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. kfg
    March 5, 2018 at 4:51 am

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

    Modern instruments use numbers. Misinterpretation is more difficult.

  2. @Yollo

    The militant “FUCK YOU MOM AND DAD I’LL DO WHAT I WANT” teenatheists see a world without religion. While I personally will always be critical of religion, I also understand that most people need a more or less well defined set of rules combined with the threat of eternal punishment to motivate them toward civilized behavior. “It’s good for society” or even “It’ll pay your future self dividends” does not motivate most of the population. Threaten them with supernatural retribution though and they fall in line.

    I don’t see a world without religion, but I do see a world where those who choose to abandon it might need a well-defined set of guidelines to live by. That’s our current problem: those guidelines are just being defined by a different set of zealous ideologues in search of power. Reasonable voices among atheist types are drowned out by the screeching harpies of SocJus on a routine basis.

    Something will have to give. I’m counting on it being the harpies, as their self-contradictions and attacks on their own are shattering their facade of “morality”.

  3. And now from the Bitch Shut The Fuck Up department :

    [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQeKDgNCiGY&w=854&h=480%5D

    #Metoo is going to peter out. It’s just the latest victim trend. What’s more dangerous is what it will leave in it’s wake.

    [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tlsPM_XN4k&w=854&h=480%5D

    But this whole thing has been interesting from the standpoint that it has illustrated just how much men will not fight back. The only thing metoo accomplished besides shaming males is demonstrating that no matter how insane a thing that becomes a man bashing-anti male movement is, a majority of men will not publicly fight back in unison.

  4. Ashley Dudd actually said ” many women have been spoken to or touched with a straight botox deficient face.

    Spoken to.

    Then she says ” burn the patriarchy down..”. Lmfao, gtfoh with that shit already. So because somebody ( you didn’t find attractive ) said some things to you, this is the reaction?

    There should’ve been a rebuttal of some sort. She can’t spout this shit unchallenged.

  5. “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.”

    I’ve been having weekly conversation with my dear old mom (who is nearly 90 and a very very devout Catholic), first reading a chapter or two of the Gospel of John each week, and then discussing about it – because she received that task as penance, (to read the entire Gospel of John in order) further to confession, and she wanted some help with that task, and asked me. We have done chapters 1 thru 11 so far (there are 20 chapters – so a ways to go yet).

    Anyways – as the story in this gospel builds – the general tone is becoming unmistakable. Jesus is depicted as insolent, disrespectful, evasive, extremely critical, and angry towards the jewish religious leadership, yet, in a rather enigmatic way, presents himself as fulfillment of widely held jewish prophetic belief among the jewish religious leadership, as the messiah.

    I am starting to see this Gospel of John as the story of Jesus spitting in the face of the jewish religious leadership inclusive of contemptuously mindfucking them by way of gaslighting them with respect to their prophetic system.

    Interestingly (to me), this observation about the Gospel of John marries-up surprisingly well with my earlier speculations that Christianity has nothing to do with Judaism, because it is actually a brutal condemnation of such, .,… Christianity is not formed on the bedrock of the Judaic, except by way of using the Judaic as a foil to divorce itself from.

    As Vox Day has been fond of pointing out lately, Judeo-Christianity is a fallacy. Though I disagree with VD on some things (like his definition of the alt-right by way of his 16 points ….. it is glaringly contradictory and clearly not accurate), I do agree with him with respect to the popular claim that the so-called Judeo-Christian ideology is coherent, is untrue.

    Gods’ chosen people? – ya right. An extremely immature jewish perspective imo.

  6. @ EH & palma

    Yep, the wilderness isn’t easy alone & this down under summer i’ve just hit the wall. For the first time really in the 12 years i’ve lived out here (in the house alone with a mate in the shack 100 metres away) i’ve felt lonely. I know it seems like i’m being a whiny blue pill Beta, but i’m hanging to get with a cool woman. I’m just tired of doing everything alone; cooking for myself, sleeping alone, going to festivals alone, camping alone, gardening alone…I’ve started to seriously question just why i’m putting in all this effort to maintain & improve this property that is sending me financially and emotionally broke…

    There are a lot of people out there in the same boat who aren’t living in the wilderness; quite a few of my creative friends are in the same position. All very cool people who just can’t seem to meet anyone to get together with. It’s very frustrating. It seems as though us creatives (unless famous) either intimidate the more non-creative types (hate to label, but you know what i mean) or we’re just too out there or fucked-up to be able to have an intimate relationship. And i’m talking about both men & women i know. Has toxic feminism totally destroyed the ability for men and women to get together and have meaningful relationships, or is it something else or a combination of factors? I’m pretty fuckn perplexed and down about it all at the moment. I’ve tried very hard to maintain a stoic Alpha front, but now i’ve just fallen in a hole…

    So now 2018 for me is about getting out of the wilderness for a while fora change of scene where i can interact with more humans, and perhaps meet a woman i can get together with. I will always be my own mental point of origin, but it seems even putting all of TRP teachings into practice isn’t enough anymore…

  7. John is the last written of the Gospels. It is also anomolous, You won’t find any of John in Mark, Matthew or Luke, which were probably written by nominal Jews (Mark would have been quite Hellenized though and not from Palestine, which raises some theological problems).

    Vox has rhetorical reasons for his rhetorical argument. They may be culturally correct and he doesn’t care if they are not particularly historically or theologically correct. He cares that the meme is accepted and grows. He isn’t playing to be a good sport. He’s playing to win.

    But I note that the first great heresy to arise within the Church was an attempt to remove “Jewishness” from Christianity. That attempt came in the form of creating the original New Testament. The person responsible was excommunicated and run out of Rome. The Church created a New New Testament in his wake.

    I understand the reasons, both rhetorical and theological, why the Church of the second century could not permit the Jewish underpinnings of Christianity to be eradicated.

    But, we are way off topic on a subject almost sure to hijack the thread, and perhaps the site if allowed to progress too far.

  8. But there’s more to it than this. The simple fact is that, in 2012, ‘alpha’ behaviour has not only become unnecessary, but it’s also become counter-productive.

    2016: Donald Trump defeats Hillary Clinton

  9. kfg, Genesis shows a literary structure from much earlier than 7th century Babylon. And the Jews have always been big on preserving their scriptures, hiding them in caves and shit. It takes some pointy headed academic fool to argue that the plain sense of tradition is in error. He’s probably just trying to make a few shekels to supplement what the uni pays him by selling books with some radical thesis.

    An engineer should know better. How do you test theories about the past? Have I missed someone inventing a time machine?

    But the question of preserving ancient docs is an interesting topic. The Jews had already experienced a captivity before Babylon by the Assyrians. They knew a bit about what to expect and measures to take to mitigate it.

    On my trip I read “The Lost History of the Church”–a fascinating read about the Church of the East during the Middle Ages and their looong conflict with Islam.

    NB:

    Some have asserted that the Christian church kept some gospels out of the Bible at the Council of Nicaea. The Church of the East (which was non-Roman Catholic) would have been surprised to hear this since they had exactly the same four traditional gospels in their Bibles that Roman Catholics did and Rome had no authority over them. They were big on the Diatessaron, which was written in Syriac. (“Tesse” = “four”) The Diatessaron was a harmony of the four traditional gospels; Syriac was the language of most of the Eastern Church. This demolishes stories about authentic gospels being kept out of the Bible by Roman Catholics. Of course, it’s not surprising that spurious, late gospels like Thomas would be omitted. The Gospel of Thomas reads like it was written by a Muslim.

  10. “…Some have asserted that the Christian church kept some gospels out of the Bible at the Council of Nicaea..”

    Truth.

    It was a collaboration between Constantine and the ” church ” to get those pesky Christians under control.

    I’ve read many, many, many times over the decades that the Vatican holds many of the ” missing Gospels ” ( and I’m not talking Dan Brown novel stuff either ), and I also read numerous accounts of big rifts and arguments at the actual meeting because of the way things were being…” formulated “.

    But when you have a dog in the fight….

  11. “Genesis shows a literary structure from much earlier than 7th century Babylon.”

    And Chaucer shows a literary structure from an earlier time than 21st century The Handmaid’s Tale. Genesis is not of Jewish in origin. It is Sumerian. Predating Israel by millennia.

    The Law is dated to the 18th century BCE, but that is the time when Canaan was founded, not destroyed. Canaanite collapse was circa 12th century BCE. There is no extra-Biblical evidence of “Jews” before about the 9th century BCE. Babylon captures Jerusalem, 597 BCE.

  12. @ SSF

    I’d like to offer a thought or two because what you are experiencing is something I have wondered about myself. I’ve met a few men that echo the exact same thoughts and experiences that you speak of.

    Over the years reading here at TRM, I have seen many guys that while exercising Red Pill understanding, accidently wind up kind of isolating themselves in the process because they see women and people differently. It’s a blue world out there.

    Add to this the refrain, driven by those heavily influenced by pua moreso than red pill, of ” women are only good for sex…” and an almost hatred of any kind of interaction with women that doesn’t involve trying to push a penis inside of them..lol.. and things are bound to get a little bit weird.

    I don’t believe it is good for men to isolate themselves from women, and it’s my position that red pill thought strengthens male/female relationships of all types rather than serve to break them. Red pill, from a man’s perspective, lays all of the cards out on the table, regardless of whether or not the woman chooses to cooperate.

    Yin and Yang. The masculine and the feminine. Complimentary.

    Take hypergamy for example. I read here in the comments all the time, men cursing hypergamy as an evil rather than a natural. Something that’s always existed ( although turbocharged today ). But imo, once you understand it, that understanding is protective in many ways. The understanding allows you to deftly disarm it.

    I look at it like this here: You love women, they wind up doing something to you that hurts or is confounding, you discover the red pill – you are angry and a little disgusted at what you learn, then you move past it and discover a different way to get back to ” loving ” women again. Full circle. Red Pill is like a vaccination shot against feminine fuckery. The mode of ” women are only good for sex ” will leave a bunch of male causalities strewn about unnecessarily, but most younger men will have decades before they realize this.

    I think it’s always been harder to find a feminine woman to have intimacy with, and I’m not just talking about sex. I also think that red pill knowledge gives one the tools to pull that intimacy out, if the guy so chooses. You can discern when a woman is not worth the time of effort and just move on. Faster. With zero pain or side effects.

    Whatever you do, don’t chuck TRP. You can’t reliably go backwards.

    A change of scenery is a good thing sometimes. A different crowd and new experiences. As you see, it’s not only about getting laid. There’s more to a man’s life than that. Much more.

    As HABD would say,

    Good Luck!

  13. “I understand the reasons, both rhetorical and theological, why the Church of the second century could not permit the Jewish underpinnings of Christianity to be eradicated.”

    You seem to know alot more about the early history of the roots of this false Judeo-Christianity ideology than I do. I would be most interested to know more about your thoughts as to why this has occurred.

    It seems to me that institutional Catholic Christianity (which is Judeo-Christian in flavor) is a fake version of the real deal. In the Catholic Church, readings from the old testament are presented (in an unfiltered way) as forming a fairly substantial part of the Christian doctrine, whereas I would expect such readings would be presented filtered by way of a critical eye, hi-lighting the nuance as to old testament vs new, showing where Jesus Christ’s ideas parted with old, and why. This does not occur within the Catholic Church (I unwillingly went to church as a young lad, but knew way back then as a child that it was bogus, but didn’t know exactly why or exactly how, but started attending again in the last year or so, to take my mom there, who has no other way to get there at this stage, as a courtesy to my most gracious mom who deserves my help and support).

    I suspect this is probably true of other major historical Christian denominations as well (I started my university education by taking one semester at a local Lutheran college, for pragmatic reason unrelated to religion, and switched to a major university after that, way way back when, and the requirement at this college was to take at least one religious studies course, and there I was exposed to a Lutheran perspective on the philosophical study of Christian history – and I suspect that Lutheranism is Judeo-Christian in flavor as well).

    .
    kfg – why do you think the Catholic Church (as well as other major denominations probably) operate this way?

    “But, we are way off topic on a subject almost sure to hijack the thread, and perhaps the site if allowed to progress too far.”

    kfg- read what Yollo and Sun said above. This is not off topic. Western people have been guided towards jadedness, and it is completely understandable as to why a perceptive western person would arrive at that outlook. A similar state of jadedness befalling one, is part and parcel of the bluepill => redpill adventure that sites like this one (and many others like it) promote, (to be clear – these sites do not promote jadedness per se, but promote cutting through the BS as per the redpill metaphor, and as such are more or less healthy endeavors imo, ….. it’s the ongoing confounding BS, once it is confronted, that is the source of the jadedness). I think it is highly likely that the BS (be it hi-jacked Christianity, virulent feminism, obfuscating media, postmodern poison in academia, etc. etc.) is all related.

  14. “why do you think the Catholic Church (as well as other major denominations probably) operate this way?”

    The long form would take a book, which would take me a year to write. The short form can be summed up in a single word:

    Provenance.

    Without provenance Christianity in its early days would have been something that some mystical wackjob or con man had obviously pulled out of his ass last Tuesday. There were thousands of those running around at the time. The Jewish scriptures provided a provenance going back to the beginning of time.

    Without the foundation of an accepted ancient tradition, Christianity wouldn’t have lasted any longer than any of those other thousands of now long dead, minor cults.

    NOW you can say that it has no Jewish roots, because Christianity is now accepted as an ancient tradition. Unlike in Pliny the Younger’s day, when he had to ask what the hell a Christian was when some were brought before him for judgement.

    But now the OT as part of Christianity is also an old tradition. What was necessary to save the Church in its early days is now a problem, but . . . there it is – engrained in the tradition.

    The subject is not off the topic of seeing through the Matrix, but TRM has a specific focus on a particular aspect of the Matrix. There are other blogs for discussing other parts of the Matrix.

  15. Blax – hahaha – hey man let’s blow our minds and risk ODing on Truth. Maybe ‘Take it to the limit one more time’ – Californication-style.

    Translation of the Blaxicon?: Maybe you gotta take a wholelotta redpills, in a wholelotta contexts (including the Led Zepplin wholelotta context) – to finally SEE the matrix grasshopper (that sentiment reminds me of that magnificent rascal – Castaneda).

  16. No no no no. You have to take them one at a time, with caution. No one can survive them all at once.

  17. Genesis is not of Jewish in origin. It is Sumerian. Predating Israel by millennia.

    Surely. According to internals, we infer that it came from Sumerian patriarchs. Probably available to Abraham in Ur. He was a city boy who bought some sheep and became a shepherd.

    There is no extra-Biblical evidence of “Jews” before about the 9th century BCE.

    You mean like this?

    “Few modern Biblical archaeology discoveries have caused as much excitement as the Tel Dan inscription—writing on a ninth-century B.C. stone slab (or stela) that furnished the first historical evidence of King David from the Bible.”

    Found it here:

    https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/artifacts-and-the-bible/the-tel-dan-inscription-the-first-historical-evidence-of-the-king-david-bible-story/

    Not sure what your “sources” are…

  18. @TSSF

    “you can end up too negative if you spend too much time alone.”

    I agree.

    A loosely associated Law of Power is #18.

    Do Not Build Fortresses to Protect Yourself – Isolation is Dangerous

    The world is dangerous and enemies are everywhere – everyone has to protect themselves. Afortress seems the safest. But isolation exposes you to more dangers than it protects you from – it cuts you off from valuable information, it makes you conspicuous and an easy target. Better to circulate among people find allies, mingle. You are shielded from your enemies by the crowd.

    And a corollary for Red Pill men is that when you feel you are losing power or being too negative, go spend lots of time with happy and healthy males (if you can find them). Sometimes the best way to get with happy and healthy women is to fall back into male only spaces. With honest feedback. Those men that you trust. That are doing right for themselves. They are rare, but they are out there.

    It’s fight club all over again.

    Then burst forth and engage with women. This winter, down there.

    It’s kind of a complicated subject, and often dismissed by Rollo, but I’ve found that among my guy friends the ones that have been most able to carry on from the state you are in, have made peace with their dark side. And pulled themselves up by the boot straps to integrate what they are worst at, rather than steam roll what they are good at and have that dominant function of their personality have dominant function overload. While neglecting their inferior functions.

    It is part of enhancing your strengths and minimizing your weaknesses. But not being unaware of your weaknesses and only going with your strengths.

    For example, you are probably mostly artistic and less logical. More right brain dominant and less left brain.

    Bring that left brain into the mix:

    “The left hemisphere is characteristically logical, abstract, analytical, and systematic. It breaks things down into their constituent parts, names those parts, explicates their functions, and determines their relationships to other parts.”

    But only to complement your right brain artistry, to be more integrated. To give you more well rounded appeal.

    I’ve had frenetic Oh My Gosh moments where I had to figure my whitetail deer habitat farm out in the past. I was the opposite of you Introverted Intuition and Extroverted Thinking to a fault. Five years ago I was able to just relax and stop and smell the multiflora roses. Use my Extroverted Sensing personality function and get lots of free excess energy from the process of going through the process you are going through with the rural farming. (Granted it was a hobby for me, but the abstract process still includes choosing among the variations that present themselves to you. And making more choices by widening your circle and creating possibilities. Know yourself and what you need and have discipline but not self suppression. Now is not a time to be in restraint of your horizons. Yes, you need to get out. And have a wider horizon.)

    IOW, you probably spend little time in extroverted thinking and logically getting your logistics in order. Organizing your farm is agonizing rather than giving you free excess energy to get on with being lively and doing what you are naturally good at. Music and having fun with women.

    It must be driving you crazy to think out your rural farm existence and how that ties into your being. You might not be good at assessing how your blackberry crop figures into your more well rounded artistic set of dominant artist/musician way of functioning.

    You need more substrate. You need to go on tour. You need more women to interact with. You need more male only interactions with men who are good at being men. Guys that can inspire you to embrace masculinity and then interact with women while having enhanced masculinity. To calibrate who you are and what the hell you are doing.

    Don’t get bound down with grief stages. Work through them with time and distance from what you are feeling now. You have an infinite range of possibilities.

    You are going on tour in the south of the equator winter, aren’t you?

  19. Provenance ….. mmmm – that does make some sense. I’m gonna ponder that.

    “Without provenance Christianity in its early days would have been something that some mystical wackjob or con man had obviously pulled out of his ass last Tuesday. There were thousands of those running around at the time. The Jewish scriptures provided a provenance going back to the beginning of time.”

    Plays into my speculation that Christianity was most likely borne of the western mind (not the jewish mind). I speculate that at that time the western mind was already prepared to take on this new endeavor, this new way of conducting ourselves socially, the western way, which the real Christian message (as per Rene Girard) encapsulates. It’s time to ditch the confounding Judaic influence though (by way of contextualizing the Judaic influence, filtering it by way of hi-lighting the nuance of old testament vs. new, showing where Jesus Christ’s ideas parted with old, and why).

    After all – if there was no European uptake on this particular jewish sect (Christianity), Christianity today would just be a tiny arcane backwater jewish sect (of which there are many), or nothing at all as you allude to above.

  20. “You mean like this?”

    No. but not dissimilar. Because of the many invasions, the northern kingdom is attested before the southern.

    “Not sure what your “sources” are…”

    Not Biblical archeology. And that article is only correct if you’re wearing your Biblical glasses. The stele is written without punctuation, spaces or vowels and linguists looking at it without Biblical glasses are not quite sure exactly what it says that is being interpreted as “House of David.” It could say “House of David” if you insert the correct vowels and ignore the troublesome grammar.

    And if it does, it is House of David. Not David.

    Julius Caesar claimed his house was that of Sol Invictus. Claiming descent from a God or hero of legend does not attest the existence of that God or hero. It is quite common for Kings to claim impressive sounding, but not strictly factual, lineages.

  21. “Plays into my speculation that Christianity was most likely borne of the western mind . . .”

    I can’t agree. In its fundamentals it is clearly of Asian origin and antithetical to Greek, Roman, Keltic or Gernamic thought up to that time. It took hundreds of years for Europeans to accept it in any numbers, the Western Empire fell when it did and the Germanics took a thousand years of Conversion by Sword to nominally accept it (while for the most part still maintaining their old religion when the priests weren’t looking).

    The actual era of pan-European Christendom was quite short. In fact, by the time of the Chiristianization of Lithuania it was already coming apart. Allah had defeated Eloh in the Holy Land, and was beginning to do so in Europe.

  22. The stele is written without punctuation, spaces or vowels

    “Biblical Hebrew has been written with a number of different writing systems. The Hebrews adopted the Phoenician alphabet around the 12th century BCE, which developed into the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet. This was retained by the Samaritans, who use the descendent Samaritan alphabet to this day. However, the Aramaic alphabet gradually displaced the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet for the Jews, and it became the source for the modern Hebrew alphabet. All of these scripts were lacking letters to represent all of the sounds of Biblical Hebrew, though these sounds are reflected in Greek and Latin transcriptions/translations of the time. These scripts originally only indicated consonants, but certain letters, known by the Latin term matres lectionis, became increasingly used to mark vowels. In the Middle Ages, various systems of diacritics were developed to mark the vowels in Hebrew manuscripts”

    It would be weird if the stele had punctuation, spaces, or vowels.

    Not Biblical archeology. And that article is only correct if you’re wearing your Biblical glasses.

    There are plenty of unbelievers working in Biblical archaeology. No “corrupting” belief lenses on them.

    And if it does, it is House of David. Not David.
    Julius Caesar claimed his house was that of Sol Invictus. Claiming descent from a God or hero of legend does not attest the existence of that God or hero.

    Do you have any evidence of Jewish Kings claiming descent from a God? Other civilizations did that, but not the Jews. The Jews have some silly prohibition against idolatry and blasphemy.

    Descent from a man is unremarkable, hero or otherwise. It would be weird to claim to be the son or grandson of a man who people living would have known if that man had never existed.

    And who “invented” those annals of David and got them accepted by the Jewish defenders of the Torah?

    There’s a pattern.

    Skeptics claimed that the Assyrians never existed because only the Bible talked about them.

    “Assyria was a dependency of Babylonia and later of the Mitanni kingdom during most of the 2nd millennium bce.”

    https://www.britannica.com/place/Assyria

    Skeptics claimed that Pontius Pilate never existed because only the Bible talked about him.

    “THE COINS OF PONTIUS PILATE”

    http://www.numismalink.com/fontanille1.html

    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

  23. kfg – your depth of knowledge around historical details of the Classical Antiquity period is much better than mine it seems. Nevertheless, painting in somewhat broader strokes – would you agree that Christianity found it’s first stronghold within the Greco-Roman world eventually culminating with the Christian conversion of Constantine? That is my understanding. I see the Greco-Roman culture as the root of western culture – yes? With the introduction of Christianity into the realm, Christianized western perspective spread throughout Europe in fits and starts (as you point out), perhaps rising to a philo-ethical zenith in principle (that I expect will eventually be surpassed though) by way of the European enlightenment as exampled by the likes of englishman John Locke – as then perhaps zenithed in terms of political expression by way of the American constitution – yes?

    If so, one must wonder – what was it about the early western Greco-Roman mindset that provided such fertile soil for Christianity to take root, vis-a-vis other locales and cultures?

  24. @ Wild Man

    For many centuries, Christianity was much larger in the east, than in the west, extending into Syria, Arabia, Turkey, Armenia, Georgia, Russia, India, Persia, Sumeria, Kazakhstan, China, and even Japan. Even one of Genghis Khan’s generals was Christian.

  25. @ Palma

    “you can end up too negative if you spend too much time alone…”

    Yes, i hear you, brother. I really need to plan more escapes from the ranch. The focus this year is to set myself up to hit and play the festival circuit in 2019. Just gotta not get cabin fever this down under winter. Thankfully footy season (AFL) is starting in a few weeks…

  26. “For many centuries, Christianity was much larger in the east, than in the west, extending into Syria, Arabia, Turkey, Armenia, Georgia, Russia, India, Persia, Sumeria, Kazakhstan, China, and even Japan. Even one of Genghis Khan’s generals was Christian.”

    Of course I agree that Christianity’s rise was complicated. Nevertheless, the synopsis I provided above is a better summary of the proliferation of Christianity as per this Wikipedia entry:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity

    ….. as long as one recognizes where and when the Greco-Roman realm (the correlate of Christian proliferation) grew and proliferated.

  27. @ rugby

    Playing the word association game you linked in the video my first response was ‘mine’ .
    Probably because sometimes when I’m fucking a chick I’ll ask “ whose pussy is this ? “ in the heat of the moment.
    Don’t think there’s anything deep to really analyse about that but be my guest.
    Couldn’t be bothered to read the comments as it didn’t link to that directly.

  28. @ SJF
    March 5, 2018 at 7:24 pm

    @TSSF

    “you can end up too negative if you spend too much time alone.”

    I agree.

    A loosely associated Law of Power is #18.

    “Do Not Build Fortresses to Protect Yourself – Isolation is Dangerous

    The world is dangerous and enemies are everywhere – everyone has to protect themselves. A fortress seems the safest. But isolation exposes you to more dangers than it protects you from – it cuts you off from valuable information, it makes you conspicuous and an easy target. Better to circulate among people find allies, mingle. You are shielded from your enemies by the crowd.”

    Absolutely agree with you, man. Though i’m not totally isolated out here, and it is a prison of my own device i suppose. Never felt isolated out here until the past summer, where it just really kicked in. I do have my mates i ride bikes with, but we didn’t do enough trips last season. It seems harder to organise the older one gets. And my mates out here are good solid men, so no worries on that front. It’s the lack of available females that used to be thick on the ground out here over summer that’s gotten to me, so i will be putting myself out there more this year.

    As Alpha as one is or tries to be, we all need physical feminine love in our lives. Music, footy, mates & motorbikes just aren’t quite enough. Sleeping alone every night when you’ve had lots of success with the ladies over the years has become very boring, to say the least. I don’t want to become bitter, so am sucking it up the best i can & am very glad i can share here as it’s hard to share such things with Aussie men…

    Hang tough, gentlemen…

  29. Though i’m not totally isolated out here, and it is a prison of my own device i suppose. Never felt isolated out here until the past summer, where it just really kicked in.

    It’s not a prison. See it as freedom from constraint. See getting with women as enjoying their Nature.

    Farming and being out in a natural place like yours is energy giving. Mother nature is energy giving while being the most cruel bitch possible, ever. She’s out for Darwin’s creed. To propagate genetics. But terribly seductive while doing that. No one individual male matters. The flow of nature means nature itself and genetics survives. You understand that by growing stuff. It’s a cruel, but productive world out there.

    Breathe deep and see your farming as energy giving. Mother Nature and botany is a gift.

    But, then there is bringing pussy into your Frame. It’s hard. It takes going well out of your way. But go well out of your way.

    One way to redeem the conundrum is to go deep on your male tribe members. I’ve found a way to have both real buddies/mates and online virtual mates to resonate with. And what going deep into the masculine, and tribe leads to is being more attractive to the feminine. Just don’t get down on yourself in your mini grief about not having physical female abundance. Because that will come around with your musical tours. And when it does, you need that abundance mentality.

    Male space and male buddies/mates will redeem you, when women are not in abundance. When women are in abundance, your honor among men will redeem your Mental Point of Origin and Frame with the women.

    Invest in guys/mates to indulge your and redeem your insecurities. Have them prod you to higher levels. Save women from your isolationist fears. Penetrate them with your strengths. Don’t let them see Fight Club.

  30. SJF
    March 5, 2018 at 7:24 pm

    My operative principle always has been “don’t be there when it happens”. After a while a sense of where not to be when emerges.

  31. Dr_mack@ yahoo. com was the email i contacted when my wife left me. After spell casting my wife came back quickly. Keep up the good work

    Matt Tremblay
    London, UK

  32. James Marshall is where I see the concept of the Red Pill going.

    This talk he gave to the 21 Convention, epitomises an inconvenient truth about some of the beliefs, a considerable number of manosphere adherent have.

    James essentially throws open the door and in doing so reveals what a man is and can be in today’s world. Although to limit him to that would be wrong. He does so much more in this talk.

  33. Solid video @ollieoxenfree1, James knows his stuff. I liked the last bit about the lack of father figure vs manning up (no excuses) and learning how to handle relationships on top of pickup. Good content.

  34. Dear Lord. So many words spilt whining. This is exactly how women are raised….with constant conflicting ever changing definitions of “femininity”. Growing up, maturity is a process of understanding your own values. No different for boys than girls. The woman facing “the wall” as you’ll put it, realizing that her values don’t attract most men…..is no different than the man finally admitting the way he is is who he wants to be, critics be damned.

  35. Your femininity is non-existent. Sorry to hear you were a victim (again) of the Feminine Imperative trying to convince you that conventional masculinity is just as accessible to women (and more desirable) but those were the choices it made you think were better than a natural femininity.

    But please, keep convincing yourself of all the lies humanism and new age feminism’s fempowerment had you invest in your own ego. You only prove my points with every comment.

  36. Rollo, I am almost finished with the audio version of TRM. I am 64, never married and never had a problem meeting women. My whole life I have been told I was very good looking and much of what this positive men’s movement recommends I have done 30 years ago by instinct. I had my own version of your plate theory. But now I am dealing with a breakup with my dream girl from high school. Very much my oneittis. She turns out having an extreme form of NPD, and repetitive history with every man she sucks in. I reached out to Richard Cooper and bought your book on his recommendation. I think there are many men like myself that read your work and others, that recognized redpill revelations years ago but had no system for comprehending it. I think it is necessary and I would greatly appreciate if you and your fellow rational male mentors would publish and advise men my age and how to apply rational male/ redpill theory to to our lives. I think there are changes in the game, although my ex still used her pussy to hook another chump because I would not pay her bills and marry her. At 64 I still look forward to a good rut with a hot woman.

    1. Thanks Shelly. I hear a lot of post 60s men relate the same thing – sex still is, and always was, an important part of a man’s health and satisfaction in life. There’s no getting around the fact that sex is a necessity for men.

  37. Rollo, please consider compiling your recent articles into a new book. Will gladly buy again..you are a godsend

  38. Greetings Rollo,

    I’m finding your material very exciting. I have read No More Mr. Nice Guy and The Way of the Superior Man to get more understanding of masculine behavior, but stumbling across your work these last two months spoke more to me because, apart from the great material, I related to your personal story regarding being in a band and getting a degree in the social sciences, etc. (I experienced the mini-rockstar life as a DJ; I got a BA degree in Sociology and later an AA in Psychology, and I am self-employed.), and I liked the way you presented yourself in the videos; your temperament suits my style more.

    I read this article because I am trying to find a way to help young males learn more Red Pill/Alpha ways, but these kids are in middle school and high school, and I think that it is too early for them to just have them read the books or watch the videos.

    Since I started a small tutoring business out of college in 1997, which is still going strong, I am experiencing more and more parents hiring me to focus more on the mentoring rather than the academics, even though mentoring was not a service I was offering. (I just did it because I had to keep these boys in check so they would do their work.) All of these boys are good children of single Chinese immigrant moms living in California, and the moms are good moms, but they feel helpless, and some I feel may have heavily Blue Pilled their kids. I started to correct that even before I discovered TRM, but your info is so on point that it makes it easier to help these kids. Thank you for your work!

    If you or any of your readers on this blog have any advice, I would appreciate any suggestions regarding a good way to efficiently help these moms and boys? Or can you please write a children’s version of The Rational Male, Rollo?

    Thank you for reading.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: