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

Leave a Reply

  Subscribe  
Notify of
kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

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.

Yollo Comanche
Guest
Yollo Comanche
Offline

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.

EhIntellect
Guest
EhIntellect
Offline

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.

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

@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.

Yollo Comanche
Guest
Yollo Comanche
Offline

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.

M Simon
Guest
M Simon
Offline

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.

M Simon
Guest
M Simon
Offline

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.

Sun Wukong
Guest
Sun Wukong
Offline

@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… Read more »

Blaximus
Guest
Blaximus
Offline

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.

Blaximus
Guest
Blaximus
Offline

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.

Blaximus
Guest
Blaximus
Offline
O.B.I.T.
Guest
O.B.I.T.
Offline

I’ve soured on movies but good luck trying to make any without “The Patriarchy”

Wild Man
Guest
Wild Man
Offline

“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… Read more »

The Solitary Silver FoX
Guest
The Solitary Silver FoX
Offline

@ 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… Read more »

theasdgamer
Guest

kfg, a contradiction in a single sentence. Awesome!

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

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… Read more »

theasdgamer
Guest

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… Read more »

Blaximus
Guest
Blaximus
Offline

“…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….

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

“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.

Blaximus
Guest
Blaximus
Offline

@ 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… Read more »

Wild Man
Guest
Wild Man
Offline

“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)… Read more »

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

“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… Read more »

Blaximus
Guest
Blaximus
Offline

… more than one red pill

Blaximus
Guest
Blaximus
Offline

comment image

Wild Man
Guest
Wild Man
Offline

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).

Blaximus
Guest
Blaximus
Offline

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

Blaximus
Guest
Blaximus
Offline

comment image

theasdgamer
Guest

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:… Read more »

SJF
Guest
SJF
Offline

@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… Read more »

theasdgamer
Guest

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Wild Man
Guest
Wild Man
Offline

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… Read more »

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

“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… Read more »

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

“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… Read more »

theasdgamer
Guest

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… Read more »

theasdgamer
Guest

I meant to assert that skeptics claimed that the Hittites never existed, not the Assyrians, lol. Oops.

“Hittite, member of an ancient Indo-European people who appeared in Anatolia at the beginning of the 2nd millennium bce; by 1340 bce they had become one of the dominant powers of the Middle East.”

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hittite

theasdgamer
Guest

Also, that stele is from a victory pillar erected by the King of Syria. He probably wouldn’t have referred to Israel’s kings as of the House of David if that were controversial at the time.

“Epigraphers and biblical historians agree almost unanimously that the letters ‘bytdvd’ refer to the House of King David”

https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/ancient-rock-adds-to-evidence-of-king-david-s-existence-1.5347411

Wild Man
Guest
Wild Man
Offline

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… Read more »

theasdgamer
Guest

@ 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.

The Solitary Silver FoX
Guest
The Solitary Silver FoX
Offline

@ 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…

Wild Man
Guest
Wild Man
Offline

“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.

Playdontpay
Guest
Playdontpay
Offline

@ 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.

The Solitary Silver FoX
Guest
The Solitary Silver FoX
Offline

@ 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… Read more »

SJF
Guest
SJF
Offline

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… Read more »

M Simon
Guest
M Simon
Offline

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.

trackback

[…] our understanding of masculinity now. I’ve gone into my own definitions of what constitutes ‘conventional’ masculinity for men many times before so I won’t belabor it now, however, as the popular narrative […]

trackback

[…] to our understanding of masculinity now. I’ve gone into my own definitions of what constitutes ‘conventional’ masculinity for men many times before so I won’t belabor it now, however, as the popular narrative changes […]

trackback

[…] Beim Zähneknirschen und Zähnepressen ist die Wut nach innen gerichtet. Bei manchen jungen Männern kann sie jedoch auch in schlimmen Dingen wie Massenschießereien wie kürzlich in den USA enden, wie Rollo Tomassi schreibt. […]

Matt Tremblay
Guest
Matt Tremblay
Offline

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

ollieoxenfree1
Guest

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.

IRL
Guest
IRL
Offline

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.

Rita
Guest
Rita
Offline

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.

Shelly Krongard
Guest
Shelly Krongard
Offline

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… Read more »

Prince Larbi
Guest
Prince Larbi
Offline

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

1 4 5 6
%d bloggers like this: