The Lie of Equality

Reader KFG dropped this insight in last week’s post and I thought it was very relevant to something I’ve been contemplating for a while now:

As a general principle genetic fitness is always relative to the environment. A spread of genetic traits makes a species more robust, because it will have individuals better suited for survival in a greater range of environments.

There’s more than one breed of working dog because no one is “better.” Each has its specific strengths, paid for with corresponding weaknesses. A terrier is to small to hunt wolves, but you’re not going to stuff a wolfhound down a badger hole.

This was a great analogy. It’s also one of the primary reasons I believe the egalitarian equalist narrative is a deliberate lie with the hoped-for purpose of empowering people who cannot compete, or believe they have some plenary exclusion from competing in various aspects of life. One of the primary selling points of egalitarian equalism for men is the idea that they can be excluded from the Burden of Performance.

There is no such thing as ‘equality’ because life doesn’t happen in a vacuum.

The tests that a chaotic world throws at human beings is never equal or balanced in measure to our strengths to pass them. Equality, in the terms that egalitarian equalists are comfortable in defining it, implies that that every individual is equally matched in both value and utility within a totality of random challenges. Aside from this being patently false, it also demerits both strengths and weaknesses when that individual succeeds or fails at a particular challenge as a result of their individual character.

This is ironic in the sense that it provides easy, repeatable, excuses for a person’s successes or failures. If someone wins, well, we’re all equal so that person’s strengths which led to the success can be passed off as a result of assumed or circumstantial ‘privileges’ that made them better suited to their challenges – rarely is their hard work recognized, and even then, it’s colored by the overcoming of a presumed-unequal adversity that grants them ‘privilege’. If they fail, again, we’re all equal, so the failure is proof of a deficit, or a handicap, or a presumed repression of an equal person in a state of baseline equal challenge.

Individual Exceptionalism

One of the longest perpetuated cop outs (I should say paradoxes) that equalists cling to is the notion that People are People; that everyone is a unique individual (snowflake) and as such there is really no universally predictable method of testing character or knowing how a particular sex will respond to various challenges. It’s all random chance according to the individual’s socially constructed character and their capacity to be a ‘more evolved’, higher-thinking being.

On the surface this all-are-individuals notion may seem the antithesis of the ‘equality’ narrative that equalists cling to, but it is part of a cognitive dissonance all equalists struggle with. This approach is a means to standardizing individuality, so no scientific evidence that might find patterns of an evolved ‘nature’ of a person – or in our Red Pill case, a sex – can be predicted. It’s the hopeful cancellation of reams of empirical evidence that show how influential our biologies and inborn predispositions are. This ‘higher order’ individualism is always touted so the equailist mindset can claim that the exception to the rule disqualifies the overwhelmingly obvious general rule itself.

“We’re all exceptions to the rule.” – Carl Jung

“…and when we’re all special, no one will be.” – Syndrome

This fallacy is where we get the NA*ALT (not all ____ are like that) absolution of the most unflattering parts of human nature. Not All Women Are Like That is standard feminine-primary boilerplate for women and sympathizing men (White Knights) who’d rather we all ignore the aspects of female nature that shine a bad light on what are easily observable truths about their behavior and the motives behind them. The social convention relies on the idea that if there is even one individual contradiction to the generalization (always deemed an ‘overgeneralization’) then the whole idea must be wrong.

Of course, this individual exceptionality rule only applies to the concepts in which equalists have invested their egos in. When a generality proves an equalist’s ego-investment, that’s when it becomes an ‘endemic’ universal truth to their mindset. A binary over-exaggeration of this effect is the reflexive response for concepts that challenge their ego-investments. Thus, we see any and all of the (perceptually) negative aspects of masculinity (actually the totality of masculinity) painted as evidence of the endemic of ‘toxic’ masculinity as a whole. The individualist exceptionality in this instance is always ridiculed as ‘insecurity’ on the part of men even considering it.

The exceptionalism of the individual is always paired with some high-order consciousness, and/or the idea that anything that proves their ego-investment is “more evolved” – despite any evidence that proves the contrary – is proof of that this individual is a being who represents some evolutionary step forward. If you agree and support feminine-primacy it is ‘proof‘ that you are more ‘evolved’ than other men. Thus, the ‘more evolved’ status becomes a form of reward to the individual who aligns with the ideology. Conversely, the avoidance of being perceived as ‘unevolved’ serves as a form of negative reinforcement.

This is kind of ironic when you consider that the same equalist mindset that relies on the individualist exception is the same mindset that insists that everyone is the same; equal value, equal potential, equal purpose and equal ability. Again, the irony is that everything that would be used to establish the ‘unique snowflake’ ideology (so long as it contradicts innate strengths and weaknesses of an opposing ideology) is conveniently ignored in favor of blank-slate egalitarianism. There is a degree of wanting to avoid determinism (particularly biological determinism) for the individual in this blank-slate concept, but it also provides the equalist with a degree of feel-good affirmation that the individual is a product of social constructivism. So, we get the idea that gender is a social construct and, furthermore, that blank-slate individual is ‘more evolved’ to the point of redefining gender for themselves altogether. Even when that ‘individual’ is only 4 years old and hasn’t the capacity for abstract thought enough to make a determination.

To be an egalitarian equalist is to accept the cognitive dissonance that the individual trumps the general truth and yet simultaneously accept that the individual is just the blank-slate template of anyone else, thus negating the idea of the individual. It takes great stretches of belief to adhere to egalitarian if-then logic.

I apologize for getting into some heady stuff right out the gate here, but I think it’s vitally important that Red Pill aware men realize the self-conflicting flaw in the ideologies of post-modern equalism. Our feminine-primary social order is rife with it. They will disqualify the generalities of Red Pill awareness with individualist exceptionalism and in the next breath disqualify that premise with their investments in blank-slate egalitarianism.

This is easiest to see in Blue Pill conditioned men and women still plugged in to the Matrix, but I also see the same self-conflicting rationales among Red Pill aware men using the same process to justify personal ideology or their inability to de-pedestalize women on whole. There’s a common thread amongst well-meaning Red Pill men to want to defend the individual natures of women who align with the Blue Pill ego-investments they still cling to. All women are like that so long as those women are granola-eating, furry-armpit feminists – ‘Red Pill Women’ then become the individual (snowflake) exceptions to the otherwise general rule because they fit a different, idealized, profile.

The Inequality of Equality

I’ve stated this in many prior threads, but, I do not believe in “equality”.

I don’t believe in equality because I can objectively see that reality, our respective environments, our personal circumstances, etc. are all inherently unequal. Everyday we encounter circumstances in life which we are eminently unequalled for in our ability to address them. Likewise, there are circumstances we can easily overcome without so much as an afterthought. Whether these challenges demand or test our physical, mental, material or even spiritual capacities, the condition is the same – reality is inherently chaotic, unfair and challenging by order of degree. To presume that all individuals have equal value in light of the nature of reality is, itself, an unequal presumption. To expect sameness in the degree of competency or incompetency to meet any given challenge reality throws at us is a form of inequality. And it’s just this inequality that equalists ironically exploit.

As KFG was stating, “each dog has it’s strengths for a given task”. One dog is not as valuable as another depending on what determines a positive outcome. What equalism attempts do to – what it has the ludicrous audacity to presume – is to alter reality to fit the needs of the individual in order to make all individuals equally valuable agents. This is the ‘participation trophy’ mentality, but it is also a glaring disregard for existential reality. Which, again, contradicts the idea of individual exceptionalism; reality must be made to be equal to accommodate the existence of the equally valuable individual.

To say you don’t believe in equality is only outrageous because it offends the predominant social narrative of today. It seemingly denies the inherent value of the individual, but what is conveniently never addressed is how an environment, condition and state defines what is functionally valued for any given instance. Like the dog bred to hunt ferrets out of their warrens is not the functional equal of a dog bred to run down prey at 45 MPH. The value of the individual is only relevant to the function demanded of it.

The default misunderstanding (actually deliberate) most equalists believe is that functional worth is personal worth. I addressed this in Separating Values:

When you attempt to quantify any aspect of human ‘value’ you can expect to have your interpretations of  it to be offensive to various people on the up or down side of that estimate. There is simply no escaping personal bias and the offense that comes from having one’s self-worth attacked, or even confirmed for them.

The first criticism I’ve come to expect is usually some variation about how evaluating a person’s SMV is “dehumanizing”, people are people, and have intrinsic worth beyond just the sexual. To which I’ll emphatically agree, however, this dismissal only conveniently sidesteps the realities of the sexual marketplace.

Again, sexual market value is not personal value. Personal value, your value as a human being however one subjectively defines that, is a definite component to sexual market value, but separating the two requires an often uncomfortable amount of self-analysis. And, as in Ms. Korth’s experience here, this often results in denial of very real circumstances, as well as a necessary, ego-preserving, cognitive dissonance from that reality.

Denial of sexual market valuation is a psychological insurance against women losing their controlling, sexual agency in their hypergamous choices.

This is where the appeal to emotion begins for the equalist mindset. It seems dehumanizing to even consider an individuals functional value. Human’s capacity to learn and train and practice to become proficient or excel in various functions is truly a marvel of our evolution. Brain plasticity being what it is, makes our potential for learning and overcoming our environments what separates us from other animals. We all have the potential to be more than we are in functional value, and this is the root of the emotional appeal of equalists. It’s seems so negative to presume we aren’t functional equals because we have the capacity and potential to become more functionally valuable. The appeal is one of optimism.

What this appeal ignores is the functional value of an individual in the now; the two dogs bred for different purposes. What this appeal also ignores is the ever-changing nature of reality and the challenges it presents to an individual in the now and how this defines value. What equalism cannot do is separate functional value from potential value.

Adopting a mindset that accepts complementarity between the sexes and between individuals, one that celebrates and utilizes innate strengths and talents, yet also embraces the weaknesses and compensates for them is a far healthier one that presuming baseline equivalency. Understanding the efficacy of applying strengths to weaknesses cooperatively while acknowledging we all aren’t the same damn dog will be a key to dissolving the fantasy of egalitarian equalism and create a more balanced and healthier relations between the sexes. Embracing the fact that condition, environment, reality and the challenges they pose defines our usefulness is far better than to assume any single individual could ever be a self-contained, self-sufficient island unto themselves – that is what equalism would have us believe.

609 comments

  1. Rollo, this is one of your finest postings for the year so far. Usuallly I read the entire text before commenting but this just jumped right out at me due to current events.

    On the surface this all-are-individuals notion may seem the antithesis of the ‘equality’ narrative that equalists cling to, but it is part of a cognitive dissonance all equalists struggle with. This approach is a means to standardizing individuality, so no scientific evidence that might find patterns of an evolved ‘nature’ of a person – or in our Red Pill case, a sex – can be predicted. It’s the hopeful cancellation of reams of empirical evidence that show how influential our biologies and inborn predispositions are.

    Not only does this notion cancel all emperical evidence, it also erases the past. GBFM can / could be hugely annoying but his basic point was undeniable: there’s a mountain of wisdom piled up by men over the ages for anyone who will just open their eyes and look at it.

    It is not an accident, as the Marxists used to say, that there is such a strong equalist / feminist / SJW urge to discredit, defame and eventually destroy all history, art and literature from the past. Because it’s always got to be Year Zero, otherwise someone might notice that Eastasia really was at war with Oceania just last week but now it’s different. It’s gaslighting on a collossal scale.

    Equalism is counter factual, counter reality, and it must always grind everything down to some common denominator.

  2. Maybe I’m sheltered, but this feels like a bit of a straw man argument to me…who are these people who allegedly claim that everyone is exactly equal to one another?

  3. Feminists push gender equality and gender equality assumes that both genders have equal abilities…that women can perform as infantrymen as well as men, that there are equal ratios of women and men who can perform as doctors, etc.

  4. It works like this, I think: some people are g and some aren’t g, therefore it is equally likely that one will be g or not g. There is thus an equality between these two things and both being g and being not g are equally valid and therefore good.

    That seems to be how the argument runs though it never seems to apply to Nazis, which to my mind demonstrates the essential dishonesty of the assertion of equality. Equality is thus a form of compulsory charity where one has to treat those and their activities of which I do not approve of as if they are guests. One is never rude to guests no matter how tiring or annoying, but these guests never seem to plan to leave – and it is beginning to fray my nerves.

    England has a Minister-ess for Equality though not one for either Liberty or for Freedom. Curious omissions.

  5. Voice acting my whole life,
    no complaints about the finished work
    until I used my real name
    for the first time.

    They can hate on THE SCRIPT,
    It was the ONLY script
    after the hit and run accident.
    And people say the script saved their lives.
    My life was over.
    My work was over.

    But one script writer BELIEVED:

  6. ‘Marxists’, ‘Collectivists’. & and ‘Egalitarian Equalists’ all want the same thing… Equality of Outcome.

    William F. Buckley Jr. said, “Freedom breeds inequality”.

    This is why the 1st amendment is under attack by the extreme leftists. Rational debate is their greatest enemy, because they they ‘got nothing’.

    You know we’re in a scary time when the word ‘meritocracy’ is considered to be a workplace ‘micro-aggression’… WT actual F!?!

  7. “Equality is thus a form of compulsory charity where one has to treat those and their activities of which I do not approve of as if they are guests. One is never rude to guests no matter how tiring or annoying, but these guests never seem to plan to leave”

    “England has a Minister-ess for Equality though not one for either Liberty or for Freedom. Curious omissions.”

    nice

    please change your handle to Encore

  8. The FI as has been noted before is using the new rules to it’s benefit while keeping the old rules which benefit them as well, and that is to the detriment of men whom they give lip service to promoting equality for under the umbrella of feminism.

    For example child custody rulings typically are awarded >75% to females and shared custody laws are bitterly contested by femi-nazi groups. It’s considered by some females to be an attack on women if men even mention shared parenting or equal parenting. It goes back to the tender-years doctrine that mom’s arguably were better parents for babies, so they should get custody of them. Before the tender years idea, fathers had all custody. However, under modern feminism and Title IV laws (UsA), female privilege (i.e. loss of fathers rights) extended the tender years to children of all ages, while curtailing fathers rights.

    Some parents are more equal than others.

  9. “One of the primary selling points of egalitarian equalism for men is the idea that they can be excluded from the Burden of Performance.”

    I do believe that men should look out for their own self-interest and seek to lessen this burden in a way that works for them (MGTOW or spouse that makes $$).

    In a relationship some aspects of this burden of performance can not be shrugged off without driving a female away, so a man is never without this burden of performance. Family leadership is still the man’s job.

  10. In Mexico at the moment and one only has to be amazed at how fast people revert to BASE LEVEL humanity when faced with an adversity.

    Men dig up people, women feed and comfort.

    It’s when there’s nothing for us to fear or our collective arrogance starts to believe that we are some special creature on this planet. That is when we dabble in stupidity such as equality, identity politics etc…

  11. @KFG Oliver read your quote There’s more than one breed of working dog because no one is “better.”

    He’s accustomed to cashiers at Costco, Target, Trader Joe’s etc thanking him for being a legitimate service dog that was trained professionally for six months by Stephanie O’Brien of http://dogenius.net His training is perfect for me, and it’s obvious wherever we go.

    Stores have to deal with unruly untrained, not house broken “service dogs” every day. In the little area of the city where my humble studio is set up, Oliver is the ONLY legitimate SERVICE DOG (working dog).

    How is it that he’s trained for my needs after the hit and run accident?

    You bought “The Rational Male (Volume 1)” AUDIOBOOK by Rollo Tomassi.
    http://www.audible.com/offers/30free?asin=B01E61CYCA

    Even if you got it for $1.99 or free, your choice to buy it made the difference in my health and abilities! THANK YOU! Thank you for Oliver!

    “The Rational Male – Preventive Medicine Volume 2” is expected to be available on Audible, Amazon and iTunes by the end of this month.

  12. Excellent post, but this bit right here is golden:

    “If someone wins, well, we’re all equal so that person’s strengths which led to the success can be passed off as a result of assumed or circumstantial ‘privileges’ that made them better suited to their challenges – rarely is their hard work recognized, and even then, it’s colored by the overcoming of a presumed-unequal adversity that grants them ‘privilege’. If they fail, again, we’re all equal, so the failure is proof of a deficit, or a handicap, or a presumed repression of an equal person in a state of baseline equal challenge.”

    And @Opus, I’ve lived in my England my whole life and didn’t notice the absence of a minister for liberty or freedom. Sometimes, I think people who have the power to create these positions, often just to make quality-based activist groups happy, are laughing behind closed doors because they know that having to ask for equality shows you have no power. I feel like I’ve digressed a bit, but if you are in a position where you have no power, then will you ever have the equality you want?

    @Barbatos, wow, really? Not that I’m surprised, but you hear so much shit saying otherwise it’s a bit of reality check to read such a comment

  13. @KFG Oliver, in the photo above, is staring right into your eyes. He sees you, he read your words at the beginning of this post, and off came his Julius K9 brand working vest!

    He loves to work, he’s all MAN, but with his training he’s got a lot of empathy, and that comes with a sensitive side at least when he read There’s more than one breed of working dog because no one is “better.”

    He’s over it now, I’m going swimming before getting back to narrating TRM 3

  14. This post made me realize how cool it would actually be to read analyzis about males as well as about females.
    I am a loyal reader and feel that TRM has giving me a great perspective on SMV and the female psycie. However, as a male trying to navigate and understand interrelations in society and the sexual market, I find it as relevant to try to understand male behaviour and masculinity in relation to the writings already on this great site.

  15. Have been thinking along similar lines recently. The underlying assumption of equality, seems to be a religious invention, if Peterson is to be believed. The idea of the value of the soul and that human life has value. In a harsh environment where every mouth to feed is a burden on the group, such an ideal may prevent humans from culling the weak members of the tribe. However, in times of plenty such a sentiment creates its own problems. Similarly, it is a nice cosy slave morality which does not require much personal responsibility.

    I have been playing with the idea of late ‘that most people DO NOT understand what they belief’. They have simply been taught, shamed and reinforced into a belief system while growing up. As long as no traumatic event shakes the fundamental assumptions, the individual has no incentive to introspect and question these deeply internalized beliefs. This slave morality, keeps them in line and productive members of society (i.e. dutiful beta). Furthermore, if you now engage such an individual and question these axioms you will appear to be the antagonist. The reason being, the individual is lacking any experiential frame of reference to make sense of the presented information. Furthermore, as the presented information goes against the internalized assumptions it is interpreted as malice.

    I have been using this equality narrative as a great filtering mechanisms. Once a women has spilled their beans of how she thinks she is “wonderfully unique, likes to travel, likes spending time with friends, likes good food, wants to have a fulfilling career and maybe children in the future”. I simply tell them “that makes you just like everyone else”, upon which the majority directly unmatch. I just can’t be bothered to uphold the charade and just tell them that this exact ‘snowflake mentality’ is what makes them ordinary. So instead of facing the new information its a lot easier to unmatch. It’s a great filtering mechanism for me, but it reveals a greater underlying dynamic.

    So to come back to my initial point, in a resource plentiful environment you have the luxury to uphold such fantasies. In resource poor environment they would get you killed. From a perspective of a average looking women, the tinder experience is creating the impression of an environment of plenty (every guy i swipe i match), so its not even difficult to understand why women think the way they do. This in combination with gynocentrism sheltering women from harm, what incentive is their for them to introspect upon their behavior BEFORE society goes down the toilet? The only reason why men are starting to wake up to the bitter pill of the red pill is because they have been shafted one too many times…

  16. @Sam:

    Oliver is obviously the best dog in the world. And a handsome fellow to boot.

    @Albert:

    I have noted before that Cultural Marxism Feminist Save the Planet Equalism ™ is little more than Presbyterianism with the all the proper nouns changed out.

    Just another group of Puritans running around with their spring loaded needles looking for witches. Inquisition is how they party.

  17. I’m reminded of an old Victorian-era patter song – maybe Gilbert & Sullivan? It’s quoted in “Chariots of Fire”:

    “If everybody’s Somebody,
    Then no one’s Anybody!”

    Another fallacy to look out for: the concept of Legal equality (as in: your natural rights of citizenship and personhood, which are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law) and equal abilities, equal attractiveness, etc. which the law cannot comprehend, SJW bloviating notwithstanding. To deny these things is to enter Kurt Vonnegut territory (see his prescient story “Harrison Bergeron”, in which no one could be better than anyone else and a Handicapper General made sure no one was more athletic, or talented, or intelligent, so everyone could feel good).

    Sam, glad to hear you’re getting stronger. You’d better, otherwise I’ll be coming for your gig. Hey man I’ve done radio once so it must be easy. (ahem cough) “IN A WORLD… (kaff kaff snort)

  18. @kfg, yeah I noticed the same, especially how similar the concept of ‘original sin’ is to ‘male privilege’ in how it used for social control. I think feminism is the slave morality of our time. In Nietzsche’s day it was Christianity and today its rad fem.

    Now the ‘alt-right’ boys want to blame it on the juice, the communists want to blame it on capitalism, feminists want to blame the patriarchy and the MRA’s want to blame it on femnism, conservationists want to blame cultural Marxism, the blacks blame the ‘white man’ and democrats blame ‘the racists’.

    I think, its a whole lot more pernicious than that, its US, it’s our human proclivities BOTH our human male AND female nature in conjunction with technological advances is what is creating our current predicament. Our human mind is constantly searching for patterns and explanations to make sense of the complex reality around us. Conspiracy theories and mono-causal explanations are very seductive as they satisfy our teleological desire to understand the causality.

    However, what if I am right, what if the developments we are observing within society are just the collective agglomeration of individual human beings unconsciously going after their biological determined desires? Can people bare this much truth? Of not having an easy bogyman to blame for their own misfortune? Of having to take personal responsibility, consciously checking their own biological desires all the time, disciplining themselves not to do irrational things, how many people are actually capable of transcending our human all too human fallacies?

  19. Fred Flange, Glad you were in radio when it was Radio… when it was like being a magician

    Thank you for your kind words, I’m excited beyond words now that Rollo Tomassi did the impossible, he saw that I would get it back, and without THE (TRM) SCRIPT which became the purpose that has been restoring my abilities. The ones that listened to TRM Vol. 1 gave grace and positive ratings in Audible on the “performance”which, at the time was my best, and that 14 hour audiobook was chiseled from hundreds of hours of narrating trying to get the words out and tears were shed fort not happening, but you were patient, Rollo was patient, readers here were patent, and there’s nothing I can do or so that would express the gratitude I have for each person here.

    I not a good writer, so I’ll get some help writing it, but it’s the story of what a great man does. That man took the ultimate risk with his master work (remember he intended for only one “The Rational Male” book in the beginning) to literally create life

    https://therationalmale.com/about/comment-page-5/#comment-216233

  20. Had it up to here with “equality & diversity” rhetoric in the workplace – they claim equality of opportunity – is there any truth in this?

  21. There is a severe disconnect about ” equality “. Like everything else, the word has been bastardized.

    I’ll form my thoughts better later, but I’ll just say that equal opportunity isn’t a bad thing. You’ll only ever realize this though, when you don’t have it.

    Angry dudes in Society today are mostly angry because they feel that society is being unequal and unfair. Like I said, you’ll get it when it happens to you or those you actually know.

    Don’t conflate this with what the OP is actually saying about equality. Don’t get triggered. The article didn’t say shit about diversity. Stay on subject if you can, or move to Finland or some shit.

  22. Very timely post. The other day I had a situation at work. I asked a girl who is in charge of the secretarial pool for some help in some very simple task.

    I was essentially told: “The secretaries are all busy do it yourself”.

    I walked over and in a firm tone said: “This is an important event I need help what’s the solution?”

    She offered one. I thought that was the end of it.

    Nope.

    Next day I’m hauled into the manager’s office and raked over the coals because I made that girl cry. I had to apologize for my “tone”. Etc etc.

    Then I bring up the issue: I needed help and was told “do it yourself”. I’m told, well, yes, that’s the way it is here, we’re short-staffed blah blah blah.

    So the “feelz” now take precedent over operational efficiency getting shit done.

    Equality? No. I’m clearly wrong for being “disrespectful” but the issue that set me off isn’t addressed.

    If this was two guys, it would have been “Come on! Man up and sort yourselves out guys…”

  23. walawala I wonder how close that manager is to that head secretary?
    That’s one explanation – “don’t make my girl cry!”

  24. Great post Rollo.

    I am reminded of a time in history,when before conquering a people they would send in spies to find the most intelligent and talented. These would be castrated and made scribes and advisors. Taking them out of the breeding pool of common slaves.

    This egalitarian blank slate equalism is having the same effect weather intentional or not, competitive masculinity is being kept in the arena for entertainment and pushed out of the workplace.

    The participation trophy is being transferred to entitlement of real and tangible goods. Sticker shock has become acceptable abuse for the pr man, effectively pushing anyone with real pride in skill and talent into privileged status no matter the starting position of necessity that spurned one to achieve the skills. If they are masculine skills they are expected to be shared without compensation. If women and blue pill men continue to disregard honest skill and talent,they will be left to deal with poseurs that will take the abuse,where a good man won’t stand for it.

    This shift became apparent 27 years ago with anti masculine DINK targeted advertising,combined with 0% financing effectively killing the mom and pop marketplace in favor of buy new manufactured goods. Lately we have seen a shift back to the aftermarket as more people are under water in debt. This trend is being made illegal with new compliance laws. The part they snuck in on me was the feminine primacy aspect of the new deal,this just was normalized and went right over my head.

    Thanks again for your clarity in these matters.

  25. All baseball players are equal they throw the ball, they catch the ball, they hit the ball.

    Ok, the outfielders are all equal, they catch really well and throw the ball to the infield.

    Ok, the basemen are all equal, they are all really fast and throw accurately to all the bases.

    Ok, third and catcher are equal, they both have the shotgun arms for the throws to first and second.

    Ok, pitcher and catcher are equal, they read sign language and throw the ball back and forth.

    Ok. They all hit equally, ….except the designated hitter but thats only in one league.

    Hah! See!

    National League baseball players are all equal when they are up to bat!!
    Except lefties…

  26. Walawala

    I am sure some tech or engineer at Equifax asked the music major if it was ok to bring the system down for mainenance to apply the vendor’s security patch back in March. They would know the risks.

    I am sure if they went ahead after being ignored (or told not to) they would be disciplined “for not following their betters.”

    I bet they will now be disciplined for allowing the breach “because they didn’t show initiative to protect the company.”

    Unless of course they kept the email, you know, like I.T. folks tend to do.

    But hey, everyone at Equifax are all equals, right?

  27. If Peterson or anyone else wants to make a case for the inherent value of the soul, great, I’m all ears. Just tell me what the metric is you’re using to determine the universal idea of a soul is to be measured against. What makes your idea of a metaphysical soul superior to the challenges you believe are set against it.

  28. @Anonymous. There’s probably other political agendas at play otherwise this situation would hardly be worthy of a second thought. But we’re all about equality except when I have an issue then I’m being overbearing etc etc .

    Ive become more aware that the moment you start talking about diversity and equality one group starts to try to overtake the other not work towards being equal.

  29. I think this post touches on a subject matter that is the central pillar of the red pill; which is also the most bitter of the red pill pillars. Scales are ruthless. No one can survive without some level ego defence.

  30. We can keep it simple.short like KFG.

    Equality and diversity? At the same time?

    If equality was true, diversity wouldn’t be.

    Individualists are the ones that really believe in diversity.

  31. I am not perscribing to Peterson’s argument, however if I remember correctly his version was something like:

    Dominance hirachies have a tendency to develop in a winner takes all fashion (pareto distribution), which by that particular metric makes the males that do not climb that particular hirachy ‘worthless’. What now the invention of the idea of the ‘soul’ and the ‘human spirit’ does is that it allocates intrinsitic value to these ‘worthless males’.

    The argument of why this is beneficiary, is as you don’t know who is going to be an alpha in the future. Furthermore, this stop gap, allows the males lower down the hirachy to make up their own new game and become proficient at that (I.e. create a new dominance hirachy).

    Like I said before, in a resource poor environment this maybe stops you from killing Steve, who is a drain on society because he is ‘weak ass bitch no good for nothing’. However, 10 years down the line Steve develops the iPhone and now suddenly he his useful for society.

    So to answer your question Rollo, there is no metric that could be provided to show the benefit of this idea. The reason being, is that a metric is contingent upon a hirachy and the idea is the soul and the human spirit adresses the POTENTIAL to invent a new hirachy. As such it literally is faith you need to have in order accept that this is valuable. Hence why it dosent sit well with me.

    I think the idea of the soul and our current equality meme are and always have been a comforter for the beta and restrained for the alpha, in order to allow for the beta to transition to alpha at some future point. However, you never know which beta will do that and most will never do it. I think Peterson somewhere speaks that even wolves exhibit this dynamic of sparing a submissive opponent, as they maybe potentially useful for the group at some later point.

  32. @Albert, who the hell are you and where have you been lurking? You need to post here more often. You make all kinds of sense. Your perspectives are refreshing. I tip my hat to you sir.

  33. “I am reminded of a time in history,when before conquering a people they would send in spies to find the most intelligent and talented. These would be castrated and made scribes and advisors. Taking them out of the breeding pool of common slaves.”

    Every time I’m here at TRM I read one variation of such stories of how x,y and z happened in history. Things I’ve never heard anywhere else. All these things you guys claim happened historically would you please link some sources. Is this some “Caucasian specific history” or what?

    I’m not agreeing nor disagreeing the other claim I’ve heard is that with the workforce feelings are held higher than efficiency. If this is so true or even has any productivity impact how is it that the West as a whole is making so much advancement. Perhaps, it doesn’t really matter production-wise?

    @ Rollo, thank you so much for what you’ve done for Sam and TRM you’re changing lives and maybe even leading a silent revolution without realizing it. Besides your family would you say TRM is your greatest accomplishment?

  34. @Jafyk haha, thanks man. I am just a causal observer trying to make sense of this complicated mess we find ourselves in. One of the best summaries of the here addressed underlying dynamic I have seen is by Colttaine (link below)

    Tl:dr, its not that some cultural Marxism feminism brainwashed society, it’s that the introduction of the birth control pill fundamentally changed human intersexual dynamics that have evolved for millennia. Free from the potential of an unwanted pregnancy, what we are observing today is unrestrained female sexual choice, all the concepts we invent to either justify or attack it, are merely commenting upon this underlying shift in our biological reality as human beings.

  35. “What now the invention of the idea of the ‘soul’ and the ‘human spirit’ does is that it allocates intrinsitic value to these ‘worthless males’.”

    See the Pauline Epistles. They are the foundation stone of Western Civilization as we know it today. Thus they are also the source of its downfall. Every strength must be paid for with some corresponding weakness.

    “Is this some “Caucasian specific history” or what?”

    It’s Greco-Roman. There is no “Caucasian specific” history, as such, the field is too broad (note that “White” no longer has the same meaning as “Causcasian”).

    Setting aside the issue of castration, capturing the most valuable members of the enemy to work for you is a universal principle.

  36. God makes men. Colt, smith & Wesson , ruger, mossberg, Winchester , Stevenson , Remington, hornady and a lot of others makes men equal.

  37. “Colt, smith & Wesson , ruger, mossberg, Winchester , Stevenson , Remington, hornady and a lot of others makes men equal.”

    More or less.

  38. @Albert

    One of the best JP observations is when you kill the patriarchy you eliminate the wise an benevolent king. Leaving out the question of the human soul, when one rises to the top of the male dominance hierarchy he has done so by sharing the spoils of war with the less fortunate. This is done in the hope of reciprocation of the indebted, as no man is an island the totally ruthless man at the top will soon be taken down by the mob.

    Now when the mob is taught to despise masculinity and sold on participation trophy entitlement, what are the chances of reciprocation?

    “This was a great analogy. It’s also one of the primary reasons I believe the egalitarian equalist narrative is a deliberate lie with the hoped-for purpose of empowering people who cannot compete, or believe they have some plenary exclusion from competing in various aspects of life. One of the primary selling points of egalitarian equalism for men is the idea that they can be excluded from the Burden of Performance.”

  39. Castration aside, the most effective way of killing the male libido is a bossy woman. Blank slate equalism together with female empowerment (in the same sentence) has been the most effective, The modern male never walks out from under the female thumb, when he should do this before puberty.

  40. @kfg yeah, the Paul’s letter are an interesting read if you look at them in terms of societal organization they are pretty red pill. For example:

    “34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.
    35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.”

    http://biblescripture.net/1Corinthians.html

    Based daddy has opened the eyes of many people to look at religion in a different light than was common during the whole Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens period. I wrote my thoughts about down a while ago

    https://www.minds.com/blog/view/694487390663745552

    @stuffinbox,

    “Now when the mob is taught to despise masculinity and sold on participation trophy entitlement, what are the chances of reciprocation? ”

    How is that any different from Nietzsche’s characterization that slave morality inherently despises strength and achievements? It’s the same old axiom again and again. I think Marcus Aurelius said something along the lines of

    “Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one.”

    It is such individuals, that we retrospectively regard as prophets, visionaries or wise. However, in their own time such individuals are often shunned ridiculed and ostracized. The problem that the individual that is cast in such a role is facing is: ‘how do you know?’ The simple answer is you don’t, only time will tell who we regard as hero or tyrant.

  41. @albert

    nice vid, I watched some of his other ones, just started the hive mind one

    @rollo

    Not sure if you’ve heard of this, but in this video the guy claims the “rubenesque” females from the renaissance were simply because the Catholic church forbid female nude models, so painters and sculptors had to make do with MALE models, and then feminize them.

    Thus, making all those “chicks” essentially ladyboys.

    Anyway, thought you might be interested since you’ve always argued against that feminist theory that male ideals of beauty are significantly altered by changing trends.

  42. ” . . . “rubenesque” females from the renaissance were simply because the Catholic church forbid female nude models, so painters and sculptors had to make do with MALE models, and then feminize them.”

    Not the case for Rubens. When he was 53 he married a 16 year old, who was a chubbo. He used her as his female model from that time. Note also that the very phrase “Rubenesque” puts the lie to the fact that that was the general case.

    The Botticelli Venus is a reimagining of a pagan Roman copy of a Greek original and the female form influenced by Roman copies of Greek statues, not a live model.

    Yes, male models were used, but I don’t see that as the reason for the women being fat and/or unfeminine. The models certainly weren’t fat and the Greek images were the ideal that they worked toward. Yes, it was a Church issue though. Making the women chubbos de-eroticised them enough to depict them in what would otherwise be considered erotic depictions.

    Far from being a depiction of the ideal of the time, they were intended to be boner killers.

  43. @Albert

    thanks a lot for that “Colttaine” video… Didn’t know the guy, he is brilliant!

    You are of course right on the money… it was not feminism first and foremost, it was the pill. I think it is better to look for material changes first before venturing any further.

  44. @hank there’s likely something to that, but it’s important to remember that for every renaissance master we know of there are 1000 other artists of the period whose names we’ll never know. If the affluent aristocrats of that time had the money they could certainly get nude female models for their artists. The fact is that fat, pasty white women were a fetish of the time because psycho-social reasons.

  45. @Albert

    “Now when the mob is taught to despise masculinity and sold on participation trophy entitlement, what are the chances of reciprocation? ”

    “How is that any different from Nietzsche’s characterization that slave morality inherently despises strength and achievements? It’s the same old axiom again and again.”

    From Rollos OP.

    “There is no such thing as ‘equality’ because life doesn’t happen in a vacuum.

    The tests that a chaotic world throws at human beings is never equal or balanced in measure to our strengths to pass them. Equality, in the terms that egalitarian equalists are comfortable in defining it, implies that that every individual is equally matched in both value and utility within a totality of random challenges. Aside from this being patently false, it also demerits both strengths and weaknesses when that individual succeeds or fails at a particular challenge as a result of their individual character.

    This is ironic in the sense that it provides easy, repeatable, excuses for a person’s successes or failures. If someone wins, well, we’re all equal so that person’s strengths which led to the success can be passed off as a result of assumed or circumstantial ‘privileges’ that made them better suited to their challenges – rarely is their hard work recognized, and even then, it’s colored by the overcoming of a presumed-unequal adversity that grants them ‘privilege’. If they fail, again, we’re all equal, so the failure is proof of a deficit, or a handicap, or a presumed repression of an equal person in a state of baseline equal challenge.”

    Nietzsche was a well educated man that may have lacked a well rounded perspective.

    I have worked at some jobs where the competition becomes political rather than productive,these jobs paid little and the dynamics were similar to dogs fighting over a bone with no marrow left in it. this is similar to the slave mentality you mention. They also experience sticker shock. They get paid and are free to spend how they must and are not slaves. There is only room for a few with master talent in these situ’s and one that is skilled will not stay long.

    There is a growing trend to assume anyone with special talents,more money,better equipment and shelter got these by trickery or luck and should provide for the less fortunate free of charge. What is happening is the playing field is being leveled to the point that productivity in some fields that cannot be mechanized is going down raising the price overall and the ones with the master talent that can compete are reaping the benefits caused by the slackers. This is not a problem until someone wants to level the field.

    A housekeeper for example may say why does the builder make so much and I make so little? When a home gets built lasting 100 years and you have to clean it weekly, A builder will spend many years in multiple trades to become a master while aquiring many tools and the skill to use them. The housekeeper can be taught in a day and carry the tools in a bucket.

    How it differs is looking at it from the talent perspective I have the right to refuse service to anyone that cannot respect or reciprocate in kind.

  46. People who believe that everyone is equal are far more susceptible to blame racism and sexism for their shortcomings. After all, why else would they be failures? It certainly cannot be their fault or their parents fault. When Steven Sailer refers to the left as the coalition of the fringes, what he is touching on are all the malcontents who lost at direct competition for life’s awards and are forced to band together to seek rent as a consolation.

  47. @ hank, I liked that hivemind video.

    The whole point of beauty standards is just a segway into the underlying dynamic that shapes the ergonomics of how we human beings interact on this new digital platform we call the internet.

    Here is another underappreciated MGTOW thinker who ponders on a similar contingency.

    If I remember correctly he makes a point in that video that one of the reasons Trump won was due to his notoriety on Twitter. His brash, unapologetic, cadish style fits well with a medium that is primarily fuelled by outrage and attention.

    @Oscar C, the problem with the pill is that now that the genie is out of the bottle there is no going back. Basically, what I think ‘game’ is that the millennial generation is applying their skills that they honed beating video games (looking up cheat codes, learning the game physics, finding hacks and bugs in the game mechanics etc.) to women. Obviously, this is massive oversimplifcation, however the red pill and the manosphere in general fullfill the same function for men as looking up ‘how to get infinite weapons in GTA5’.

    For example, the school of Mystery, Rooshv and all the other pedesteians PUA’s game is like ordering a walkthrough book online of how to beat a particular level. You can follow the instructions and it will work (allthough the success rate is low). However, it won’t be as satisfying if you figure it out for yourself.

  48. @stuffinabox, you are correct Nietzsche got a lot of stuff right, but in other aspects he was utterly clueless. For example, his botched marriage proposal to Lou Salomé and the whole Italy trip, basically shows that he was really clueless on that particular front.

    I concur that to your astute observation of:

    “There is a growing trend to assume anyone with special talents,more money,better equipment and shelter got these by trickery or luck and should provide for the less fortunate free of charge.”

    Which again, is the barrel of crab mentality, It’s the same kind of mentality that men use to disqualify competing sexual partners in front of women.

    Female observation: “Oh look at that dashing guy over there”
    Beta male response: “he must be gay”

    This disqualifying tendency, ‘levels the playing field’ w/o any real effort on the indvidual doing the disqualifying, other than a snarky remark. In general, I find the people with the most crazy ideas, tend to be people with unstable personalities or some other personal problems. Its almost that they have to go to such crazy ideologies, in order to justify to themselves in their own mind that they are good people. The more fucked up you are, the more the need for a crazy ideology that can rationalize this for you.

    Look at the demographics of Antifa movement:

    90% live with their parents
    84% are male
    72% are aged 18-29
    90% are single
    34% are unemployed

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/13248/study-9-10-antifa-protesters-still-living-moms-aaron-bandler

    If this dosen’t scream thirsty beta male at you, I don’t know what will…

  49. @Albert

    You have a point about fringe people being drawn to fringe ideologies, but that in itself does not prove such ideologies wrong, you know…

    For instance, you don’t get laid for whatever reason in the current environment (like me), and you start viewing with increased favor the strict monogamy model of the past. Yeah, it is true that if I were having more success I would probably not care that much, but that still does not mean that such return to an older sexual morality is wrong. Why not? Because it is not only about my current sexual misery; society at large would benefit as well as we all know here.

    Also, I am convinced that some people are inherently drawn into politics, regardless of whether they are “losers” or not. Look at the so-called “alt-right leader” Richard Spencer: the scion of a wealthy family, he could have a high-paying job and girls galore, and instead he has chosen a far less comfy life, with many dangers attached to it.

    __

    Great analogy with videogames. I never ragequit when gaming regardless of how badly I am doing btw, gotta adopt that same mindset with girls haha.

  50. @Albert

    Those anti Trump Facists scream alot of things at me including thirsty beta. You would think Soros would pay them to scrub graffiti or something useful instead of being a general pain in the ass. These days there are so many claims of righteousness it can be hard to sift through it for the less experienced, rather than try most spend their time in confirmation bias. Lets face it responsibility is just that and change of playmates and playgrounds is uncomfortable at best,so why bother? The media paints a negative picture and these folks buy into the fallacy,in all reality it is at this point a free to roam world for most full of opportunity.

  51. @Oscar C, just keep practicing! You figure it out your own style eventually.

    That’s the beauty of tinder, it’s pretty much the real life version of these Japanese girlfriend apps just that the difficulty setting is a lot higher, if you haven’t figured out how it works. You get there eventually, just keep practicing.

    “You have a point about fringe people being drawn to fringe ideologies, but that in itself does not prove such ideologies wrong, you know…”

    Your right, in principle it dosent, however in the real world it seems that this correlation is strong. Take the rad fems confusion about what they stand for, which perfectly mirrors a bipolar women’s mental state.

    @stuffinabox

    “These days there are so many claims of righteousness it can be hard to sift through it for the less experienced, rather than try most spend their time in confirmation bias.”

    I recently went to the imperial war museum in London and they had an exhibition on the holocaust. At the end of the exhibition they had the words in bold on the wall stating the following:

    “For evil to prevail, it’s enough if good men do nothing”

    I had to shake my head and laugh at such childish notions. The Nazis weren’t evil, they didn’t hate the Jews, they were disgusted by them. They did the GOOD thing (in their minds) to cleanse them for the benefit of the race. I am always sceptical if someone proclaims their own moral superiority (ala Hillary and the whole deplorable thing).

    Femnisms, equality and multiculturalism all operate along the same psychological lines. They are pretty much a carte blanche, as all eventualities have contingencies ready to rationalise away bad behaviour.

    Biohistory, in one of their videos they make a very elegant point. If we have corrupt leaders and politicians this is a reflection of the state of the health of our culture. Point in case being, if people really cared about morals and principles such individuals would not be in power.

  52. “Biohistory, in one of their videos they make a very elegant point. If we have corrupt leaders and politicians this is a reflection of the state of the health of our culture. Point in case being, if people really cared about morals and principles such individuals would not be in power.”

    Elegant indeed as the pot calls the kettle black. Interestingly enough one of the crazy’st tarmagants I know, claiming all 28 genders legit,robbing old men left and right, then calling the sheriff on them is a holocaust denier. The age of confusion doesn’t add up for the irresponsible blamer’s. Fingerpointing is becoming a favorite pastime. For me this is also the first set off of horshitdar, finger pointing.

    What people care about has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on who is in power. Most people don’t take the time to research the candidates then it becomes an airtime contest. Don’t care much for antisemitism,yet don’t like globalists,can’t stand feminists,don’t like radical Islam or radical christian for that matter. Genocide in any form is arrogant folly. You will find me in the third row back with KFG and a full double arsenal.

  53. People only know what they are taught from birth. They will believe anything at all, unless they happen to decide to challenge the things they are told and venture out to actually find out for themselves if what they believe is really true.

    Most people won’t want to do this because they are afraid, stupid or lazy. Sometimes it’s all three.

    Immoral people are in power because enough people believe they are in fact moral. Politics fuck up most folks heads and they won’t be discerning. Politicians only have to tell them sweet words or appeal to their base instincts.

    A good example of what I’m talking about is your statement that the Nazis weren’t evil or hateful. There’s some reason why you happen to believe this. You don’t think that what you think/believe is immoral.

    The decline or western civ that is constantly decried won’t happen from outside forces. It won’t be the Jews or Muslims or blacks or immigrants that will bring it on. It will be a staggering loss of any notion of morality and the attending problems that come with that loss.

    The bible says in Revelation that people will no longer know right from wrong… In the end. Lots of wonderful stuff in revelations. My fave part of the new testament. But don’t ask modern day Christians about this because they will not know what the new testament says. They only seem to grasp the angry killing parts from the old testament.

  54. Schopenhauer; Studies on Pessimissm – On Education:

    [audio src="http://ia801402.us.archive.org/26/items/studies_pessimism_librivox/studiespessimism-06-schopenhauer.mp3" /]

  55. Take Two:

    [audio src="http://ia801402.us.archive.org/26/items/studies_pessimism_librivox/studiespessimism-06-schopenhauer.mp3" /]

  56. “It will be a staggering loss of any notion of morality and the attending problems that come with that loss.”

  57. @blaximus

    “A good example of what I’m talking about is your statement that the Nazis weren’t evil or hateful. There’s some reason why you happen to believe this. You don’t think that what you think/believe is immoral.”

    I think it’s a self protection mechanism for our sense of identy that we humans cast our own actions as morally good, in order to protect that identy from being destroyed.

    Good and evil are human constructs, nature and by extension female choice couldn’t care less.

    The mistake that the deductive inexperienced man makes is that he conflates being a (morally) good man whit being a ‘good man’. Hoping for a female reward that will never come. However, by now the indvidual is so ego-invested in this particular identity it is difficult to disassociate himself w/o some psychological trauma.

    What is morally good is decided by your own subjective perception, your temperament and your culture. The reason why I said the Nazis thought themselves as good is for that exact same reason, they were human too. Projecting their own ego with rationalisation, just like the rad fems are doing, like antifa, like the democrats, like alt right etc. Everyone is identifying the evil in ‘the other’ and feeling morally justified to take action.

    The road to help is paved with good intentions…

  58. Like I said, lazy dumb and or stupid. Lol.

    The phenomenon I’m starting to witness ( at least on the Internet anyway ) is people, male and female, not having much of a moral compass at all and not even really understanding what they are lacking.

    People are going to people, no matter what. Having morals won’t make you a ” good man ” at all, because you can posses the knowledge of good/evil moral/immoral and still make a choice. And that’s my point – people appear to not even know what ” moral ” means anymore. Everything is relative.

  59. “However, by now the indvidual is so ego-invested in this particular identity it is difficult to disassociate himself w/o some psychological trauma.”

    If (the biggest word in the english language) the individuals “particular identity” digresses to far from the truth of what actually is the trauma both psychological and physical will find him and help with this disassociating process.

  60. Self surgery
    Was with my dad today and got triggered by something… It was an attempting that the emotional upbringing i had was’nt just intentional but could have been avoided if my dad cared more about me as a man and a son or a son first than a man up coming… I don’t enjoy dwelling on the past. But at times if not for the red pill i wouldn’t be able t put the pieces in order. I don’t enjoy regrets but i do enjoy learning from mistakes and situation’s that can be avoided or grown from.
    Today i realized that i will always have to build… Self Muscle’s energy in growing of the mind. Creating art and building relationship’s my tantrums or troubles after being with my nephew i see come from unmet needs. But i also see the FI all over my energy from a young age… Their is a very raw and beautiful part of knowing a situation and choosing to not participate… Not in a MGTOW sense but in a way Your not taking me to church to find god) sense… One of the thing’s that is amazing about learning and doing new thing’s is changing your environment to not always deal with the constant trigger’s and familiar adaption strategy’s you build as around you as a child…
    Calling out red pill truths is a great way to lose any social friendships even starting to be built…
    You have to observe and only help people who want to be helped… Me included… I am not interested in being the same person i was in the past… I am going to embrace the challenge of molding a better version of my humanity and patch the corrupted parts with awareness and meditation for what they are.
    Being with other men in person and just talking is more helpful to me than the internet… But if i must use the internet than i will…

  61. @Blaximus

    “The phenomenon I’m starting to witness ( at least on the Internet anyway ) is people, male and female, not having much of a moral compass at all and not even really understanding what they are lacking.”

    I think this is more a phenomena of modernity. It’s not that people are lacking a moral compass it is that they are not sharing yours. Within our contemporary society, we are so isolated in our social stratas that we inadvertandlty create echo-chambers within our own social castes (dunbells number, overton window and confirmation bias all wotking in conjunction). Within these social castes we can emphasize, but beyond that people cannot. As such, it is easier to demonize what you don’t understand, hence the urban fashionista antagonizing the blue colour worker and vice versa.

    @stuffinabox

    “If (the biggest word in the english language) the individuals “particular identity” digresses to far from the truth of what actually is the trauma both psychological and physical will find him and help with this disassociating process.”

    That mental schism is the locus from which much of what fuels the red pill rage comes from. I agree that this phase can be carthatic, however this does not make it less unpleasant. Brutal honest self-assessment is great if you want to grow and develop as a person. However, it does not make it any less brutal, and I suspect that this contingency of potential mental trauma is what keeps most people in line, knowingly or not.

    @rugby11

    “It was an attempting that the emotional upbringing i had was’nt just intentional but could have been avoided if my dad cared more about me as a man and a son or a son first than a man up coming”

    The problem we are discussing here are as old as human history. What your describing for example is the same dynamic that is touched upon in Plato’s allegory of the cave. You can’t really hate your dad for it, as the condititing he imparted on you is the same he received his whole life.

    This does not mean that he didn’t love you nor that he didn’t care for you or wanted your best. People are only as smart as the language they are able to use, we think and abstract reality through the medium of language. If you controll peoples language, you can controll peoples mind. Most likely in the case of your he never came across red pill knowledge within his social caste, neither may he have an emotional trauma that caused him to introspect. As such, within the presuppositions of his mental construct he wanted your best.

    However, like I said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

    The whole language of good/bad, imoroal/moral, honesty/dishonesty isn’t
    particular helpful here, as we all unconciously cast ourselves with noble intentions. Everybody does this, hence the current situation we can observe. In order to make our way out of this, we literally have to go beyond good and evil.

  62. Never ascribe good intentions to anyone who denies objective truth or morality. In a fair world, you wouldn’t hobble the capable to uplift the fools. This crazy world isn’t built on good intentions but spite. They don’t want some they want it all. The fact they cannot even maintain it, bothers them not at all. They have nothing, so nothing they’ll lose. You on the other hand will have NOTHING LEFT AT ALL!

  63. @Albert

    @stuffinabox

    “If (the biggest word in the english language) the individuals “particular identity” digresses to far from the truth of what actually is the trauma both psychological and physical will find him and help with this disassociating process.”

    “That mental schism is the locus from which much of what fuels the red pill rage comes from. I agree that this phase can be carthatic, however this does not make it less unpleasant. Brutal honest self-assessment is great if you want to grow and develop as a person. However, it does not make it any less brutal, and I suspect that this contingency of potential mental trauma is what keeps most people in line, knowingly or not.”

    That mental schism is what drove Hitler insane enough to end his own maniacal life.
    “Red pill rage” like any other rage stems from unmet expectations,the root cause of this should have been parented out at the age of two before it was to late.

    Brutal honest self assessment is a requirement for anyone that lacks a full understanding of why they don’t fit into their world. Without this they will be stuck in the cycle of insanity believing things that aren’t truth. not just for growth and personal development rather basic survival.

    What keeps “most people in line” is comfort in the familiar, a natural herd instinct that helps them feel a part of something bigger. For instance a young man may know and feel that he is meant to roam free taking what he needs from the earth. Then he comes to the realization that this constitutes trespass and there is a price for this,so he must conform to the status quoe and pay that price voluntarily rather than be forced into less freedom.

    Nothing worth having comes without cost and at some point we all have to decide the best way to acquire life’s necessities. Having taken this step we now mark our territory and hold it with the law of the land and brute physical force if necessary. Part of the law of the land is to eliminate those that make a practice of trespass before they eliminate us. Hence the good man that does nothing,lets evil prevail.

  64. @Blaximus

    My twin brother from another mother.

    “Like I said, lazy dumb and or stupid. Lol.

    The phenomenon I’m starting to witness ( at least on the Internet anyway ) is people, male and female, not having much of a moral compass at all and not even really understanding what they are lacking.

    People are going to people, no matter what. Having morals won’t make you a ” good man ” at all, because you can posses the knowledge of good/evil moral/immoral and still make a choice. And that’s my point – people appear to not even know what ” moral ” means anymore. Everything is relative.”

    I am seeing this same trend. You have taken the various paths and experienced the consequences,realizing they were of your own choices,this has given you a rock solid constitution based in truth.

    The internet is virtual reality,precluding actual experience. Combine this with the power of the written word and peoples proclivity to take advantage,magnify this with feminism (men taking on female attributes) and wala,the selfish agenda. This can become a trap for the new discoverer,I can only imagine what it is like for one raised with a computer on their school desk. How can we unplug these and expect functionality,when there is so much lacking of real life experience?

    This is why it is so important to reveal blank slate equalism for what it is. So important to understand evo psych. The truth will set you free.

  65. @Blaximus
    “That mental schism is what drove Hitler insane enough to end his own maniacal life.
    “Red pill rage” like any other rage stems from unmet expectations,the root cause of this should have been parented out at the age of two before it was to late.”

    @stuffinabox
    “I am seeing this same trend. You have taken the various paths and experienced the consequences,realizing they were of your own choices,this has given you a rock solid constitution based in truth.”

    I think we’ve hit on something fundamental here, namely the definition of ‘truth’ and how this relates to our own morality. We may not like it but ‘truth’ the way we humans define it is ALWAYS relative. This does not mean that reality is not operating according to some causal laws, which it most likely is. However, already good old Immanuel Kant in his critique of pure reason lamented the inherent positionality in all human knowledge claims. Any description of reality builds on a number of assumptions that are necessary (a map is always a simplification of reality), however , everything is an assumption nested in further assumptions. It has to be that way, as no human being has omniscient knowledge. This problem is not negated, only deferred when proper communication is institutionally reinforced (like in academic publishing).

    The reason why certain positions are being presented as ‘unquestionable axioms’ is because the authority of societies organization is contingent upon these assumption. For example, if the Pope is not the representative of God on earth, what reason is there for me to listen to the Pope? The same applies for assumptions about the holocaust, gender and racism. These faulty beliefs have become so ingrained into the fabric of our society, that admitting the contrary is too costly for such institutions, hence why heretics need to prosecuted and dissenters need to be shamed. As such, ‘truth claims’ and morality are inherently connected, as it is our own sense of morality that we use to distinguish what is true and what is not (thats essentially Johnathan Haidt’s claim)..

    This is why Lawrence Kohlberg put proper communication as his last step in the human moral development stage

    “Stage 6: sees how human fallibility and frailty are impacted by communication”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

    The lefties have a point in saying that everything is a ‘social construction’, however, where they go wrong is that this belief then factors over into assuming that we can shape reality to our whims and desires. For example, gender IS socially constructed, however this does not negate that these social constructions are contingent upon an underlying biology, that have certain preferences and proclivities, regardless of the shortcomings in our nomenclature describing it or what we wish these to be. What culture does, it is shapes and moulds these ‘natural’ inclinations into a coherent set of assumptions, which we then equate and essentialize to be ‘THE TRUTH’.

    What the lefties and postmodernist fail to realize is that different social constructions have different amounts of utility for you to navigate the world (this is not the same as them being ‘true’ though). For example, Einsteinian physics is more accurate than Newtonian physics in that the predictions based on this theoretical model allow for better predictive capabilities. However, this does not make either theoretical construct ‘true’ in the philosophical sense, even though they have different amounts of accuracy and predictive power.

    What we are seeing is the same old cycle that human civilization that is ‘powered by orgasm’ has always gone through.

    Strong men create good times,
    good times create weak men,
    weak men create hard times, and
    hard times create hard men.

    The only difference today, is that this development is televised and we can observe it real time.

    happy days…

  66. It has to be that way, as no human being has omniscient knowledge.

    But can we as humans actually know anything for certain? And in what cases does that matter? Let’s suppose that you are accused of murder, but are actually innocent. Would you want there to be some set of certain facts that would exonerate you?

  67. Quick proof of non-equality:

    If we’re all equal a girl in a bar would accept the first chat up line, after all, we’re all equal; she’s not going to find anything better, right?

  68. @Albert

    “I think we’ve hit on something fundamental here, namely the definition of ‘truth’ and how this relates to our own morality. We may not like it but ‘truth’ the way we humans define it is ALWAYS relative. This does not mean that reality is not operating according to some causal laws, which it most likely is.”

    Truth is not relative,reality is operating on fixed laws. The truth is mans struggle for survival from the moment of ejaculation till death,is a constant competition with natural elements. As you point out there are good times and hard times. I am a hard man,a product of hard times and can never loose touch with the truth of the struggle for survival,or the laws of society. The truth is if you stop paying taxes or rent as the case may be,you will find who owns your property. The truth is not what we say it is,nor is it a consensus reality. Just because everyone says it will be a hard winter has no bearing on the weather.

    I have chosen the path of battle with the elements of nature,as this allows me the most freedom in today’s world. The morality in this world is if you cannot carry your own weight and enough extra then get the fuck out,we don’t need you and can’t afford to have you around no matter how fun and good looking you are.

    Those that inherited shelter, food, clothing, protection and transportation would do well to realize the inherent struggle it was to procure these,learning gratitude for being spared the struggle, or risk loosing these benefits.

    To claim that truth is relative,will lead to the lemming path right over the cliff. I have heard this the truth is what everyone says it is argument before and find it hard to respect the man. Some manage by consensus reality,others by strength and knowledge. when the consensus becomes distorted the company fails without leadership,and the systems are lost. You can let others define your truths for you,having faith they are in the right,the weather man gets paid to be wrong most days. The news changes and the meaning of it changes but what really happened hasn’t changed,if we ignore this we pay the consequences.

    Morality is consensus,this doesn’t make it wrong only a way to keep shit of your dick.

  69. https://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/martha-nussbaum-jefferson-lecture

    some man-shaming going on here, but it’s more subtle than most; I do agree on some of her points about anger having two aspects…. one that is understandable and a positive if it can be harnessed, the other is the sense of vengeance and retribution that accompany it; she had some good examples of how MLK used the first part but eschewed the second

    I did have a problem with how she says anger is natural because even babies/toddlers don’t think about it, just experience it, but then lays on all kinds of shit about what they’re ‘thinking’ and from that point on a person is ‘wrong’ to have anger

    there’s a part where “psychoanalyst Melanie Klein refers to this emotional reaction in infants as persecutory anxiety,'” but then the author wants to re-define it as “fear-anger or even fear-blame”…. I can only surmise these have more emotionally laden connotations than the clinical term and therefore more useful in her argument

    these kinds of propaganda(?) use the technique of having many true, irrefutable assertions sprinkled in with a mess of logical fallacies and obtuse conclusions; I guess this makes the whole ball of shit easier to swallow

    rather insidious and picking out anything useful is tricky

  70. @stuffinabox

    ” Truth is not relative, reality is operating on fixed laws.”

    This a complex semantical issue, the signifier and what is signified ARE two different things. For example, it is ‘true’ that water is wet. However what is the TRUTH of ‘wetness’? Stating water is wet, is an ontological definition of how we define ‘wetness.’ Wetness in this sense is socially constructed. We may now choose to label this phenomena differently, but the specific property of water ‘feeling’ wet is what we are describing. As such, we are not describing the real word, but rather our subjective interaction with it (i.e. the feeling of wetness). This level of nuance is not needed for most everyday occurrence, as it’s just dull and painful to outline ALL of our ontological assumptions that we make function along this mechanism. However, when we are talking about things like morality, truth and how reality is these things do matter.

    I think the best way I have seen this conundrum explained in a conscience manor is funnily enough in a film theory

    This underlying problem of the semantics of truth is what the whole discussion between Peterson and Harris was about

    Let’s define a few terms here in order to explain this in more detail.

    If we define ’TRUTH’ – as the philosophical certainty that the universe is laid out in a certain structure and that structure functions according to certain laws (regardless of human desires or beliefs).
    If we define ’truth’ – as our best approximation to TRUTH as what we humans with our limited capabilities can only ever perceive part of reality, never the whole.

    It is easy to see why people conflate these two. Furthermore, ideologies, religion and all other dogmatic belief systems depart from the understanding that we can have access to TRUTH, meanwhile science departs from the assumption that this is impossible, and all we ever can aim for is for truth, contingent on our best methods and current understanding. It becomes clear why science has the potential to update itself, while dogmatic belief systems cannot. That’s why I like Rollo’s constant insistence on the TRP being a ‘praxeology ‘ that is constantly being updated and refined. Furthermore, you are correct in pointing out:

    ”To claim that truth is relative, will lead to the lemming path right over the cliff. I have heard this the truth is what everyone says it is argument before and find it hard to respect the man. Some manage by consensus reality, others by strength and knowledge. when the consensus becomes distorted the company fails without leadership, and the systems are lost.”

    However, you are not making an argument for human access to TRUTH, rather you are making my point that ‘truth’ and morality are linked. I do concur that this is a road not easily traveled on, and most people would like you say be led right “over a cliff”. However, this does not mean that this limited aspect of our human interaction with reality (Nietschze called it ‘foreground perspective-optics’) has no influence on our societal organization or how we chose to interact with reality.

    “You can let others define your truths for you, having faith they are in the right, the weather man gets paid to be wrong most days. The news changes and the meaning of it changes but what really happened hasn’t changed, if we ignore this we pay the consequences”

    Once again, you are making my point, if your definition of ‘truth’ is only contingent upon you, how does this not make (your understanding of) truth subjective?

    Look, I am not saying that there is no utility in the appreciating how things are and that we can reach consensus on how reality functions, operates or lays itself out in front of us to the best of our human understanding. However, these understandings will always ever be heuristics, you cannot and will not be able to go from ’truth’ to ’TRUTH’. If you do than you are advocating dogma and not ’TRUTH’, as no one is omniscient.

    So why am I being so obtuse with this point? Well Rollo’s article above touches exactly upon this problem. From a blue pill mind-set the assumption of equality are valid, within the bounds of the propositions that are made (women and men are the same, women and men have equal worth, women have been sleighed throughout history). Now the red pill rage is when people discover that these propositions where built on very weak foundations, as the same phenomena is re-examined from a red pill perspective. Now claiming that now you know the TRUTH after you have rid yourself of one belief system where you previously thought that you knew the ‘TRUTH’ is traumatic. In such a traumatic situation it may be comforting to lash onto a different belief system. However, with the collapse of one belief system, you have introduced the logical possibility that your entire perception of reality was mistaken and you didn’t notice. So with the collapse of a belief system also comes to collapse in faith in any description of reality.

    So the question becomes, how can you ‘convince’ someone who knows they have the (blue pill) TRUTH? The simple answer is you can’t…In fact I am frequently, using this argument against the blue pill mindset. What I tend to find, is that all the same (faulty) assumptions are put forth, furthermore, when now criticized the individual cannot do retreat to be offended, as they are put on the spot and have to defend their own assumptions. By letting them talk, I then can point out, how they are contradicting themselves with their OWN assumptions.

  71. “If we define ’TRUTH’ – as the philosophical certainty that the universe is laid out in a certain structure and that structure functions according to certain laws . . .”

    IF. What you have defined is the scientific axiom. I know of nothing that falsifies the axiom, but I see no reason to accept it as the definition of Truth. It is an axiom because we can’t take it to be a philosophical certainty.

    ” . . . we are not describing the real word, but rather our subjective interaction with it (i.e. the feeling of wetness).”

    My bicycle is wet. I know this despite the fact that my bicycle does not feel and I am not feeling my bicycle. I could, in fact, determine this without even being in the same building as my bicycle.

    Because, perhaps, I saw the color blue.

  72. @ Albert

    The lefties have a point in saying that everything is a ‘social construction’, however, where they go wrong is that this belief then factors over into assuming that we can shape reality to our whims and desires. For example, gender IS socially constructed, however this does not negate that these social constructions are contingent upon an underlying biology, that have certain preferences and proclivities, regardless of the shortcomings in our nomenclature describing it or what we wish these to be. What culture does, it is shapes and moulds these ‘natural’ inclinations into a coherent set of assumptions, which we then equate and essentialize to be ‘THE TRUTH’.

    THIS. Finally somebody puts into words what I have been thinking all these years. Excellent remark, Albert.

  73. Albert, Blaximus, Stuffinbox and others.

    Peterson does a good job teasing out this issue of truth. My take is that it is based on what culturally works on the deepest level, something that has been tested to create healthy group cohesion and progress within while overcoming and persisting against other cultures and peoples from the outside.

    The clip you linked above, Albert, is one of JPs very best. Eleven minutes of truth right there. I think it can be summed up in one phrase… the most successful cultures have recognized, honored andrewarded benevolent dominance.

    Then, benevolent dominance will in turn reward the culture that created such greatness. Upward and onward is the result.

    I’m with Blaximus that the game is so fucked that it is too easy for the malevolent to dominate. This, to me, is largely due to scale, which creates all sorts of disconnection.

    Thanks Rollo for the post…

  74. @Albert

    Thanks for finally getting to the point ,at least we agree on some things though I am not quite sure what they are. I suppose I just lack culture and higher education and am grateful for that.

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