Fempowerment

fempowerment

I’m often asked by ‘fempowered’ women critics whether I ‘believe‘ in some of the more socially acceptable tenets of feminism in some sort defense to the affront of my Red Pill lens being cast their way. It’s usually something to do with, “Do you or do you not think women ought to have the right to vote?” or the ever-reliable “Shouldn’t women have the right to do with their bodies what they choose?” These questions are always binary (“yes or no will do”) and usually couched in a context that implies that if you even slightly disagree or have a marginal caveat to answering ‘appropriately’ you’ll be dismissed with a name tag that has “misogynist” printed on it. Say no and you’re a despicable misogynist. Say yes and you’re tar-pitted in “yes, but” caveats – mansplaining – that are disqualified because you’re a man.

Say no and you’re a despicable misogynist. Say yes and you’re tar-pitted in “yes, but” caveats – mansplaining – that are disqualified because you’re a man. Up until recently, it’s been a very effective means of silencing uncomfortable truths about the Feminine Imperative.

I’ve always found it ironic that a movement (feminism) that predicates itself on the ostensibly egalitarian notion that rational, reasonable considerations of issues should lead us to ideals of equality is the first to reduce itself to unquestioned, blind faith binaries at the first sign of rational reasonable truth being unflattering to women. If you want to know who holds power over you, look at whom you aren’t allowed to criticise – or even hint at criticism.

My position on these and many other questions of the sort is usually met with simple observational analysis (as you’d probably expect). I don’t necessarily have a problem with women voting or even having access to legal (relatively safe) abortions. What I have a problem with is the latent purpose behind the reasons that led to women’s decisions to vote a particular way or the latent purposes that brought them to having that abortion. For the greater part, any dubious ‘right’ women feel they were somehow denied in the past usually comes at the expense of men being liable for decisions they had nothing to do with.

What I have a problem with is an expectation of lowering the standards of the game, thus fundamentally altering the game, to better accommodate the variable strengths and weaknesses of women – up to, and including, changing the very nature of women’s environmental realities that would endanger the wellbeing of both sexes. What I take issue with is the expectation of making men liable for the decisions and consequences of the rights and freedom of choices we’ve reserved for only women to make (almost unilaterally Hypergamic choices) that are not in men’s best interests.

I mentioned in Our Sister’s Keeper that men today find themselves in a very precarious position with regard to entertaining women’s perceived wrongs of the past. Men are expected,by default, to be held accountable, for no other reason than they were born men, for past injuries to the ever-changing Feminine Imperative. Your existence as a man today, your failed understanding to accommodate women’s social primacy, your lack of catering to the ambiguous nature of what conveniently passes for masculinity, is a constant stinking affront and obstacle to the “advancement” of women. The Feminine Imperative has known how to manipulate men’s Burden of Performance for millennia, and at not other time in history has it had the unfettered leisure to do so than now.

So, we get socially acceptable default presumptions of ‘male privilege’ without qualifying what it even means, or we get catchy jingoisms like ‘mansplaining’ to give a name to women’s need for silencing men’s inconvenient observations of women’s ‘correct’ perceptions, decisions and the reasons they came to them. We get default presumptions of male guilt for sexual assault and sexual consent as fluidly defined in as convenient a way that serves women’s imperatives. As I’ve mentioned before, the true intent of feminism has never been about establishing a mutually agreed ‘equality’, rather it’s always been about retribution and restitution for perceived past wrongs to the sisterhood.

There has always been a subtext, a cover story, of equality mentioned in the same breath as feminism. Only the most antagonistic asshole, only the most anti-social prick, would be against “equality between the sexes”. Thus, to be against feminism is to be against a simplistic concept of baseline equality. However, taken out of the propagandizing efforts to shame and ‘correct’ men’s imperatives, it’s easy to demonstrate that the true intent of feminism is female ‘fempowerment’ in the dressing of an equality that no man (or woman) wants to appear to be against.

Yellowed Pearls

I found an interesting example of this  Catch 22 in the Economist recently. Pick and choose: Why women’s rights in China are regressing.

In 2007 China’s official Xinhua news agency published a commentary about women who were still unmarried at the age of 27 under the title, “Eight Simple Moves to Escape the Leftover Woman Trap”. The Communist Party had concluded that young Chinese women were becoming too picky and were over-focused on attaining the “three highs”: high education, professional status and income. Newspapers have since reprinted similar editorials. In 2011 one said: “The tragedy is they don’t realise that as women age they are worth less and less, so by the time they get their MA or PhD, they are already old, like yellowed pearls.”

In the last Red Pill Monthly discussion, I mentioned the expansion that the Feminine Imperative has taken on a global scale. One of the old missives of the manosphere has always been about how American women are too far gone to be worth ever entertaining beyond a pump-and-dump consideration. They are too damaged and self-absorbed beyond all redemption, and men ought to expatriate to another country where women are more feminine or at least necessitous enough to appreciate a conventionally masculine man.

I get that. I understand the want for a Poosy Paradise or some promised land where women are still raised to respect and love men by being conventionally feminine. I also get that there exist certain cultures where this is still true, but for all of that, I think it’s important to recognize the social undercurrent that the Feminine Imperative exercises in these cultures. A popular meme on Twitter is ‘Feminism is Cancer’, but there’s a kernel of truth to the humor of this. The spread of the westernizing social primacy of the Feminine Imperative is spreading, not unlike cancer, into what we would otherwise believe were societies and cultures still oppressed by the mythical Patriarchy – a belief necessary to perpetuate the narrative of default female victimhood.

It may not be now, but at some stage, the Feminine Imperative will exercise its presumptive control over even the societies we think ought to be immune from that cancer. As I mention on The Red Pill Monthly, even in underdeveloped countries where we would expect to find the horrible oppression of girls and women, we make a triumphant example of the incidents of where girls (not boys) are taught to read and “think for themselves”. Westernized culture, founded on the Feminine Imperative, celebrates every time a woman in Saudi Arabia is allowed to drive a car, much less run a business on her own as if it were some blow against the tyranny of men.

Little by little, or in leaps and bounds, your second or third world Poosy Paradise will eventually be assimilated by the Feminine Imperative.

I bring this up because, as you’ll read in the linked article, China is also experiencing the long-term results of having adopted feminine social primacy in its own culture. From women’s popular consciousness, we’re still, to this day, told of how horrible “communist” China has been in mandating its one-child policy and how its draconian ‘sons live, daughters die’ social structure has been the result. However, once we reasonably investigate it, we find that China now has a problem with “Yellowed Pearls” as a result of a cultural shift that placed women’s interests as preeminent in that culture. And it should be noted that this shift came about as the direct result of the men who adopted and accommodated the Feminine Imperative as their own.

Now the problem for women in China is not unlike the plight of American women bemoaning the lack of men with “equal” marriageability as themselves. And likewise, the self-same social authorities responsible for institutionalizing the fempowerment of women are now the horrible misogynist villains for suggesting that women ought to lower their unrealistic standards.

The tone of these articles is surprising, given the Communist Party’s past support for women’s advancement. Mao Zedong destroyed China, but he succeeded in raising the status of women. Almost the first legislation enacted by the Communist Party in 1950 was the Marriage Law under which women were given many new rights, including the right to divorce and the right to own property.

Sounds a far cry different from the pictures women, even women in this century, have painted of China’s institutionalized, one-child sexism doesn’t it? Remember, this advancement in women’s rights took place before the Cultural Revolution in China.

Though collectivisation made the latter largely irrelevant, women played an active role in Mao’s China, and still do today. By 2010 26% of urban women had university degrees, double the proportion ten years earlier. Women now regularly outperform men at Chinese universities, which has led to gender-based quotas favouring men in some entrance exams. However, many of the earlier advances have been eroded in recent years by the gradual re-emergence of traditional patriarchal attitudes.

Consider this part in contrast to other industrialized nations and how women have increased their socio-political standing as the result of having the Feminine Imperative adopted as the primary social order of those cultures. Even in cultures that are still popularly deemed “repressive” to women we see educational and socioeconomic parallels to western(ized) cultures. We also see the same resulting consequences and the shifting of blame for them to men. The downside of Yellowed Pearls is placed at the feet of men for not living up to the convenient, feminine-primary definition of what their Burden of Performance ought to mean in promoting and forgiving women’s decisions.

The party has joined an alliance of property companies and dating websites to confront the issue. Government surveys on marriage and property are often sponsored by matchmaking agencies, and perpetuate the perception that being “leftover” is the worst thing that can happen to a woman. They also promote other myths, such as the idea that a man must have a house before he can marry.

As you may expect, the tone of the article is written to emphasize an egalitarian perspective that conflicts with a reality that the Feminine Imperative would have men change or be responsible for not having changed. It’s men’s fault that women might feel bad for not having married by a post-wall age. It’s men’s fault for promoting myths that women would expect that a man must be successfully established in his life and career before any considerations of marriage occur to him. It’s also a man’s fault for clinging to the “myth” that women don’t want him to be established.

The law is reflecting the shift away from women’s empowerment too. An interpretation by the Supreme Court in 2011 of the 1950 Marriage Law stated that, when a couple divorces, property should not be shared equally, but each side should keep what is in his or her own name. This ruling, says Ms Fincher, has serious implications. In the big cities a third of marriages now end in divorce but, based on hundreds of interviews, she finds that only about 30% of married women have their name on the deeds of the marital flat. Women believe the party hype about becoming a “leftover” woman so strongly, she says, that many rush into unhappy marriages with unsuitable men, made on condition that the brides agree not to put their name on the property deeds.

Feminism Would be a Success if Men Would Only Cooperate More

Several years ago Dalrock had a post detailing the sentiment of feminists that feminism would be a success if only men would cooperate with the ideology by abandoning their own interests and sublimating their own biological impulses. The fact remains that feminism and egalitarianism are failed ideologies because at the root level those ideologies ask men to participate in their own extinction. Not only this, but they ask men to raise successive generations to accommodate and participate in their own degradation.

The narrative expects Yellowed Pearls to be prized by men, or respected as Spinsters, or pandered to as ‘Cougars’ while still maintaining men sublimate their own imperatives by willfully ignoring the fact that their own sexual strategy is what is being asked of them to abandon. 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 – what better way is there to assure this for women than to socially mandate through shame, persecution or financial liabilities that men abandon their own strategy in favor of women?

For some time now, I’ve detailed how for the past 4 or 5 generations, there has been a popular social re-engineering effort to raise and condition boys to become the ‘better betas‘ – boys designed to become the supportive male-reinforcers of empowering women’s interests and imperatives.

For a greater part this effort has been primarily focused on boys and men in western society, and while it’s still open for debate, I’d say that westernizing cultures are really the only cultural environments that can afford to entertain this ‘fempowerment’. This is changing radically now if it was ever really the case to begin with.

In the manosphere we like to highlight the ‘pussification’ of modern men through various efforts on the part of a nebulous ‘socitey’ aligned against masculinity. However, the flip side to this is the fempowerment agenda; an feminine-primary social structure that disallows any criticism of inherently female nature while promoting the empowerment of women on every level of social strata.

We coddle and cater to the feminine in every aspect of social interaction, every aspect of academic achievement, every socioeconomic advantage inventable, every story we tell in every form of media and we do so under the threat of not being supportive or misogynistic for suggesting anything marginally pro-masculine. This is the other side of the demasculinization imperative of boys & men – the total consolidation of handicaping men and empowering women into unrealistic effigies of feminine triumphalism.

How do you counter this?

I’m always lauded for describing these social dynamics, but I’m run up the flagpole for not offering concrete ways of dealing with and pushing back on these imperatives. Many a MGTOW will simply suggest men no longer play the Game, that isolationism is the way to go, but this only serves to eventually concede power to the Feminine Imperative. You don’t get to check out of the Game even if you refuse to play it. For all the guys who left for parts unknown to find their demi-utopia of feminine women in a foreign country, even they will explain that the tide of feminism is changing those seemingly idlyic places. And for every guy to voluntarilly go celebate and “refuse to deal with women” I’ll show you a man whose tax dollars go to fund the consequences of women’s legislated rights to Hypergamous choice.

Sooner or later Men will have to confront and push back against both men and women who are convinced of their purpose in idealizing the dictates of the Feminine Imperative. A lot of men in the ‘sphere believe their being clever when they refer to people with this worldview as ‘SJWs’, but for every hair dyed, gender-confused man-woman you see on Twitter there are hundreds of ‘normal’ people who all share similar perspectives – some simply subconscious generalization they’re oblivious to – sitting next to you at church, or working in the cubicle next to you.

As I’ve mentioned countless times, the change needs to take place by appealing to the hearts and minds of Men by making them Red Pill aware from the bottom up, but moreover, we need to live out that awareness in our own lives and lead by Red Pill example. Our decisions in life, our aspiration in parenting, family and career, in our business dealings, in the women we Game and the people we hire, all of these aspects need to take on the perspective of how they fit into pushing back against a feminine-primary world that demands we surrender any thought of individuated male power.

As Men, we need to unapologetically exercise what little power we’re left with to inform this and successive generation of Red Pill truths tactfully, but with strength of conviction in the face of a feminine-primary society bent on our surrender. Life finds a way. Feminism and the consolidation of the Feminine Imperative have failed because Men were not evolved to acquiesce their dominant spirit. On the same evolutionary level women also evolved into requiring that convnetionally masculine dominance. This is why feminism and egalitarianism will ultimately fail – nature simply will not cooperate with it’s own stagnation. As men, we can use this truth to our Red Pill aware advantage.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

906 comments on “Fempowerment

  1. My impression of the SAHMs around here is that they rarely get out and rarely interact with other adults. This is a problem when so many women go back to work, which means the remaining SAHMs have a lot less community.

    In the old days, you’d have SAHMs up and down the street and I imagine they’d socialize quite a bit.

  2. Re: politics, I agree it’s often pointless to discuss but I don’t hold anyone’s views against em. There’s some real gold on these threads, even from Miss Sentient once In a while and I enjoy the debate. Truth is I’m perplexed by Trumps popularity.

    Karen is a great foil rollo don’t ban her! Maybe limit her to 10 comments per article?

  3. @Radium

    I am a huge F-ing fan of the Great Depression / WW-II generation. My father was from tail end of that generation as were many of my aunts and uncles. When I was scoring chicks in high school, my father told me something like: “your generation isn’t special. We were having as much casual sex back in the 1940s and 1950s.”

    “Not only does religion attempt to restrict female sexuality, it also competes with the cult of woman as an ideology.”

    Nietzsche argued Christianity is responsible for the pedestalization of women. Thoughts?

    @LeeLee

    Of course SAHMs describe themselves as depressed. Playing the victim card is how they manipulate their husbands and other men around them.

  4. “Nietzsche argued Christianity is responsible for the pedestalization of women. Thoughts?”

    There’s Christianity and then there’s Christianity. The Christianity of today bears little resemblance to the Christianity of the Middle Ages, which bears little resemblance to the Christianity of the 4th century, which bears little resemblance to the Christianity of the 2nd Century.

    What Christianity at its core is responsible for is the idea of egalitarianism. That there is some absolute standard against which all humans are equal. Nobody is born high, all are fallen. Nobody is restricted from Heaven, all have access and can be exalted. In its early days it specifically targeted for conversion those of the lowest and most reviled social ranks, promising them a ride to heaven that under previous spiritual concepts were only available to the rich and well connected.

    You didn’t have to build a pyramid to project your soul to the heavens. You didn’t even need a penny to pay the ferry toll. Everyone qualified rides for free, and everyone can be qualified.

    This is the essence of the teachings of Paul, and Christianity owes far more to the teachings of Paul than it does to the teachings of Christ. The Pauline Epistles predate the Gospels themselves.

    There is some evidence that the early, censored, history of Christianity involved a fight with feminism for control, which was beaten back, which in so doing had a profound effect on the teachings of the Church and the final form of the scriptures themselves.

    And so the FI began the Long March to Courtly Love.

  5. @kfg

    “What Christianity at its core is responsible for is the idea of egalitarianism.”

    I disagree. Jesus never denounced slavery. Slavery was the norm in his day. Here’s what Peter wrote: “Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.” 1 Peter 2:18.

    To get egalitarian you must turn to the modern atheist Enlightenment philosophers like Locke and Hobbes which led directly to Jefferson, the French Revolution, etc.

  6. “. . . she blew back on here with a flurry of posts that no human would think to.”

    It was the Uncanny Valley that first caught my attention.

    “Karen hasn’t stopped making comments even though she is and was banned.”

    That is rather suggestive.

    @Bachelorcles: “Of course SAHMs describe themselves as depressed.”

    And it was a frickin’ phone survey.

  7. Hey kfg- “What Christianity at its core is responsible for is the idea of egalitarianism”

    You do get it then?

  8. “Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters . . .”

    . . . and by so doing earn your ticket to Heaven right alongside the master.

    It is in the soul where equality resides, not the body.

    “To get egalitarian you must turn to the modern atheist Enlightenment philosophers like Locke and Hobbes which led directly to Jefferson, the French Revolution, etc.”

    Who all came out of cultures that had been Christian for circa 1500 years.

    There is no objective, natural evidence for egalitarianism. Indeed everything you can observe speaks against it. Therefore the equality that is endowed by the Creator must reside in something that is not objective.

    And you can tacitly believe in that nonobjective something without overtly believing in its source a millennia ago. Atheists of different cultures tend to have differing cultural beliefs. They take their cultural beliefs from . . . the culture. And all cultures have at their heart some form of religion.

  9. @Bachelorcles

    “Nietzsche argued Christianity is responsible for the pedestalization of women. Thoughts?”

    A Christian coworker is having trouble with his marriage sex life. I think what has happened is Christian men are craving self sacrifice to prove their worth to God while Christian women have Christian girl power. We see this in such movements as the promise keepers. Men sacrifice. Women receive. This would be no different than what happened on the Savannas of Africa. Men sacrifice and women receive protection and resources.

    What I tried to explain to my coworkers is being super nice and deferential to his wife is the problem. He wants to prove how good he is, and he believes she will respond sexually to that goodness. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. I tried to explain that he doesn’t have to mean to her. He just needs to start by nipping the shit tests in the bud. She’s constantly shit testing him, and he’s trying to respond rationally to her arguments.

    My point is Christianity in it’s modern form has conformed to a feminized society. I see this in my coworker’s attitudes.

    Societies rise and fall. What appears to happen is a people who live in a resources scarce environment develop highly masculine traits and values because those values work in that environment. They are also very difficult to develop. There is a need to overcome your fear of violence and injury. However, with those values also comes creativity and energy.

    People who live in cities have security and often resources. Masculine traits and values are not nearly as important, and could become a source of conflict. People in these environments lose these traits, and become an easy target for a more masculine people to concur. We are seeing this happen in Europe on a massive scale. In an historic context, few migrations have been this large and this fast. Native Europeans are at risk of becoming a minority in only a generation or two. Not even the conquest of the Americas had occurred this fast, and that conquest was aided by disease that rubbed out perhaps 95% of the native population.

    I think Christianity conforms to the norms of the society, and perhaps pushes toward more nurturing feminine values. Yeah, I can see how Christianity could pedestalize women. Look at how Pope Frank is wanting to redistribute everything except what is his. I’m sure he’d be the first to prioritize women.

  10. @Wild Man: “You do get it then?”

    We established that long ago, and long ago I asked that you to “show me.”

    Pluck out our souls and place them on the balance so that I may see that they weigh the same.

  11. Hey kfg – so you understand the egalitarian but nevertheless you reject it out of hand, as inconsequential? – foolhardy line or reasoning – you admit the egalitarian has much cultural influence (vis-a-vis Christianity) and as such, does it not then naturally follow that it is very much consequential, given what we know about the nature of humankind being so much so the “cultural animal”?

    Rollo – I had a longish response I posted to Karen last night about Rene Girard’s ideas around “mimetic desire” that got blocked for some reason – I was responding to her ideas about Jehovah – and my comments would have also spoken directly to what I think kfg’s stance on this may be, as well. Would you kindly post my comment of late yesterday evening that you blocked please (was it because my comment contained the phrase Sex Magick?).

  12. @Rollo: “. . . she blew back on here with a flurry of posts that no human would think to.”

    It was the Uncanny Valley that first caught my attention and prompted me to see if it could play the allusion game, rather than just cranking out stock allusions.

    “Karen hasn’t stopped making comments even though she is and was banned.”

    That is rather suggestive.

  13. “To get egalitarian you must turn to the modern atheist Enlightenment philosophers like Locke and Hobbes which led directly to Jefferson, the French Revolution, etc.”

    It is quite hasty to casually refer to Locke and Jefferson as “atheist”, both would seem to have been Deists of some sort or other, as opposed to the out and out atheists of the French revo and later iterations (Bolshevik) who were pure materialists.

    Who all came out of cultures that had been Christian for circa 1500 years.

    Mm-hmm, but also all those cultures arose in the same region, west of the Hajnal line. The Crusaders in the 10th century routinely had counsels and elected leaders, it was the way things were done even then.

    Question: what if the world view that leads to egalitarianism has some genetic component?

  14. Hey kfg – so you understand the egalitarian but nevertheless you reject it out of hand, as inconsequential? – foolhardy line or reasoning – you admit the egalitarian has much cultural influence (vis-a-vis Christianity) and as such, does it not then naturally follow that it is very much consequential, given what we know about the nature of humankind being so much so the “cultural animal”?

    Rollo – I had a longish response I posted to Karen last night about Rene Girard’s ideas around “mimetic desire” that got blocked for some reason – I was responding to her ideas about Jehovah – and my comments would have also spoken directly to what I think kfg’s stance on this may be, as well. Would you kindly post my comment of late yesterday evening that you blocked please (I have now determined it was because my comment contained the phrase S*x Ma***k- why is that important to you – you got some weird sanctity issues?).

  15. @kfg

    We’ve stumbled into a very old debate that we will not resolve.

    Egalitarianism means equality of soul, moral equality of body, and equality under the law. Yes, the Enlightenment philosophers grew out of cultures in which the people were steeped in Christianity. But those cultures never acknowledged equality under the law. Those cultures were steeped in aristocracy, peasantry, and slavery. As I said, Jesus never condemned slavery (inequality under the law) and the Torah or Old Testament actually approves of slavery. In other words, Christianity and Judaism are perfectly compatible with inequality under the law, slavery, and aristocracy. In fact, the very modern principles of the US founding are completely alien to the Bible. There is nothing in the Bible about natural rights, consent of the governed, written constitutions, and taxation without representation, separation of powers, check and balances, etc.

    “There is no objective, natural evidence for egalitarianism. Indeed everything you can observe speaks against it. Therefore the equality that is endowed by the Creator must reside in something that is not objective.”

    Your conclusion doesn’t follow. Of course all humans are unequal in abilities. What modern equality means is equality under he law, which means you don’t have a right to physically dominate another. If you claim such a right, then you lose the right to complain when the angry mob dominates you. That’s Hobbes’ argument in a nutshell.

    Also, are you assuming the Creator Jefferson refers to in the Declaration is the God of the Bible?

  16. Alright trying again

    Hey kfg – so you understand the egalitarian but nevertheless you reject it out of hand, as inconsequential? – foolhardy line or reasoning – you admit the egalitarian has much cultural influence (vis-a-vis Christianity) and as such, does it not then naturally follow that it is very much consequential, given what we know about the nature of humankind being so much so the “cultural animal”?

    Rollo – I had a longish response I posted to Karen last night about Rene Girard’s ideas around “mimetic desire” that got blocked for some reason – I was responding to her ideas about Jehovah – and my comments would have also spoken directly to what I think kfg’s stance on this may be, as well. Would you kindly post my comment of late yesterday evening that you blocked please (I have now determined it was because my comment contained that arcane occult phrase – why is that important to you – you got some weird sanctity issues?).

  17. “what if the world view that leads to egalitarianism has some genetic component?”

    See Watership Down and the remarkably rabbity culture of the rabbits.

    See also the phenomenon known as a “Bait Ball.”

  18. Rollo – idea censorship! – open discussion my eye – invitation to speak your mind – bollocks – you misrepresent yourself man (this being the second time I gotta speak out about this now – hey and dismissing my commenting as spam would be idiotic, as it was the first time – don’t be an idiot).

    1. Rollo – why you blocking my comments – what wrong with you?

      The only person I’ve blacklisted (again) is Karen, so unless you’re sockpuppeting for “her” I haven’t blocked you.

  19. Radium

    Tell you friend to view xtianity via a name change – cuckstianity… It will all make so much more sense…

  20. @Radium

    Great post and great points!!

    “What I tried to explain to my coworkers is being super nice and deferential to his wife is the problem.”

    My girlfriend started nagging me this morning. So I gave her the argument she wanted, I got passionate, yelled a little, and I was a little nasty. I’m getting laid tonight!!!!

    @Anonymous Reader

    “It is quite hasty to casually refer to Locke and Jefferson as “atheist”, both would seem to have been Deists of some sort or other, as opposed to the out and out atheists of the French revo and later iterations (Bolshevik) who were pure materialists.”

    It’s not hasty when you’ve studied them as I have. I never said Jefferson was an atheist. I agree he was most likely a Deist and I think it’s safe to say he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. I did say Hobbes and Locke were atheists. I realize you can form a decent argument that Locke was really a Christian. I’m aware of the debate. I side with those who argue he was an atheist or most likely an agnostic.

  21. “What modern equality means is equality under he law . . .”

    Ergo, Loretta has the right to have a baby.

    ” . . . are you assuming the Creator Jefferson refers to in the Declaration is the God of the Bible?”

    No. I am claiming that it did not need to be.

  22. kfg, rabbits are not mice are not bluejays are not foxes, and “bait ball” appears to be universal among certain classes of fish. But egalitarianism? Originates west of the Hajnal line, not in China nor Japan, not in meso-America, not in caste-run India.

    Lactose tolerance is genetic, without a doubt. What if…?

  23. “What modern equality means is equality under he law . . .”

    Or, in the case of Target, “equality” in the ladies bathroom…

  24. Ergo, Loretta has the right to have a baby.

    Yes, but what about “Caitlyn”, huh? What about her rights to have a baby?

    Not trolling but pointing out the cul de sac we are heading into thanks to unlimited “rights”.

  25. Radium
    What I tried to explain to my coworkers is being super nice and deferential to his wife is the problem. He wants to prove how good he is, and he believes she will respond sexually to that goodness. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. I tried to explain that he doesn’t have to mean to her. He just needs to start by nipping the shit tests in the bud. She’s constantly shit testing him, and he’s trying to respond rationally to her arguments.

    His problem most likely is that whole “Servant Leader” concept that has grown up in the last 40 years, plus the underlying feminist “men and women are the same” premise. Blue pill squared and cubed. I’ve sat with men like that and listened to them talk. The most they got is 1980’s “Love Languages” ideas. Not a bad thing per se, but underneath that IMO is the interchangeability fallacy.

    My point is Christianity in it’s modern form has conformed to a feminized society. I see this in my coworker’s attitudes.

    Oh, most definitely. Dalrock and his commenters have example after example after example. I’ve pointed out that the churches – all of ’em – are beta factories, and now I’m wondering if there isn’t a bit of gamma factory there as well.

    “Churchianity” and “cuckstianity” both apply.

  26. @AR:

    Rabbits and mice are most definitely not blue jays or foxes.

    ““bait ball” appears to be universal among certain classes of fish.”

    Which are not sharks or bass.

    “But egalitarianism?”

    Where is the individual in a bait ball? Your question was about a possible genetic component in egalitarianism, and I have referred to species with pronounced collectivism, as a species.

  27. “Not trolling but pointing out the cul de sac we are heading into thanks to unlimited “rights”.”

    With the right hand they proclaim a sheaf of rights.

    With the left they deny rights exist, as they are a mere social construct.

    And some of them put up sufficiently cogent arguments for the latter that I had to give it some thought, and I have come to the conclusion that while many of their examples are indeed mere social constructs, that does not disqualify all rights as mere social constructs.

    I identify exactly one, true natural right. A right that is so profoundly rooted in natural law that even plants assert it:

    The right to self defense, idiomatically expressed as, “Come and make me.”

  28. The rise of equalitarianism is an interesting topic. I’ve been wondering if it has something to do with our expanding in-group size. EO Wilson’s “multi-level selection” theory of evolution is based on the idea that humans compete as both groups and individuals. Technology and perhaps capitalism has expanded the size of the in-group from perhaps a few hundred individuals to the size of entire nations. Does equalitarianism rise naturally out of an in-group with millions of individuals? Is it the same impulse that smaller groups have?

    I don’t have any definite ideas yet. This is just something I’ve been thinking about. When your in-group becomes millions and you no longer need a chain of command to respond quickly to invasion, do you get an equalitarian ideology?

    It’s been proposed that because the UK was a defendable island that this was the first place on the planet that developed a legal system based on due process and equality under the law. Of course, that legal system was first used to resolved disputes between the aristocracy, but was later expanded to include everyone.

  29. Little reminder that everything game is not sunshine and roses…

    At a diner yesterday, at the counter near the register. Cute little young single mom standing there. Has a kid about 5, so figure she was preggers at 18 or so. She has tight cut offs a thigh tattoo (natch) and a ripped Nirvana t shirt. So i peg her as a tough cookie, but worth some eye game.

    She looks over in my direction and I hold her gaze, looking for her to break contact. And she does the thing like tilts her head forward and bugs out her eyes like what are u looking at?

    I laugh at this and say hey. She scoffs… I say “you dont see many Nirvana shirts these days”… She says yeah whatever… Then she starts berating the staff that she is waiting for a shake and they better not spit in it. LOL… Her kid is running around. They bring her shake and they split…

    Sometimes all you can do is try and hold frame and shake your head.

  30. It is apparent that the genetic component isn’t in egalitarianism,but rather excluded from it from the start,as egalitarianism is a philosophy not a science.

    From Ambrose Undaunted Courage;”Jefferson’s attitude toward Indians was the exact opposite of his attitude toward Negroes. He thought of Indians to be noble savages-in body and mind equalto the white man.-When Jefferson or Young Virginians- looked at a Negro,they saw something less than human,something more than an animal.”

  31. Radium – “EO Wilson’s “multi-level selection” theory of evolution is based on the idea that humans compete as both groups and individuals. Technology and perhaps capitalism has expanded the size of the in-group from perhaps a few hundred individuals to the size of entire nations.”

    Yuval Harari, historian at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has some very interesting ideas about that, especially wrt to female strengths wrt to traits that favor female in-group collective power for groups smaller than 150 individuals, but for cultural organization at mach larger scales, male strengths wrt to traits the favor male in-group collective power instead prevails. This guy is onto something important. There are some youtube vids of him doing some lectures that are worth checking out.

  32. Rollo – still wondering precisely why your filters blocked my other comments. If you don’t tell us what the filter settings are – I’m not sure how you can cogently advertise this space as “speak your mind”. Still waiting for your reply.

  33. @Sentient at 10:23 am

    and what were the subcomms aimed at you when she started bitching at the staff?… bitch shields are just hard candy coatings wrapped around a soft juicy treat…lol

    good luck!

  34. stuffinbox

    A philosophy can be scientifically proven or disproven.

    What do you mean by “scientifically proven”?

    Radium – that co worker needs to see Dalrock’s site.

  35. AR

    In order to prove a hypothesis, first eliminate all theories that disprove it then show the formula that proves it.

    Everyone knew the world was flat until it was proven to be round.

    Egalitarianism has yet to be proven.

  36. “Egalitarianism has yet to be proven.”

    I believe what has been proven is that for egalitarianism to be true, the individual must be fungible.

  37. @Stuffinbox

    Might people be confusing their ability to take action, with their guts to take a given action?

    People DO have different circumstances, but, with the right amount of will and understanding their problems, they could improve their circumstances.

    I think people get mad when they consider that, like potential to change does not equal like potential to gain like rewards(the “real” difference).

    Lack of life-threatening circumstances can keep people in thrall indefinitely, and they never have to change if they’re really good at getting someone else to pay their bills.

    Being spoiled and learning all the wrong things myself, work is suddenly fun for me.

  38. If and yet are in the same line with in order for,the biggest short words line.

    You can definitely prove that the individual is not fungible,leaving us at the conclusion that egalitarianism is a philosophy that has little if any support from scientific proof.

  39. @Yollo

    Certainly you are correct.People also confuse the romance attached to a given action with the action itself,while they consider said action to be a simple task they overlook the years of training and experience that goes into effectiveness.

    Sounds to me like you are making good progress.

  40. @Sentient

    all I saw was a rollodex being cycled through…lol. you passed the first two shit tests then missed that 3rd one where she “stopped interacting” with you and bitched at someone else… lol. if you were a thug you wouldn’t put up with being ignored, right ? you’d just push back on her trying to ignore your frame. plus interrupting a girl bitching at someone takes some balls, bc she might end up venting on you… which is good if you can handle it bc then it just becomes part of the emo roller coaster… lol… she’s just a silly girl having an emotion…lol

    good luck!

  41. @ YaReally

    re: Chaturbate

    Never heard of it before. Checked it out just now for 10-15 minutes.

    It’s pretty telling that it made me uncomfortable. Not used to seeing anything live online, although I have before. Never watched regularly enough for it to seem normal (also way less stimulating than pre-recorded videos).

    I wasn’t even watching it as porn (i.e. furiously whacking off to it and flipping thru vid to vid). Just checking it out and facing my discomfort. Like there are people doing this, having sex right now, lol. I went so long without sex that I just wrote it off as an option and never got the experience to really think of ANY woman as capable of having sex.

    Even with the GF now, I never imagined her being sexual before. Just didn’t add up.

    Getting some experience and now watching some of this stuff online is pretty interesting.

    Also how a few guys on there have some threesomes going and there isn’t all this tension and drama and stress. And some dude just talking about the show or answering questions and shit while getting blown by one of the chicks in the video like it’s no big deal.

    Because it isn’t a big deal. That’s the state I want to reach: where it’s no big deal.

    Great advice as always, thanks.

  42. @all This is kinda late, but RE: politics, I agree arguing with folks is mostly pointless, but I don’t hold folks political or even social/religious views against them to each his own. I find the comments here useful and informative, there’s some real gold nuggets in these threads and even Mrs Sentient has dropped some knowledge on my head in previous comments. I’ve never been the guy to argue back and forth in internet comments, but truly I’m perplexed by da Don’s popularity.

    @Rollo.. rather than ban Karen outright (lol @ her being an ai super bot of some kind) can you limit her to 10 comments per post? she’s the perfect foil and I really think she’s, in a round about way, just trying to seek all y’alls acceptance. She provides good practice for all y’all more cerebral folks to spar with even though she tends to spiral out of control.

    Anyone in Vegas next weekend? (Canelo v Khan) plan to use some Yah’s pickup vids and sarge like a muthafucka

  43. Complete tangent here.

    @Scray
    I know YaReally said before that he prioritizes his anonymity, but I was wondering if you would be open to meeting up sometime? I’m trying to get out and meet more guys who are good at this stuff that I think I would get along with. I’m not talking about anything in the near future – judging by my current finances I would be thinking more along lines of six months to a year from now. But I wanted to bring it up now to see if you would be open to the idea.

    My email is my username with an underscore, then “redpill”. I use hotmail.

  44. @ Sentient

    ” Little reminder that everything game is not sunshine and roses…

    At a diner yesterday, at the counter near the register. Cute little young single mom standing there. Has a kid about 5, so figure she was preggers at 18 or so. She has tight cut offs a thigh tattoo (natch) and a ripped Nirvana t shirt. So i peg her as a tough cookie, but worth some eye game.

    She looks over in my direction and I hold her gaze, looking for her to break contact. And she does the thing like tilts her head forward and bugs out her eyes like what are u looking at?

    I laugh at this and say hey. She scoffs… I say “you dont see many Nirvana shirts these days”… She says yeah whatever… Then she starts berating the staff that she is waiting for a shake and they better not spit in it. LOL… Her kid is running around. They bring her shake and they split…

    Sometimes all you can do is try and hold frame and shake your head.”

    Lol, bitches.

    I normally do not refer to females as ” bitches ” unless they act thusly. Buuuttt nowadays women even refer to themselves this way, so when the situation requires a vocal descriptor, I might just announce ” bitch ” to put a word to my displeasure.

    Gotta love life.

    Today, on my way to work ( Saturday work…blows…Internap circuit took a shit so I gotta do the ” waiting for cable guy ” routine…) I stopped for some snackage at my fave convenience store, where there is an amazing Pakistani chick working that usually has guys standing around outside of the store peering inside through the window like kids looking at puppies.

    So I’m waiting in line with bags of carbs and salt, when this girl strides in. Very, very cute girl. Wonderful body, long hair pulled up, yet cascading downward, olive khakis snug fitting but not choking, with a huge tear on the front leg, exposing a lot of thigh, glasses, earrings and tasteful jewelry. Just a hint of make up. In other words, my type of young chick.

    She grabs a bottle of water and stands in line behind me.

    So I look back and tell her ” You know, you can go ahead of me if you want..”. She smiles and says ” No, that’s okay…” then she starts to laugh. I say ” Uh huh, you’re not falling for the Stand In Front of Me trick huh?”.

    I extend my hand: ” Blaximus ”

    Her: Vanessa.

    Me: *pointing to her water bottle* ” I see the thirst really is real “.

    Her: * laughs hard * ” Omg, I’m not sure how to respond…which thirst are you talking about?”.

    Me: ” You know…thhirrrssstttt “.

    Her: ” Lol..No comment on either . * looks at my snacks* And you seem HUNGRY “.

    Me: ” oh no doubt. I’m always hungry. Always looking to eat….hey, are you blushing? “.

    Her: * Laughing and laughing* ” I can not with you right now..”.

    Me: ” Sure you can, if not me, who?”.

    I pay for my shit and step outside. I pretend to be looking at my phone while I wait for her to come out so I can watch her walk across the parking lot. Yes, lecherous is my middle name. She comes out and purposely walks close.

    Her: ” Well you enjoy eating today ”

    Me: ” I will. You enjoy swallowing….all of it…until it’s empty “.

    Her: * laughing hard * ” Damn… I only swallow water, okay?”.

    Me: ” Sure you’re right.That’s what I was talking about. What were you thinking?” feigned shock ” Nooooo, you weren’t talking about THAT were you?? I am shocked, SHOCKED I say!!!”. Huge smile.

    Her: ” You don’t seem like things shock you much “.

    Me: * feigned anger * ” Hey, you don’t know me like that, okay? I am a sensitive motherfucker. I have a bag of ‘ shits ‘ in my trunk that I give every single day “.

    Her: ” what??” * busts out a good belly laugh *

    Me: ” aight, enough already. I gotta jet. Fun talking with you, have a nice hydrated day- stay wet..”.

    Her: ” Okay *still laughing* you too Blaximus. Thanks for the best laugh I had all week…take care okay?”.

    Now mind you, I talk to women at this store quite often. The 2 prior encounters were with mean, surly wildebeests that disparaged muh age. This pleasant, sexy, well put together girl was fun to interact with. Under different circumstances I woulda chatter her up as long as possible and went for a number or even *gasp* offered her a ride in the Blaxmobile.

    So fuck mean, unhappy hoes. Lmao.

    Smiles are free.

    The last time I said that to a 300 pound Sumo wrestler in spandex I was told ” fuck you old man “.

    Duly noted.

    Bwaaa Haaaa ha ha haaaa….

  45. Hey, that’s fine if you want to ban my comments, Fuck it..not as open a forum as you’ve previously proclaimed. I’m not even mad though.. good luck!

  46. @ludiam0ndz

    Good afternoon my man.

    Rollo doesn’t ban comments normally, except for spam and abusive trollery. If your comments aren’t showing up, it’s most likely WordPress fucking up in some manner. It’s happened to me before.

  47. @Blax, thanks man. Basically short version was I respect yawls opinions on shit even if i don’t agree with folks politics. that includes you Sentient.

    Carry on!

  48. I’m not convinced Karen isn’t a bot or she isn’t Wild Man’s sockpuppet so he can have conversations with himself since all he ever does is default to steering the comments to his magic power crystals and egalitarianism discussions.

    I’ll take her out of mod for the time being, but bear in mind whenever “she” shows Wild Man conveniently shows too.

  49. Why I don’t hire teachers. And why you should not study from teachers.

    I’m bootstrapping a small startup, and so interview for new hires every few days. Every day I spend an hour or two going through applications.

    I sometimes come across people who don’t know how to be career oriented. They might stay too long in a job that does not advance their skills, or jump around between unrelated fields, or work at jobs that don’t match their potential. They work at places because they need a job, not in order to advance their career.

    I used to be the same way. In Canada you needed to graduate from grade 13 high school in order to go on to university. Grade 12 counted as a High School diploma, and that’s all I got. After that I lounged around the house for most of a year, before getting a series of temp manual labor jobs. I had zero career ambitions. My ambition was to move to a Buddhist mountain retreat or monastery.

    But as an employer, I have gained a different perspective. It’s required of me to be able to understand career ambition. I need ambitious employees who want to work near the peak of their potential, and who can grow and learn and develop along with my company, constantly refining their skills to stay relevant and cutting edge in a competitive cut throat marketplace.

    Sometimes I’ll look at a resume and see that the person went straight from school into teaching. Or they dabbled in working in their field, before moving into teaching.

    Teachers are not useful to me.

    You’d think that a teacher of PHP programming would be a great hire if I needed a PHP programmer. It doesn’t work that way. In class, you are teaching the same thing, over and over. You are stuck at the beginners level, by design.

    Only in industry are you forced to face novel situations, and only in industry is it adapt now or die. In academia your students can’t easily evaluate the value of your teaching, and unless you have a large faculty specializing in teaching PHP programming, neither will your peers. Even if they cared to.

    I once had some specialty chemistry commissioned from a university lab. They were affronted that I demanded a budget, and said that in Academia it doesn’t work like that. They not only resisted, but acted insulted. They explained that they were used to an open ended unlimited budget. It costs what it costs and takes as long as it takes. When I explained that I had to know the costs first before deciding if I wanted to start the project, they acted as if I was insane, and refused to even calculate the cost of materials.

    I interviewed a business major and professor recently. He agreed that he had no practical experience at all – all his experience was theoretical and only within the classroom.

    Can you learn how to fuck by reading Penthouse and watching porn? Can you learn advanced PHP programming by teaching PHP classes?

    School is a preparation for learning how to work hard and consistently against deadlines. It teaches some thinking skills, and some practical knowledge. It is PREPRATORY. After school comes the real training, which occurs on the job.

    Companies that hire fresh graduates consciously do so in order to find that one in 10 hire who is the blockbuster of productivity. He won’t know his value, and can be paid much less than the man who spent 10 years carefully honing his skills on a well planned career track. These blockbuster hires make it worth the expense of hiring and training (and usually eventually firing) the other nine.

    Fresh graduates are useful if they are extremely talented. Otherwise it usually takes years of focused development before they are good at their job. And this gets reflected in their salary, and in their job title. A Senior PHP developer can earn more than twice as much as a fresh graduate.

    Most companies can’t afford to gamble on blockbusters or wait years for their staff to to grow into their potential, and so hire the most experienced and proven staff that they can afford. No amount of university training counts as experience, whether it’s being trained or training others.

    I’m writing this post because it’s the perfect metaphor for the act of teaching about relationships between men and women.

    If a man is not currently actively dating, and yet is teaching about relationship dynamics, then he is an academic.

    Academics do not know that they do not know. Instead they think they know more! Academia is insular and self referential, and this has been an open joke ever since there was academia. Academia and industry are like Penthouse vs Sex.

    There are good, and even great academics. And yet we have the saying “Those that can, do. Those that can’t, teach.” If someone is ONLY an academic, even a great academic, then he can’t do. He can’t even know. It’s not possible to be good at any field and ONLY teach about it.

    If someone is married, and is trying to explain about relationship dynamics, he is an academic.

    I don’t hire academics, because they have chosen the career path of being deliberately stuck. Academics are treading water. They think they have a broader perpsective, by virtue of thinking about things, but are just stuck in a very narrow and limited world. The more they teach the same thing over and over, the more they mistake the map for the territory. Their maps over time become loaded with sign posts that are jargon words that mean so very much to their students and to other academics, but so much less to those in industry. “Stages of mating”. “Hypergamy”. “Alpha fucks and beta bucks”.

    So that’s my warning. Learn relationships from those that have the types of relationships that you strive for.

    Would you like to have multiple attractive women in their most peak years in love and devoted to you?

    Then don’t study about relationships from a married man . Especially if his wife is of a similar age!

    My god, I can’t imagine how a man with a similar aged WIFE expects to be and is taken seriously, when talking about how to relate with women. Jesus what a waste of potential! A guy would need to be blind not to notice young ass, and incompetent not to tap it. On the regular. Or whipped or low libido. Which are both much worse than being blind or incompetent.

    And unless you want a similar lifestyle, don’t take on as a mentor a PUA. From what I see all PUAs have a paltry sex life, and none have a bottom bitch, let alone several women who pray devotedly from their hearts and other warm spots at the alter of his lingam. A top PUA might in one of the best months of his career score 10 girls and have sex maybe 15 times. And he’ll have to work very hard for it, using up a lot of his limited time and energy. Whereas a guy with a harem of devoted women may have sex several times a day with different women. And most of it will be much better quality sex. Just by inviting his girls over, or doing a circuit between their apartments. And he’ll never have to cook or clean.

    The PUA lifestyle is in industry. It’s practical and hands on. The married lifestyle is a communist industry – no competition at all, and you can be wasteful and inefficient and incompetent and clueless and still think things are fine and dandy.

    I strongly believe that PUA and being married are both extremes. To be functioning at peak potential by definition means that one is neither monogamous for more than a few years nor a full time playboy.

    A man needs BOTH variety, and deep and stable intimacy. That really should be fucking obvious.

    PUAs can’t know about intimacy, and married men can’t know about dating. Both positions are too extreme. There is not the overlap that people at the extreme ends assume. Most of the skills for LTRs are vastly different than PUA skills. And PUA skills are also highly specialized, and not learned through LTRs.

    And multiple long term relationship skills are again a different skill set. No PUA or married man is going to have more than a sniff of a clue about MLTR skills. But most will assume they are experts anyway. And won’t be shy to teach you what they don’t know.

    Academics.

    Either you are fucking multiple attractive young women who are in love with you, or you do not understand and do not have the skill sets involved.

    There is no such thing as a man who could do that but chooses not to. A fox sees grapes he can’t reach, and then tells himself those grapes were sour anyway.

    And then he tell himself that all other foxes are deluded if they think they are getting high grapes. Your girlfriends are not really having orgasms you idiot! Even though I have never met you or your girls, I know that! God, how dumb can you be to think you are actually getting high grapes!

    Either you are dating now, or you do not understand dating now.

    Having dabbled in dating long ago and retired means you are not industry relevant now. No matter how many people you talk to who are in industry. Having specialized industry skill in one area is not transferable to another. And deep down, we all want to be neither a PUA nor monogamous forever to the same woman. I firmly believe that.

    And anyone who says that he is an MGTOW guy who does not want or need women is a liar and a loser.

    MGTOW guys are like born again Christians. They must devote a lot of time to proselytizing, because deep down they can’t believe their own bullshit, and the only way to maintain the faith is by splainin and splainin and communing and communing.

    Nope. All men want what is the most valuable asset that has ever been. Young attractive women. And we all want these precious assets to adore and be owned by us.

    And ONLY men who consistently maintain what we all truly want are in the industry, and worthy of hiring by you, to be your teacher.

    Related: Why Rollo’s therationalmale.com is an MGTOW site that is trying to keep you down

    [TL;DR Rollo is full of shit because he’s married. YaReally is too because he isn’t married yet. Read me instead because,…]

  50. RT says:

    >I’m not convinced Karen isn’t a bot or she isn’t Wild Man’s sockpuppet so he can have conversations with himself since all he ever does is default to steering the comments to his magic power crystals and egalitarianism discussions.
    >

    In childhood some classmates referred to me as an “encyclopedia”…but I’m my wildest imagination it never occurred to me that I would deemed artificial intelligence…that is beyond creative…and in a way…quite the compliment.

    If I am a robot, I’m perhaps the only one with an SS card, a driver’s license & a birth certificate. I also have health insurance from my job…I wonder if it covers circuitry malfunctions???

    *Ponders*

  51. Hey – Rollo it seemed maybe you filtered and blocked some comments (not just mine) that contained the name K….

    Why?

  52. Hey Blax – the Spiderman pic – pretty good – you got me pegged pretty well, except it’s “with great need to understand ….comes something….?”.

    I be cursed that way, but ….. I can’t stop fucking asking questions … we all have our individual burdens to bear I guess.

  53. Rollo – yes … of course I see that now (that’s how I know) … because you have now unblocked everybody’s comments that contained “Karen”, so not hard to figure out.

    But you still didn’t answer the question … why did you set your filter that way in the first place?

  54. Having specialized industry skill in one area is not transferable to another.
    .
    I agree: self-identified entrepreneurs do not necessarily make lucid analogies.

  55. You aren’t full of shit. And the shit you are full of is not because you are married.

    Read for comprehension.

    You confuse some of your shit with the rest of your insights because you are not seducing and fucking young ass.

    Or because you are too whipped to admit you are fucking young ass.

    Take your choice.

    1. Hehe,..I guess I should feel honored you’d start a Twitter account just to tell me all of that X.

      From what I remember though, you’ve been ‘buying’ young ass in SEA for some time now. I’m not sure how that constitutes ‘seducing’ young ass, but hey, if you feel that what I write should be disregarded as ‘bad teaching’ because I’ve been married for 20 years, you can always look to Roosh for inspiration on how to live a rewarding life.

      I still love you X. Yours has always been one of my earliest blog reads and I still pop over from time to time.

  56. RT says:

    None of your comments are blocked. And all the ones that were had “Karen” in them.
    >>

    I’m a perfectly decent tax paying American citizen Mr. T…I’ll readily concede that some of my views are a little outside the mainstream of American political thought; but it is what it is.

    At work some of colleagues consider me a little eccentric…and I’ve also been characterized as a savant by several people. I do have pretty close to a photographic memory…but the quick retort stuff that I have a bit of a flair for has its roots in an administrative law class I took some years ago. The prof. called on me to discuss a matter regarding a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals case pertaining to airbags in motor vehicles; I wasn’t prepared (hadn’t even read the material…though I was *not* out on the carousel the night before) and I was made to look rather foolish before my classmates…I vowed from that day forth to never fail to have an answer when questioned again.

  57. Hehe,..I guess I should feel honored you’d start a Twitter account just to tell me all of that X.
    From what I remember though, you’ve been ‘buying’ young ass in SEA for some time now. I’m not sure how that constitutes ‘seducing’ young ass, but hey, if you feel that what I write should be disregarded as ‘bad teaching’ because I’ve been married for 20 years, you can always look to Roosh for inspiration on how to live a rewarding life.
    I still love you X. Yours has always been one of my earliest blog reads and I still pop over from time to time.

    I agree with you that not censoring is the best method, because it shows the nature of the beast.

    You have in your comment proved my point.

    You believe that even though you have not met me or my girls, that I am lying about my personal experience. You HAVE to believe that.

    Because YOU are not fucking young ass, it means I am paying for it.

    That is exactly my point. You do not have a clue how to fuck young ass. And therefore you have no choice but to assume that I’m paying for it.

  58. wtf is going on here?

    xsplat, who pissed in your cheerios this morning?

    I will expand on some thoughts later, but for now I have a question for you: Do any of your posts get 30 comments? Especially over the past 6 months?

    I read you a few years ago, but you bored the ever loving fuck out of me.

    Life is indeed pretty cyclical, evidently.

  59. lol…” fuck young ass “. Step 1) place penis in ” young ass “. preferably female ass.

    Seems simple.

  60. Blaximus writes:

    Ok fine. Take that babbling nutjob out of mod. Lmao. I have become a master of the scroll wheel thanks to her.
    >>>>>

    I don’t have any anger or animosity towards you or any of the other board members; I’ve never met you. It is the internet; so maybe I’m a little more provocative than I would be at work or at a luncheon. Sometimes when I do little variations on your screen names…it is just for fun and maybe to get a laugh…but there is no actual malice behind it.

  61. That’s sound logic, Blasfimus. Zeig! Heil! Zeig! Heil!

    “How dare you offend our most treasured and popular leader!”

    By the way, as proof of you logic skills, where is your popular blog?

  62. X

    Lol. I’m not defending anyone. I’m calling bullshit on your comment(s).

    And yeah, you got me. I don’t have a blog. But TRUST me X, neither do you, really. You have ” ramblings “. You have content that folks do not want to read and get involved in. Your ” style ” doesn’t fire the mind.

    Your comments betray you.

    They betray you.

    You are as cellophane.

    I could blog about you, and get more than 30 comments.

    I could TEACH you how to improve, but you dislike teachers and all.

    Maybe you need to go do some more drugs/lsd and your brain will flip back to a more normalized state.

  63. ‘You HAVE to believe that.
    Because YOU are not fucking young ass, it means I am paying for it.
    That is exactly my point. You do not have a clue how to fuck young ass. And therefore you have no choice but to assume that I’m paying for it.”

    or he actually read your blog …where you said its better to pay for it .Also that females don’t like your appearence etc. etc.

  64. Maybe I am confused. Since when did this site author, who goes by the moniker Rollo Tomassi, ever position TRM as a site where men can find information on how to “fuck young ass?”

    The primary reason I read TRM is, in fact, (outside of his uncanny ability to connect dots) because the author does not rely exclusively on its success to support himself financially. He appears to have a life mission that extends well beyond success with women and tapping scads of young, middle aged or old ass. I’m talking Joseph Campbell type shit here.

    If he did (like so many others do), I would pull the ripcord because with pandering to the site-clicking masses for $$ comes the inevitable slow-bleed loss of integrity and perspective .

  65. LFAO!!!

    This fucking guy made a post about his comments here on TRM.

    Rollo Tomasi thinks all old men must pay for young ass

    Posted by xsplat on April 30, 2016

    In response to my re-posting this post on Rollos blog, and tweeting a link to it on my years old twitter account, Rollo replied:

    [TL;DR Rollo is full of shit because he’s married. YaReally is too because he isn’t married yet. Read me instead because

    You aren’t full of shit. And the shit you are full of is not because you are married.

    Read for comprehension.

    You confuse some of your shit with the rest of your insights because you are not seducing and fucking young ass.

    Or because you are too whipped to admit you are fucking young ass.

    Take your choice.

    Hehe,..I guess I should feel honored you’d start a Twitter account just to tell me all of that X.

    From what I remember though, you’ve been ‘buying’ young ass in SEA for some time now. I’m not sure how that constitutes ‘seducing’ young ass, but hey, if you feel that what I write should be disregarded as ‘bad teaching’ because I’ve been married for 20 years, you can always look to Roosh for inspiration on how to live a rewarding life.

    I still love you X. Yours has always been one of my earliest blog reads and I still pop over from time to time.

    I agree with you that not censoring is the best method, because it shows the nature of the beast.

    You have in your comment proved my point.

    You believe that even though you have not met me or my girls, that I am lying about my personal experience. You HAVE to believe that.

    Because YOU are not fucking young ass, it means I am paying for it.

    That is exactly my point. You do not have a clue how to fuck young ass. And therefore you have no choice but to assume that I’m paying for it.

    Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

    Oh Lawd Have Mercy….

    I have fucking tears in my eyes, laughing at this clownery.

  66. @Wild Man: “so you understand the egalitarian but nevertheless you reject it . . .”

    I only reject things I understand well enough to do so.

    ” . . . as inconsequential? – foolhardy line or reasoning – you admit the egalitarian has much cultural influence (vis-a-vis Christianity) and as such, does it not then naturally follow that it is very much consequential . . .”

    Rejecting the concept as valid is not the same thing as rejecting the concept as existing. How could I reject it as valid if it didn’t exist?

    Should I join the Thugs because the Cult of Kali was consequential?

  67. X-

    I laugh up your sleeve.

    I don’t care to argue with you. I was going to respond to your initial comment, but on 2nd thought, I’d rather respond to Karen for the rest of the damn day ( I ain’t doing that shit either..).

    Oh man, that was a classic Bitch move.

    Now run and post that shit on your blog.

    B-I-T-C-H M-O-V-E

    cellophane.

  68. … Today I was attacked by commenter on Rollo’s blog. He doesn’t know how to fuck young ass. No one knows how to fuck young ass but me. And I don’t pay for it. I swear I don’t. And I changed my appearance, and I’m trying to get rich because these are the things that matter. My therapist said so.

    And married guys and PUA’s don’t get young ass. They don’t understand young ass.

    And I’m not obsessed with the phrase ” young ass ” either.

    http://www.sabinabecker.com/media/dat-ass.jpg

  69. xsplat – Hey I’m not familiar with your site (maybe I will have a look see). But your long comment above, got me to thinking again about a subject I have tried to broach here a couple of times – the utterly weird concept of guru-game, which is a real thing, and a guy like me could maybe perhaps still do that if I tried to develop it (cause I did get that kinda obsessive attraction from certain girls when I was a young man, and I really got no idea why exactly) but in the past I couldn’t get over how the young ladies would rush so quickly to brainwash themselves to give away their personal agency that way, to what they saw as some sort of guru I guess, but really they were just acquiescing to a fantasy …. so when I used to see the gushing I would freak. I would start to feel it was like I was Popeye being pursued by Alice The Goon (Alice The Goon – not quite a real person but an obsessed zombie so to speak). Weird huh.

    This guru game obviously has many flavors – for instance could even be a heavy-metal acid-rock guitar-lord guru (have a cousin that used to play that game pretty good).

    There is a documentary called Kumare (2011) by Vikram Gandhi that shows this guru-game dynamic really well.

    Anyway my question to you is – this multiple long term relationship (MLTR) skillset you are talking about – are you referring to guru-game?

  70. @Wild Man

    Guru game can intersect with Daddy game and with MLTR game.

    I embody a Daddy archetype, which heavily overlaps with a Guru archetype.

    And yes, a subset of women of all ages are SEXUALLY (yes, Rollo SEXUALLY) attracted to that. There is a minority of women who have a conscious and articulate attraction for both of those archetypes, and a larger subset who have an unconscious SEXUAL attraction, and then there are some who can learn that attraction.

    I prefer MLTR and LTR. So Rollo’s comment about Roosh is pure dissimulation. He is likely aware that I have written far more negative comments about Roosh than I have about Rollo. Roosh has personality disorders of being Schizoid and Paranoid.

  71. xsplat – this Daddy archetype as heavily overlapping with Guru archetype – doesn’t the gushing of the women so-predisposed towards attraction to that, freak you out?

  72. @Wildman, when I said that I embody the Daddy archetype, I meant it. It’s not mere role play in order to trigger a desired response.

    I am sexually attracted to and genuinely love the women that love me, and I feel that they love me for who I really am.

    I’m 50 years old, and I deserve to be loved and respected as a Daddy, because I have paternal feelings of deep and genuine love, while at the same time having a raging hard on.

    It works all around.

    I don’t complain about the weather, and the weather doesn’t freak me out. Women are women. And I am what I am. If it ever did freak me out, I’d have to adjust to reality soon or later. What other option is there?

  73. @Stuffinbox. Have you ever been loved? Did you ever feel that you were worthy of love?

    If you have never felt worthy of love while at the same time having been loved by another person, would you like to start to begin to put yourself into the position of being at the starting point of being able to imagine that?

    There is such a “thing” as two people deserving each others affection. It’s more of a choice and a mindset than a thing. But it happens.

  74. @Xplat

    LOL.

    Last time I checked, men have different preferences in how they choose to live their life.

    http://classes.kumc.edu/sah/resources/sensory_processing/images/bell_curve.gif

    And, also, last time I checked a few men have acquired Rollo Tomassi’s version of real power.

    I tapped my wife’s ass pussy 27 years ago. It still feels the same today. Really. I like it. But I’ll admit to my solipsism and she’s less messy than a harem.

    So thanks for the spam.

  75. @ xsplat
    Yes,yes,do you mean fixin to get ready to get started or start to begin to put myself in the position of being at the starting point of being able to imagine that?.WTF are you from Canada?

  76. There is a Mariana Trench deep pervasive undercurrent in most of the Manosphere.

    It is this: “I am not worth of love and sexual lust”.

    And it gets projected out onto this: “Women are hypergamous and can’t love and lust after me for who I am”.

    This attitude is a choice.

    There is tremendous sexual fluidity in yourself, and in the sexual marketplace as a whole.

    A great many assumptions about other peoples sex lives are mirror reflections, because they are PROJECTIONS.

    Ugly and old men CAN’T have young women sexually lusting after and orgasming on them?

    That is PROJECTION of a feeling of poverty.

    If YOU did not have that poverty, YOU would go after young ass also.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: