Dangerous Times – Part 1

We live in a very dangerous age for men. The Blue Pill is even more of a liability today than it was in times past, because we live in an era that encourages men going all-in in their life’s investment in that conditioning.

Welcome to the #MeToo era. What we’re experiencing in our social environment today is a sea change in intersexual dynamics. The underlying fundamentals haven’t changed; our evolved natures and the latent purposes that are driven by them haven’t shifted, but the social dynamics and sexual acculturation that serve as checks and balances on them has drastically shifted, and in a very short time. While you could make an argument for an idealized free love era that took place right after the Sexual Revolution, now we find ourselves in a time that is so calculating in its design on intersexual social dynamics that it makes the late 60s seem romantically naive.

Back in October of 2014 I wrote a post called Yes Means Fear. This essay was a response to the, at that time new, Yes Means Yes sexual consent legislature that was being instituted on California university campuses. Dalrock had written similar essays regarding this latest form of sexual consent aptly titled The Sexual Revolution’s Arab Spring and Making the World Safe for Promiscuous Women. It may take you a while to review these posts, but please read these and skim the comments to get a gist of the conversations we had going on just three years ago.

One of these comments was the inimitable Deti:

At the end of the day, college women (soon all women) will be able to use the “lack of consent” law/policy as a weapon against undesirable men to do the following:

1. Weed out and eliminate unattractive men by chilling their conduct

2. Making even the most innocuous sexual conduct (i.e. approaching, asking for dates) so dangerous that the only men who will engage in the SMP are attractive men with proven successful sexual track records who will never get reported for doing anything “untoward”; thus ensuring that only attractive men will approach them for dates and sex

3. Giving women more power over the SMP so even unattractive women can use and select men for alpha fux; then have the sole ability to pursue and select men for beta bux when they see fit.

Open hypergamy. It will be “we women are going to do this, and if you want sex, you’ll do it our way, and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it.”

Deti posted this comment on October 15th, 2014. The inter-blog debate then (at places like the now defunct Hooking Up Smart) was that Yes Means Yes was solely meant as a firm response to the supposed on-campus rape /sex assault panic that was being circulated in the mainstream media at the time. From the Red Pill perspective, we saw what potential this legislation represented to what would later become a societal scale institution.

Of course, they called us reactionaries, called us ‘rape apologists’ for simply pointing out all the ways this legislation would be expanded to a societal scale. They said we were exaggerating when we illustrated that, even for long-married couples, there would need to be a check list of approved acts of intimacy for each and every act performed, and men would need some form of hard evidence to prove that consent had indeed been granted.

The new California college/university sexual assault policy requires the following:

“An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.”

There was sex, which is clearly “sexual activity.” The question then becomes whether there was “affirmative consent”. In order for there not be consent, the woman would have had to show affirmative conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sex with the man. It is the man’s responsibility to make sure he had that consent. She had to manifest, verbally or nonverbally, consent to it.

Silence doesn’t mean consent. Her not resisting or saying “no, please stop” doesn’t constitute “affirmative consent”. So really, the only way to make sure that consent is present is for the man to continue asking her throughout the encounter: “Is this OK? Can I keep doing this? Is this thrust OK with you? Is THIS thrust OK? Can I thrust again? How about this one? Can I keep going? Do you want me to stop?”

If that did NOT happen, if the man did not get EXPRESS, VERBAL statements that he could continue, then yes, there was sexual assault.

The way this plays out in situations like this is that verbal consent is REQUIRED. She cannot manifest “ongoing” “affirmative consent” any other way. That’s because of the way the law is written. Lack of protest is not consent. Lack of resistance is not consent. Silence is not consent. Thus, a wife, just lying there, starfishing it, giving duty sex to her husband, is putting him in jeopardy, because she is not manifesting “ongoing” “affirmative consent”.

All of that they said was ridiculous. Women would never be so petty as to make a man ask permission for, nor hold him accountable for, sex that she wanted to have with him. Furthermore, this ruling was only meant to curb campus assault; any extrapolating to a larger societal norm, we were told, was just us Red Pill men and their insecurities about the intentions of women and sex. If we’d Just Get It we’ll have no problems.

We were told it was limited to penis-in-vagina sex only. We were told it was just in cases of “drunken sex”. All of these proved false. This law was intended to govern, regulate and control every single sexual interaction between a man and a woman. This law is intended to require a man to get express consent at every single step of the process, from initial touch to banging. This law is intended to chill all male sexual conduct. This law by its very terms requires express consent for every sexual act, starting with kino.

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality – Heartiste

A World of Fear

When I wrote Yes Means Fear (also 3 years ago) it was initially in response to an article by Ezra Klein, Yes Means Yes is a terrible law, and I support it completely. This reads through as bad as any gender related article on Vox, but Klein’s salient point was summed up in one sentence.

To work, “Yes Means Yes” needs to create a world where men are afraid.

I’m reasonably sure Ezra was aware of the larger scope – larger than just California college campuses – that his giddy Beta love of a world where men would be afraid to so much as approach a woman would lead to. But now we find ourselves here in his idealized sexual marketplace founded on men fearing to interact with women at the risk of losing everything. At the risk of being Zeroed Out. Today, just three years later, we’re experiencing the #metoo moral panic based exactly in the fear Ezra said would serve us so well. Ezra must be proud that the gold rush hysteria of sexual misconduct allegations any and every woman (who ‘might’ have ever felt an accidental hip brush 50 years ago) feels entitled to is the result of this cleansing fear he loved so much. Unless he’s defending allegations himself of course.

If you go before the college board and say that the woman accusing you of assault simply doesn’t remember that she said yes because she was so drunk, then you’ve already lost.

Gone is the college board now in favor of the popular court of social justice – the court that condemns a man for even the suspicion of an allegation of sexual misconduct. Gone too is part of women’s remembering the pretense of a sexual encounter. Whether a woman was drunk and doesn’t remember the details, or if she conveniently recalls them 40-50 years after the fact is immaterial. The operative point is that we always believe any and every allegation of rape or misconduct a woman brings forward.

Articles of Belief

Shortly after I wrote Yes Means Fear I wrote Hysteria, an essay intended to address the disgraceful (now thoroughly proven) UVA fraternity rape hoax story written by Sabrina Erdley and published by a complicit Rolling Stone Magazine. Just daring to question the validity of so outrageous a rape account was heresy to women back then. Bear in mind this took place after the Yes Means Yes consent ruling in California. At this time, just to question the story of a woman’s rape account was enough to earn you the title of ‘rape apologist’. But moreover, we were popularly expected to repeat this mantra and always accept a woman’s account as infallibly true:

“No matter what Jackie said, we should automatically believe rape claims.” http://t.co/3HFlXR7jme True insanity pic.twitter.com/AFXIyn32FS

This was the sentiment (now deleted) tweeted by Zerlina Maxwell on December 6th, 2014. Since then this meme that anything a woman had to say about sexual assault must be believed by default has snowballed into a default belief that anything a woman alleges against a man must also be believed. Whereas a male college student might stand in front of his kangaroo court at a university, now men must stand in front of the kangaroo court of public opinion where a woman’s word outweighs all pretense of due process. That college kid is now the average man who must prove his innocence because if a woman alleges it due process is reversed.

What we’ve witnessed in just 3 years is the systematic removal of a man’s right to habeas corpus with regard to women’s allegations.

And I expect that this removal will extend to much more than just women’s believability in regard to sexual misconduct. Imagine a culture where it’s expected that anything a woman accuses her ex of is to be believed in divorce proceedings.

We’re now seeing exactly what myself, Deti, Dalrock and countless other Red Pill bloggers and commenters predicted would happen, but it’s also so much more that what we could see coming. In just 3 years Yes Means Yes moved off the campus and into mainstream culture; a culture predicated on female social primacy. In a feminine-primary social order even “affirmative consent” isn’t enough – “enthusiastic consent” must now be established and maintained. That “enthusiastic consent” is a new ambiguously defined terminology, and part of the larger narrative meant to further confuse and instill fear in men.

Last week Novaseeker, once again, had a terrific comment that illustrates what consent has come to today.

Yep, that’s the newest goalpost move.

We went from No means No (which meant that if she doesn’t say no, it’s on … which pretty much is the basic human mating script) to “affirmative consent” (“may I kiss you now” … “may I lick your breast now?”, etc., per the “rules” required before any physical contact *and* at “each stage of escalation”). Very few people actually follow affirmative consent, as we know, but it’s the rule at most colleges and universities. It isn’t the legal rule for rape, in terms of determining what was “consensual”, currently, but the FI is working on that, believe me.

Now, we have the goalposts moving even further along, from “affirmative consent” to “enthusiastic consent” — which means that if her consent is even verbally expressed, but isn’t clearly enthusiastic, then it isn’t “reliable as consent” because it could be the result of “pressure”, and if the consent “was real, it would be expressed enthusiastically, because when people really are consenting to sex, they’re always enthusiastic about it”. So essentially the standard they are pushing now (and which is getting rolled out on campuses right now) is that if the girl isn’t jumping your bones and begging for your cock, it’s rape/assault. Of course, again, not the legal standard, but that doesn’t matter that much — as we can all see what is happening right now is that the legal standard is being marginalized, because people can be destroyed in our media saturated environment without any involvement of the legal system at all, and the standards that apply in that extra-legal environment are the ones that the FI wants to apply, whether the legal system applies them or not.

There are a few ways to look at this, but one obvious one is that this is a way for the FI to tighten the screws on betas. Very little sex that betas have, if any, is “enthusiastic consent sex”. Everyone knows this. Under this standard, basically all sex with betas is rape. That’s the intention.

And thus we come full circle to the latent purpose of legislating Hypergamy that I’ve continually repeated in many essays. It is Roissy’s maxim of feminism: The end goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

Recently I found myself in a Twitter war on a story by CBS Los Angeles asking whether it was still OK for men to hug women. I used the cartoon I posted in The Creep 2 to illustrate my bigger point:

And of course the feminist tropes (from men and women) and the point & sputter ad hominem attacks flowed from there. However, this rage is precisely what I would expect from women who are now coming into a default expectation (entitlement) of all men to ‘Just Get It‘.

Only in this instance it is Blue Pill, Beta men who should know better than to approach a woman below their (self-perceived) sexual market value. Those men, the lesser men that her social media overinflated sense of SMV has convinced her are beneath her attraction floor should ‘just get it’ that they shouldn’t be flirtatious or even too friendly with her or risk the punishment of an allegation that might be his zeroing out. The Beta man who doesn’t ‘get it’ is an insult to her self-worth and deserving of an optimized Hypergamy.

In the next post I’ll be exploring the ramifications of the “enthusiastic consent” concept and how even consensual-but-unwanted sex and “duty sex” will be the next chapter in marital rape. I’ll also be detailing the the “Cat Persons” story that’s been making the rounds this week.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

793 comments on “Dangerous Times – Part 1

  1. @boulderhead

    “Who knows, maybe your five or six step plan of coms will work?

    If we have censoring and only communicate online that is.”

    The point is, its not a five step plan, its an ethos. In game language its inner game of adopting a mode communication, here is the shortlist of the others rules I have currently identified:

    · Do not psychoanalyze the people that you are addressing, unless a direct connection to the argument can be made
    · Frame the conversation as born from curiosity and wonder
    · Do not mention you pain, sacrifices, sorrow or setbacks unless these are germane for the argument.
    · Tell only things that you belief with every fibre of your body
    · Lead by example
    · Argue from a master morality point of view
    · Articulate, articulate and articulate some more
    · Always have a “light touch”
    · A common problem definition is key

    I am sure there are more, as of yet I am still in the process of learn academic publishing and the rhetoric that goes along with it, constantly updating and adding to these rules as I learn them, in terms of which function they fulfill in maintaining a dialectic (why do I have to reinvent the wheel?).

    Here is where the postmodernist that studied science made their conceptual error in my estimation. As SJF mentioned manipulation is inherent in everything, as such it is also inherent within science. To use a silly example, just because our understanding of doors is a social construct does not mean doors are arbitrary, do not exist or do not fill a function. These communication rules of a few fringe Enlightenment thinkers of how to manipulate your words in such a fashion that ‘truth’ (however we want to define this now) could arise from the bottom up was revolutionary. Abiding by this scientific ethos wasn’t so much done for the sake of the brotherhood. Rather it became a practical necessity in order to structure the information flow.

    For example an academic article has the following structure, each section fulfills a function:

    Introduction
    # why should the reader care about the studied phenomena
    # outline research aim and research objectives
    # outline key concepts that are used within the thesis
    # give brief scope over the argument; context, method and content

    Literature review
    # what is the context of the studied phenomena
    # how should we understand the studied phenomena
    # identify knowledge gap in which you situate your study
    # outline the theoretical lens that is used to understand the phenomena
    outline the context of the studied phenomena

    Method
    # how was the phenomena studied
    # outline how the sampling, analysis and empirical data material were treated
    # outline the limitations of the study
    outline the ethical implications

    Discussions and findings
    # how does the phenomenon manifest itself within the studied context
    # outline the implications of the findings on our understanding of the phenomena
    # outline how the findings link back to the literature that was introduced previously

    Conclusion
    # what is the opinion of the researcher on the studied phenomena, now AFTER they have done the study
    # how has the study fulfilled the stated aims and objectives
    # what future research should be done to investigate the phenomena further and what is the take home message

    Following such rhetorical rules of style accomplished that all the necessary assumption within a particular discussion were introduced. Thereby the peer review system that developed organically could weed out errors. Thereby, calling the academic community that developed out from the enlightenment a brotherhood maybe stretching the definition of ‘brother’.

    Nevertheless, the modes of communication that where established by these fringe thinkers influenced our modern world in profound ways, arguably they nowadays represent the foundation of written communication. However, because these rules are so powerful, because they are so persuasive people have forgotten what their purpose was in the first place, its a kind of children with dynamite dynamic.

    Hence why I think game has the same revolutionary potential, as in essence provides the logical rational male mind scripts of communication with women in their loves. However, how to quantify such potential to only mere notch counts is misunderstanding game completely.

    P.S. @kfg, yeah I know that violence is often directed at the other, often using the ‘logical’ rational that they need more Lebensraum. However, that’s precisely my point, once civilisations become to relaxed in their sexual moral customs, violence erupts to rectify this imbalance. Compare this access to resources way of thinking to what Rollo posted:

    “A tribal elder spelled out the maths of the situation. “When you have 10 daughters, each one will give you 30 cows, and they are all for [the father]. So then you have 300 cows.” If a patriarch sells his daughters at 15 and does not let his sons marry until they are 30, he has 15 years to enjoy the returns on the assets he gained from brideprice. That’s a lot of milk.”

    Proper communication game, maybe allows other men lower down in the hierarchy to voice suggestions for improvement. However, before you can do that you first have to know how the top men speak officially and amongst each other. Without a father to teach you this, it might be exceedingly difficult for the majority of men nowadays…

  2. “The Sioux war Chief was raised by a single mother.”

    Naw he was raised by his tribe.
    Can’t really compare today’s fucked-up society with native-American fucked up society

  3. “Can’t really compare today’s fucked-up society with native-American fucked up society”

    I am not an advocate for single motherhood, neither will I write off men that were raised by one.
    My main point is as you say the impact of societal influence can’t be overlooked in the final outcome of all young men.

    This is old news.

    https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Can+democracy+survive+the+war+of+tribalism+and+globalism%3F-a0238176412

    An interesting phenomenon was the rise of communism in western culture coinciding with the war on communism in europe and asia. Should we expect a rise in tribalism in the current conditions? If so it is worth some study.

  4. Agreed! It has gone too far! The witch hunts, the whole “victim blaming” excuse to shut up any criticism, no due process etc.. is insane! Many of those women were not “victims”. They came out in these cases decades later, just to help smear someone, or get money. If they really wanted justice, they would have spoken up years ago! This whole movement infantilizes women into little children, too immature to realize what sexual coercion is, which is not true for grown women! They knew what they were doing, when they accepted the boss’ offer to sleep with him. It was wrong for those men to proposition them, but it was stupid for them to take up the offer! I wrote an article about this sort of thing on my blog A Lady of Reason!

    https://aladyofreason.wordpress.com/2017/12/13/teenage-girls-just-because-someone-pressured-you-doesnt-mean-you-arent-accountable/

  5. @Roused

    It reads like a call for democracy,what more interests me is the democracy in tribal decisions and the mindset of the village at large being that of a feminine primary social order. The mix isn’t a good one, no matter weather both parents are in the home the children get input from toddler care through college from the villiage. Intetionally misspelled.

  6. @Albert: “yeah I know that violence is often directed at the other, often using the ‘logical’ rational that they need more Lebensraum.”

    If my point were that simplistic I could have simply posted a rendition of paleolithic men shaking spears at each other.

    Where do Stukas come from?
    WHY do Stukas come.

    Other points to consider:

    That your axiomatic ideal model is held as an axiom, not a deduction.
    The actual long term consequences of your model outside of its idealized setting.

    There are some other questions I could ask, but as you hold your idealized model as an axiom, you would only beg the question by responding with the axiom.

    @Boulderhead: “Should we expect a rise in tribalism in the current conditions?

    Which are you more concerned with:

    Seeing that your rent is paid?
    Seeing that some guy on the other side of the world who you don’t even know exists except in theoretical form can pay his rent?

    Consider why the United States of America was formed as a confederation of states, rather than as a nation state.

    @Roused:

    Democracy can survive only where there is a common culture, a supermajority of the people, who hold democracy as its highest ideal.

  7. @kfg

    “Where do Stukas come from?
    WHY do Stukas come.”

    These two statements and the inherent explanation within them take me to the absolute edge of my knowlegde. For several reasons, in my estimation; philosophy, biology, psychology, economics, history, geography, sociology, genetics and loads of other spheres of human knowlegde have to be combined in order to even attempt an answers.

    From what I have observed and learned so far, nobody as of yet has provided a satisfactory answer to account for these types of technological progress. (E.g. how scientific knowledge knwolegde accumulates is still a knowlegd gap within philosophy of science, beyond mere description).

    Without proper communication etiquette the male hivemind that is the our collective cultural brain will fragment down into tribal communities congregating around specific topics and interests, making such an exploration of our collective cvilvilisation growth practically infeasible, hence my emphasis on it.

    The reasons being, also some may get the patterns right and can ‘explain’ historical trends, the moral assumptions made in the explanatory models create a certain confirmation bias to fully study this cultural phenomena. As such, they merely represent post how rationalisation where one causal factor is enlarged to be THE explanation (e.g. psychoanalysis).

    We are talking here about cycles that span civilisations, so it’s a cluster fuck assumptions built upon assumptions, that in themselves built on assumptions.

    It’s a very longwinded way to say ‘I don’t know’ (I have some ideas and guesses, but that’s all they are at the moment).

  8. @kfg

    “Which are you more concerned with:

    Seeing that your rent is paid?
    Seeing that some guy on the other side of the world who you don’t even know exists except in theoretical form can pay his rent?”

    My own of course. Having a personal view that paying rent is throwing good money after bad I left that cycle 30 years ago. Owner financed property has been good to me leaving the bank out of the loop. I neither pay rent nor collect it.

    The “system” of usury and greed can only defeat itself as all parts are interconnected. It is getting harder to find a renter that can pass the background and credit check. It is part and parcel the product of the feminine primary social order, Usury that is.

    One thing of interest is with the higher minimum wage law the employer can confiscate tips of minimum wage workers under fed law to pay the wage,thereby lowering the takehome pay of some workers yet again.

  9. http://images.mentalfloss.com/sites/default/files/styles/insert_main_wide_image/public/1500a8933d77cc95feabefda176e1a24.jpg
    “Harrison Ford was married to his college girlfriend Mary Marquardt from 1964 to 1979. The couple have two sons together. He married screenwriter Melissa Mathison in 1983. They met during the making of 1979’s Apocalypse Now. They had two children together before separating in 2001 and finalizing their divorce in 2004. Ford has been romantically involved with actress Calista Flockhart since 2002. The couple married in 2010.

    A longtime pilot, Ford made headlines in March 2015 when he was involved in a plane crash. He was forced to make a crash landing on a golf course in Venice, California, after experiencing engine trouble. He had run into problems with his vintage aircraft shortly after taking off from California’s Santa Monica Airport on March 5. According to the New York Daily News, Ford broke his ankle and pelvis in the crash, with both injuries requiring surgery.

    In November 2017, Ford was back in the news over another vehicle mishap, this time for assisting a driver who had swerved off Highway 126 in Santa Paula, California. Ford, in the area after reportedly using his plane at the nearby airport, rushed to the accident scene with a few other bystanders and helped the driver out of her car.

    “He acted as a good Samaritan, just like everybody else, and tried to help before emergency services arrived,” said an officer at the scene. ”

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CN3_KsSW8AA5ndf.jpg:large

    Even when you “Haved” performed you will never escape it…
    http://cadenaser00.epimg.net/programa/imagenes/2016/06/30/hoy_por_hoy/1467282604_600828_1467282648_noticia_normal.jpg

  10. “Of course, they called us reactionaries, called us ‘rape apologists’ for simply pointing out all the ways this legislation would be expanded to a societal scale. They said we were exaggerating when we illustrated that, even for long-married couples, there would need to be a check list of approved acts of intimacy for each and every act performed, and men would need some form of hard evidence to prove that consent had indeed been granted.”

  11. Roused

    I concur with kfg’s comment

    “Democracy can survive only where there is a common culture, a supermajority of the people, who hold democracy as its highest ideal.”

    Reposted for emphasis.

    1. @Lady of Reason, you’re welcome to comment here all you like, but I have one rule, don’t spam my threads with your links. If I think your material has merit you’ll end up on the blog roll.

  12. Roused

    “We call the new corporations of McWorld multinational, but they are more appropriately understood as post-national or even anti-national. They abjure the very idea of national boundaries or any other parochialism that limits them in time or space. ”

    Drove through a large swath of dystopian corporate landscape… All fast food chains, restaurant chains, Wal-Mart s, cut rate cell phones, cut rate banking and check cashing… On and on. Chain after chain.

    The only independents were some of the pawn shops.

    Ask a simple question – is anywhere better off from the descent of these locusts? Better wages, nutrition, relationships or culture?

  13. Sentient, it will take a bit of time for consumer societies like we have here to get going in Asia…wages will level between the U.S. and Asia, tending higher once Asia gets more consumerist. Asia’s standard of living will improve and ours will rebound…

    time…

  14. Albert
    Without proper communication etiquette the male hivemind that is the our collective cultural brain

    The what?

  15. ASD

    “for consumer societies like we have here to get going in Asia…”

    Consumer societies are the cause of the dystopian effect.

    Atomization of society can only result in regressive tribalism. People always will self organize on this basis. They do now in enclaves and pockets. See Pac Heights for example. More is coming.

    btw – heard the same thing 20 years ago on asia etc.

  16. @AR

    https://youtu.be/-7zxWErGu8Y

    Guess what the main gender is that collectively figures and negotiates these societal wide rules within the human ape? Hence my improvised label for this collective mental activity that creates, evolves and rejuvenates/destroys cultures.

    The (male) rules of communication is how you speak to the top dogs of the dominance hierarchy w/o coming across as a clueless little puppy. There is an etiquette to follow, however it’s very different from getting a cat to like you (sexual game).

  17. Roused

    “Videology is fuzzier and less dogmatic than traditional political ideology: it may as a consequence be far more successful in instilling the novel values required for global markets to succeed. ”

    It’s clear that Apple based their entire I strategy (pod, phone and pad) around this. Amusing that article was written in 1997, now it just restates the obvious.

  18. Albert
    Guess what the main gender is that collectively figures and negotiates these societal wide rules within the human ape?

    Das.

    Hence my improvised label for this collective mental activity that creates, evolves and rejuvenates/destroys cultures.

    “Collective mental activity” — Hanging onto that 60’s blotter acid still?

  19. @AR or you could simply call it a metaphor of a collective human cognitive ability that works out ideas collectively. The hivemind space that I am most familiar with is science. However, it applies to all human cultural activities. Now politically correct newspeak is that it’s humans, however if you drill down it becomes ‘man’, with the occasional honorary women.

    Now in the domain of science if you don’t like the word (male) hivemind you could call it a ‘thought collective’ (Fleck, [1936] 1979), a ‘paradigm’ (Kuhn, [1962] 1970), a ‘republic’ (Polanyi, [1962] 2000), an ‘episteme’ (Foucault, [1966] 1970), a ‘research program’ (Lakatos, 1980), a ‘rhizome’ (Deleuze and Guattari, 1980), a ‘habitus’ (Bourdieu, [1984] 1988), an ‘actor-network’ (Latour, 1987) or whatever metaphor you want, regardless it is still a collective procress where (male) apes have learned to work out ideas collectively.

    Science is a (male) game, and just like learning cat game you are not learning it by watching a few YouTube videos, a documentary on Discovery channel or being subscribed to National Geographic. These things are all wonderful for collecting information, however in order to learn the rules of the game of how you add to that collective body of knowlegde, you have to do it.

    Hope that clarified things a bit, if you have more questions below is suggested reading material.

    Fleck, L. [1936] (1979): Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Kuhn, T. S. ([1962] 1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Polanyi, M. ([1962] 2000). The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva, 38(1), 1–21.

    Foucault, M. ([1966] 1970). The archaeology of knowledge. New York: Pantheon.

    Lakatos, I. (1980). The methodology of scientific research programmes. Philosophical papers, Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Deleuze, G., & Guattari. F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Bourdieu P., ([1984] 1988). Homo academicus. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow engineers and scientists through society. Cambridge (USA): Harvard University Press.

  20. P.S. if your one of these ‘postmodernist are the devil’ people, here are a few modernist that came to a similar conclusion, enjoy the reading!

    Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Popper, K. [1963] (2002). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, 2nd Edition. London: Routledge.

    Russell, B. [1948] (1992). Human knowledge: its scope and value. Oxford: Routledge.

  21. Albert
    @AR or you could simply call it a metaphor of a collective human cognitive ability that works out ideas collectively.

    Or I could call that “spinach”.

    The hivemind space that I am most familiar with is science.

    How is that hivemind science space doing with the little crisis of replicability?

    However, it applies to all human cultural activities.

    All? Every single human cultural activity is being worked out by a collective hivemind?

    Fill in the blanks:
    False premise leads to __ __________ __________.

  22. @Albert

    “Without proper communication etiquette the male hivemind that is the our collective cultural brain will fragment down into tribal communities congregating around specific topics and interests, making such an exploration of our collective cvilvilisation growth practically infeasible, hence my emphasis on it.”

    So, Albert what is your agenda and end game here?

    You are asking for a feminizing of dialogue. And a globalization of all things. In effect anti-tribalism. Tribalism is hard wired in men. Men don’t operate in large collectives because men are not dumb enough to think that it serves their interests in a self interested mental point of origin way. They way of men is the way of a small tribe.

    You want the Hivemind (which is currently the FI Hivemind). You want collectivism and globalism. Perhaps because it serves your Scientific Method and your cultured academic goals.

    That’s not Red Pill. You are self interested. Red Pill is more bottoms up, enlightened self interest. Personal goals that benefit oneself as a male and as a by-product benefit inter-sexual relations. I.e. a male is better. He benefits his hypergamous female partner.

    Your bias against The Red Pill: your slip is showing.

    What is this about rules for males communicating? It is your trying to control the rules of the game to not sound so academically stupid in a male space. Male communication is organic as derived from evolutionary male firmware. It is a meritocracy based communication. It is a scrappy fighting for space in the group. To throttle its nature is to be setting down girly rules. To throttle the masculine. I’m not having it. Stop trying to ask male only spaces to be girly. And stop trying to pussy beg the rules of male communication. Fuck your girly attempt at outfacing.

    Step up and be a man and stand on the merit of your comments. Red Pill is not an ideology. Don’t fucking treat it that way. And don’t compare it to other ideologies. If you want scientific writing to succeed, treat it as a praxeology (what works). Not merely as a way to get shit published in scientific journals for the sake of being published. As opposed to advancing science to a science of getting things done. Things that advance getting things done with a purpose. The masculine goal is to advance to a goal. The feminine goal is to slosh around in the emotions of and ocean of emotion and have those emotions get validated. To feel good, to feel bad, to be desired, but to self acknowledge that her emotions are real and they are spectacular.

    https://youtu.be/aQNkeugaAMc

  23. “What is this about rules for males communicating? ”

    Reminds me of old Sam, he would say “mind your business, mine starts here at the end of these knuckles and your ends at the end of your nose?”

    That is a rule for male communication that works.

  24. @ Boulderhead

    Well that’s kind of a non sequitur kind of statement.

    https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/15/liberty-fist-nose/

    We are kind of here trying to discuss manosphere collective thought. It’s not meant to be exclusive rather than inclusive of what males think and want and to.

    Imagine a discussion blog that discusses: Mastering the Challenges of Women, Work, and Sexual Desire (as well as fulfillment of that desire).

    And imagine that discussion worked wonders for an individual male.

    That is the pursuit, the passion and the goal. Rollo has been able to accomplish that.

    It’s not about having rights to swing your fists. It’s about a self directed goal to pursue fulfillment. And not academic style drivel by Albert fits into that actual paradigm.

    Albert being in the Academic High Towers has been too, too indoctrinated by the FI.

    He’s searching. For something out of his reach. Blue pill ideals in a Red Pill paradigm.

  25. “We are kind of here trying to discuss manosphere collective thought. It’s not meant to be exclusive rather than inclusive of what males think and want and to.”

    Carry on.

  26. @SJF

    Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated!

    You are asking me “what is your agenda and end game here?” I find this a really difficult question to answer due to my own ignorance, however I will try to do so below to the best of my ability. Regardless of this, thanks for articulating your points of contention, such a STRUCTURE and ETIQUETTE allows me to qualify my argument and communication better, sorting out where: A) I lack knowledge, B) the disagreement is a mere semantic issue or C) were we have different assumptions. From the outset, such aspects are not self-evident – all we know is that we disagree on “something”.

    In the above example with AR, in that exchange, he/she is returning back to the same point again and again. Now by manifesting a third time the SAME comment AFTER I have given, A) further elaboration, B) provided references and C) opened up for further questions, I can see that the individual is not particular interested in engaging in a constructive exchange (which is fine). As such I need to change the approach, if I am interested in further continuing the dialectic, without structure (this includes further elaboration) it becomes impossible for me to deduce anything from single word reply. Hence this reply is aimed as much as AR or anyone else.

    (SJF) You write “You are asking for a feminizing of dialogue”, which in my estimation I am actually not. I am asking for structure, etiquette and leading by example. I do this for the following reasons, as the discussion previously turned to fatherlessness, many young men don not have (male) role models in their lives anymore. Hence it’s important to manifest a masculine way of talking to the tribe that they can model themselves after, which is constructive rather than destructive. Etiquette here means a way of conducting oneself in a disciplined manor that the conversation does not lead to animosity and antagonism, which in extreme cases not only kills the dialogue but also the person. In our feminised word I am sure this is perceived as ‘girly’. However, in the way that I am alluding to it is more a technical requirement of facilitating structure and effective communication, so that consensus can arise from the bottom up. This brings me to the last point structure; there are certain aspects to communication that have to be followed for the discussion not to fragment down to the individual. Such an Enlightenment ethos is what people like Hume, Locke, Voltaire, Kant, Spinoza, Rousseau, Jefferson, Newton, Boyle, Hobbes, Robespierre etc. facilitated. In our egocentric female primacy culture we like to essentialize their achievements, however, if you read their own words, all these men where very much concerned with the well-being of the tribe AND grateful, humble and tried to improve the situation for everyone, not just themselves. I recommend Steve Shapin’s (2010) book on the struggles of Enlightenment thinkers, in their quest to establish a meritocratic form of (male) authority.

    In connection, to your point of men not operating in large collectives, I strongly disagree. However, I grant you that this only happens if the collaboration is deemed beneficial for the individual men. I assume you pay your internet and electricity bill, I assume you go buy food from a grocery store, I assume you paid someone for the computer/smartphone/tablet etc. you are using for us to have this conversation with me. These are all forms of collaboration, where you interact with other men, without even knowing who they are. Why? Because it benefits you, now you don’t have to like these men, however the material affordance of the internet, easy food supply and personalised computers are as much a pre-condition to us having this conversation as the laws, rules and behavioural norms laid out by our forefathers that structure the acquisition process of these material goods. We can corporate and communicate ONLY thanks to these (masculine) rules, that is what we call culture; I lack to see anything “girly” in that.

    I grant you that “hivemind” has a negative connotation; however what I am implying by that is that I want collective male mental energy focused on improving things, themselves, their family, their friends, their community (and selfishly letting me learn from them and improve myself). Doing this in an orderly bottom up fashion has already happened once; in fact this is what we call the Enlightenment. These (men) linked their brains and worked out problems collectively, their problem was how to understand nature and look where this shared collective process we call science has brought us today. The way that they “linked their brains” was to figure out modes of communication within letters so that the conversation did not break down.

    I do not know what is “Red Pill” in your understanding; however I would like to find out. You are correct in that I am self-interested. My interests include the betterment of myself, my family, my group and the tribe enlarge. What I am trying to show is that, w/o structure when the argument comes to such complex and abstract topics as civilisation cycles, it becomes impossible to do this type of discussion without structure. The whole “let it be natural” is actually a kind of abdication of responsibility, because guess what “natural” communication between men leads to violence, bloodshed and winner takes all, structured communication leads to civilisation, order and abundance.

    Now obviously, as kfg pointed out the dichotomisation isn’t as straight forward as that. However, one has to start somewhere. It appears to me these male rules of (scientific) communication include rules of the game(x) that allow us to have a discussion in a civilised manner working out ideas without animosity, personal attacks or silencing opposition, allowing (scientific) truth claims to arise from the bottom up. I don’t pursue this ideal out of some self-aggrandisement, rather much simpler, conversing with you like this is part of my 1000 words a day writing regime, allowing me to better work out and articulate my own ideas on the subject. We may not like these structures of communication personally, yet it’s a hell of a lot better than merely shouting ‘I am right and your wrong’, reverting to the use of force to coerce compliance or appealing to authority (that’s what girls do isn’t it?).

    At least that’s what I think, looking forward to your reply!

    (x) The concept of ’game’ is here understood to mean a formalised structured interaction between participant in which they VOLUNTARY want to participate within in the Piagetian sense (cf. Piaget, 1932).

    Piaget, J. (1932). The Moral Judgment of the Child. London: Kegan Paul.

    Shapin, S. (2010). Never pure: Historical studies of science as if it was produced by people with bodies, situated in time, space, culture, and society, and struggling for credibility and authority. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

  27. @Albert

    Perhaps AR isn’t connected to the same er “hive mind as you”.

    I’ll take a crack at this, relating the the story of the the tower of babble where the workers were caused by God to speak different languages, bringing about structural failure.

    The mechanics like kfg, Blaximus and myself, have mastered more fundamental trades as they are all necessary to success in completion. Yet to market the product of our labors we need salesmen that can relate the value of it to the customer. If we rely on our own marketing skills this would narrow our market to a point that we couldn’t survive as not enough people would understand what we were talking about, losing faith in our work. Yet even when we order parts the names of the parts that we know are called out different at the parts store. The parts salesman is prompted by the programer to ask a series of questions in order to identify the correct part, making him sound inexperienced to the mechanic. This breakdown in communication costs time and money, to the point that it is becoming easier to order your own parts online cutting out the middle man.

    This is all through all industries, The post, trimmer and jack are all the same thing holding up the beam or header. The piston,plunger, and valve all seal some type of bore , that the uninitiated may think is someone that carries on in a monotone.

    You get the point. What Rollo is about here is an unmoderated space for men where we can find what works and save the rest for a time when our view widens with our experience. This is more inclusive across the board to all men, than setting out a particular way of communication that doesn’t translate to individual experience.

    As a matter of natural course there will be some commentor’s that I can relate to and some I cant understand at all. The only way to be eliminated is by taking so much value away that it becomes a hinderance to others or using Rollo to promote your own agenda. This insures that the complex differing viewpoints are or can be included to the benefit of all men.

    Therefore we can’t all speak only in scientific terms as this would eliminate all from the discussion except the scientist.

    It is my view that God and evolution are one and the same, making the way men have evolved the cause of the language barrier between the trades and the interpreter the key to progress.

  28. SJF
    “The masculine goal is to advance toward a goal. The feminine goal is to slosh around in an ocean of emotion …”
    So well said. TRM — Rollo and the comment squad — has a way of slapping the precise set of words to things I’ve seen or suspected for decades but could never quite put my finger on.

  29. @boulderhead

    I reply properly next year, when I have had some time to digest and mull over your comment, many good strains of thought in there. In the meantime, I just want to clarify that I wasn’t diminishing what AR said, is simply I cannot practically continue a dialectic with mere one word replies. This works when you already have the same understanding as someone else, e.g. if you have two mechanics talk shop, however when roofer talks to a painter about repairing an engine and both do not articulate about the source of the engine trouble, there is no engagement or fixing of the engine for that matter. It’s a problem of communication, that can be circumvented, by articulating properly according to intra male game standards of communication.

    The scientific ethos, as I understand it is such a intra male communication script and it is inclusive to everyone. However, these rules of communication have to be mastered, within the realm of science such a social construction of men ‘talking shop’ achieves its legitimacy trough disciplining your writing in a particular way, e.g. outlining your assumptions, presenting your data, highlighting your limitations and providing references. This does not make the fact arbitrary or just political opinion, rather by highlighting just how much discipline is required to participate within the conversation, I want to put emphasis on just how high the (epistemological) entry requirement is, to be allowed to speak in the first place within that realm. Now I am the last one to tell people what to do, however, one of my points is, and has been since my first engagement, that RP knowledge has a potential to quench violence, if applied to men as well.

    Look at it the other way around, when Rollo was first starting to outline the rules for men to make sense of the dog and cat interaction, who would have thought that there would be men speaking into a camera at home, articulating how much this type of knowledge has changed their life’s in order to get him onto Joe Rogan. Can you phantom the emotional impact that reading a “mere” book has upon someone who everyone (from a BP perspective) tells “shut up” and “man up”. This stuff we are discussing here, cuts right to the core of our human social fabric.

    http://www.quotehd.com/imagequotes/authors3/arthur-schopenhauer-philosopher-quote-all-truth-passes-through-three.jpg

    Now imagine, what a similar approach to outlining “male game”, i.e. a cheat sheet of how to allow men to communicate amongst each other can accomplish. I don’t see this as silencing men, rather the opposite it is giving them the tools and knowledge to become their own masters.

    @DisgruntledEarthling, I was just taking friendly jabs at SJF with the whole “girly stuff”, since he brought it up. Personally, I tend to refrain from such dichotomisation, but I guess with your appeal to authority SJF had a point. Your actions proved his point better than any words ever could…

    @all

    May 2018 be the year where you find a telos worthy of your ergon!

  30. Albert
    In the above example with AR, in that exchange, he/she is returning back to the same point again and again.

    Since you keep making the same mistakes again and again, this should not be a surprise.

    Now by manifesting a third time the SAME comment AFTER I have given, A) further elaboration, B) provided references and C) opened up for further questions,

    Elaboration of the same mistakes. References to books that either were not read or were not understood. Unwilling or unable to answer any questions in a true fashion. Refusing to examine premises, while insisting that all men should accept those premises unquestioned. These are not the indicators of someone who wishes to learn.

    tl;dr
    Albert, your cup cannot receive tea because it is already full. Empty that cup.

    PS: Writing fewer words will help you in many ways, including clarifying thought.

  31. The blogger at Western Mastery posted eight of the most insightful tweets he came across this year.

    http://www.westernmastery.com/2017/12/30/eight-insightful-tweets-2017/

    Here are seven of them:

    If you naturally have a distaste for the majority opinion you’ll see opportunities nobody is seeing.

    — Veritas (@veritasnaut) September 22, 2017

    If you are worried about failure or going through a period of mental and financial instability…your worries will be reflected in the results.

    — Robert Greene (@RobertGreene) December 29, 2017

    When is everyone gonna stop apologising? When is everyone gonna stop trying to appease permanently offended fucking idiots?

    — Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) December 28, 2017

    The harder you work, the easier it looks.

    The easier it looks, the more people think you didn’t have to work at it.

    — Ed Latimore (@EdLatimore) December 8, 2017

    Never understood why people fear anger, anger is perhaps the best motivator to change something I’ve ever come across.

    — Black Label Logic (@Blacklabellogic) October 24, 2017

    Whatever you want to do least right now, is often a pretty good hint as to what you should probably do first right now.

    — 𝔻𝕖𝕖𝕡 𝔗𝔥𝔯𝔦𝔩𝔩 (@DeeperThrill) December 28, 2017

    I’m starting to think wisdom is the only truly worthy gift worth giving

    — Aaron Clarey (@aaron_clarey) December 22, 2017

  32. Albert
    The scientific ethos, as I understand it is such a intra male communication script and it is inclusive to everyone.

    Your understanding is flawed, incomplete.

  33. I guess with your appeal to authority SJF had a point

    Not an appeal. I just get fed up of sloughing through reams of overly-obfuscated soliloquies. We get the occasional newcomer here that insists on being over-analytical and sure that we’ve got it all wrong according to their own version of the “truth” and how things should be. They either crack the door open and let new ideas in or leave after a while.

    The simplified bottoms-up approach of Be The Man and Fuck Dem Bitches seems to be the simplest working model that works. The rest is mental masturbation.

  34. @AR

    PS: Writing fewer words will help you in many ways, including clarifying thought.

    Word. Check my FR where I barely said anything to the broad who put my hands on her boobs out on the dance floor.

  35. How will that work in the future beyond turkey baster breeding?

    It mostly won’t. There are already many cities in Western Europe where the population’s average total fertility rate is below 1.

  36. Maybe. But so far I don’t see evidence of collapse for that reason. Every time I wander into a college zone bar I see 80 / 20 operating…because now i know what it looks like.

    Seriously, testosterone levels keep dropping across the industrialized world, and it’s affecting how men behave at the individual level and the group level.

    It’s all relative. A society where the average T-level is low is a society where few men are able and willing to cause any trouble. It also means there are few men around willing and able to defend that society from any threat. That’s especially true in a society where hypergamy is unrestrained and thus many men have no investment in society. In other words, it’s like a house of cards, prone to collapse.

  37. It also means there are few men around willing and able to defend that society from any threat. That’s especially true in a society where hypergamy is unrestrained and thus many men have no investment in society. In other words, it’s like a house of cards, prone to collapse.

    Hasn’t the FI solved that by having a highly technologically advanced military which is (1) professional and therefore by choice, (2) requires a relatively small amount of manpower and (3) fully and thoroughly indoctrinated in the rules and standards of the FI? Really, the FI doesn’t need most men willing to defend anything — the FI just needs most men unwilling to rebel, which they won’t if they are low T, and satiated with porn and circuses. The military machine is sufficient to protect the FI — more than sufficient — and is thoroughly loyal because it’s been thoroughly aligned to the priorities of the FI. There’s a reason why the FI and progressives focus on indoctrinating the military in all of the cultural “priorities” as early as possible, after all.

  38. @Nova

    Yes, but whenever someone doesn’t conform to the hivemind it sticks out to the collective, causing anxiety. Also porn doesn’t satiate. It highlights the difference between fantasy and reality. Hope and Futility.

  39. “I am asking for structure, etiquette and leading by example.”

    Albert,

    In the spirit of etiquette I ran your longwinded Marquess of Queensberry Rules apologetics past my boys today.

    Survey says:

    I fart in your general direction, Senor Pantolones de Caca.

  40. “Maybe it has indeed solved that. On the other hand, that’s exactly what they thought in every society in history that collapsed.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrJXgyUeJhs
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    audio quid ueteres olim moneatis amici,
    “pone seram, cohibe.” sed quis custodiet ipsos
    custodes? cauta est et ab illis incipit uxor.
    noui
    consilia et ueteres quaecumque monetis amici,
    “pone seram, cohibes.” sed quis custodiet ipsos
    custodes? qui nunc lasciuae furta puellae
    hac mercede silent crimen commune tacetur.

    “Also porn doesn’t satiate. It highlights the difference between fantasy and reality. Hope and Futility.”
    Porn is a distraction… Manwin was built as an ideal by fabian theyman to buy and distribute and destroy the distraction to the point where it’s free and your reality is taking hostage by instant gratification.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYHYDG2giQs

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsnrc34g09A
    ” the FI just needs most men unwilling to rebel, which they won’t if they are low T, and satiated with porn and circuses. The military machine is sufficient to protect the FI — more than sufficient — and is thoroughly loyal because it’s been thoroughly aligned to the priorities of the FI. There’s a reason why the FI and progressives focus on indoctrinating the military in all of the cultural “priorities” as early as possible, after all.”
    Gold…
    All my trauma stems from a blue pill upbringing with red pill reality… What people do and what people say are not the same and their was not a place to go to speak about this.

  41. “Rick Salomon
    Salomon is probably best known for the sex tape he made with then-girlfriend Paris Hilton in 2004, but he’s a big-time poker player in his own right: He won $2.8 million at the 2014 World Series of Poker’s Big One for One Drop event. In Molly’s Game, both sides of his persona are on display.

    How it plays out in the book:

    Rick Salomon showed up next. Rick was hot. He was crass and dirty, but he was still hot in a caveman kind of way.

    I pulled him aside to show him the board.

    “Wow, they are swingin’, huh?” he said, looking down at me. “Wanna fuck?”

    I looked back at him, praying my face wasn’t as red as it felt.

    “No thanks,” I said, as casually as if he had asked me if I wanted a Tic Tac.

    He laughed.

    “Give me $200,000.”
    https://images.complex.com/complex/image/upload/c_limit,w_680/fl_lossy,pg_1,q_auto/posse_x4lsmu.jpg
    http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2015/11/history-of-the-pussy-posse-leonardo-dicaprio

  42. My son came to me saying he was tired of his girlfriend’s drama. They have been seeing each other for about 2 years. He described a situation, where she wanted ice cream. So, he brought some to her apartment. Then, she complained that she wanted the experience of going out to get ice cream. He also described a situation where they argued and she got out of his car in sub-zero weather and wouldn’t come back inside until she cooled off in an emotional and hypothermic way.

    He asked what he should do. I told him, I gave him a book, TRM, last year. He admitted that he hadn’t read it yet, but wanted some cliff notes. I told him, he was fighting a frame battle. He could continue his main tactic of avoiding her when she acts up. Talking it out was not an option as that would be to surrender frame.

    So, last night we went for a family meal without my daughter who was off doing her own thing. He said that he was thinking of breaking up with her, but wasn’t sure how to do it. He’s concerned about her mental health and feels that breaking up will hurt her.

    My solution was for him to start seeing other people and leave their relationship open. More accurately to open himself up to meeting other women. I suggested this because he’s really not outgoing, and not practicing any type of pua game.

    My wife on the other hand recommended a firm break and soon, as not to “lead her on”. Later, she got mad at me, suggesting that my solution would give her an opportunity for an oops pregnancy to seal the relationship. I think we have discussed this before that my son’s generation treats dating like monogamous marriage.

    Now, the wife’s advice is sound but I cannot help but feel that the don’t play unless you are serious is a very pro-FI position.

    Was there a better solution?

    Happy New Years everybody! I’ve been in listen-only mode but TRM is by far my favorite radio show

  43. @IIF

    Your son should have done a better job of calibrating his gf’s feelings…she obviously needed drama…my recommendation is that when girls start giving off signals of boredom, they will ambush a man with drama shortly after…it’s best to head these off by creating some drama…just part of being a man.

    self-improvement for your son…get better at calibrating girls’ feelings…they all do this stuff and moving on to a new girl won’t “fix” the situation because it’s biology

  44. If-I-Fell

    Maybe now he is miserable enough to read the RM and accept some of the basic principals.

    If he is anything like my son spinning plates would be like splitting queens on a dealer jack. There is a reason the oneitis chapter is first and foremost.

  45. Girlfriends don’t get me to bring them ice cream and stuff until they bear me a child and move past gf status. And then it depends on if I’m in a satisfied state of mind.

    Step into my frame. It’s comfy and there might even be some ice cream….occasionally.

  46. “Also porn doesn’t satiate. It highlights the difference between fantasy and reality. Hope and Futility.”

    Lack of self awareness is animalistic as they are self-preserving but not self-aware. They find no meaning in their existence.

    Freedom is human nature. What makes a dolphin? Its dolphin-ness. What makes man, man? Freedom.

    We’re aware of our own meaning because we know it life will end. That’s the difference between man vs. animal.

    When men lose sight of their own freedom they choose to replace it with an temporary satisfaction.

    Men use pornography, Columbine-style violence, MGTOW, etc. as an escape from permanent meaning, providing short term physical and emotinal needs, sacrificing escatological imperatives.

    The rub: Man does not serve two masters well.

    Pornography is an active dcision to reduce one’s freedom. closing in on ourselves, grasping for control and becoming our own gods.

    Porn is one of many,  many cultural canards convincing men their limited options are predetermined…and we’re buying it. Existing alone, closed in on oneself, choosing fewer options rather than more, is voluntarily sinking into progressively deeper layers of hell.

    When men autoconvince freedom is nonexistent and inconsequential they limit their lives to what is presented, auto-orient to hoplesness, aka death, suicide, homicide, on the margins.

    Falling Down, It’s a Wonderful Life are different films…but not really. The subtext is identical. When death is meaningless, life is meaningless.

    Freedom to choose includes the freedom not to choose.

    Porn is a buffer, a choice not to get off one’s ass and hit on that hottie.

    Happy New Year.

    Life has meaning of you choose it so.

    https://youtu.be/dVGINIsLnqU

  47. “Step into my frame. It’s comfy and there might even be some ice cream….occasionally.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmUZ6nCFNoU

    EhIntellect
    “Lack of self awareness is animalistic as they are self-preserving but not self-aware. They find no meaning in their existence.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACCoL8xk0Jg

    “When men autoconvince freedom is nonexistent and inconsequential they limit their lives to what is presented, auto-orient to hoplesness, aka death, suicide, homicide, on the margins.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n2vsSHAs0w

    Happy new start man thank you for your post.

  48. @Yollo Comanche

    No worries, sticks and stones and everything, you know. Intellect is already in my good books, as he provided me some valuable insights.

    @Disgruntled Earthling

    Acknowledging that someone else has a point is not appealing to authority.

    @AR

    Cool, if you have the truth, please feel free to share with the group. I actually love being wrong, this means I can learn something.

    FYI if you think I misunderstood these books I have read, feel free to point out to me how I did so. I am all ears, so far you haven’t done so, more in stating that I have.

    Tl:Dr

    Violets are blue roses are red, just using the word truth assuming that others are dismissive will not make so.

    P.S. I don’t think I have the ‘truth’, I am merely trying to better articulate my skecthnotes.

    @Eh

    “I fart in your general direction, Senor Pantolones de Caca.”

    Now I think you and others seem to be under the impression that I am trying to IMPOSE rules of articulation, I have no such intention. Rather, ARTICULATION of already existing rules of discourse is what I am really interested in. So that individuals can learn to better articulate themselves. Especially, for the ones that are not yet familiar with such rules, as they did not have a male role model to show them how to talk among men.

    Now fighting against windmills can be fun for a while, but as soon as someone farts that shit gets blown everywhere. I think the ‘rule’ in your case is ‘who smelled it dealt it’.

  49. @boulderhead

    “You get the point. What Rollo is about here is an unmoderated space for men where we can find what works and save the rest for a time when our view widens with our experience. This is more inclusive across the board to all men, than setting out a particular way of communication that doesn’t translate to individual experience.”

    That’s fine, I dont take an issue with this. However, Tuco does have feelings too

    https://youtu.be/ZSkeQkb8NMo

    So does Tuco’s brother, furthermore imagine if Tuco and Pablo both could talk in a langauge where they could understand each other. Imagine Tuco and Pablo could find articulated game rules that explain how dogs talk to each other to avoid misunderstanding. Do you think if they had a better understanding of dog talk, it would be the case thay they would hit each other? Maybe hitting each other is part of dog talk

    P.S. I watched that Peterson video a while ago and in general I don’t disagree. The point I take issue with is that ‘not everyone is interested in such disscusions’. When I was doing stand up, I talked about religion, stereotypes, philosophy, science, sex, politics, etc. You be surprised how much depth people have in their understanding. The thing is, they are far too often dismissed as ‘uncouth’ and hence they refrain to engage in such discussions. The issue is, if you want to engage them in such issues, you have to do the leg work in making it relevant AND digestible to them. What eventually, led me to become bored with stand up was that I didn’t learn anything I was interested anymore, as the process of me making it “digestible” conflicted with me wanting to work out ideas.

    @all

    There is one thing I am wondering though, why the reluctance to anaylise ‘male game’ and male modes of communication?

    It does strike me as odd as you create a whole praxiology to analyse, manipulate, understand, articulate for the female side of the human ape. Logically, rationally and practically this should also work for the dog side as well, also arguably the ‘rules of thumb’ would be different.

    If I just articulated a big taboo and dented some people’s egos than so be it, I do 20 hail Mary’s later and I already left a few coins. However, I do find that strong reaction to me bringing up the subject curious.

  50. “‘male game’ and male modes of communication”
    Albert it comes out without planning it… You speak and observe and say certain thing’s around men because in this climate everything is legislative. You have to ask for permission to pee almost as a prison complex of existence. Everyone is ready to report on anybody. Participation comes with observation. Males don’t just say thing’s to anybody that’s a common mistake I’ve been learning about myself. We say thing’s when we work an a project in partnership.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwqAmXYW_gU

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K977NxGhyU

  51. “Now I think you and others seem to be under the impression that I am trying to IMPOSE rules of articulation . . .”

    It might have something to do with your persistence in trying to show your grandparents how to suck rocks.

    I can answer both of my questions at once with a single word:

    Q:Where do Stukas come from?
    Q: WHY do Stukas come?

    A: Civilization.

    “Maybe hitting each other is part of dog talk”

    Well, duh. In fact I have been sitting here reading up to this point thinking that maybe what you need is to get punched in the face a sufficient number of times that you begin to induce what it is attempting to communicate.

    ” . . .you create a whole praxiology to analyse, manipulate, understand, articulate for the female side of the human ape. Logically, rationally and practically this should also work for the dog side as well . . .”

    Well, duh.

    ” . . . why the reluctance to anaylise ‘male game’ and male modes of communication?”

    In a couple more words than one – there isn’t any.

    I am currently sketching out a potential engineering project which would be aided by employing a few people with specialized knowledge which I myself lack. I would not hire you because . . . you appear to be so lacking in fundamental communication skills that I fear just having you around would grind the entire thing to halt and I might just as well hire some random HR lady to accomplish the same effect.

  52. Hasn’t the FI solved that by having a highly technologically advanced military which is (1) professional and therefore by choice, (2) requires a relatively small amount of manpower and (3) fully and thoroughly indoctrinated in the rules and standards of the FI?

    A military “fully and thoroughly indoctrinated in the rules and standards of the FI” isn’t an organization I’d entrust with the defense of anything important, for one thing. Its only use is as a welfare program for women and their enablers.

    The main issue here, I guess, is that such militaries are specialized for certain tasks and nothing else. The reason the Soviet state collapsed wasn’t that the Soviet military wasn’t technologically advanced enough, or wasn’t professional enough. But as a potential tool of averting collapse, it was completely useless. Likewise the French army in 1940 wasn’t obsolete or badly trained or disloyal. But none of that helped. A stagnant and demoralized society can easily collapse.

    I agree that the current system seems very stable. The point is, we’re in uncharted waters now. You’ve written about this yourself. We’ve normalized low birthrates, unrestrained hypergamy, male disinvestment and social atomization to a degree that is unprecedented in known history. It’s impossible to tell what will happen.

  53. @Novaseeker

    “the men they want sex with is small relative to the total number of men”

    Yes, this is exactly what I wanted to convey.

    A bit like a starving person who accepts nothing but caviar and oysters. I would not call that “starving”.

    I see others basically calling you a blue-pilled dummy, but you have a point there. Imagine a guy saying “yeah, I have, like, a really high sex drive. For real! As long as I get to bone the hottest chicks. Otherwise I can’t be bothered”. Everybody hearing it would laugh out loud, for good reason.

  54. @rugby

    “Males don’t just say thing’s to anybody that’s a common mistake I’ve been learning about myself. We say thing’s when we work an a project in partnership.”

    I know, I experienced this myself when closely working together with other men. You need a common purpose to integrate and congregate around. The flipside is, without allowing for others to say stupid things and joke around no such common purpose can be found, if there is none.

    BTW, I watched the male role models video you linked previously, the one about the first nation tribes resonated a lot. Especially, when one of the guys said: “It’s not like my father sat me down and explained all these things to me, it was in the way that he lived that I could model myself after.” That made me smile, as I almost exactly said the same words to my dad.

    @kfg

    “In fact I have been sitting here reading up to this point thinking that maybe what you need is to get punched in the face a sufficient number of times that you begin to induce what it is attempting to communicate.”

    Here is a clue in regard to your two questions regarding: “where/why do Stukas come?” You have created your own belief system of how reality functions; your own version of “the truth”, so now someone comes along and presents a different interpretation, leaving you with the following choices:

    A) Accept that your model of reality was mistaken
    B) Reject the conflicting interpretation as superstition, by labelling it “the other” invalidating the claim
    C) Take out the individual who is making such claims,
    D) Synthesize and update your understanding of reality

    Due to the male dominance instinct A) is highly unlikely if you have a smidgen of alpha in you. B) is the easiest as it takes the least amount of effort. C) is reverted to in extreme cases if the authority of the individual is perceived to be threatened, D) being the least likely as it takes a load of cognitive effort to first figure out where the point of disagreement occurred AND then to proceed and figure out what this implies for the rest of your own value structure.

    “In a couple more words than one – there isn’t any.”

    Here are three examples:

    Solipsism in women = bad, Mental point of origin in man = good, these two concepts describe the same behavioural patterns, just in one aspects it is expressed in negative connotation and in the other it’s expressed within positive connotation, i.e. your OWN interpretation of reality is valid.

    The use of concepts like FI, BP, beta, SJW, feminist etc. above, these concepts are used in the same fashion as feminists use the concepts like ‘the patriarchy’, which pretty much has the same function psychologically as the concept of “gynocentrism” within MGTOW circles, you guys here merely call it FI. It allows for an easy shorthand when conflicted with contradictory information, see point B).

    The concept of the BP being “mistaken” about the “truth”, well logically if you already allowed for the possibility that 1) all of your sensory data could be interpreted in a certain light, 2) the narrative you constructed for yourself was so insulating that you didn’t know that you were mistaken and 3) have undergone a transition, than you cannot with a hundred percent certainty place the newly acquired value structure as “the truth”. From minute 3:20 to 4:00

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY0C_neYT1o

    ‘The collapse of a value structure, not only undermines your faith in this particular value structure, but in value structures in general’.

    Peterson makes a whole bunch of intellectual shortcuts and assumptions to square this circle, arriving in his particular interpretation of Christianity.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT-o3et-beI&t=754s

    “I am currently sketching out a potential engineering project which would be aided by employing a few people with specialized knowledge which I myself lack. I would not hire you because…”

    Congratulations you have just described how ideological echo chambers form, by surrounding yourself with people who already agree with you, good for in group harmony bad for working out problems. The mechanisms you described explains as much Lysenkonism and Gallipoli as it does the sinking of the Titanic.

    Furthermore, by stating that “ you appear to be so lacking in fundamental communication skills”, isn’t that the same retort women use to disqualify guy’s that “don’t get it”? Problem is “I do get it”, it’s just I have a different interpretation than you, hence the psychological recourse to invalidate my character (cf. B above). May I quote a wise individual who once told me words of wisdoms back to you:

    kfg
    October 2, 2017 at 4:36 pm
    “I believe that the rule is that you have to say it one more time to make it true.”

    P.S. in case it wasn’t obvious, I am grateful for the provided feedback. Just because I disagree, does not mean I do not appreciate the time and effort it takes to articulate these points of disagreement.

  55. @Albert

    Civilization does not and never has existed, civilized society does however exist at least at first glance until we look beneath the surface. “where/why do Stukas come?” these did not come from a hunter gatherer ,ag, or tribal order. Modernization does however exist and produces non civil inventions daily.

    Solipsism in women is not bad, rather it is one reason the human species has survived. We need to understand this nature to understand women, watch what they do not what they say.
    A man without his own MPO is more of a sheep than man, a woman’s mpo is rooted in emotion.

    Patriarchy as such has never really existed http://therawness.com/AFP.pdf.

    The use of concepts like FI, BP, beta, SJW, feminist etc. are ways to identify the byproducts of the female hive mind, this hive mind does exist and evolved naturally.

  56. “Now fighting against windmills can be fun for a while…”

    Fine. I’ll be explicit.

    The law of diminishing returns has reduced the value of your commentary to essentially zero.

    Not zero, mind you, but in a quotidian application sense, it might as well be.

    I don’t know much about you, I honestly tried. Your personality gets lost in the walls of webpage. You’re more work than I’m used to.

    Your commentary reminds me of a fly fisherman who enjoys feeling the rod load more than fishing.

  57. Albert,

    You say you get it. I believe you.

    Again I don’t know much about you. Perhaps you’d give us a couple FRs of your intersexual dynamics style.

    That’d clear thing up real quick.

  58. “Albert” to kfg
    You have created your own belief system of how reality functions; your own version of “the truth”, so now someone comes along and presents a different interpretation, leaving you with the following choices:

    A) Accept that your model of reality was mistaken
    B) Reject the conflicting interpretation as superstition, by labelling it “the other” invalidating the claim
    C) Take out the individual who is making such claims,
    D) Synthesize and update your understanding of reality

    The irony is strong in this one.

    Recall that “Albert” previously trolled these comments in order to obtain text to “analyze” for some sort of school project? The spring term is about to begin…

    Xie is less serious than LeaningTree was but clearly in need of more words to arrange into paragraphs in some publication. Perhaps one of the minor Springer journals?

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: