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.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

620 comments on “The Lie of Equality

  1. Ok I looked it up,a premodernist uses the outhouse and grunts,a modernest uses a flush toilet while reading a magazine and the post modernist doesn’t even fart or may be wearing a diaper also no longer understands english.

  2. @Markos & Orbit, it will never happened that these individuals will do genuine work. Because if you are an indvidual that values outcomes you wouldnt be protesting in the first place.

    Now some of these individuals may genuinely belief that they are doing a good thing, however how much money have they themselves invested in helping black kids, I am sure they could afford to help out one or two. No they have become rich people that whine about social issues and that someone else should do something about it…

    @stuffinbox

    “Morals are a social construction, social constructions attempt to alter reality and succeed though rarely in the way intended,possibly because they tend to disregard observable reality as too harsh.”

    One of the better quotes of what he wrote:

    What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms — in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.” (Nietzsche translated by Kaufmann 1966:46-7)

  3. More evidence that Jordan Peterson “understands” Red Pill, but doesn’t care about breaking out of purple pill.

    The more I learn and the more I never was an Alpha to Begin With, the more I can use Red Pill and Game to Game with Married Red Pill Game.

    I don’t think Jordan Peterson’s ideas can be dismissed with: He’s not strictly Red Pill. Even if he is Blue or Purple, he still has a clue to your system.

    You have your system.

    https://youtu.be/br8KtroS-40

    https://youtu.be/EYR8R7lMUu0

    Bottom line: it doesn’t matter. You do you, but you learn from the intellectuals like Rollo and Peterson. And me and us. Be better. That’s why the manosphere was actually invented.

    @ Rollo, I also advocate to a link on the sidebar to West Indian Archie. Because of sophisticated high order Game.

  4. Albert

    “@Markos & Orbit, it will never happened that these individuals will do genuine work. Because if you are an indvidual that values outcomes you wouldnt be protesting in the first place.”

    They just may. Who knows. I’m not in a place to trash them. I just see the potential they have, a natural charisma that only they could use…

    And people, particularly men, can change. We have, haven’t we? (Some more than others, of course, mileage varies and all that)

  5. @ Albert & O.B.I.T.

    I haven’t bothered to track which players are protesting (since I’ve never been a football geek), but I know many players volunteer through the NFL and on their own time. What the intersection of “Protesters” and “Volunteers” is I wouldn’t care to speculate.

    On the other hand… My uncle likes to say of our Senator, Lindsey Grahamnesty, “He’s never leaving Washington to come back to Seneca. The restaurants in Washington are a lot better.” (He says this every time I talk to him, it seems like.) I think the same principle applies to most NFL players.

  6. @stuff

    Ok I looked it up,a premodernist uses the outhouse and grunts,a modernest uses a flush toilet while reading a magazine and the post modernist doesn’t even fart or may be wearing a diaper also no longer understands english.

    This is a joke and distorts what each really says.

    Here’s a more accurate take:

    Modernist says that sociology is just as reliable as physics and just as worthy of credibility. They are both sciences, after all.

    Postmodernist says, that if that is the case, then you should also call astrology and phrenology “science,” since astrology and phrenology can also pass whatever test you concoct to determine what is a science and what is not. Feyerabend is really the last word on this.

  7. @Albert

    “What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms — in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.” (Nietzsche translated by Kaufmann 1966:46-7)”

    Sounds like something a disconnected guy like Nietsche would write.

  8. Btw, Peterson helped me connect my own dots regarding women more than red-pill did. As did Jung, for once you start getting into archetypes, one realizes how different they are between men and women, and how it’s been like that since forever.

    And it was through my own study of Jung that helped me realize that Ive been trying to retro-actively save my mother through my relationships…. its not just societal “blue pill” conditioning. Sometimes it’s even more basic and earlier than that.

    But it was Blaximus’ immortal “they’re just girls” that has delivered me from the myth that we are dealing with logically functional equals. Thank you!

  9. @Markos

    “they’re just girls”…Blax may have purloined that aphorism from HABD…not sure who came up with it first, tho

    I coined my own similar maxim, “Pussy is just pussy,” and wrote four posts on that topic.

  10. I’m simultaneously still back in Year Six, where Blax had a memorable line about getting past “the magical mystery of pussy.” Best TRM line I’ve seen is still Fleezer’s “This dick isn’t going to suck itself.”

  11. @ sunnybutt

    Your point is why I choose to leave the discussion. ASD has a narrative that he will not deviate from, even when directly questioned about it. He still sticks with his black on black crime ( something he knows about only from reading ) and ignores the crux of the issue, state violence by law enforcement against unarmed men, black men.

    At times like this his mental deficiency is glaringly obvious. Empathy revoked. Fuck that dumb asshole. And I mean that shit from the heart.

    People talk by uses guesses. It’s frustrating as hell and why I like it better when these things aren’t discussed here. Being one of the very few black commenters here,, itnseems impossible to get people to stop talking about shit they really don’t know, care or understand, and use some fact, logic and reason.

    NFL players do many things in all communities. It’s mandated that they do so. I guess one has to be paying attention to actually see it, or they could just talk out of their ass about what they really have no real life experience in. Like ASD does all the time.

    Colin kaepernick gave over a million bucks last year and volunteers his time. Most people that criticize the hardest don’t ever do anything for anybody other than themselves. They don’t have to.

    The only reason I even bothered to comment is because something as simple as why the players did what they did seems to get completely lost in a sea of angry butthurt. On
    a blog where one would think that males could understand systemic injustice, with all of the constant talk of court endorsed divorce rape, could understand the facts on the ground. But nope.

    All teams protested Sunday and Monday because the President of the united states called for owners of NFL teams to fire son’s of bitches that knelt in protest. If any other dickhead outside of u.s. govt had said this, it would not matter. Govt can’t stifle speech or protest. The President is the head of our govt. So every team and it’s owners closed ranks. People without love for the elite ruling class should find hope and comfort in this kind of display, not butthurt.

    The protest this weekend had nothing at all to do with black lives matter or anything like that. People like ASD will always find a way to ignore the truth and run with a counter narrative. Because that an his limited understanding. Lol.

    Tom Brady will never support blm. Neither will Bob Kraft or the Maras. They are however showing support for the player’s first amendment rights. That’s what the totality of the weekend’s activities represented. And people that have a problem with that are by definition unpatriotic. Patriotism is more than symbols and pomp and circumstance and songs. Nobody fought and died, and continue to do so, for a song.

    Lazy folks want to turn American into some kind of bumpersticker or something. ” honk if you lurv merica “.

    Anyway, just wanted to reply to you because what you said was correct and a lot of comments reflect the fact that people don’t know and are assuming the worst. Like feminist do about men. Now I’m really not gonna bother trying to comment further. Hopefully this will fizzle out soon enough and ASD will go back to talking shit about ” lower class and poor ” people, and dancing. He’s good at then dance talk. He is insufferable when he drools his way to other more nuanced subject matter.

  12. Oh i forgot one last thought to ponder for those that lie to do so: then weekend was a display of men coming together for a display of unity. Something that is sorely needed in this FI saturated nation. And the biggest sour grapes appears to come from other males.

    Blue? Super beta? What is that? Lol.

  13. @Oscar C
    Good point. I stand corrected. Women who feel like making love rather than fucking deserve that consideration. But some girls, in fact most girls, I cant help but just fuck.

    By the way, those phone messages posted up there are from other girls in the spam box for one reason or another. I dont mind their pussy once in a while. To be honest I dont like them so much. Some of them I dont think I am going back to fucking no matter what.

    The kiss-me girl is not in the spambox.

    But her best friend ditched her husband who is a pastor and now has several boyfriends on tow. I dont know what number I am on this girl’s towline but she too left her husband and has a rich daddy. If feminism is threatening social order in the west, it is going to totally nuke society in the third world I tell you.

    The first time I met her she was with her best friend, and f closed on that first date. On the second date is when I learned that she too had a husband who she left.

    (Feminism allows girls to shuffle men like cards. And those messages up there are actually from several girls not one. They have other men on tow. That is why Sensei says those messages are about looking for attention.)

    But will you be surprised to know that the girl laughing with me, playing with me, trying to get me to kiss her, will likely be asking someone else the next night?

    When feminism makes men worthless as fathers, it makes women worthless as mothers. And as Sensei said, the women find use for me only as attention currency, not as a man. Therefore men will find use for them as vaginas, not as women.

    Sad.

  14. About the kneelers: I didnt know Americans feel about the stars and stripes now the way they felt about the union jack then, an object of loath and derision. If that is be the case, we are in for very strange times indeed.

  15. @blax, You make very a passionate case and speak of empathy. However, just out of curiosity, what’s your empathy with the cops that are hesititating to police black comunities, for fear of being labbled racists.

    Here in the UK, things like Rotherham are the flipside of the systemic racism narrative and that hurts communities too. In which way the pendulum swings, (systematic sexism) vs. (Culture problem) has implications for how the situation is perceived.

    Furthermore, isn’t not policing neighbourhoods (causing rampant crime) not akin to percived racial discrimination in terms of how damaging it is for the community?

    @stuffinbox

    Look at the post blax just wrote, he switches fluently back an forth from making claims about reality (ontological ‘truth’) while that same the description triggers his emotional response. The description of reality offered by ASD contradicts now blax’s grasp of reality, and vice verca. So instead of trying to work out where the disconnect happens the antagonist gets cast as having dubious moral motives. Both initial psychological response is to double down on their own position.

    Undoubtedly the claims blax made were based on his personal experiences, statistics he saw and all the ‘objective’ evidence he can point you towards. However, the same applies to ASD’s version, he provided evidence for his assertions and I am sure he can produce morenobjective evidence for his position. Now let’s ask which of the two has ‘the truth’?

    Since each side will claim they are in the right, the only thing left to do is to personally attack the moral charcther of the opposing viewpoint or diminishing the intelligence, masculinity etc. Incedently, their differences in the underlying morality is what decided how tgey interpreted reality in the forst place. As the things important to You, you focus on.

    The reason for this is that reality can be interpreted in multiple ways and to make sense of of that reality we utilise our understanding of right and wrong to make sense of, i.e. decide what is true and what is not. That’s what the Nietzsche quote was about, you find what you looking for (I.e. we all have inbuilt conformation bias). Incedently, that’s what is implied by Feyerabend’s take on the philosophy of science as well.

    If you now think there is systematic racism (look here at all these cops shooting blacks people) or if you think its a cultural problem that leads to more crime (more crime leads to statostically mlre shootings of blacks). Logically it could be both, Furthermore, as both sides can produce ‘objective’ evidence to proof their version of the ‘truth’ the way that we human beings decide what is ‘true is by what ‘feels’ plausabile based om our underlying biological proclivities. Hence blax’s constant recourse to empathy.

    Now tell me, what ‘objective’ arguments could either side present to convince the other side that ‘they have the truth’? Other than insiting that they do or start calling names. This is how morality and our perception of truth are linked, due to our imperfect perception of reality.

    Not because of some complex fancy reason, but because reality is messy and data can be interpreted in a myriad of different ways (e.g. roshark test). We use the the idea of ‘truth’ to justify our own moral superiority, knowingly or not.

    @asd the reason why Feyerabend lacks is for example in the case that you and blax are disscusing, his answer would be that blax is right. As his version says, as the black man is ‘oppressed’ he should be given lienecy. What Feyerabend’s account fails to consider is that authority can be predicated on expertise and not just systematic oppresion by the powerful.

    P.S. sorry blax & asd for using your case as an example, however I hope it may help to see where you are butting heads. Both of you seem to be concerned with the well-being of your fellow men. Where both of you differ is in your identification of how you arrive at the causality you see behind these observations, i.e. your version of the truth. The only way to solve such differences is to use the metaphors, antonyms, examples Nietzsche spoke of, however if you forget that this what they are, then it’s so easy to antagonize your fellow man.

  16. @SJF

    Thanks for the ‘Denial of Death’ reference, I found out about it several months ago and I think it is a tremendous book.

    I particularly identify with this: an individual’s “immortality project” (or “causa sui project”), which is essentially a symbolic belief-system that ensures oneself is believed superior to physical reality. By successfully living under the terms of the immortality project, people feel they can become heroic and, henceforth, part of something eternal

    For people like me, who have been political from a very early age, realizing this can be quite a shock. I recall being 10 y.o. or so and throwing a tantrum at home while watching the news because they were talking about a G-8 meeting and Spain was not there… I thought it was humilliating lol

    I can’t even fathom how uber-patriotic I would be had I been born in the USA…

  17. @Albert

    If you enjoy reading tripe like Nietzschie,you need to sift back through the last two years of comments and then get back to me on how Asd and Blax should use more words to come to a conclusion.

    Nietzschie is in the text book for an example of pure philosophy this definitely doesn’t make him truth by any stretch of the imagination. Look at where he came from how he was raised and what he accomplished in life and how it ended not what he says. He is a shining example of a philosopher with no philosophy,the purest form.

  18. Blax is running a gaslighting op…you only have to go to read the socialist rag “The Nation” to see what’s going on…they have TWO articles about the NFL protest

    https://www.thenation.com/

    In the past, socialists have said that they planned to destroy the status of the pro football heros of white men to attack the morale of white men. This whole thing is long planned. Chess, not checkers. The left is of course using this to gain donations to one of their members–BLM.

    The Red Pill and 48 Laws of Power has helped me to see this.

  19. @Oscar

    I can’t even fathom how uber-patriotic I would be had I been born in the USA…

    You’re young and have been propagandized with globalism from a very early age.

  20. @albert

    I never claimed that police shootings of blacks weren’t affected by racism. There were recent murders of several white men in Kansas City and the black killer was caught. He had posted all kinds of racist stuff on social media. The attempted murders of whites going to church by a black man happened recently, too. Black racism against whites isn’t pushed like Taking the Knee was pushed. Because there’s no money in pushing it.

    I merely looked at the facts and followed the money. I don’t have a big emotional investment in racism either way. Obviously, Blax does and everybody knows it. Do you think that strong emotions help or hinder our reasoning?

  21. @albert

    The big problem with a relativistic view of things is that it offers no solution to problems like you pose. It, in fact, argues against trying to solve problems as every point of view is considered equally legitimate. Postmodernism is useless for solving problems.

    Imagine that you and a bank differ about your account balance. Postmodernism says that there is no way to solve the problem because both views are equally legitimate. Reason is thrown out the window.

    Larry Laudan followed on Feyerabend’s work and pushed the conclusion that the word “science” has lost its inherent meaning (indubitably, as far as PoS is concerned) and only is useful for rhetoric. Hence, most philosophy depts. focused on Philosophy of Biology and Philosophy of Physics and Philosophy of Science fell by the wayside.

  22. “The big problem with a relativistic view of things is that it offers no solution to problems like you pose. It, in fact, argues against trying to solve problems as every point of view is considered equally legitimate. Postmodernism is useless for solving problems.”

    Word

  23. a reminder of what the entertainment industry is really all about:

    http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2017/09/26/gillette-stadium-charges-fans-4-50-for-tap-water-in-cups-after-bottled-water-runs-out.html

    the industry only has enough empathy and compassion to buttress their bottom line

    that’s just business, no problem from me; but let’s at least have the balls to call it that instead of trying to ennoble bottom line business basics with some sort of morality dressing; but that too, is just business, so again, it’s up to the individual to keep his eyes open and on the prize…. not get too caught up in the rabble thrashings around you, they’re just a distraction, and it’s intentional

  24. @Dz

    Agreed,once the marketing industry learned to take advantage of a captive entertained audience the entertainment industry learned to take advantage of the marketeers. An advantageous situation for all excepting the audience.

  25. Patriots (USA football team) charging $4.50 for tap-water is ridiculous. Yes I know they keep inventory not by the volume of liquid, but by the cups, but they could have offered a discount price at least.

    Maybe all of the kneeling “Patriots” were trying to find water somewhere or beg for our forgiveness?

  26. Blax, I just see things through an eye for media, PR and messaging. Even something that’s justified in some way can be counterproductive.

    Let’s agree we want to address systemic injustice — but that’s too broad and general as a call to action. So let’s take policing. If the NFL is doing so much already and wants to do more, have the players call a Tuesday news conference — led by maybe Mike Webster and ‘Spoon. Explain all these things the NFL is already doing in its 32 cities, and how the players are committed to tripling down on these efforts — how they’re going to meet with the kids, ride with the cops, bring in experts like Bratton and Kelly who helped make NYC so much calmer and safer., to consult with local police and government. Most important would just be the players time and presence.You might even get some well-meaning celebrities from other fields to jump on in. Chris Rock does that funny bit on how not to get shot by the cops — get him in on the campaign.

    And if they’d really man up, the players might admit that the anthem protests are muddying their message, not relaying it effectively. You’re seeing the men come together but what I’m seeing is the moment wasted with an empty, victimy type of gesture I’d more expect on the Oscars Hell, at least the Mizzou kids threatened to not play at all.

    Here;s the bottom line for me: I’m not into the NFL, but if my favorite hockey team chose this course of action to make whatever point, I would not be impressed or convinced. I’d hope to see much more out of them.

  27. Bottled water was $5.00 and beer was $9.50 at the MLB game last week. I didn’t read any message into that fact.

    These bended knee football players are just dramatizing their value here. Nothing new there.

    Pretty much the same as “I have the pussy so I make the rules”….Football players have the stage so they will play for drama points.

    Catonese vs. dog language. Old tired white guys subcomms vs. old tired black guys subcomms.

    “Racism matters” vs.”respect the National Anthem and salute the flag of the United States of America”. (different languages speaking.) We all know who is trying to sub-communicate what here. But don’t want to align with the other’s language.

  28. Trump maybe could ease up on this now. But I’d also advise the teams that are still winless after Week III to address inequality ON the field.

  29. The NFL wins every game. NASCAR wins every race. The government wins every election cycle. Black men’s lives don’t matter neither do white mens lives matter. You are the expendable sex. Hypergamy doesn’t care if you get gunned down in the street or work yourself to death. You are replaceable. Your government doesn’t care if your gunned down or work self to death their is another one of you coming across the border or being born to replace you.

  30. Black lives do matter, but BLM as feminist lead political movement doesn’t matter to me. Colin was manipulated by his BLM woman into following her frame and political beliefs to his detriment. He is a blue pill as it gets on a grand and visible scale. The issue with BLM is that they are hiding their socialism behind a veil of fighting racism. I can fight racism without being a socialist/femi-nazi or pro-black.

    The whole issue with all of these teams taking the knee now is just a reaction to Trumps charge to the owners to fire players. These players care less about real political issues than they do about their own self-interest and the owners are not about to aggravate their cash cows. Kneeling is just a show of power to the owners and for the owners to show they want to continue making $. This is like a union strike masqueraded by virtue-signaling.

  31. @OBIT

    And if they’d really man up, the players might admit that the anthem protests are muddying their message, not relaying it effectively.

    By design. The aim is to demoralize white men, earn donations from guilty white liberals, and divide America.

  32. Colin was manipulated by his BLM woman

    Didn’t realize that was his connection, but it fits perfectly.

    The issue with BLM is that they are hiding their socialism behind a veil of fighting racism.

    If you replace “the Feminine Imperative” with “Socialism,” you get to the same endpoint in The Red Pill.

  33. OBIT

    “But I’d also advise the teams that are still winless after Week III to address inequality ON the field.”

    lol. Threadwinnner

  34. @asd the point of people interpreting SAME reality DIFFERENTLY based on their underlying biological proclivities still stands though

    one of the better examples is this, read the reactions of the liberals its very telling. This dynamic is not just restricted to a blue/red pill dichotomy it applies to all of our interactions with reality

    https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2017/march/trump-clinton-debates-gender-reversal.html

  35. ““I’ve never had an audience be so articulate about something so immediately after the performance,” Salvatore says of the cathartic discussions. “For me, watching people watch it was so informative. People across the board were surprised that their expectations about what they were going to experience were upended.”

    that’s what happens when you are directly confronted by unexpected evidence that does not fit your belief structure, shock, confusion, anger, rage, etc.

    This applies beyond a red/blue pill dynamic, Rollo’s description above about the different perceptions of ‘equality’ falls along the same dynamic. Using the language of ‘truth’ for two competing paradigms becomes nonsensical, as each ‘truth claim’ is valid within the assumptions of the particular belief structure. Science vs. religion, qualitative vs. quantitative data, physics vs. sociology etc. etc. etc. these different paradigms are incommensurable to borrows Thomas Kuhn’s nomenclature

  36. @stuffinbox the reason why people don’t like Nietzsche is because what he is saying is not flattering for our human ego. However, doesn’t mean he’s wrong, furthermore once you gone through a blue/pill transitioning you have no logical argument to essentialise one version of (MUH!) truth over another, as you already experienced that your personal grasp on reality was completely ‘mistaken’. Essentialising, that your new value structure now is ‘true’ is just solopsism to make your self feel better.

    It’s like saying Chinese poetry is worthless, just because you don’t understand Chinese. The trick is how to incorporate this realization without falling victim to the same essentilising proclivities that caused your initial dogmatisation. Currently, no one has a good answer for this, and claiming that you now hold the truth is simply sophistry where you rationalize away the collapse of your previous value structure.

  37. ““The big problem with a relativistic view of things is that it offers no solution to problems like you pose. It, in fact, argues against trying to solve problems as every point of view is considered equally legitimate. Postmodernism is useless for solving problems.”

    Word”

    Yes ASD and stuffinbox. I agree.

    Not all viewpoints are of equal value. That’s the point. Societies must decide on their narrative to be successful. This is why consensus is so powerful.

    It is also why postmodernism is so dangerous, as it undermines everything into nothingness, which is easy pickings for malevolent dominant men to take the reigns and create their own tyrannical narrative.

  38. Modernism was fine as long as it was tempered with humility. When it overreached into Rationalism, it ran into trouble. Rationalists believed that everything could be reduced to Science. When the Postmoderns showed that the word “science” had no usefulness other than rhetorical, the Rationalists’ plan fell apart.

    1. The method can be used for a loads of different purposes, for example discourse analysis is at the heart of postmodern ideas. It can be used in loads of different contexts:

      Tourism management
      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026151770500066X

      Marketing research
      http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1470593108093556

      Nursing
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19543120

      Humam Geography
      https://fennia.journal.fi/article/view/60462

      Pedagogy
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1598/RRQ.39.1.4/full

      Just because activist types like gender studies major use postmodern methods, does not mean that the tools can only be used for gender activism.

      Blaming postmodernism inverts the causality. Discourse analysis is a powerful tool, when used by ill intentions people they can cause great harm. It’s like rollo’s post on ‘children with dynamite’, since such individuals exist does it mean that the red pill is bad?

  39. Albert, what guides us to not misuse a tool?

    How do we determine the “relative” value of a tool?

    I would say the most valuable tool is one that gets us the best result, tested over time.

    Tools themselves can also be refined or ultimately discarded if they prove to be inefficient or detrimental for the task at hand. Any good craftsman knows that.

    Yet we need to know what we’re working with. We’re not working with ether. We are working with societal structures.

    So we have the wood (society) and the hewing tools. The wood is the male-dominance hierarchy, and the tools at hand to work on it are rationalism, modernism, post-modernism, etc.

    Post-modernism is a tool. It is not the wood. It is not real. It’s usefulness as a tool is limited. It seems that some mistake a tool of analysis for reality itself. It seems post-modernism has the capacity to be used to deny the existence of wood itself.

    In any case, my question would go roughly along Peterson’s thinking: what societal structures allow for the greatest development of the individual spirit while still having the individual be rewarded for returning and adding his/her strength to the group?

    What system allows for the cyclical flow from upward trending individual to upward trending group?

    One must honor the reality of dominance hierarchies. To believe otherwise is violent to reality.

  40. Newly Aloof

    Thanks for that video discussing Antifa.

    Want to add that we all need to take a hard and clear look at capitalist systems. They certainly honor dominance hierarchies. It’s the main reason they’ve been so successful. The problem is they can magnify malevolent dominance if not modified in some way. They can run amok. This is not news to the intelligent individuals on this thread…

  41. The method can be used for a loads of different purposes, for example discourse analysis is at the heart of postmodern ideas. It can be used in loads of different contexts:

    [I wasn’t allowed to post so many links, so if you wanna go and see just delete the spaces]

    Tourism management
    http://w ww.sciencedirect.com/scien
    ce/article/pii/S026151770500066X

    Marketing research
    http://jou
    rnals.sagepub.co
    m/doi/abs/10.1177/1470593108093556

    Nursing
    https://ww
    w.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub
    med/19543120

    Humam Geography
    http
    s://fennia.journal.fi/arti
    cle/view/60462

    Pedagogy
    http://onli
    nelibrary.wiley.co
    m/doi/10.1598/RRQ.39.1.4/full

    Just because activist types like gender studies major use postmodern methods, does not mean that the tools can only be used for gender activism.

    Blaming postmodernism inverts the causality. Discourse analysis is a powerful tool, when used by ill intentions people they can cause great harm. It’s like rollo’s post on ‘children with dynamite’, since such individuals exist does it mean that the red pill is bad?

  42. Are you feigning obtuseness to make an irrelevant point?

    We here are not talking about the tool used in any other way save the context of the original post.

    And the original point was one of value, and also of ethics (moral value). Post-modernist thought is used in this instance to topple dominance hierarchies.

    Please note the topic and stick to it.

  43. @Markos

    Remember, Albert is quite young…keep your expectations appropriate to his age. You’re correct that he sometimes goes far afield, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. It shows ingenuity, a spirit of discovery, and a tendency towards creativity. It can get frustrating in conversations, tho.

    Almost everything in Philosophy and the Humanities is used to support the FI and socialism, so it’s not surprising that postmodernism is as well.

    I’ve noticed that lesbians frequently respond positively to sexualization and dominance displays just like any other girl. I wonder if lesbianism isn’t a response to a societal problem that men don’t display dominance enough? Of course, men are discouraged from doing so.

    Socialist writers through the centuries have made it abundantly clear that they seek to topple the institutions of religion, the family, the monarchy, and free enterprise. With the advent of representative govt., they seek to dominate it. They use any means necessary to topple these institutions.

  44. @Markos I am not off topic, but you seem to be conflating the motif of the practitioner with the utility of the tools that are being used. Indecently, Foucault saw his use of discourse analysis as a tool to free people from the shaming language used in his day:

    “This approach led him to regard ‘‘theory’’ as a toolbox of more or less useful instruments, each conceptual tool designed as a means of working on specific problems and furthering certain inquiries, rather than as an intellectual end in itself or as a building-block for a grand theoretical edifice.” (p. 366)

    http://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r32759.pdf

    Furthermore, there is nothing logically stopping you to use discourse analysis also to reaffirm value structures. Focault was quite fond of studying history and drawing inferences how we can learn from history, reaffirming certain values, while undermining others.

    “This line of interpretation of human history found expression in the twentieth-century philosophical writings of Heidegger, Gadamer, Ricoeur, and Foucault. This tradition approaches the philosophy of history from the perspective of meaning and language. It argues that historical knowledge depends upon interpretation of meaningful human actions and practices. Historians should probe historical events and actions in order to discover the interconnections of meaning and symbolic interaction that human actions have created (Sherratt 2006)”

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/history/

    Furthermore, the reason why Foucault challenged value structures of his time was because he was himself gay. His contemporary France did put harsh restriction on his own sexuality. Which cast him inadvertently into the outsider position, which allowed him to see the farcical social construct of his time that shamed people in compliance (his version of the blue pill so to speak)

    Today, the shunned gender is no longer homosexuality but male heterosexuality as conventional masculine men (as Rollo likes to call them) are today are cast in the same outsider dynamic Foucault found himself growing up in 1930s & 40s France, having restriction placed on their sexuality, being shamed for it and silenced when expressing it. Focault’s goal was to show people that this was a social construct and had no basis in reality, by destablising the prevailing (blue pill) narrative of his day. In essence, the exact thing that Rollo does above by calling the current culture narrative of equality bullshit, however instead of having homosexuality at the center, Rollo is discussing in in relation to male heterosexuality with our current perception of sexual norms.

    That other people today are using these same tools to for their own purposes to further their own agenda, is not not the fault of these tools neither the purpose of the people who invented them. It’s like the puritans, religious zealots and fanatics using Christianity to silence people they disagree with, to bully other people around shaming them into compliance. However, as Peterson tells us, this doesn’t mean Christianity is useless as a toolbox to learn from. It’s not a reflection of the tool, rather of the motifs of the people that are using these tools (radical Marxist feminists). I find it funny that Peterson can see this when approaching religion from a science view point, but seems to make the this very conflation when he accuses ‘the postmodernists’, what he really means is ‘rad fems’ fems that are USING postmodernism, i.e. a ‘children with dynamite’ dynamic

    ———————————————————————————————————————-

    In relation to the the other issue being discussed, I am taking bets on when the next assassination attempt on Trump will be by some leftist nutter. Bellow is an of how the Circus Maximus became a focal point for Roman society where perceived grievance filtered into the entertainment of the day. Note, that although Trump is not actively killing people the narrative of cops indiscriminately shooting blacks can be rhetorically mobilized to cast him into the same role as Caligula

    “Although petitions made at the games often were granted, or at least justification offered if refused, there were limits to political expression. Dio relates the deteriorating situation under Caligula, who

    “no longer showed any favours even to the populace, but opposed absolutely everything they wished, and consequently the people on their part resisted all his desires. The talk and behaviour that might be expected at such a juncture, with an angry ruler on one side, and a hostile people on the other, were plainly in evidence. The contest between them, however, was not an equal one; for the people could do nothing but talk and show something of their feelings by their gestures, whereas Gaius [Caligula] would destroy his opponents, dragging many away even while they were witnessing the games and arresting many more after they had left the theatres.”

    Indeed, two years later, in AD 41, Josephus records a demonstration at the chariot races, “to which the Romans are fanatically devoted” (Antiquities of the Jews, XIX.24). There, the assembled crowd implored Caligula to reduce their taxes. But, when the emperor ordered that all those who continued to protest be killed, “the people, when they saw what happened, stopped their shouting and controlled themselves, for they could see with their own eyes that the request for fiscal concessions resulted quickly in their own death.” Caligula, himself, was assassinated soon after.”

    http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/circusmaximus/circusmaximus.html

  45. @asd indecently I think the denial of human nature coming out of the social sciences and humanities has more to do with lowering standards of entry requirements and the female domination of of these disciplines, rather than at the hands of the tools that are being used. See below [links to references can be found at the original essay, link at the end]

    “EXAMPLE OF THE DYING HUMANITIES
    The downfall of the humanities is a historical development that did not start yesterday, and there are many contingencies that can be pointed out. For example, one aspect that has to be stressed is that of the role of men and women’s different moral presuppositions, due to their different sexual strategies. On average men tend to value fairness in competition, abstract ideals and moral principles, while women tend to care more about in-group harmony and equity. If now an epistemic community becomes female dominated, it is reasonable to assume that this is part why such phenomena as political correctness or intellectual stagnation set in. As these are consequences of putting in group harmony above intellectual competition. Another one that can be pointed out is the increasing commodification of university education, turning universities from institutions of higher learning into educational factories. However, as these are aspects that would require an essay in their own right, for sake of brevity I have omitted these aspects in the current essay.

    As stated in the beginning, this essay focuses on the dangers of how echo chambers and how they are created. It is by now a truism in the manosphere that social science and humanities echo chambers produce the social activists’ types, people use the pejorative Social Justice Warrior to describe. However, such political motivation may inadvertently create the epiphenomena of the dying humanities. When it comes to the death of the humanities at the universities, people like to point to the role of cultural Marxism or feminism and they may be partially correct, however the mechanism for this decline may not be as simple as some people make it out to be. Marx stated that: ‘The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it’, and such a credo is at the heart of ideas about social justice. However, such an approach shifts the highest goal of intellectual pursuits from ‘truth’ (i.e. understanding the world) to political action, with disastrous consequences for intellectual clarity.

    Already people in the 1970s scholars were highly motivated to enact political change furiously attacking the grand narratives of science. However, such individuals whose highest pursuit (telos) was politically motivated, have now come to positions of tenure, teachers, advisors and supervisors. This generation, despite their political motivations were rigorously trained by individuals that put the telos of logic, truth and reason as their highest values. Therefore, even when such individuals were primarily politically motivated, they could at least reason and write in an intelligible manor. What happens today is that the first politically motivated generation is now in the supervisor position and teaching positions. Therefore, their main focus is not the telos of truth, but rather that of political action. The result is, that their students become wonderfully politically motivated (some would call them SJWs), however their reasoning and writing skills suffer as this is not the highest goal. Now when people blame these developments on “feminism”, “cultural Marxism” or some other political motivation, it is the mechanism that I have outlined above what they are referring to. The actual content of the ideology in question is rather secondary, what is important is that political activism is prioritized over rigour, logic and clarity of thought. So to summarize, the calamity is further fuelled, because political action has its own justification built into its motivations and as such an isolated echo chamber is created, inadvertently creating a collective confirmation bias.”

    https://www.minds.com/blog/view/732520436335648788

  46. @Albert

    As I sat on the front porch of the cabin I built in the cool mountain mist watching the last of this seasons crop of hummingbirds loading up at the feeder for the trip south,it occurred to me it isn’t that I don’t like Nieszchie rather pity him.
    Having come from a similar background and doing the opposite thing with my life,was the result of coming to the same conclusions at a much younger age. by far the best thing I got from the Lutheran indoctrination was learning the memorization process required for confirmation.
    The changing of ones mind and person requires action,we cannot think ourselves out of theology and the world requires constant change and action. An open mind is key to plasticity,yet one must maintain some form of morals for self preservation.

    On the topic of feminism in higher education,what is important is to recognize what happened then take appropriate measures to insulate oneself from the consequences. I have my own vision of what the future holds and what will work,as you point out this won’t work for everyone.

  47. @stuffinbox I tip my head to you sir, we may disagree on nomenclature but the sentiment in your last post is something I can wholeheartedly get behind!

    It made think of Socrates:

    ‘Let him who would move the world first move himself’

    Marcus Aurelius said something similar:

    ‘If it’s not right don’t do it, if it’s not true don’t say it’

    Same goes for Nietsche:

    ‘Become who you are’

    All these sentiments express the underlying idea that (personal) truth is performative on how you chose to live your life.

    I also concur that Nietzsche had a pitiful existence, contracting syphilis, diphtheria and dysentery can’t have been fun. Furthermore, it also explains somewhat his obsession with strenght as his own body was weak. This resentment of the his human weakness is strong in his philosophy. I tend to take much more charitable view towards human weakness. It’s not something that needs to be despised, it needs to be overcome.

    Nevertheless, his mind was sharp and made him realise that values, morals and conviction only can come from within. You need a strong centre in order to bare the ‘burden of performance’ of being a man. It’s not optional, it’s a prerequisite towards truth AND masculinity.

    Academia is truly femniszed, even STEM. If Popper is to be believed, once the respect for trust in science is gone western society will crumble. He regarded the Greek invention of the ‘war of ideas’ as a fundamental premise inherent within science, however he also attributed it with fundamental societal importance, stressing;

    “It is one of the most important inventions ever made. Indeed, the possibility of fighting with words instead of fighting with swords is the very basis of our civilization, and especially of all its legal and parliamentary institutions.”

    So yeah, i might want to learn how to farm in the future. Seems it could come in hand…

  48. @Stuffinbox

    The changing of ones mind and person requires action,we cannot think ourselves out of theology and the world requires constant change and action. An open mind is key to plasticity,yet one must maintain some form of morals for self preservation.

    I posted this before regarding returning to self rather than changing to conform to an outward looking Frame. Red Pill is all about enlightened self interest and your Frame and Your MPoO.:

    https://therationalmale.com/2017/07/06/confidence-and-the-safety-net/comment-page-3/#comment-205564

    From the Forward of Reality Transurfing:

    The individual is capable of shaping their own reality as long as they observe certain rules. The mind tries unsuccessfully to influence the reflection. Instead you have to change the image that is being reflected.

    In this book we are not going to do exercises, meditate or obsess with the self. Transurfing is not so much a new method of self-improvement as a fundamentally different way of thinking and behaving in order to get what you desire out of life. It implies exactly this–to get what you desire from life, rather than having to fight for it. The method of Transurfing is not aimed at changing the self. It offers a way of returning to self.

    Of course in returning to self, it helps if you have innately good virtues as a man to begin with. Otherwise it’s a maxim of Red Pill to always be self improving.

  49. So yeah, i might want to learn how to farm in the future. Seems it could come in hand…

    Farming was certainly a part of my redemption.

    But: It’s fucking hard. But I have no qualms with that. (And no one ever said The Red Pill was not hard.)

    It made me lower my mental hurdles. To make high hurdles psychically (of or relating to the human soul or mind) lower.

  50. ASD thanks for the heads up

    SJF did you happen to get the transurfing workbook? If so, how do you like it?

    Re farming: I have this pipe dream that the entire world would go straight up permaculture. Yet, you summed it up pretty good. It’s not easy.

  51. @SFJ you could regard game as an ‘aesthetic hedonistic ideal’ that is subedivded into outer game, inner game and game routines. Becoming good in them is a reward in an of itself. However, if you are an asshole this will enflate your ego rather than teach you humility.

    http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~caforum/volume11/vol11_Hendriks.html

    If you are a farmer and become good at the aestehical ideal of farming, you can’t be an asshole, as a farmer who mistreats his animals, is iresponsbilie and boastful with his expenditures will not make a good farmer. That’s usually why I tend to get along well with people who work in manual labour, as you can emote to them in relation to having had endured hardship.

  52. Academia is truly femniszed, even STEM.

    All STEM is not equal. Distributive fallacy. Physics has very few women on faculties. 10% at my local uni.

    I checked the tenured math faculty, and women are 20% there. (One lecturer was blond and had a dutch surname and was pretty…reminds me of my first girl)

    In chemistry, women were about 20% as well.

    In biology, women were about 25%.

    Maybe you are talking about culture as opposed to sexual makeup?

    Nursing is a major component of STEM and women dominate the population of nursing. Women are about half of physicians, dentists, and pharmacists.

    Medicine is highly feminized by population.

  53. @asd”All STEM is not equal. Distributive fallacy”

    I meant more in terms of disciplinary structre of what values are important. For example within the HR departments that recruit them, as well as wider academic reserach ecosystem and culture that STEM nest in. For example look at these phenomena within STEM

    Tim Hunt thing, shirtgate and my personal favorite at the moment:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9CDGAULh98&t=1s

    https://w__ __ww.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/13/tim-hunt-hung-out-to-dry-interview-mary-collins

    htt__ __ps://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/wnj4ax/shirtgate-was-about-more-than-a-tacky-shirt

    Especially I liked the comment:

    (A Random Guy) 2 days ago
    Independent Man, STEM is lost. I’m a PhD student studying bioinformatics and immunology and we have safe spaces for people. People who supposedly want to be scientists but they cannot withstand one ounce of constructive criticism. I don’t want to sound like a pessimist but I think the tertiary institutions in Australia are going downhill.

    Now in the UK the entire academic sector is assessed by their “reserach impact”. As the UK is trend setting for global reserach alongside the US, these disciplinary structures tend to spread.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Excellence_Framework#Research_Impact

    For my PhD i interviewed PhD students, Post doc’s, Lecturers, Assistant Professors, Head of School, Head of Department, Head of reserach school, professors and vice-chancellor the FI is at every level of the hierarchy, granted this was in [retracted] studies, a discipline where the field studies sociological phenomena from a socioeconomic, human geography, psychology, management point of view. So it is a ‘social science’ but its only a matter of time before STEM is geared to the FI as well.

    Happy days…

  54. @Albert

    “you could regard game as an ‘aesthetic hedonistic ideal’ that is subedivded into outer game, inner game and game routines. Becoming good in them is a reward in an of itself.”

    I disagree. Becoming good at game is a reward that itself has benefits and drawbacks. Worst of which are the implications the rewards and drawbacks point to. It’s no absolute good in and of itself to realize game works(and that the Red Pill is true) and have to give up your outdated notions of how women and men both present themselves to you. You end up having to create contingencies around these new realizations in order to function.

    “However, if you are an asshole this will enflate your ego rather than teach you humility.”

    I also disagree. Game in it’s current form was made to counter male helplessness in the face of female hubris in second-wave feminism. Women learned that men could welch on their so-called commitments. Up to and including the burden of performance. The first thing women tried to do was turn a man’s burden of performance into a burden of authenticity. “You’re either with me or against me.” Or rather “I’m sick of your shit, so now it’s MY turn to make YOU eat MY shit, and if you act like you can threaten my ability to do that to you if I just so happen to want to, I’m ruining your life over it. My being a total cunt has nothing to do with it.” This a real and historic sentiment. To reduce male aggression and bad faith towards people in general as “asshole ego-inflation” is an oversimplification of the issue.

    Game was clandestine to begin with because game is about teaching men to get what they want DESPITE obstacles foreign and domestic. Woman is an obstacle until she isn’t. Especially when she wants you to enjoy her only as Feminism informs her you should. Alot of avoiding the spite inherit in this is learning how to present yourself correctly in the first place. Avoiding SPITE mind you, not Rejection. THAT’S what they’re practicing out there, often completely unaware of it. While they “get better” at game, they piss away all the women they aren’t able to convince he merits the position or treatment he is seeking. But he has to be seeking it in the first place. And some men WANT to be “assholes”. Some men want to hit other people over the head with their own will. To say “To Hell with you! You lie and puff yourself up and tell me I’m not fair or balanced! It was never about honor, you lying cocksucker! You wag your tail-feathers and try to punish me for not acknowledging you! You sold-out other men, so you won’t get empathy from me!” That’s normal and natural. Even if they fail at being assholes, they’ve recovered their own agency from Feminine-primary society and it’s many male enablers who tell them, “be a good man! You aren’t working hard enough!”. And yet there’s contingencies for that too, but nothing is taboo. At least that’s how I see it.

    It’s not just self-help like some people say. It’s an arms race against people who wish to control the “discourse” between women and men. As in women AND men who wish to steer the “discourse.”

    You don’t think it’s weird how feminism is active today, yet “Alpha” males still exist? It’s not really because Alphas are so resilient, so anti-discourse that they elude capture or conversion.

    It’s because Demonstrations of Higher Value always work. Women seek them out in a man. So the man who can do it becomes the “Alpha” no matter how “beta” previous generations would have defined him and the “Alpha” becomes the “Asshole” to the loads of relatively worthless dicks on the shelves……..until someone else supplants him. But fortunately we have mounds of cash and muscle and years of experience and witty comebacks and other offensive secrets to cushion against a man being at the mercy of any dork who claims “Modernists” go too far. So he’ll have to do all that AND DHV. And attraction isn’t arousal.

    Another thing. I clicked those links to articles you gave me, and only 1 wasn’t behind a paywall. You aren’t an entrepreneur, are you?

    “as you can emote to them in relation to having had endured hardship.”

    Great DHV.

  55. @Albert
    September 28, 2017 at 5:49 am

    “aesthetic hedonistic ideal”

    You spelled ascetic wrong. And that linked essay, while sounding fancy with words is just a piece of academic mental masturbation drivel. And it’s virtue signaling at best.

    And if you don’t think one can be an asshole farmer, you probably haven’t been out of the ivory tower and into a rural area lately.

    @Markos

    “SJF did you happen to get the transurfing workbook? If so, how do you like it?”

    No I don’t know anything about the workbook. Nor do I really see a need for it. What happened for me is that the long assed method comprised about 80% of what I was already doing sucessfully over the last 56 years. The other 20% just connected dots on some missing links in my Frame and positive mindset that I naturally have. (And I’m a learner, not a natural by trade.)

    I actually didn’t see a need to “work” at it.

    Interestingly, though I did see a lot of parallels in Red Pill and Game to a lot of field reports that myself and a buddy would talk over in real life. I.E. missing links in positivity and mindset and letting things play out instead of inner desire wanting things to happen. Stepping back in Relationship Game and letting the dice roll. And then choosing what presents itself next.

    “Re farming: I have this pipe dream that the entire world would go straight up permaculture. Yet, you summed it up pretty good. It’s not easy.”

    I’ve often contemplated that in the past, but I came to realize that large collectives of people tend toward too much ideology instead of praxeology. (And large collectives came with the Agricultural Revolution. Large collectives of people didn’t need permaculture, just needed trade in kind for goods.) Ideologies work best top down and praxeologies work best bottoms up (on an individual level). That’s an abstract thought. In concrete terms, permaculture is just too hard and takes too much work and sacrifice. The benefits often don’t accrue until a decade later, if at all. It is fun and challenging though.

    I only do farming for fun and adventure, not for profit.

  56. @Yollo Comanche

    “Another thing. I clicked those links to articles you gave me, and only 1 wasn’t behind a paywall. You aren’t an entrepreneur, are you?
    No I am not, I said I am currently a PhD student

    “as you can emote to them in relation to having had endured hardship.Great DHV”

    I congratulate for giving a historic account of what “game” has developed into, but it did started out with in the first wave of PUA’s, now we can think of this nomenclature what we want. My point was simply that the efficacy of the toolset that is “game” is separate from the motif of the individual that is utilising it.

    MGTOW had a similar development where it branched off from the MRA’s and development its own thing, developing its own community, developing its own thick skin against the blue pill shaming language used by the FI, in order to explore its ides.

    In the nomenclature of MGTOW what you have described is how the FI has utilised their sexual strategy in the current sociotechnical environment, in other words gynocentrism’s norms have permeated dating culture. I agree that the notion of game exploits this culture and gets shamed as ‘assholes’. However such moral value judgement’s do not invalidate the individuals ‘frame’. So in order to show you my version of ‘game’, i.e. DHV I would like to go through the references I have introduced within this conversation and comment upon them from this “postmodernist” nomenclature (from Hendriks (2011).

    [1] The first link I provided talked about Peterson’s view on dominance hierarchies and how women picked from the top of them. In the language of game, those that become successful in male dominance hierarchies “male game” (predisposed on male value to rise through the ranks of those dominance hierarchies). So you could described these behavioural patterns “bending the matrix by using game”, and they work beyond even if we disagree on what we think of the moral character of Donald Trump. .

    Ht__ ___tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUiG5_GcMyY

    [2] The second link I provided was about Coltaine’s take on the interaction between technological advance (the pill, me phone, tinder, the internet, cheap travel etc.) our lifes have become so comfortable, that we can allow ourselves to indulge in our decadent culture. This is why the FI maximizes on guys like Trump as he says “they let you grab them by the pussy” AND beta providers that enable them. That it is at the transgression of the female to decide to throw sex as those men that could be described as “toxic masculinity”. However, their “game” still works to climb male dominance hierarchies or to get pity sex. His axiom is: biology > culture > ideology

    Ht___ ___tps://youtu.be/4wpca1ZDIRQ

    [3] The third one is from a MGTOW called Coterie and he ponders on the attention market that is our modern technological society. In a transhumanist sense we have already arrived in “the future”, we wanted flying skateboards and self-lacing snickers but we got me phones, the internet and Wikipedia. So now my game, my DHV what I do with women is I “talk them to death” with knowledge. Just like I am doing in this thread with talking about things I find interesting (that is my frame) and I do it in MGTOW way. Now think of me what you want, my game works …. For me. I utilise the internet and the depository of human knowledge to proof my obtuse points. By using peoples attention to talk about controversial stuff.

    ht____ ____tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dwt0ASoo-cw#action=share

    [4] The fourth link was to news paper article from the dailywire, if you cannot access this article let me and I provide a uploaded PDF. This article described the ANTIFA demographics, and their sexual strategy of ‘beta game’ within their particular ecosystem. Now we may think of them what we want, but some do become “alphas” within their movement, even if they compete with the lesbians on a dominance hierarchy scale.

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

    [5] The fifth link was to biohistory which describes historic human behaviour patterns of generations of different human cultures and how they rose and fell. In the language of game, these cultures developed different nomenclatures to describe their environmental patterns and their cultures developed their version of the blue pill. The cultural dynamic between what sexual strategy (alpha game) vs. (beta game) was decided by the female (Briffaults law). Nature doesn’t care how you get to the top of male dominance hierarchies, these are the males that breed and female judgment becomes nature’s judgment. Game is the current adaptation of men to this changed physical environment.

    Ht___ ___tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4-Od8cq5Gk&list=PLXTePDlKDQfSduqPdJ4ZUMDCz_u_k7Uu6#action=share

    [6] The sixth link was to Kohlberg’s development stages of moral development among humans. In the language of game you first encultured/indoctrinated into the meta game of culture (blue pill), then within the current dominance structure you occupy the individual starts to test the bounds of the game, testing its rules and hopefully getting proficient at it. This is why assholes can be good PUA’s the function of the behaviour pattern works, regardless what moral judgment we want to make on the individual.
    “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’.

    ht___ __tps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

    [7] The seventh link is to film theory video, where he now discusses the matrix, the argument is basically that you have to play the game, if you want to or not. Now bending the rules, will get you the scorn of the agents. However, you can utilise your understanding to operate successfully within the game. However, since you have already experience of once being in a “video game”, you cannot detach yourself that your current version of “the game” might not just be an illusion of your mind. This is why “game” borders on mind control, for yourself so you do not delude yourself and get ‘tricked’ by the agents or just become the Merovingian

    [8] The eight link is to the second part of the Harris vs Peterson debate where Harris makes a point of truth being ABOVE our human sensibilities, while Peterson claims that we cannot know due to reality only laying itself out to us in what we individually find meaningful. Our perception about “truth” might be wrong in “evolutionary” health for the culture from which we depart from. However, both would agree that there is utility in understanding our human behaviour patterns for utility, but that is different from truth.

    ht___ ___tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9eKURpdFM8#action=share

    [9] The night link I provided was to the REF 2014 assessment, which I studied as the subject of my PhD. This disciplinary framework has now incorporated “research impact” and you can “game” this system just like women (or men) can be gamed. Does not mean this is in good scientific ethos, but it will be effective if you just look at it from a recourse accumulation point of view. Identifying routine game patterns, is possible and now it depends on the individual if they will or won’t do that

    ht___ __tp://www.ref.ac.uk/equality/

    [10] The tenth link was to academic article describing that the “game” the people that suggested phlogiston were playing. Their theories and experiments were according to accepted academic standard at the time. Only afterwards, when more refined methods were developed could we dismiss this theory in favour of the now conventional model. Today can we say that this was not a valid interpretation of reality. Their “game” was not evolutionary successful in the Perterson implied sense

    Ht___ __tp://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/8657/

    [11] The eleventh link was to an article that talks about Nasem Taleb’s book on Antifragility, game in this sense is describing behaviour patterns that work, which individuals have identified within the wider human ecosystem. These ideas about behaviour patterns (game) will be rediscovered, reused and redefined by individuals within the ecosystem, because they work. An idea that gets hammer out in the crucible of criticism and ends up convincing people is more “true” than an idea that doesn’t
    ht___ __tps://www.quora.com/What-are-the-main-ideas-and-highlights-of-Nassim-Talebs-Antifragile-Random-House-27-November-2012

    [12] The twelfth link was from Professor Harry Collins, who studies science for the past 40 years, particular in the field of gravitational waves. His idea is that although scientists cannot proof truth, their cultural norms underlie our societal organisation and are therefore worth preserving in its own right. The “game” that scientists play, inspires a set of values that are performativley acted out by the way scientists describe the world (with their method, which data they choose, how they formulate an argument, what theories are OK, etc.) They play the academic game of publish or perish.

    ht___ __tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16en413Zk9Y

    [13] The thirteenth link was to a collective published work “what everyone should know about science” edited by Harry Collins. Basically here are several case studies that show how science is relative in its process of creation, only afterwards does it consolidate into one particular “truth” i.e. 99% of climate scientists accept climate change. However, this does not mean that their isn’t disagreement within the “game” of science about its content.
    ht___ __tps://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://cstpr.colorado.edu/students/envs_5110/collins_the_golem.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjD8rbT6r_WAhUSY1AKHYkqBnoQFghhMAg&usg=AFQjCNHmIsyOZNMvoMMlRFepvK25zquj5A

    [14] The fourteenth link is a an essay from Collins published in nature where he lies out a post-postmodern project where modernist and postmodernist should come together in reaffirming the values of science as “society without respect for science is too awful to contemplate”. As such, in order to ensure that the scientific “game” retains its integrity both camps should constructively reaffirm the values of science
    ht___ __tps://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7234/pdf/458030a.pdf (if you can’t access the link here is an uploaded PDF, ht___ __tps://ufile.io/poarw).

    [15] The fifteenth link is an article by Bruno Latour, basically Collins and Latour hate each others guts, but in this article he lays out a similar point. However, he does it from a postmodern position in that he asked ‘why is our criticism not applied to our own game’. But he does that in a very longwinded way, basically concluding that the current power politics game political postmodern thought plays does not add something constructive to understand why certain value structures are legitimate
    ht___ __tp://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/89-CRITICAL-INQUIRY-GB.pdf

    [16] The sixteenth link was an essay by Alan Kirby where he basically contest that current postmodern ideas have run their course. You can only ever analyse the narratives of culture for so long until you have to take responsibility for your own action. The game that postmodernism has brought to society has turned society into short-sighted brutish behaviour. The “game” of postmodern to add something constructive to the conversation is passé
    ht___ __tps://philosophynow.org/issues/58/The_Death_of_Postmodernism_And_Beyond

    [17] The seventeenth link is to a sun article about Charlton football club in the UK, who has now its first ever “transgender” football team. The club is essentially playing the “virtue signalling card” to attract attention and investors to the club.
    ht___ __tps://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/4481774/charlton-athletic-football-club-lgbt/

    [18] The eighteenth link was to a guardian article, that explain the broadcasting crisis and how certain clubs had declare bankruptcy (including Charlton) and how they are now trying to stay afloat by securing alternative means of financing and how important the fans are.
    ht___ __tps://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/mar/28/broadcasting.clubsincrisis

    [19] The nineteenth link is to an extract of Thomas Sowell where he describes the vocabulary of the left. That is used to shame people into compliance and how it can be used to display moral superiority in order to win the argument. He makes the claim that this “game” only works if you accept the premises of the assumptions that they make. If you take a “tragic view” of human reality instead of an “idealistic view” you come to a different conclusion
    ht___ __tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04IQ_PvSQ_Q#action=share

    [20]The twentieth link is to a snipped of a lecture with Peterson where he argues that once you gone through a blue/pill transitioning (i.e. collapse of a value structure) you have no logical argument to essentialise one version of (MUH!) truth over another, as you already experienced that your personal grasp on reality was completely ‘mistaken’. Essentialising, that your new value structure now is ‘true’ is just solipsism to make yourself feel better. However, game works regardless of what you choose to think about, which makes it dangerous as you now can delude yourself that your version of reality is the “truth”.
    ht___ __tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY0C_neYT1o

    links [21], [22], [23], [24] & [25] where examples of studies from Tourism management, Marketing research, Nursing, Human Geography and Pedagogy that use the postmodern method of discourse analysis in a manner that reaffirms value structures and does only not criticise, to show that the toolset allows you to use knowledge differently. Not all “games” of postmodernism have to FI, even if it is strong within this line of thought.

    [21], ht___ __tp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026151770500066X

    [22], ht___ __tp://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1470593108093556

    [23], ht___ __tps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19543120

    [24], ht___ __tps://fennia.journal.fi/article/view/60462

    [25], h___ __ttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1598/RRQ.39.1.4/full

    [26] The twenty-sixth link was to an article that describes Foucault’s purpose for utilising his postmodern toolset. He viewed his use of discourse analysis as a tool to free people from the shaming language used in his day:
    “This approach led him to regard ‘‘theory’’ as a toolbox of more or less useful instruments, each conceptual tool designed as a means of working on specific problems and furthering certain inquiries, rather than as an intellectual end in itself or as a building-block for a grand theoretical edifice.” (p. 366)

    ht___ __tp://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r32759.pdf

    [27] The twenty-senth link as to a show that there is nothing logically stopping you to use discourse analysis also to reaffirm value structures. I linked to a philosophy encyclopaedia that named examples of historians/philosophers that studies history in a critical/reaffirming manor. The “game” of that they used was that they played word games in order to criticise ideas, completely smash them in order to see what assumptions hold up to scrutiny,
    “This line of interpretation of human history found expression in the twentieth-century philosophical writings of Heidegger, Gadamer, Ricoeur, and Foucault. This tradition approaches the philosophy of history from the perspective of meaning and language. It argues that historical knowledge depends upon interpretation of meaningful human actions and practices. Historians should probe historical events and actions in order to discover the interconnections of meaning and symbolic interaction that human actions have created (Sherratt 2006)”

    ht___ __tps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/history/

    [28] The twenty-eight link was to highlight an extract where I draw an inference that Trump is our current day Caligula. Showing that the blue pill dynamic and corrupt people always have coexisted within society, they feed of each other and fight each other within the “culture wars”, which actually is just culture (as long it is a battle of ideas). However, once the collective discourse has legitimised violence, civil war between these camps breaks out if “the other” has been demonised enough.

    ht___ __tp://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/circusmaximus/circusmaximus.html

    [29] The twenty-ninth link was to an essay I wrote, where I outline how the manospehere has the potential to develop into an echo chamber. I am not making the claim that this is currently the case. However, I quoted an extract where I explained the dynamic of how this has happened within the humanities. How the emphasis of political activism, has led to a decline of rigor, logic and truth within these disciplines. My suspicion is that it is due to female domination, which now values in group cohesion more than intellectual competition. However, I am sure there are other factors as well.

    ht___ __tps://www.minds.com/blog/view/732520436335648788

    Link [30], [31], [32] & [33] were examples of where academia has become truly infiltrated by the FI, thereby the “academic game” in its structural organisation is turning to enforcing speech codes. My personal favourite was the “sexist math” thing, this borders on Female glaciology, in terms of stupidity. However, it shows the language game that is science, as this article was published within the highest ranking journal of human geography (progress in human geography) [34]

    [30], ht___ __tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9CDGAULh98

    [31], https://w__ __ww.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/13/tim-hunt-hung-out-to-dry-interview-mary-collins

    [32], htt__ __ps://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/wnj4ax/shirtgate-was-about-more-than-a-tacky-shirt

    [33], ht___ __tps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/14/study-finds-surprisingly-that-women-are-favored-for-jobs-in-stem/?utm_term=.1fba04176bff

    [34], ht___ __tp://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/qa-author-feminist-glaciology-study-reflects-sudden-appearance-culture-wars

    Writing up all these references made me realise that I am probably in my manic phase at the moment… However, my ascetic ideal is to fight with my words for my ideas, I enjoy the sparring of human minds and the internet is intoxicating for that (someone disagreement with me on the internet!) and the game of politeness and back handed compliments in the spirit of comradery spirit exploring ideas. (cf. Mertonian norms [35])

    [35] h___ __ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mertonian_norms

    That’s what I do with women, that “game” works for me, also I have to say I pisses off quite a few of them… Thats where tinder comes, as this is pretty much a virtual game of dating. I wrote in a previous comment:

    @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 fulfill the same function for men as looking up ‘how to get infinite weapons in GTA5’.

    Anyway, if you can’t access any of these references. Just let me know what number and I can provide a PDF. My point is, I argue my version of the truth to the death and you can call me all sorts of names for it. However, I think that by understanding our perspectives better we can compare “notes” on our observation of the “game of life”. Now who has the truth…beats me.

    @SJF “And if you don’t think one can be an asshole farmer, you probably haven’t been out of the ivory tower and into a rural area lately.”

    I suppose your right, if you have the right skillset, that is beyond moral character. I admit it was a a long time I had the pleasure to engage with someone who actually commercially or recreationally farmed.

    “You spelled ascetic wrong”

    I only had come across that idea in Nietzsche’s genealogy of morals, and this is how it is spelled in the version that I read. So I suppose that it is in the Nietzschian sense that I am implying the word. Now the “ascetic hedonistic ideal” that Hendriks (2011) talks about recognises game and its efficacy. However, he blames it on capitalism (which is pretty much saying its pussies fault). He actually describe all the premises laid out by Yollo Comanche, he describes the personal moral conundrum, he describes the shaming, the rejection in game, how this influences our view on reality, its constant focus on self-improvement, strong inner game and that it leads to an re-evaluation of the self. He just uses obtuse postmodern jargon to get the ideas across.

  57. Wow.

    Who would have ever thought 40 years ago that it would take miles and miles and miles of explanation to understand Game.

    Take a simple concept and over explain and analyze it until it becomes very difficult to grasp the technical, bastardized version.

  58. @Blaximus, we are playing a “intellectual game” here as well, hence the insults sometimes.

    We need to “proof” each others version of reality in order to be allowed to enter into the war of ideas that happens on this site and many others of the Agora that is the internet.

    It is only a bastardized version if the ego is blemished. Like i said a bad craftsman blames his tools.

  59. @guy “full equality will never be realized but we can do our best to come as close as possible”

    yupp, the best thing is to focus on the process instead of staring yourself blind on the ends. The ends NEVER justify the means.

    Throughout history, different human ecosystems (cultures) have arisen, developed and fallen. For our human sensibilities to understand external shock to these ecosystems is intuitively easy to grasp as we all have endured hardships by the hand of other people, and that’s what the postmodern focus on power reveals. However, what is much harder to comprehend for people is one’s own role in that decay, decadency, corruption, arrogance and ultimately fall of these ecosystems. Communities, societies, tribes, cultures, scientific or otherwise, that inhabit the ecosystem can only ever be as stable, moral, healthy and honest as the individuals that comprise them. (its YOUR fault as well that society is shitty, you are part of society, nobody is an island unless you want to go hardcore MGTOW). This is why the scientific method focuses on the integrity of the process NOT its end result. So in order to be on the ‘right side’ of history we should head the words of our ancestors who contributed to the development of our contemporary version of ‘war of ideas’ (i.e. science):

    • Let him who want to move the world move himself first – Socrates
    • If it’s not right, don’t do it, If it’s not the truth, don’t say it – Marcus Aurelius
    • For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul? – Jesus
    • Become who you are – Nietzsche
    • We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. – Popper
    • From the idea that the self is not given to us, I think there is only one practical consequence we have to create ourselves as a work of art – Foucault

    And these Western ideas have created our current “moral” science, Mr. Dawkins, please show an example of the moral integrity and scientific “humility”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPJQw-x-xho

    I am pretty sure the Nazis, the Communists and rad fems all cast themselves in same way as Dawkins views his version of science (we all want to belief we are good). The reason being is that pure rationality tends to turn the practitioner toxic (here is where it gets complex semantically in a chicken and egg kind of way, are people attracted to ANTIFA because they are shitty people, or does the ANTIFA belief system turn them into assholes? – it’s a bit of both). At the current rate, nothing is stopping science, rad fems or alt-right from becoming some future poet’s metaphor for self-congratulatory unbounded human rationality that wasn’t guided by integrity and humility of the individual.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPlSH6n37ts

    “Look at my mighty [‘research impact’, ‘equality’ or ‘ethno state’] and despair”

    If I read history, one thing is clear, human institution will inevitably collapse based on external shocks from the environment UNLESS the individuals that comprise such institutions maintains them and does not exploit them (be grateful to God), have good character and are humble (Jesus) and view human fallibility, weaknesses, desires and fears in a forgiving way (the holy spirit).

    The post-postmodern understanding should have the strength also to reaffirm value, same applies for the tool that is “game”, the TRP or as tend to refer to it “understanding human behaviour” and the focus in the Western was the idea that (personal) truth is performative, transformative AND contingent on how the individual choses to live their own life (The Christian idea of trinity ‘the son, the father and the holy spirit, Freud divided it into “the ego”, the “superego” and “the it”).

    This means you have to be a man of ACTION and PRINCIPLES, but guided by your SOUL. Our human propensities to steal, cheat, lie or otherwise ‘game the system’ it’s not something that needs to be despised, it needs to be overcome. So Christian morality may have gotten the ontology wrong and the scientific method has helped us to correct this. However, after the ecosystem has collapsed from human arrogance, corruption and negligence does it really matter if we attribute the collapse to the wrath of God, the devil, sinful behaviour, corruptions of the will to power, negligence of the self, the collapse of the patriarchy or some other metaphor describing the consequence of the collapse of in-group cohesion?

    I hope this won’t happen any time soon, however if nothing is changed with the structure of our current societal institutions, this is what I see as its inevitable conclusion. The reason our contemporary Caligula is president, is not because he’s evil, hateful or some plan of the juiceTM. No it’s because we live in a utopia where assholes can get ahead (capitalism, i.e. the female sanctions it) Trump is just the most proficient asshole of us all, he’s really good at “winning” the ‘game’ of being a man, but he is not a good man. The principles of game work, with equally predictable consequences when not reined in by humility and integrity of the individual (“the hand that mocked them and the hand that fed”).

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

    @Blax, this is my summary of what i meant by “blemished ego”, however writing this made me realizes its ‘superego’, ‘ego’ AND ‘it’ that all have to be in harmony, its complex…. However the dramatic acting out of positive masculinity within one’s own life seems to be able to reaffirm values as well.

  60. guy
    full equality will never be realized

    True. This enrages feminists, though, leading them to double down on misandry.

    but we can do our best to come as close as possible

    Why?

  61. Blaximus
    Take a simple concept and over explain and analyze it until it becomes very difficult to grasp the technical, bastardized version.

    Overthinking is just another kind of buffering.

  62. Blaximus:
    Take a simple concept and over explain and analyze it until it becomes very difficult to grasp the technical, bastardized version.

    AR: Overthinking is just another kind of buffering.

    I described that ‘overthinking as buffering’ before by quoting Deida’s second of three stages. (Only in many more words) and a richer description of a process men go through in their masculine style search for Freedom

    It is important to see why and how this overthinking is a buffer stemming from inner desire and inner intention and how to proceed past that buffer into outward intention and masculine Action:

    https://therationalmale.com/2016/08/21/the-key-masters/comment-page-5/#comment-167251

    And that made a lot of difference in my Red Pill process. Understanding that at times the last couple years made me stick to The Red Pill script as known, instead of trying to come up with new magical prescriptions by thinking. Instead of just Doing.

  63. I didn’t read all that stuff Albert was talking about in regards to truth and Jordan Peterson and all, but that last link in regards to Deida’s Third stage masculine style search has a lot of similarities to Peterson’s “Truth”, Rollo’s enlightened self interest bottoms up approach, and also Alan Watt’s energy of the Universe and Reality Transurfing’s force of life.

    Without looking, without trying, a spontaneous force of life begins to become obvious. It is the same mysterious force that beats his heart, moves his thoughts and illuminates his dreams at night.

    Since he has felt the futility of letting his life be dictated by others as well as by his own endless thoughts, he is now open to being lived by another force, the force of truth, the force that has always lived him and is living him now. Whatever he may call this force, it is the force of existence itself, the direct and unmediated flow and feeling of being.

    The force of life is out there if you would just harness it and stop Buffering so much.

    1. @SFC I am not buffering, I try to understand the connection between the superego, the ego and the it mapping it onto how it relates to civlisations rising and falling. The Christians ideas of God the holy father, Jesus the son and the holy spirit, conceptulise around a similar trichotomy.Within a scientific context that’s Theory, method and rhetoric when crafting and argument.

      In my PhD on scienctific knowledge production i subdivided the ‘scientific method’ into a theoretical deconstruction, analytical criticism and rhetorical construction.

      These discplinary divisions forces the indvidual to sort out competing knowledge claims and demands to reference their sources. The lierature review presents the theoretical background of the discplince (I.e. it’s hinterland).

      In a religious contexts that is to respect the ‘father that feeds you’, God or displinary institutions. In the analytical criticism you compare your own observation to these theories and make inferences and proof a point. The rhetorical construction makes that ‘the hand that mocks them’ recognises human failability and presents the information in such a fashion that you are kind to the insvidual. This is the western tradition of truth in the scientific war of ideas.

      Adhering to these mental hygiene regimes allows you to dodge male shaming (distribution fallacy, obtuse, virtuesignaling, morally corrupt, dork, ivory tower ext. – all the male shaming that was directed my way). So the point of the references and summarising was not that everyone actually will read them. But rather to show to Yollo Appache that before he retorts to more shaming attacks against the man he could engage the argument, how?

      Well the scientific mental hygeneie forces you to write your argument in such a way that he CAN look at the references. Nobody ever does check the referecnes, except knoweldge junkies like me. This is what is done in the manosphere. Thereby, by sheer force of will you can make a point rhetorically, IF you are humble and other people want to listen.

      The Christian tradition tells us to be kind to women and children in our rhetoric, here is revolutionary idea. Let’s be kind to men as well in our collective disscusion of the superego, culture nature of God or the universe. Let’s include men in that narrative not only in harsh logical rational stoic kind of way, but also kind forgiving ecoruing and create reassurances and not lie to them. The inherent danger for the collapse of system also comes from within. And talking about (female and) male motivation can be touchy subject. However, I do think it’s a good idea to do it, as the trauma of the human suoerego is always being so close to grasp the stars and then some ‘flood’ wipes out all our progress starting from zero.

      The “My name is Ozymandias king of kings” attitude is what destroys civilisations as well, human hubris

      https://youtu.be/sPlSH6n37ts

  64. @Albert

    The Christians ideas of God the holy father, Jesus the son and the holy spirit, conceptulise around a similar trichotomy

    as do a tripod stool and a motorcycle with a sidecar…whether the Christians invented the Trinity, is, of course, controversial…they would say that the Trinity was revealed to them…it is not controversial that Freud invented his psychological trichotomy

    there was no male shaming directed at you

    your points are seldom clear…caused by too much academic philosophical influence, I suspect…just speak directly without offering much support…aim to be laconic…people will raise questions if needed and you can then offer support for your position…

    …and what the hell is “ecoruing”? lol

    1. @asd “your points are seldom clear…caused by too much academic philosophical influence”

      Is that because:
      A) I have trouble in my writing,
      B) because the reader is lacking the experiences that I talk about to be able to emote
      C) does not understand the nomenclature that I am using
      D) does not like the insights and what it reveals about their own shadow, or
      E) thinks I am a crazy because or want to troll them because A, B, C and D are not fullfiled?

      What if it’s all of them?

      Furthermore, what if I tell you, that walking up to a nazi prison guard and telling him to his face:

      “Brother, I love you, i can see how you are hurting in your soul even if you can’t. Please stop what you are doing!”

      Not because this is easy, not because jesus or some other long dead thinker thought that this was a good idea, not because this will work, not because you want to virtue signal, not because he thinks of you as a brother, not because he dosent hate you, not because he is not going to kill you.

      No the reason, is that this is the ONLY way of how to stop the cycle of violence, hate, indoctrination and deceit. All that i have is my faith in the masculine sprit that recognises courage and rewards it with kindness. However, you have to take the first step which in the scenario I have outlined above is no easy task.

      You say ‘just be clearer’ what the heck does this even mean in this context? Look at the coverage at the AfD in germany. Here are three examples talking about the SAME phenomena:

      Exhibit A
      https://youtu.be/75WyJE2l-tk

      Exhibit B
      https://youtu.be/cRAfPrQJkaY

      Exhibit C
      http://www.dw.com/en/ethnic-germans-from-russia-in-open-letter-we-are-not-the-afd/a-40549269

      In regard to your tripot analogy. I concur, however how do we know that this phrase is true?

      “Pride cometh before the fall”

      In the moment, you have no rational, empirical or psychological reasons to regard this other than an insult to your own ego.

      So I keep trying, keep encoraging (encouraging) men to see other men as human beings and not as competition, the enemy, the other, xenopobe, racist, misogynist, cucks, SJW, loser, whimp… you get the idea

  65. ‘but we can do our best to come as close as possible to equality

    Why?’

    Having equal opportunity is as close to equality as you can come.

    That is not the same as equal outcomes, which we will never come close to. Those with strong feminist and/or feminine primary conditioning are not willing to fully let go of blank slate equalism.

    The closer you get to equality the greater the burden of performance females have to carry. As shown by the unhappiness index in females increasing over decades do they really want what they have also been socially conditioned to think is desirable?

  66. Still, the guy dry humping (daggerin) the college girl on the dance floor; the last thing on his mind is 20something links about game.

    I think there is the game on paper, analysed, defined, disected to smithereens; it has a very clasroom/clinical flavour. It is important for rendering the inquisitive, curious, rational part of the psyche at ease. But taken to extreme depth, it is of limited value in actual game.

    No matter how many links one goes through, the number of possible scenarios that could arise during game is infinite. Game on the go flows when the analytical self is not very active. 90% of the time one will have to just wing it, kind of loose…

    For example; Today a girl confided to me that she sometimes feels very inadequate in social situations. She said that she is afraid of people who are very comfortable in social situations because she feels that they may pick up on her inadequacy in social situations and make fun of her. Most game ideas come from the presumption that the man is the one trying. Not many links on the situation where it is the girl who is fumbling. In such a situation the linkless guy will just have to wing it somehow.

  67. “She said that she is afraid of people who are very comfortable in social situations because she feels that they may pick up on her inadequacy in social situations and make fun of her.”

    So – she’s a girl.

  68. Albert
    In my PhD on scienctific knowledge production i subdivided the ‘scientific method’ into a theoretical deconstruction, analytical criticism and rhetorical construction.

    That answers one question. Useful to know.
    Second question: Is English your native language?

  69. @Albert damn Ivory Tower Hall

    I like your intellectual talk. I happen to have a intellectual bent.

    But we are talking Bonded Red Pill here.

    So a top down Ideological approach to Red Pill and Game (which is the topic at Hand) doesn’t actually resonate.

    I’ve watched a couple Jordan Peterson videos and I learned (and I’m learned to begin with) that IQ (and by extension, intellectualism) has nothing to do with correlating with Wisdom. (And by the way I’ve paid my dues there. I’m wise. An inscrutable mastermind if you really need to know.)

    So this top down, Ideological, intellectual stuff you go on with too many words (hell, I’m psychologically projecting there) doesn’t really resonate with the peanut gallery here.

    And I don’t have any resonance with any commenter that doesn’t divulge his back story. Who are you and what do you represent. And what are you selling? What exactly is your Emily story?
    It’s hard to judge a fraud or an Enigma. So out with you or quit babbling on. (I do find your thoughts intriguing, though.) Who are you and do you embrace Red Pill. And by the way, what is your N-Count?

  70. @Anonymous “Second question: Is English your native language?”

    It’s my “third” language and I am crap in writing in all of them…

    @Blax

    https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c4/d8/31/c4d831d9cd91e42bdef025599628b789–watermelon-meme-bread.jpg

    I am well aware that to quote Ozymandias is bit of a cliché, especially with Alien Convent and all (I actually liked that movie). However, did you know that Shelly wrote it in competition with his friend Horace Smith? Smith’s poem on the same subject is less know, it goes as follows:

    Ozymandias.

    In Egypt’s sandy silence, all alone,
    Stands a gigantic Leg, which far off throws
    The only shadow that the Desart knows:—
    “I am great OZYMANDIAS,” saith the stone,
    “The King of Kings; this mighty City shows
    “The wonders of my hand.”— The City’s gone,—
    Nought but the Leg remaining to disclose
    The site of this forgotten Babylon.

    We wonder,—and some Hunter may express
    Wonder like ours, when thro’ the wilderness
    Where London stood, holding the Wolf in chace,
    He meets some fragment huge, and stops to guess
    What powerful but unrecorded race
    Once dwelt in that annihilated place.

    Ht___ ____tp://www.potw.org/archive/potw192.html

    @SFJ “damn Ivory Tower Hall”

    I have been thinking about this a lot recently; within the scientific tradition it is important to put your name on the article, why? For prestige? In order to recognise who said what? In order the individual can appease their ego?

    All of these play a role. However, one crucial role that identifying the individual does is it puts their name on the line. You have skin in the game so to speak, furthermore when concerning competing perceptions of reality that are utterly contradictory the PERSON making these claims matters greatly in separating fact from fiction (AfD are Nazis / AfD are patriots).
    However, with internet anonymity here comes a certain problem as this avenue of identification is removed. So how to signal to people “trust” in your claims? The best way I have found is to signal kindness towards men (I recently had a 5 days back and forth conversation with holocaust denier, at the end which he stopped replying, as I had clearly outlined with kindness where he lacked knowledge about the claims he was making. He didn’t understand anything about our human psychopathology; he was an idealist, an absolutist, just as the people who committed those crimes were).

    @“But we are talking Bonded Red Pill here.”

    I haven’t come across this before, and if by “bounded” you mean restrained that is correct. However, only as so far as the individual wants to take responsibility, I can’t tell a man what to do. I wouldn’t want to be put in that position, because who the heck am I to tell you that. However, what I am doing, is I want to tell you why I wouldn’t do X,Y,Z etc. I would tell you to the best of my abilities why I think it’s a shitty idea and then I would try my hardest to listen to the individual and figure out why we disagree.

    That’s what I have done throughout all these comments, addressing people’s question. This is the only way that I have found that I can have a conversation about these things WITHOUT waging the ‘moral superiority finger’ and shaming men into compliance. This enables me to outline to other men, why by their OWN standards they shouldn’t do X. However, for you to do that you have to understand their standards first, and that means you have to listen.
    This is also one of the reasons why throwing insults around is useful, because the people that are thrown off by insults where never actually here to listening to your argument in the first place. They are just looking for something to be offended about. This one of the reasons why IQ is not wisdom, as you can be terribly smart but still be a “weak ass shit backstabbing cunt” and if you are offended by the names and not the behaviour… you are the problem.

    @”So this top down, Ideological, intellectual stuff you go on with too many words (hell, I’m psychologically projecting there) doesn’t really resonate with the peanut gallery here.”

    That’s putting it mildly; however the thing that I find personally funny is that it does. However, people have difficulties putting their fingers on it. The reason being, I suspect is that they haven’t taken all their own premises to their logical conclusion, or simply made different assumptions from me on what game is and what it means to them. In a pedestrian sense it’s getting women to fuck you and it works and most people stop there. However, how and why that works is irrespective of the individual understanding the tool-set that they are using. It’s the same point about the postmodernists that I made; the motif of the practitioner is separate issue from efficacy of the tools.

    @ “And I don’t have any resonance with any commenter that doesn’t divulge his back story. Who are you and what do you represent. And what are you selling? What exactly is your Emily story?
    It’s hard to judge a fraud or an Enigma. So out with you or quit babbling on. (I do find your thoughts intriguing, though.) Who are you and do you embrace Red Pill. And by the way, what is your N-Count?”

    I understand your position, as outline above the ethos of the individual matters greatly to give veracity towards their claims. So here it goes my utterly “middle of the road blue pill/red pill transitioning sob story”

    I grew up in a rural parts of East Germany, tight nit large family that would help each other out all the time, laugh together at birthday’s and cry at funerals. I have an older brother, grew up with both parents and one set of grandparents living in the same house. They were good people, however in hindsight, they were so blue pill that it is painful. However, I am eternally grateful to them , not because what they said to me. But rather, because what they did, they LIVED a morally good life by their actions. Now as an adult I can see how these values that they lived within their action, actually where Christian values, even if my parents are non-religious.

    Fast forward a couple of years, now it’s time to move to Sweden. I didn’t fit in Sweden AT ALL! I didn’t know the language at first, didn’t know the speech codes, didn’t know the ‘correct’ conversation topics and also, I didn’t know how to be cucked. I remember a sport teaching putting in my assessment form that I was “bullying” other students, because one boy had let the ball go into goal and I yelled at him to try harder next time. My time in Sweden was miserable, I didn’t fit in, I had no friends, I didn’t go to school etc. stereotypical “oucast teenager sob story”. When I went to university, things started to improve as I made friends with people who were now in a similar situation. However, although I had some success with women and ended up getting a girlfriend at some point I was so blue pill idealistic that it isn’t even funny.

    Once I moved to the UK three years ago, I move into a house with someone who had taken the red pill long ago. We sat for hours and hours in the kitchen, staying up until the sun rose every weekend talking about red pill thought, but also politics, history, morals, masculinity and everything else under the sun. Funny thing, he is still a good friend of mine but we still disagree on so many things, however nowadays it’s for different reasons.

    For these 3 years in my PhD I devoted myself to my “two jobs” PhD and getting laid. I came to be proficient in these (for my own standards). My N-count is 35 at the moment, when I came to England it was 6… However, I personally don’t care so much anymore about notches, I tend to value steady supply of pussy WITHOUT too much craziness that having many women in your life entails. Think of this whatever you want, it seems to work for me as I seem to be able to control my white knighting instincts, my sexual desires and get out of interaction with women what I want (i.e. sex, an insight into the female perspective and someone to take care of the stuff I find boring, laundry, cooking, cleaning etc.).

    @answering your question “who are you and why do you embrace the red pill”?

    I think answering this is something that I am currently finding out each and every day (become who you are). However, I think telling you a little anecdote here might help shed some light. When I was 8 years old or something, I went downstairs into the kitchen. My mother was preparing lunch and was busy cutting up things. I had recently been flicking through an encyclopaedia (I loved all the cool pictures and knowledge within it) and noticed that Germany had “started” both world wars. So my young boy’s mind found this strange, as German’s were the people that I loved most dearly in the world. However, these history books described German’s as evil and my 8 year old self already could figure out that if you start two expansionist wars than maybe “pure goodness” may not be the right adjective. Anyway back to the kitchen, I ask my mom “did Germany start both world wars”, to which she casually replied “yes” and continued to cook food.

    For my little boys mind, this revelation shocked me to my bones. How can it be that the human beings that I love most in the world, that are the most kind, empathetic, generous, loving people I know. How can the same people that go around Poland killing people in the street for not being “Aryan” enough? I suppose this question is what made me stay with the red pill. The desire to ponder and understand the human capacity for maliciousness, why does it happened, how does it happened, who does it happen towards and so forth. I initially was handed the “rational male” book by my friend because I was a simp with women. This has improved and I no longer find it stimulating to use TRP knowledge “trick” women into bed. I do my MGTOW thing and whatever woman is fine with that is welcome to stay with me. However, what made me stay with the red pill, is the insights into human behaviour patterns and what they reveal about the animal that we are.

    Human beings have a great propensity towards good an evil. The line between these two is much closer than we wish to admit, because ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’ as the saying goes. For example, here is an article that talks about the Naiz’s being on drugs.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334397/Nazis-narcotics-How-Hitlers-henchmen-stayed-alert-war-taking-CRYSTAL-METH.html

    However, just blaming the Nazi rapid advance on drugs is a bit simplistic. One of the reason why I think the Nazi’s were so successful is that German’s are utter collectivists and conformists and terribly efficient. Heck in East Germany in the matter of 3 generations you went from Nazi, to Communism and now capitalism and the Germans are/were ‘world leading’ in all three of them. So what you have is collectivists’ that are very efficient, that have been brainwashed to “defend” their Fatherland and bring payback for the defeat of WW1. The reason you need the drugs is not to keep going due to some physical reason. The drugs are used to drown the cognitive dissonance so that you can advance.

    So yeah, that’s my sally Emily story, for what it’s worth and in regard to what I am I selling? I am giving away my ideas for free in hope for feedback on these ideas.

  71. “I keep trying, keep encoraging (encouraging) men to see other men as human beings and not as competition, the enemy, the other, xenopobe, racist, misogynist, cucks, SJW, loser, whimp… you get the idea” :: what planet did you say you’re from?

    “This is the only way that I have found that I can have a conversation about these things WITHOUT waging the ‘moral superiority finger’ and shaming men into compliance.” :: sounds like you’ve convinced yourself that you know how others perceive you; by definition, nobody knows their own blindspots

    “Human beings have a great propensity towards good an evil.” :: no moral superiority there lol

    “I no longer find it stimulating to use TRP knowledge ‘trick’ women into bed” :: that’s the most revealing thing yet in your walls of text

    “I am giving away my ideas for free in hope for feedback on these ideas.” :: then as a RP guy, I’m sure you’re aware of the importance of calibration

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: