What Makes a Man?

When I was compiling the material I was going to use for my second book, Preventive Medicine, I chose to use the essay Vulnerability in the hopes that I might be able to dispel one of the more egregious fantasies about masculinity – that vulnerability is in some way a strength for men. At the time I was rebutting the Mark Manson claim that men’s vulnerability was a necessity in whatever it was he used to consider Game, or the idea that a lot of Purple Pill hacks like to cling to about men’s vulnerability being some foundation upon which a “healthy” relationship ought to be built on. This trope is pulled straight from the Oprah / Dr. Phill handbook and really the belief that a man’s vulnerability is in someway a strength is part of a Blue Pill conditioned belief set that young boys are taught from a very early age.

Go to any woman’s dating advice for men blog today and you’ll likely read some variation of it. It’s actually part of our pop-psychology social consciousness – transvaluation is a very common theme; reversing weakness with strength has been the order for feminizing men and masculinizing women since the Sexual Revolution. I can remember hearing this ‘advice’ since the late 80s on any number of daytime talk shows. Reading this pabulum coming from ‘dating coaches’ with any association to the Red Pill was enough for me to want to dispel the notion. That, and the need for men to get in touch with their Jungian feminine sides as a means to better identifying with women and thus eventually getting laid by all the women who supposedly swooned for vulnerable, sensitive and emotionally available men (also known as ‘Beta Orbiters’).

However, as I was editing that essay for inclusion in the book I realized that what I was considering wasn’t so much the transvaluation of vulnerability and strength, but the model upon which the Feminine Imperative would like to convince men is appropriate and best suited for women’s needs in a relationship. The provable fact that women’s Hypergamy predisposes them to being aroused by men who display the most opposite aspects to this vulnerability (Dark Triad traits for example) doesn’t seem to matter; vulnerability is only beneficial to women seeking comfort and security in a long term partner.

In that essay I outlined a few things about what masculinity has become in a post-Sexual Revolution female-primary social order:

For the greater part of men’s upbringing and socialization they are taught that a conventional masculine identity is in fact a fundamentally male weakness that only women have a unique ‘cure’ for. It’s a widely accepted manosphere fact that over the past 60 or so years, conventional masculinity has become a point of ridicule, an anachronism, and every media form from then to now has made a concerted effort to parody and disqualify that masculinity. Men are portrayed as buffoons for attempting to accomplish female-specific roles, but also as “ridiculous men” for playing the conventional ‘macho’ role of masculinity. In both instances, the problems their inadequate maleness creates are only solved by the application of uniquely female talents and intuition.

Perhaps more damaging though is the effort the Feminine Imperative has made in convincing generations of men that masculinity and its expressions (of any kind) is an act, a front, not the real man behind the mask of masculinity that’s already been predetermined by his feminine-primary upbringing.

Women who lack any living experience of the male condition have the calculated temerity to define for men what they should consider manhood – from a feminine-primary context. This is why men’s preconception of vulnerability being a sign of strength is fundamentally flawed. Their concept of vulnerability stems from a feminine pretext.

Masculinity and vulnerability are defined by a female-correct concept of what should best serve the Feminine Imperative. That feminine defined masculinity (tough-guy ridiculousness) feeds the need for defining vulnerability as a strength – roll over, show your belly and capitulate to that feminine definition of masculinity – and the cycle perpetuates itself.

I returned to this essay today because I think that over the past six months we’re seeing a strengthening push from the Feminine Imperative to clamp down on what we’re to believe should be an acceptable expression of masculinity. In essence the imperative (or the Village if you like) has been using every mass shooting tragedy to reiterate what masculinity should mean to men. And, failing this, the hope is still that men will be confused as to what conventional expressions they can subjectively define it in, in a more female-correct way.

The Feminine-Correct Paradigm

Since the most recent school shooting in Florida, the focus on what constitutes masculinity has come to the forefront of our social consciousness. What exactly is masculinity they keep asking, and then provide definitions that only have meaning to a social order that’s founded on female social dominance. They are definitions that most men heard repeated constantly as boys from their overwhelmingly female-taught and feminine-primary educations. Since the beginning of the Sexual Revolution and the rise of Fempowerment boys and men are expected to grow up into a female-defined masculinity. Boys are acculturated in contexts that feminize them, yet we are meant to believe that all the horrors of Patriarchal masculinity are still being taught to them today:

Two decades ago, the psychologist William Pollack wrote that boys start out sensitive but through a “shame-hardening process” — told to stop crying, to be a man — they learn to hide what they really feel. And if they don’t know or understand their own feelings, how can they care about anyone else’s?

This has become something of a cliché. And the truth is, there’s no single culture of boys, but many. In my memories of adolescence, beneath the constant ribbing and occasional pyromania, we had tremendous affection for one another. And we longed to connect with women with an intensity that was difficult to contemplate.

This was a quote from Real Men Get Rejected Too. It’s a good illustration of the paradox masculinity presents to parents and educators. The idea that boys are these sensitive delicate souls who, through the evils of their Patriarchal (typically male) upbringing, are conditioned to become ‘macho’ violent men is a popular trope. After Nikolas Cruz killed 17 kids at school it was the go-to rationale. “Boys are brought up to be violent gun-loving beasts thanks to a perpetuated misogynistic culture of men” or some variation of this is common. It’s an easy, digestible, info-bite that sounds right because we’ve heard it for so long. If only boys we’re taught more like girls to get in touch with their emotions and were vulnerable in expressing them we could avoid these male-created tragedies.

That’s the pretense we’re supposed to believe – and it’s important that a larger society does believe in the inherent evilness of masculinity if the Feminine Imperative is to maintain social dominance. But the truth is boys have been systematically feminized for the past 3-4 generations. Boys are taught like defective girls. Since the 1970s it is increasingly women who have dominated academia from kindergarten to doctorate degrees. The entire western education system is founded on a feminine-primary, feminine-defined teaching methodology. In the process of advantaging girls to the utmost efficiency in school (to fempower adult women) the educational atmosphere had to be defined by what best served girls. School and teaching became ‘for girls’ and the educational landscape shifted to teaching styles that girls were most benefited in.

In that shift the idea that boys might be disadvantaged had little bearing, but overtime the conditions of teaching ‘to girls’ defined the teaching style as the correct style. In fact, teaching in a way that girls learn best, and disciplining boys for not learning this way, is no longer a style – it is just the way children are taught. Boys and men today are the product of female teachers who actively advantage girls at the expense of boys. So normalized is this teaching that boys disrupting the advantaging of girls in class is something we’ve decided needs to be medicinally curbed. Boys being boys is diagnosed as an illness and drugs are prescribed so as to sedate them long enough for the girls to learn.

This focus on empowering girls isn’t limited to the classroom. In every form of early childhood through adolescent media, music, social networks and social exchanges this theme is continued; girls have the future in their reach, boys are potential rapists and criminals if they don’t fall in line with female-correct way of how things just are. I get asked a lot about what I think defines Blue Pill conditioning and I’d say this ambient social theme of fempowerment is a strong basis for it. Boys are not taught this old-school, much-feared Patriarchal masculinity, they are bombarded with themes of how masculinity is incorrect, laughable, and a shameful ‘act’ that boys have to put on to cover the ‘real’ female-correct versions of their sensitive selves. Boys are taught from the earliest age that being a boy is an incorrect mask, while being a girl, learning like a girl, emoting and relating like a girl is ‘real’ and the correct way of developing a personality.

Who would ever want to be a boy when so much is rewarded and praised about being a girl? There’s so much more advantage to be had if you’re a girl. As early as five years old boys are deliberately taught to loathe their own gender, but they are also being taught a redefinition of what a female-correct form of masculinity should be for them. The best they could do would be to become female to the best of their ability. They learn they must agree and support girls’ empowerment, identify with the feminine and above all, despise the parody of masculinity they are shown is ‘illegitimate’ and inauthentic.

Boys are systematically taught to make women and womankind their Mental Point of Origin. This is why it is so difficult for men to unplug and abandon their old Blue Pill selves; feminine-primacy was literally conditioned into them since they were kids.

Nikolas Cruz, like many other teenage shooters is the product of this feminine-primary education system, not a Patriarchal “teach boys not to cry” machismo school. He is a monster of their creation; one taught to cry on demand and emote like a girl. He’s the result of a participation trophy mentality that demonize men and masculinity to the point that he never learns how to bounce back from defeat, rejection or simply life’s adversities. No men and no masculinity is available to teach that kid how to harden up and be resilient, or how that masculine discipline is not bullying or hazing, but a necessary part of a boy’s maturation into a masculine man.

But to throw society off the trail a false narrative of hyper-masculinity ruining our otherwise feminine-correct boys is perpetuated. When the next school shooting takes place the Village will again want the public to believe it’s masculinity and men’s fault for what is really his emotional outburst. The Village will attempt to place the responsibility on men, on fathers, while in the meantime perpetuating the idea that men/fathers are superfluous at best, a societal burden at worst. Men are useful catspaws in so many ways, and in perpetuating this narrative the Village reinforces the female-correct theme for grown men too.

Masculinity is what they say it is, or else

In the Honor System I proposed the following:

Man Up or Shut Up – The Male Catch 22

One of the primary way’s Honor is used against men is in the feminized perpetuation of traditionally masculine expectations when it’s convenient, while simultaneously expecting egalitarian gender parity when it’s convenient.

For the past 60 years feminization has built in the perfect Catch 22 social convention for anything masculine; The expectation to assume the responsibilities of being a man (Man Up) while at the same time denigrating asserting masculinity as a positive (Shut Up). What ever aspect of maleness that serves the feminine purpose is a man’s masculine responsibility, yet any aspect that disagrees with feminine primacy is labeled Patriarchy and Misogyny.

Essentially, this convention keeps beta males in a perpetual state of chasing their own tails. Over the course of a lifetime they’re conditioned to believe that they’re cursed with masculinity (Patriarchy) yet are still responsible to ‘Man Up’ when it suits a feminine imperative. So it’s therefore unsurprising to see that half the men in western society believe women dominate the world (male powerlessness) while at the same time women complain of a lingering Patriarchy (female powerlessness) or at least sentiments of it. This is the Catch 22 writ large. The guy who does in fact Man Up is a chauvinist, misogynist, patriarch, but he still needs to man up when it’s convenient to meet the needs of a female imperative.

It’s important to review this premise if we want to understand the real intent the Feminine Imperative has in redefining masculinity for men. Aspects of conventional masculinity are useful for women, and masculine duty (appeals to men’s “honor”) is a means to access it while avoiding the aspects that would in any way advantage men over women. Conventional masculinity is largely disparaged and parodied in order to disenfranchise men, but men are still needed to save women from natural disasters and protect them from physical harm (so long as they never expect sex for it). On some level of consciousness women understand the transactional and validational aspects of sex. They know that men’s serviceableness comes with an implied transactional cost, so to circumvent this women had to be put in charge of defining what masculinity should mean to men.

Masculinity as defined by men is almost always illegitimate and inauthentic in a feminine-primary world order. The presumption is that “macho man” ridiculous masculinity is a mask that men wear. That mask is meant to cover their true feminine-correct selves; because men cannot be authentic in any other context than the taught, feminine-correct context. So, of course, men can only be fakes or insecure of their masculinity (the masculinity defined by the feminine) and can never ‘really’ be that strong, dominant male apart from the permission the Feminine Imperative gives him.

Because the Feminine Imperative controls the overall context for what should be correct for men this has the effect of making women the sole deciders of what is masculine. In effect, and in this Blue Pill context, women become the gatekeepers of manhood. If masculinity imbues men with manhood (literally being considered a man) a ‘man’ is only whom a woman will designate as such within her presumed, feminine-correct context. In other words, do the imperative’s bidding and it dubs you a ‘man’.

Breaking the Cycle

As you might’ve guessed, this social dynamic conflicts with women’s Hypergamous imperatives. A Beta who thinks he’s a ‘man’ and presumes entitlements because of that is a woman’s worst fear. A Beta transgressing into a manhood that the imperative didn’t give him is the making for a guy being considered a sexual predator. However, an Alpha man, a man of high sexual market value still needs to accept the feminine-correct social frame, but he must also know his role within that frame. I’ve made the comparison in the past that women only see men as either draft animals or breeding stock. In a feminine-correct paradigm the breeding stock must know that his conventionally masculine aspects mean different things to a woman (Alpha Fucks sex) than the draft animal’s masculine aspects (Beta Bucks service). As such, masculinity and a designation of being a man becomes a constant qualifier for a Beta male. Manhood becomes a carrot he follows to pull the feminine-correct cart.

In fact, Beta men hold their female-correct ‘man’ designation as an unwitting point of pride. Examples abound of self-righteous Betas AMOGing other men for not being ‘real men’ (according to the imperative) like themselves. What they’re ignorant of is that this self-righteousness is defined by how well they conform to the masculinity that the imperative tells him is useful – and avoiding the ‘toxic’ masculinity it also defines for him – all according to his role in the scheme of a woman’s sexual strategy.

Should a man awaken from this Blue Pill conditioning and coronate himself as a ‘man’ outside the approval of womankind, this is when he’s ridiculed as an old school Patriarch and an anachronism of the old male-incorrect social paradigm. This is the control the imperative has against men stepping out side this female-controlled masculinity. The first response any female critic has for men who make themselves their mental point of origin is to remove that status of manhood.

Because they don’t accept feminine-primacy this disqualifies them from ‘real’ manhood.

One of the most difficult aspects men face in unplugging and living in Red Pill awareness is the social stigma that follows when they remove womankind from the pedestal and make themselves their mental point of origin. He gets called an asshole, he gets called selfish, he gets called a misogynist, but he’s also “less of a man” because he no longer conforms to the definition of masculinity that the Feminine Imperative has taught him from his earliest memories. Learning to redefine his mental image of what makes a man a man in his own Red Pill aware state is tough. Most of what he considered the very limited and controlled aspects of an ideal masculinity are a big part of the Blue Pill idealism he was raised on. This transition to conventional masculinity is also hampered by a deep learning of shame and gender loathing for finding anything positive in masculinity.

These are some important things to keep in mind if you are moving into a Red Pill awareness and learning to live in a new paradigm based around a conventional understanding of masculinity that isn’t inherently evil. It’s hard to do, but that old mental model of masculinity your teachers (all of them) convinced you was incorrect is something you must unlearn and cut yourself away from. Know that women don’t just long for that dominant masculinity, they need it for the health of their own life experiences. They need the protection, the comfort, the security and the discipline that masculinity balances their lives with.

Women ask, “where have all the ‘real’ men gone?”, but they exist outside the presumed, feminine-correct paradigm they mistakenly believe they have a secure control of. They don’t want to let go of that, so they will fight you to maintain a control over masculinity (which by definition can be chaotic as well as comforting) that they never really had – even with all the social engineering.

 

Yes I know my enemy, they’re the teachers who taught me to fight me.

 

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

551 comments on “What Makes a Man?

  1. Men need to stick together. The FI benefits from divide-and-conquer and a quick look at the media gives you a clue, as the gals there are always stirring the racial pot.

    In other news …
    — Black History Month may be over but March is Women’s History Month. Classical stations will be dutifully dusting off those Amy Beach albums. And the daily Google Doodle will be celebrating every obscure female “pioneer” they can dig up

    — Also mark on your calendar the big March 24 anti-men, I mean, anti-gun rally slated for DC

    — The most fascinating thing to me about IQ tests is that in many settings it is now forbidden to use them, so other measures or criteria must be subbed in (e.g. the sometimes inflated value of a college degree)

  2. “The most fascinating thing to me about IQ tests is that”I’ve never met a certified genius that knew when to shut the fuck up.

    That isn’t on the test,I’m guessing.

  3. Palma

    Easier to establish very high social proof in fewer places. Easier to control the variables, take some randomness out of the pull. Two isn’t literal but fewer is better . If the place is right it will be flush with new girls every week cycling through so you won’t have to waste time hunting around all those other bars.

  4. @palma

    I’m now in a south coast party resort with a big university but I’ve been working converting my investment properties into air bnb.

    It’s also the hen party capital of the U.K.

    what a GREAT opportunity!… you know, for game practice…lol… AND those college girls usually have ‘sparkly eyes’…lol… plus, just to point this out… if when you can thrive in this environment, you have even MORE opportunities bc all those other guys are getting shut out by those ‘hens’…lol

    @Sentient

    Reading back on your post what’s the significance of just having 2 locations that you frequent.

    usually so that you develop social proof… and basically you have ‘home court advantage’…lol… and you want to set up in a spot that has lots of turnover/new talent… just wandering in…

    and it works just like this…

    I have a friend who runs coffee shop game and basically he goes to work from the same shop at the same day and time each week.

    He says that women who like him actually clock his routine and turn up on the prescribed day.

    that’s what it looks like in play…

    Where I live now there are hundreds of bars so reatricting myself to two is a bit counterintuitive but it could probably be done.

    just to point this out… you are not stuck at only/those two spots…lol… could be three/four/etc…it’s the concept that matters… which is comfort/efficiency/home court advantage for you… with enough variety to be productive/give you options on any given day… bc girls are just the sprinkles on your mission’s cake/icing… and you want to able to just ‘go out and get one’ whenever you want to…lol… but not kidding…

    and if one spot isn’t producing for you, just set up in another hot spot… just like fishing…

    good luck!

  5. @ Escher

    I’m glad you’re here. I’ve teen sons in my house, different personalities, styles, they practice RP and I am interested in your perspective.

    Welcome aboard.

    @ rugby

    Your anecdotal convo with the man whose mom and son were killed was inspired, oddly coincidental re: our recent exchange…if you don’t believe in divine intervention.

    @ Blax

    Why do you let a nonsequitur race comment bait you such? It’s Friday, friend. Raise a glass with me and enjoy your clear conscience and cheerful countenance. It’s a rare commodity,

    I’m saying this as I’ve got stressed people swearing, pissed, running for cover all around me…right now. One dude, whose got some other stress weighing on him probably, is chilling the vibe. That fear and anxiety is most people’s lives…all the time.

    I had planned on tying that into why people are compelled to IMHO irrelevantly talk race, but life’s too short.

    Oh and my favorite Blax lesson: A man should be bold enough to say what’s on his mind…and bold enough to handle the consequences too.

  6. Is social media (i.e. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.) truly social?

    Or is it really ANTISOCIAL?

    Aren’t the participants really like straw people being presented by women, and other cowards, while hiding behind proverbial rocks?

    What is truly social about hiding behind computers, electronic tablets, smart phones and the internet?

    Aren’t we constantly in the physical presence of many people in our daily lives, some who we find attractive, some who we can potentially engage with for various reasons?

    Why must such a significant amount of social interactions and especially sexual interactions PRIMARILY be channeled through electronic media, unless the primary nature of the participants is fundamentally antisocial?

    Are these media providing freedom and opportunity, or are they functioning as buffers (as Rollo says) in a culture predominately oppressed by social distrust and sexual repression?

  7. NBTM – you were commenting as to why social media often enables antisocial tendencies. Note that social media is more-so beloved by women. Makes sense because these technologies are easily used by women to supercharge their status-sorting proclivities. As I mentioned in comment above (Feb 28th at 10:22 a.m.), the female approach with respect to personal responsibility tends to see said personal responsibility in terms of outcomes for negotiated status interpretations. If this female tendency is not aligned so as to be roughly mapped onto the male approach with respect to personal responsibility, which tends to see said personal responsibility in terms of outcomes for negotiated reality interpretations, then the root cognitive female bias (‘I am’ …. or perhaps even more accurately ‘I will am’) cannot be properly tempered by the masculine root cognitive bias (‘I will’, …. or perhaps even more accurately ‘I am will’), as per the etiology I outlined in comment above. As such, the dissociative nature of the unchecked female ‘I will am’ cognitive bias will be overly emphasized, pretty much like you have outlined by way of your statement:

    “Aren’t the (social media) participants really like straw people being presented by women, and other cowards, while hiding behind proverbial rocks?”

    The phrase ‘straw people’ does do a nice job of succinctly packaging the dissociative aspect of this unchecked female cognitive bias.

  8. @Not_born_this_morning explained something about social media buffers…

    How about language?Guys fear “feminine correctness” while speaking,writing.So they use “correct” words…George Orwell had a quote, “If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought”. Thats the birth of feminized men…They are the men who agonize to chicks” Tell me what to do that makes you happy” like in the Blue Valentine…
    We are just slaves in ourselves…And what is this place? Remaining Men Together?

    I must get out of this zoo,this prison,this reality whatever you want to call it, I can’t stand it any longer.

  9. C’mon palmasailor… See what the leasbian has to say..
    “…Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture. The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.”
    I can’t be calm like a Hindu Cow(can any male?) after noticing such statement…

  10. Not Born This Morning
    March 2, 2018 at 10:45 am

    Left out of the rant. “Are your genes going into the next generation? Or not?”

    And the female is the keeper of that gate.

  11. Speaking of…

    All the county women jailers play LJBF with the men. They turn it on and off switch-like and shit test ha-ha ridicule. The admitting chubby 20’s female jailer immediately pointed out my cocky boots as if that was relevant and tried to get me to affiliate and then quickly tried to get me to further breathalyzer by sticking it In my face and ordering me to blow. Fuck that, silly girl. Then she appealed to my freedom by negotiation as if that’d happen. If I blow, home I go. Bullshit. I STFU.

    Later a chubby 20’s woman jailer yells “PUT HIM IN THE DRUNK TANK” as I was led away to my cell in a attempt to shame (nice try, honey). Really dramatic yelling and overplaying her hand. She sounded screechy.

    It was odd seeing all the psyops played out.

    My cell had a continuous loud clanking in the fan system as an sleep restricting irritant. I did what all jailed do: exercise, plan my defense, find God. Heh.

  12. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K977NxGhyU
    “One of the most difficult aspects men face in unplugging and living in Red Pill awareness is the social stigma that follows when they remove womankind from the pedestal and make themselves their mental point of origin. He gets called an asshole, he gets called selfish, he gets called a misogynist, but he’s also “less of a man” because he no longer conforms to the definition of masculinity that the Feminine Imperative has taught him from his earliest memories. Learning to redefine his mental image of what makes a man a man in his own Red Pill aware state is tough. Most of what he considered the very limited and controlled aspects of an ideal masculinity are a big part of the Blue Pill idealism he was raised on. This transition to conventional masculinity is also hampered by a deep learning of shame and gender loathing for finding anything positive in masculinity.”
    EsCherCix_Wyen

  13. @EsCher:

    No, you don’t remain calm like a Hindu cow. You remain calm like a man.

    You don’t need to find peers, you need to find superiors, who will help you to level up.

  14. NBTM – just read the latest article in the link you posted where the author commented that women are basically prostitutes (as in traders of sex for resources). Can’t really argue with that. It’s more or less the basic reality. Of course by that basic perspective, men are johns. As such, to avoid any wish-washy nonsense, the author has gotta own that end of the basic reality he is outlining, as well.

    Is this helpful to look at it like the gender thing, at the most basic, is all about prostitutes/johns? Well – look at the gender thing for most other mammals, and yes the prostitute/john perspective does carry a lot of explanatory power. The female is withholding and then trading sex for some resource, whatever it may be (for some species – might just be the seed of the winner of masculine tournament competitions). The subtle question becomes – is the particular male’s currency any good, or is it bogus?

    For humans, especially in the west, the landscape is changing so fast that she can’t get a good read on the masculine currency issue.

    The females of most mammalian species are the vessels or repositories of deep scripts around discerning golden masculine currency from the bogus variety, ….. scripts as shaped by the ever-changing challenges posed by the species’ reality (existential conditions) as measured in generational time. What happens when the landscape changes so fast that no one can really be sure if the longer term (multi-generational) currency judgments are accurate? Don’t matter – she still needs to deal, she still needs to choose. If she refuses to choose, in effect that is still a choice. Maybe that’s where we are kinda at right now (particularly in the shrinking demographic, relatively-speaking, within the west).

    OK – so the west was winning the cultural competition, until it’s not, because perhaps now the women are more and more-so choosing to refuse to exercise their power of choice in this matter (due to confusion). Now how is the western man gonna best respond to that? Perhaps helping her gain some traction again, with respect to helping her improve her confidence around her deep biological imperative for judging the masculine currency. How does the western man do that? Simplify the cognitive landscape that the cultural landscape is based upon. Because the actual landscape of reality is changing so fast, that the cultural landscape must change in step, and this pace of change has eroded the feminine confidence in their powers to discern around masculine resource provision (and note – we have entered an era where ‘resource provision’ is more and more-so not about material resources per se, but about the provision of the abstract resource that masters the material). Since the western man will not go Luddite and take action to slow the pace of change within the actual landscape of reality (since acceleration of this abstraction, this abstract resource that master the material, has been western man’s modus operandi and recipe for success to date), the other option would be to simplify the cognitive landscape that the cultural landscape has been based upon. How can western man do that? Double down on the premises of the western tradition, the core of which is responsible individuality. As such, this endeavor will probably begin with bringing confounding non-western influences that are, nevertheless, freely operating within the western sphere, to heel. Those first steps have now begun to occur over the past two years, interestingly, corresponding to the rise of the Trump phenomenon, which I see as acting as a catalyst for this endeavor.

  15. Blax – of course not all women are like that ; ; poke’n fun at the man-o-sphere now, you sly fox. Nice jest.

  16. @palma

    He’s a clinical psychologist. His profession generally involves helping people rewrite the narratives of their own lives in their own head to live healthily. Treating truth and reality as subjective is a part of that process. It comes as no surprise to me that he’s willing to treat his own religious faith or blue pill convictions in the same manner.

  17. “… the Deepak Chopra of Christianity.”

    He has been called the atheist CS Lewis.
    I don’t understand the point of the video. He isn’t a Christian. As far as I know, he has never claimed to be a Christian.
    He does recognize the importance of religion to many, many people.
    Christians don’t typically reference Nietzsche.
    This article at Global Guerrillas, I think, sums it up.
    http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2017/06/man-is-dead-and-we-have-killed-him-you-and-i.html

    “Even back in the late 1800’s, Nietzsche had the genius to see that science was in the process of killing God and with it Christian morality.

    What was the result? Deep psychological trauma and a vacuum of meaning. That vacuum was filled by tribal nihilism (fascism) and economic utopianism (communism). Movements that almost turned the 20th Century into our last as a species.

    Unfortunately, it appears that western society is in the process of killing something of equal import in this century. Something that has been a foundational building block of the psychology of our species for millions of years. Something that IS causing a vacuum of meaning and deep psychological trauma.

    We are killing masculinity. Maleness in all its forms has been deprecated as an outdated bit of software. Something to be rewritten for the modern world.

    However, it’s not something that is easily rewritten. It’s part of us, both individually and as a group, at a deep structural level. A foundational building block that has proved advantageous to our survival over millions of years of human social evolution.

    It’s in the kernel of our social being. This makes trying to rewrite it on the fly akin to rewriting the software on a modern jet aircraft travelling at mach 3. It’s not only impossibly difficult, it’s existentially dangerous for everyone onboard (all of us).

    Regardless, we’re rewriting it and we can already see its ill effects. We can see it in the deep psychological distress it is causing in men and women. We can see a vacuum of meaning forming all around us. A void that new social movements are starting to fill from the online tribal nihilism that propelled Trump into the oval office to identity utopians who are being manufactured by the millions in US Universities.

  18. If nothing else, I can appreciate the fact Peterson doesn’t seem to use a teleprompter, in some pretty high risk situations. There aren’t a lot of truly candid interviews these days, though the audience doesn’t typically know it. When people sit through interviews and answer questions that are later viewed with a critical eye designed to “catch” any conflicting statements there are bound to be some. Life outside the script isn’t always consistent. This is why some politicians even bring teleprompters to speak to a kindergarten class. Seems silly but it’s actually smart. God forbid anyone go off script and accidentally contradict themselves.

  19. There’s no such thing as life without contradiction, unless you are a machine.

    …. Of course, this depends on how you define ” contradiction “. 😁

  20. Rollo, the realist concept of truth is full of shit. We don’t perceive the world objectively, but subjectively, thru our senses. We might have an idea of what the world is really like, but that idea can change, just like scientific theories have changed.

    Probably the most useful concept of truth is the pragmatist, which is about how useful one’s ideas about truth are. For example, if a scientific concept is true, then engineers ought to be able to use it. There is no absolute claim that one truly understands reality in back of this, but merely that our own, limited understanding has been found to be useful.

  21. Back in the day, we’d believe twelve different contradictions before we even ate breakfast, then we’d walk five miles through deep snow to school. Men were men and sheep were nervous.

  22. We do not see things as they really are; news at the dawn of self-awareness.

    “What if your ” senses ” are off?”

    IFR (Insturment Flight Rules).

  23. It is all a simulation and reality is your field of view. Your field of view is all there IS, nothing else exists until it enters your field of view. .you create your own reality, dont let other people create yours. I realized this even before red pill awakening. I was at the holiday on sea and we met some french girls and something snaped in my head as we were on the beach, like i turned some ok game on switch so i relaxed, acted cool, chilled, enjoyed myself, fake it so to speak. Two days later banged the french girl in pool without much talking…

  24. I subscribe to a decidedly realist view of things. After all, just because you believe wholeheartedly that you weren’t fatally wounded doesn’t make the wound any less fatal. I have to admit that it has made overcoming my psychological obstacles difficult though, as treating the truth of my past subjectively has been largely unsuccessful. I have difficulty letting go of what the evidence clearly tells me no matter what I’d rather believe even if it’s for my own good.

    It’s the same reason that unlike JBP I eventually rejected religion despite years of external and internal pressure to accept it. He’s what it looks like when you try to claim rationality based in evidence and reason, then hit a part of your life where you refuse to apply it. It’ll ultimately be his undoing as a big chunk of his audience is likely atheist. They will eventually start to pay attention to the inconsistency. It’ll unravel on its own from there.

  25. I got thrown into a flow state today and in the last three weeks.. In the zone today. Subsequent to having a video conference with two red pill buddies on Thursday night and then having a convocation with another red pill buddy and an agnostic to Red Pill Alpha buddy on Friday night at the cigar lounge (the three of us).

    I lifted yesterday and did some cardio with shin splints today (more cramps and fatigue). But my head was clear as fuck. Some of these guys got through to me and I got through to them and others we just resonated without any clear direction back an forth, validating each other.

    And life goes on being beautiful.

    The purpose of this comment is to direct some thoughts to Rationalism. I don’t really know if that is even in the realm of Realism. Like I read Ayn Rand and Objectivism decades ago. And if I do my job, the best thing I can do is get out of my fucking head, because my dominant function is Introverted Intuition and Extroverted Thinking is a close second. The biggest gains in Red Pill lately in the last three years are when I get out of my head and just go with the fucking flow. Otherwise know for me as Extroverted Sensing. Taking it in and going with it, in the moment, with the flow and being in a flow state. Since I’m not autistic, and I’m talented, I have infinite capacity to do that. Especially with help from Red Pill Awareness, Game and support a kick in the ass or a poke with a sharp stick from a red pill buddy in real life.

    So as in this thread we are talking about IQ, dissing on intellectuals like Jordan Peterson (who is no friend to Red Pill– but not quite an enemy unless the acolytes are stupid in red pill regards– and seems solipsistic when it comes to Trad Con shit. Trad con fits when the environment is ideal for it–Ask me how it works for me….)

    When I was talking to my buddies, some of them benefited by my dominant state of being in my head. But on the other hand when I see some of those guys not being in their head and just Extroverted thinking and doing and proceeding like a modern day version of Ghengis Khan, I realize that there is some truth to proceeding with the Red Pill Script (I’ve not actually doubted that, but may have buffered along the way).

    So here’s the deal. I’m going to link a Rian Stone, Stone PT link. This guy is a smart guy from the MRP reddit on Rollo’s side bar.

    He had this post:

    https://rianstonept.blogspot.ca/2016/03/turn-off-your-brain.html

    Turn Off your Brain

    Chad
    Man, there’s some asinine questions in AMRP lately, reminds me of the old adage I was told early on. It was mostly geared towards working out, but I’ll bet it would help in most areas.

    That image of Chad you have in my head? Muscle-head who gets girls, etc. In traditional Nietzsche fashion, that envy of a cock sure man who gets girls taught me a few things. (envy is inspirational/aspirational IMO)

    You know what Chad does? Wakes up, he eats, goes to the gym, comes home, talks to his phone harem about his needs, gets them, or moves on and eats lunch. What an idiot. If only he was more self aware. It’s just too bad that he’s focused on his singular vision. Happiness.
    Thinking isn’t helpful in singular focus

    Know what? You know what thinking does? Thinking helps think up excuses asshole. Thinking points out all the reasons something won’t work. The “smarter” I am, the more I think, the more these excuses make sense. I had an early OYS that I admitted I was a very smart guy, and it wasn’t meant as a compliment. I truly believe that.

    The greatest curse of the intelligent person is that he can rationalize anything

    Here’s where I ramble:

    You know what smart guys do? Have most things come easily and naturally. Know what to do when something isn’t immediately clicking? Give up, because I am ‘a smart man’ and if something doesn’t come naturally, just quit:

    I’m smart, so I’ll build up a narrative that placates my ego, and I don’t have to test my identity further.

    I could have done better if I applied myself, so it’s clearly that I didn’t, and not that I’m not gifted in everything.

    So I used to ignore things that you don’t immediately master, because the alternative is to admit that this ID I have of being the ‘intelligent man’ is more important than truth, growth, or success. Tell me that’s not the epitome of BP bullshit. I don’t miss that shit at all, kind of freeing really. I no longer have anxiety for being less than perfect in things, and no one cared anyways.

    My buddies are getting to me. I knew that shit. But they are body slamming me home on the deal by just observing them and how they stay out of their head and just act. (I function at a high level and own my shit. I have an elevated level of security, but don’t scrimp on adventure, risk taking and pursuit of intersexual strategy.) They challenge me and elevate me out of my cocoon.

    Meanwhile In that essay by Rian Stone, he links an essay on: The greatest curse of the intelligent person is that he can rationalize anything.

    And that perhaps is the crux of what the Jordan Peterson deal is in regards to the red pill. I frankly think Jordan Peterson know about the red pill in stark detail, he knows about PUA worlds, but is comfortably numb in his blue pill world.

    Anyways the link to the curse of the intelligent person, the link went dead because of neglect of the domain.

    You can find it here:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20170222171403/http://www.ericfordh.com/t-20090303

    But I think a long cut-and-paste is in order, just to confuse/not confuse those morons more on the fringe.

    SMART MAN’S BURDEN
    March 3rd, 2010 – Eric Ford-Holevinski

    Is being smart overrated? With respect to intelligence people are easily able to perceive where they fall compared to others. If you talk to a person for a few minutes, no matter how elegantly or poorly he speaks, you can quickly tell how many cylinders he’s running on.

    I once read a magazine story listing things we wish we had — beauty, fame, wealth, genius — that wouldn’t be as much fun as we expect. For example, beautiful people are only vaguely, unconsciously aware of their attractiveness. They like to hear compliments like everyone else, and when they look in the mirror they consider themselves average and normal.

    The same was argued for intelligence: a genius is only able to perceive his own brilliance when he runs up against the lesser powers of other people. A rocket scientist doesn’t think of what he does as so difficult and complex, but when he tries to explain it to his poker buddies, they return only dumb stares.

    To this I say, not so fast. While it’s undeniable that some people are brighter than others, just how much is hard to measure. Einstein was a genius, but he never had the illusion that his work in physics was child’s play, and that everyone else was too dumb to get it. He worked extremely hard on his theories.

    The extent to which intelligence is distorted by training and experience is enormous. Had Einstein been trained as a surgeon, he might have been a talented surgeon, but even he could only pursue one course. He couldn’t be both a master physicist and a master surgeon.

    Even people who seem stupid in some ways can be quite sharp in others. Think of the top-flight student who acts like a fool in social situations, or the uneducated man with an encyclopedic knowledge of all things sports. People who don’t know the multiplication table can tell you the personal details of countless celebrities and know hundreds of song lyrics by heart. One might say we measure intelligence more by what others choose to burn their mental fuel on than by the sheer horsepower of their minds. But is that sensible, or just arrogant?

    In his book, A Conflict of Visions, Thomas Sowell describes two groups of people. Those with the “constrained” vision, which I will call the “Tragic” vision here, believe many elements of human nature are fixed and that human potential is limited. For example: there’s a limit to how much we can empathize with others, how much we can act without self-interest, how much knowledge, wisdom and expertise one person can absorb. Our capacity for good is finite. After all, most of our principles of morality and ethics were well-established thousands of years ago, yet people commit immoral acts every day. There is never a true solution to any problem: people can’t be both free and equal, peace can’t be preserved without arms. There are real differences in the demands and needs of different people and cultures. As such, personal life, politics, and the fabric of society all contain numberless compromises.

    The other group of people bear what Sowell calls the “unconstrained” vision, which I will call the “Rationalist” vision here. This worldview holds that human potential is unlimited; that the power of reason, which is infinite, can conquer man’s demons and transform him, eventually, into “a new kind of man.” Any person, confronted with the correct argument, will see what is right and true and adjust accordingly. If this is true, there is no need for compromise, because no problem can’t be overcome by a sufficient application of intellect. If true, there is no reason for war, because it can only be a misunderstanding. The only cause of crime is desperation.

    Is it any surprise, then, that people who subscribe to the Rationalist vision place an extremely high value on intellect? They tend to believe that if smart people with the right ideas were in control, these enlightened individuals could fix all of our problems, forever: war, poverty, crime, etc. They view the human race as one giant mathematical equation just waiting to be reasoned through.

    Naturally, people of the Rationalist view are often smart themselves: bright people see in their own intelligence a god-like spark. They tend to think they could do anything, if they really tried… including govern other people. Everyone thinks he knows better than everyone else, and the smarter you are, the stronger this impulse is. The idea of a small group of people (say, a court, parliamentary body or strong executive) using higher reason to craft change that will redeem society sounds not only possible, but highly desirable. Anything that delays that salvation becomes unbearable, as the world they feel entitled to is withheld.

    Most of us think our personal worldview, developed over the course of years and years, is fairly objective, natural, and representative of reality. It’s no more deliberate than speaking in one language or another. Applying these visions helps people interpet the world, both present and historic, though seldom consciously. If you read in the newspaper that some country just developed a nuclear weapon, you don’t have to stop and think about how you feel about it: you instantly have a reaction. And if you read about the past, it’s the same. If you hold the Rationalist vision, for example, you would argue that the Founding Fathers were wicked for failing to abolish slavery in their time, because slavery is obviously evil, and always was. If you hold the Tragic view, you would respond that the Founding Fathers had no choice but to accept slavery as a compromise, because they knew American independence and unity were impossible in their time unless they did.

    People of similar interests and brain power tend to flock together, thus as smart, Rationalist types meet other smart, Rationalist types, they confirm each other’s ideas and inevitably conclude that people who adhere to the Tragic vision — whom they rarely interact with — must be either less intelligent, deceived, or wicked. Perhaps even “anti-intellectual.”

    Those of the Tragic vision have often learned from painful experience that human beings can only be so good, themselves most of all. They’ve seen the unpleasant and humbling consequences of choices they made. They’ve seen the countless mistakes their friends and family make every day, the lapses in judgment, the thoughtless cruelty… and they’ve decided not only is no one in the world that wise and angelic, but no one ever will be. And the idea that any one person or group of people thinks they are so, is terrifying. The kind of person who thinks he’s talented enough to steer the ship of state is exactly the person who ought to be kept as far from power as possible. The perfect world will never come, and the best mankind can hope for is to hold onto what’s good for as long as possible. To conserve it, so to speak.

    The Tragic vision asserts that everyone holds only a small piece of the total knowledge in society, and is only capable of holding that small piece. For centuries Western culture has exalted the multi-talented “Renaissance Man” like Theodore Roosevelt or Henry VIII, but even the most gifted people can’t equal the knowledge and wisdom disseminated among the millions of individuals in a whole nation. Thus, Stephen Hawking may be sharper than most plumbers, but a plumber with 30 years of experience, who has “seen it all,” has a kind of knowledge in his work that Hawking will never possess.

    Thomas Sowell avoids making a judgment, in that book, about which worldview is really correct, although he makes his own opinion clear in other books and in his columns. Personally, I admit I was once invested in the Rationalist vision (though I never thought in such terms back then), but as I grow older I’m increasingly attached to the Tragic view. I was raised in Ann Arbor, a University town, where everyone pats himself on the back for being so intellectual and educated. It’s a beautiful town, for sure. But my dad always used to say, “Ann Arbor is not the real world.”

    I think the chief mark of Rationalist people is discontent. They are never happy with the world as it is — the world as it was handed to them. It’s not the world they would create, and they’re stuck with it. So they insist on change, progress for its own sake. A decade without change is a “lost decade,” time without progress is wasted. As long as some bright minds are constantly tinkering with our society, things will get better. Many believe a revolution is the fastest way to leap closer to perfection. But because there is a limit to human potential, and only so much change can happen so fast, the new model is barely better than the old one — if not worse — and brings compromises of its own, which is maddening to Rationalists. And even if they created the new system, they can’t face the crushing possibility that its flaws are a reflection of their own human flaws. So they blame someone else: “This wasn’t what I wanted; other people interfered.” It’s back to the drawing board. There is no omelette.

    The curse of being smart is that you can rationalize anything. It’s hard to see your own flaws and shortcomings when you can explain them away with ease. I know this all too well, myself. Everything is due to “circumstances” if not directly someone else’s fault; people and things you admire are also without fault. So, when something goes wrong out in the world — say, your candidate loses an election, a book you submitted for publication is rejected, a girl you like spurns you — it’s easy to blame it on stupidity. “Don’t the people know what’s good for them?” “Doesn’t she realize I’m the right man for her?”

    That’s why irony was invented.

  26. Rollo, as a relatively recent Red Pill aware divorced father and physician (i.e. child & adult Psychiatrist) I have so many examples from my personal and professional experiences that support your ‘teachings’ and insights…completely.

    A year or so ago during a discrete discussion post-another breakup with yet another Cluster B/BPDer (damn…I f’in knew it, I knew it!) – a former co-worker later turned genuine friend told me about The Rational Male; and for the first time I REALLY started to get ‘it’.

    While this past year or so has had it’s challenges personally and professionally (yah, most of my Administrators…bosses, if you like, continue to be women. Need I say more?) – I have learned much about myself, women and life. Thru the employment of Red Pill awareness and skills developed(ing), I have improved my handling of ‘relationships’ at every level.

    Furthermore, the quality and quantity of…physical relationships with women I’ve experienced in the last year alone has been, well, pretty remarkable; I would be happy to share some…anecdotes and tips for interested readers at another time. It’s sometimes hard even for me to believe; yes, it’s been that good.

    But more importantly, even when I slipped up and occasionally lost frame (damn those serious hotties don’t make it easy 😎), I have NEVER again lost any sleep or dwelled… It’s time to move to the next plate!

    In any event, cliche’ or not, RT, I humbly express my sincere appreciation to you and fellow supportive Red Pill men out there (Ty, thanks again, buddy; I hope you too are well). I will continue to suggest others in need read your books and blog.

    -Halp in Denver

    [Thanks Andrew, I’m glad you could benefit from what I write. It’s also encouraging to see some male ‘therapists’ using my work in their own practices now.]

  27. @Andrew first rule of fight club their is no fight club second rule of fight club we don’t talk about fight club.

  28. @ Andrew –
    First glad yer here, fascinating how the world looks with blinders removed eh. It’s everywhere.
    Second – yeah, in this day of “factory farm medicine” and docs being now the cattle we don’t want our slavemasters to 100% identify us.

    Compadres – sorry for what medicine has become, it’s not what we want either.

    Okay – back to the interesting.

  29. Palma

    Lol. I like listening to Peterson because even though I disagree with some of his points, and I think he sometimes builds arguments on false or flawed premise, he puts up great and forceful argument until he gets totally stumped.

  30. Peterson is not a Christian in any contemporary sense, or at least one that is not deeply heretical.

    He is a Religionist. He believes in Religion, whether he believes in it or not. Hence part of his difficulty in answering a straightforward question.

  31. @ASD:

    People die of their senses being in error every day. I’ve had a few nasty moments myself.

    But at a different level, when you press a piano key, are your senses in error? They certainly do not reveal reality to you.

    They do, however, reflect reality to you.

    If you could survive it long enough, you could survive synesthesia by learning to remap the subjective sense experience to be cognate with survivability. Dolphins do not hear with echo location, they see with it. That is their brain constructs a model from sound cognate with models made from sight.

  32. Religion only serves to set up rules and man-interpreted regulations for masses of adherents to follow. There is a distinct difference between ” religion ” and spirituality.

    Hence the ” my way is better than your way ” vibe. I’ll reiterate that Jesus never met a ” Christian “, and according to biblical accounting, he’d be pretty horrified at what is said and done in his name.

    So I don’t take points away from Peterson for what he says regarding religion, and whether or not he can be ” tripped up ” when talking about it. There’s plenty of disagreement between Christians and it’s various sects.

  33. @Blaximus:

    I imagine that in India Peterson would have answered similarly about the existence of a flesh and blood Krishna driving the chariot of a flesh and blood Arjuna.

    I note, however, that spirituality, just like everything else, without rules is chaos Cultures with a cohesive spiritual outlook thrive, those without, do not. This is, at root, what Peterson believes in. So he’s not going to capsize the boat.

    Which does imply that you shouldn’t be rather wary of priests wielding power.

  34. Unless I miss my guess Petey is born and raised confirmed lutheran same as niestche.
    This sets up a deep rooted social conditioning of the crusader saviour mindset. Nietzche would appear to have taken this same upbringing and rebeled against it his whole life.

    This doesn’t fit well with a scientific education, there is conflict with virgin birth, resurecting flesh when all vital organs are necrotic (this begins at three minutes).

  35. @Boulderhead:

    Bernt Peterson. He be Norwegian and shit. Supporting evidence for a Lutheran childhood.

  36. I’m not judging the man or the religion, at least Martin figured out that it was ok for a priest to get a little now and then. Just saying having listened to J,B,Pete it fits I would even put money on it. I wonder if the thought of excomunication was going through his mind as he considered his answer.

  37. It’s funny how these pieces of shit are doubling down on looking down their proboscises at the mainland countrymen. The dems are getting their shit pushed in come the mids no matter how many stupid kids march for gun control. And I think the crackers realize they don’t need another sanctimonious cuckservative in the whitehouse.

    Bill Maher just said some shit on his show about Hope Hicks. He was telling the audience Trump’s party is about “giving Hicks Hope”.

    That’s gonna bite him in the ass. And those little gun-control “victim” twonks too. These stupid little fucks think all they have to do to win is get on a soapbox…..or on a high-schooler’s corpse.

  38. It’s rather late for that. The movie was written and directed by a North Island girl, ethnicity unknown, but I suspect Sephardic. She claims it isn’t a feminist movie, because the Maori are “profoundly matriarchal.”

    Yeah. Right.

    Current project is director of Disney’s live action Mulan.

  39. @ASD:

    If senses are generally unreliable, you can’t. But it isn’t a condition you should expect to have to live with for long.

  40. kfg, thanks for making my point…senses are generally reliable…hence my conservative empirical/pragmatic epistemology…a realist epistemology is too radical for me…

  41. @ASD:

    I cannot know that your subjective experience “blue” is the same as my subjective experience “blue.”

    But I can build an artificial sense and empirically determine that your “blue” and mine map equally to the output of the artificial sense.

  42. kfg, you can hear or read my empirical statements and examine them with your critical faculty and determine if they correspond to your experience. Or, a third party could hear our separate empirical statements and compare them. The critical faculty is required and so is corroboration. All of that is found, unsurprisingly, in ancient Jewish literature…unsurprising, because the Jews melded law and religion.

  43. ” . . . you can hear or read my empirical statements and examine them with your critical faculty and determine if they correspond to your experience.”

    For instance, we can both report that we hear a buzzing sound when the Blue Detector is pointed at something we both call “blue,” but do not hear it when pointed at something we call “red.”

    Implying that “blueness” can be a subjective sound experience and not merely a sight experience, a conversion factor being generated by the detector, and thus implying that “blue” exists in the detector and not merely our minds.

    i.e. “blue” is real.

  44. “. . . the Jews melded law and religion.”

    Just like, well, everybody until rather recently. Which is why it so hard to explain Islam to a post-Enlightenment secularist. They are not mentally equipped to understand that a Muslim actually believes his religion,, i.e. the Law.

  45. Sun Wukong
    March 3, 2018 at 1:11 am

    He has taken psychedelics. It gives you a whole different outlook on religion.

    And then there is his notion that half the brain is devoted to religion.

    There was a saying in the late 60s, “Are You Experienced?”

    Suppose you don’t have to believe in God because you have experienced him? It colors your outlook.

  46. anon
    March 3, 2018 at 4:16 am

    “Even back in the late 1800’s, Nietzsche had the genius to see that science was in the process of killing God and with it Christian morality.

    So understanding destroys religion.

    That is temporary. Eventually we will get a religion with understanding that matches the age. It will probably be distributed with 100,000 prophets.

    It is probably already among us.

  47. SJF
    March 3, 2018 at 7:20 pm

    The curse of being smart is that you can rationalize anything.

    That is why engineers have “sanity checks”. In this context, “What would disprove my theory?”

    It is typically why you have different engineers doing design vs engineers doing design checks.

    Very few have the courage to destroy their own design.

  48. theasdgamer
    March 4, 2018 at 1:34 pm

    If senses are generally unreliable, then how can we get empirical info?

    Instrumentation. Calibrated instrumentation.

    We have come a fair way with our understanding of quantum mechanics.

  49. Just like, well, everybody

    Let’s get back on point…the Jews established a rudimentary epistemology of testimony…did anybody else do that…you can find the epistemology in their scriptures.

  50. “Or…the program has been written so that “blue” seems real.”

    I said Real, not True. If our minds are the product of a program, the program exists outside of our minds. The program is real, even if false. Margritte’s painting of a pipe is not a pipe, but it is a painting.

    “Instrumentation. Calibrated instrumentation.”

    I had already brought up instrumentation, but the senses must report the output of the instruments reliably if they are to be useful.

    ” …did anybody else do that…”

    The Jews got the idea from the major cultures around them, the Babylonians and the Egyptians, possibly even the Canaanites (who got it from the Sumerians and the Egyptians). Even the idea of monotheism had been tried out in Egypt. There is nothing special about the Jews, not even in being The Chosen People. Being The Chosen People was common among people.

  51. “emblematic masculinity that is so appealing to people now.”

    A woman speaks and certain sex-starved men think it’s true. Feminists find themselves routinely redefining masculinity to suit their purposes, Sisyphean work. She’s not telling Alphas not to be Alpha, she’s telling betas to remain beta.

  52. A recent study shows, that studies show different shit consistently over time, apparently to keep ” studies ” going, to be tweaking or refuting previous studies.😀

    I’ve lost track of the studies regarding coffee. It either kills you or grants immortality, depending on what year it is.

  53. @palma

    He’s 17.

    My oldest is leaving soon, RPilled two years back, when I did, and reads TRM.

    He’s much different than I. I’m comforted that although he’s not he’s not smashing with women it, he is thoroughly sensitive to the FI, hypergamy and not being Blue Pilled. He knows what’s at stake. Good enough for now.

    He’s young though been working in busy diners for a couple years now, intuitively orders around/ignores all women OTJ. He’s an enigma to others too as he’s avoidant of trouble, though assertive when accomplishing his short and long term desires.

    He’s been the closest thing as a RP confidant close by, but cut from different cloth and mentally, emotionally has left the nest. I don’t get in his way, though I’m near for technical sherpa-like opinion when he asks. It’s his journey, his risk, his reward.

    He doesn’t talk a lot to me…or anyone. When he does it’s usually important and well thought out.

    I’ve learned a lot from him.

  54. ” . . . he’s avoidant of trouble, though assertive when accomplishing his short and long term desires.”

    So, he’s on track to founding an empire.

  55. The Jews got the idea from the major cultures around them, the Babylonians and the Egyptians

    Possibly, but I haven’t found any sources to corroborate that story. Otoh, the Jews made sure that their narrative survived.

    Here are the texts I’m thinking of:

    “Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word shall be established.”

    Implies confirmation of testimonial statements

    “The witnesses shall be examined thoroughly.”

    Implies judicial scrutiny

    “We cannot stop speaking of what we have seen and heard.”

    Implies an empirical requirement for testimony

    This has implications for law, history, and research. It’s interesting that Robert Boyle placed heavy emphasis on testimony about experiments. The Royal Society even had a book that witnesses signed who had observed demonstrations.

    Things have changed since Boyle’s day. Now there’s so little replication and such credulity that researchers frequently get away with fraud. It’s all about research funding.

  56. He’s inscrutable to everyone though I know his subtle physical tells when he’s concerned. It took me a while to celebrate his personality, defend his approach to life, including, from my wife’s FI driven knee jerk too, time my advice when he’s receptive and allow him to flourish qua him, without my biases.

    Years back, he was 12-13, we were playing “Say Anything” board game. The question was: Which company would you most like working for? His written answer: My own.

    I couldn’t hold my love back for his intellect and potential. More important thats when I STFU about his potential plans and relagated myself to a guy with nuts and bolts experience but no real strategic ability to fortell what success means to him.

    I learned a lot of that, the ability to verbalize this from all y’all. Thanks.

    I know he appreciates my from-a-respectful-distance parenting. He’s told me such recently. Complements come rare from him to anyone, for anything; that was a red letter day for me.

  57. “Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word shall be established.”

    That is not Jewish scripture. That is a letter written by a Jewish apostate circa 100 years after Maccabees (already a Greco-Roman influenced culture), instructing Roman law dating back no later than the founding of the Republic (and was probably basic military code in the encampment on Palatine Hill).

    That is about the same time that the Jews were learning the principles of civilized jurisprudence from their Babylonian captors.

  58. “Hammurabi code(s)”

    Dating from about the supposed time of Moses (a fugitive from Egyptian jurisprudence for a capital crime). Things that make you go, “Hmmmmm.”

  59. I’ll also note that the Gospels depict Jewish law as crude and barbaric, lacking civilized protections for the innocent, from a Roman judicial perspective.

  60. Laws that let you kill whoever you hate as long as you’re part of the Sanhedrin sure seem like the sort of thing that would get folks praying.

  61. The ten commandments require only two actions for piety: Keep the sabbath and honor mom and dad. The rest are inactions. In context, they were probably novel ideas.

  62. @Eh Intellect:

    See my comment above. Moses fled Egypt because he had committed murder. I think you will find that “Don’t commit murder” has been a legal maxim among all peoples who object to being murdered.

  63. Sheeeeeit. I’m talking about the extracurricular shit that those fucks had BEFORE Jesus came and pushed their shit in. They has a good little system going. Maiming your tribute so you had to buy one of THEIRS if you wanted to offer it up. I know the atheists want a religion-less world, but The memory of Jesus helps arm the schmuck against Dr. Zaius and the rest of the “Civilzed” folk.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2fEfNOzcEU

    Surely Elysium awaits.

  64. theasdgamer
    March 5, 2018 at 3:50 am

    Trust the gauges. Your senses can mislead you. IFR.

    And – if the gauges have numbers can you read them correctly? There are tests for that.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: