolation.

    Oh, and most businesses did not leave due to crime and/or security. They left, frankly, because they didn’t want to be in communities of color.

    Anyway fuck Sowell.

    But I already know that I will see him mentioned as some kind of scholarly authority until the end of time.

    Maybe Allan West will usurp him one day.

  71. Jeremy

    The story about the elephants was described in a book called Animal Wise. What I remember was the older elephants were killed, and the young with their mothers were transported to new areas. You’re right about the young males becoming violent, and how the importation of older males solved the problem.

    And you’re right, this is what we are doing with welfare. I read a study a year ago or so that concluded that for every 1% decrease in fathers, crime rose by something like 3%.

    What we are seeing in society is manufacturing that remains in the US moving into areas with stable-ish families. Amish areas are good for manufacturing. Inner cities are not.

  72. Seems simple but in fact, due to our social conditioning, men adopting this POV would beget a social revolution. Imagine, men spitting the bit out?

    You say this as if it’s a bad thing. I’ve heard a lot of “if everyone were alpha then no one would get along.” I’m not convinced this is true.

    I look at scray and YaReally, they seem to be really chill and looking to spread the love. I think society would be better in general if miraculously 80% of the male population suddenly mastered have and became alphas in fact. It would seriously reduce the “Anthony and the cornfield effect,”it would lead to less annoyance from weak betas (our evolved instincts grate in the face of weak men), and it could potentially reduce violence (less need for violence when you can get your way through influence).

    Would it be a Utopia? No, there will always be conflict. But I see it in terms of capitalism: everyone is going to work for their own interests anyway, so you might as well harness that for a greater increase in returns. Having a shit ton of competent entrepreneurs competing leads to a greater increase in profitability overall. Sure, the disparity between rich and poor gets larger, but the modern poor in America are generally speaking, better off than the historical poor in America.

    I think the same would happen with sex. Sure, the betas are still gonna get the scraps, but the afraid they get might just be better than now. Women might actually have to compete for men’s attention if all of men suddenly discover how do leverage dread.

  73. I’d like to share some personal thoughts. My dating or game approach is not complicated yet it works for me. I’m only interested in meeting attractive women and have, typically, a one-year relationship with them. This means that I have a girlfriend as long as she is in love with me—for one year. After that I break up. This is nature, guys. After one year the thrill is gone, so why continue after that? In the one-year relation, I avoid to live with her. In fact, I have an issue regarding cohabitation with women. I dislike it very much, I feel trapped, I almost feel sick. To get my personal sexual strategy going I only need to be classically male and successful in what I do for a living; I don’t have to bother about women’s long-term sexual strategy and hypergamy. I only need to make her fall in love with me.

  74. “Does this imply that women were actually getting some form of welfare in the 1930s?”

    Men got workfare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration

    It was assumed that by giving men work, women would be taken care of, but that was to some degree a faulty assumption, so:

    “It hired single women, widows, or women with disabled or absent husbands. While men were given unskilled manual labor jobs, usually on construction projects, women were assigned mostly to sewing projects. They made clothing and bedding to be given away to charities and hospitals. Women also were hired for the WPA’s school lunch program.”

    Basically women had some sort of social safety net, whether family, private charities or government programs, which allowed them to stay home, while men did not. One of the reasons that women had absent husbands is because many of the men in the soup lines were essentially homeless, wandering from city to city looking for work, hoping to bring their wives along later when they found some and had established a new home.

  75. @Blaximus

    Oh, and most businesses did not leave due to crime and/or security. They left, frankly, because they didn’t want to be in communities of color.

    I’m willing to entertain that Sowell misses some important points. But this point is fairly solid. For instance, before the Watts riots, and the Rodney King riots, there were businesses in those areas, that served the same people robbing them, that got burned. Those businesses never returned. When you commit crime against a businessman, you are doing two things. You are violating that persons property rights, and you are forcing that person to consider whether or not they can still be profitable while dealing with crime. Starting/Running a small corner business is a lot of work. When you force that same man to deal with crime on top, they will literally just say, “fuck it” and leave. Or worse, they’ll just join the EBT crowd themselves when they realize the people looting him survive comfortably while doing very little.

  76. Blaximus

    I’ve noticed that Thomas Sowell doesn’t speculate about certain causes and effects. Can you provide some examples of things he misses in his analyses?

  77. ” . . . what collective madness drove the majority of the west to give women the right to vote?”

    WWI. It broke the mind of Western Civilization and it has never recovered.

    I will repeat my recommendation (ad nauseam I suppose) to read The Razor’s Edge. The movies aren’t bad either. The first is truer to the book, the second (if you can get over seeing Bill Murray as Bill Murray) is perhaps closer to the spirit:

    There’s some serious Red Pill shit in it.

  78. @kfg

    WWI. It broke the mind of Western Civilization and it has never recovered.

    Boy, aint that the god-damned truth of it.

  79. Why is it only men that we see in line for soup kitchens?
    .
    Some men would accept charity for themselves to give more of their wage to their family. Some of those guys were pretty tough doing a day’s labor on a third of the day’s calories.

  80. Radium – takes way too long. This ain’t the place for that.

    Jeremy,

    The Watts Riots, and the Newark Riots which I remember ( seeing tanks in the streets ) Were the initial negative reactions to the problems, mainly lack of jobs, on the ground. Assassinations of leaders who were trying to build coalitions and unite people to use democratic processes and protests to address the problems just lit multiple fuses.

    Rodney King riots have always been self explanatory to me. But I understand how people could see it differently. Brutality by law enforcement is an ongoing problem.

    Look into the COINTELPRO run mostly by Hoover’s FBI, with a little help from the CIA.

    Also the issue of redlining. Residents of inner cities had/have a hard time getting business loans, so you wind up being served by peoiple from outside your communities almost exclusively, and many make it very clear that they aren’t there because they want to be there, but because it is very easy to be there.

    I grew up with a polish butcher, jewish pharmacy, Italian bakery and indian convenience stores. there were also many black businesses. As these places closed, immigrants mostly came in hardly speaking English and replaced them. They didn’t get financing from Chase Bank either, and they were not all that welcome in wealthier communities..

    I don’t condone attacking businesses, regardless of who is running them, but I completely understand the misguided frustration.

    The issue is much more complicated than most observers realize. Many moving parts from housing and education ( being HUGE – no funding ) to jobs and policing. Crime is only one part of the equation.

  81. Sentient

    “I’ve yet to see a RP explanation for this. Everything else stems from this, 1920 is Year Zero.”

    A female anti-suffragette whose name I no longer remember said something like “And what do you want us to do with our children? Let colored women raise them?” I think if you substitute “low educated women” for “colored”, this statement comes close to summing up the conflicts of the 20th century as technology freed people from traditional gender roles. Industry and child raising are equally important functions that maintain a society. At no time in previous human history could gender roles be intermixed as they were in the 20th century.

    Of course, a little Marxism could always be used to exploit this instability between the genders. Social Marxism is basically the foundation of feminism.

    I’ve thought about Asia, and have wondered if the reason they still have stable families is because their prosperity is new enough so that feminism hasn’t had time to create laws that favor women. Or perhaps they are a culture less susceptible to Marxist ideology? If they are, it will be interesting to see how the FI is politicized is Asia.

  82. @SJB: Lot of that going around too. But here’s a photo illustrative of my earlier point:

    The wages given to their family while they stood in the soup line was often sent home – to a different city, much as immigrants do today.

    This is my favorite Depression picture though:

    Alpha is a mindset.

Speak your mind

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s