Old Lies

Apparently no one has bothered to let this poor sap (I don’t know who he is) know that the “Toxic” masculinity  narrative has now been replaced with “masculinity is toxic“. I find it interesting that when it comes to the mainstream societal understandings of what masculinity once was and what it is now – or what the mainstream believes it should be now – much of these interpretations are based on fanciful, anachronistic, ideas of what contributed 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 I’ve noticed some very common presumptions that masculinity critics like to use and are repeated over and over.

The first of these, and the most common, is the deliberate misconception that a boy’s learning to be masculine never left the 1950-60s. In the wake of the Nikolas Cruz shooting this rationale surfaced quite a bit. It still is. The idea is that boys are born as these tender, delicate souls, all naturally ready to emote and sensate like precious little girls – that is until the nebulous evil ‘patriarchy’ gets ahold of them and batters them into “being tough”, not crying and told to stop being such pussies. This is the old anachronism that presupposes western society never left the ‘macho tough guy’ preconditioning of boys to raise them to be these future murderers, wife beaters and misogynists.

This is, of course, the “boys are broken” narrative I addressed in Good Humans. It’s kind of ironic when you think that this narrative would have us believe boys naturally wanting to be boys is a net social negative and it takes some strong intervention in their upbringing to turn them into good humans. So what is it? Are boys being their natural selves by wanting to be rambunctious, risk taking, shit-giving, masculine boys, or are they naturally these tender little emo-beings coming fresh out of the womb only to have their ‘genuine’ sensitive emotional souls crushed by “hyper-masculine” fathers, male teachers and school coaches. This is one of the more stupid, but deliberate, paradoxes the Village and the Feminine Imperative conveniently switch between as circumstances require yet one more anti-masculine response.

Lies for Boys

You can see this confusion in the above Tweet.

Our society teaches boys to “toughen up”.

Actually no, the feminine-primary social order that has been systematically feminizing boys into feminine-identifying men for the past 50 years does nothing of the kind. Since the mid-seventies the cultural narrative took a hard turn to the feminine-correct in raising boys into pacified ‘harmless’ men. We’re going on five generations of telling boys it is incumbent upon them to get in touch with their mythical feminine sides if they want to evolve beyond ‘traditional masculinity’. There is no ‘toughening’ being taught to boys in a female primary education system that teaches boys in a manner that presumes they are defective girls.

…which is okay, but not okay when “toughening up” also means suppressing feelings.

Feelings are perhaps the only thing boys are being taught to prioritize in their feminine-primary educations today. This fact deserves a bit of explanation here. Male and female humans process emotions differently. Women in particular process negative emotions in a much different way than men. Men tend to prioritize information through a filter of rational discernment first and then sort out how they feel about that information in an emotional context. Women are much the opposite; girls process information through an emotional filter first and then sort out what the information actually means to them (and after that, how it might affect others). If this sounds like the essays I’ve written about how men’s and women’s communications methods differ you’re not too far off. Men prioritize the content (information) of a conversation while women prioritize the context (the feels she gets) from a conversation. This is how our brains work, and when one method isn’t socially favored above the other both methods can be complementary to the other.

But in a feminine-primary social order this is not how things work. As I mentioned, for the past 50+ years our educational system has shifted to favor the learning methodologies of girls at the expense of boys. This ‘girls style’ teaching has been the standard for so long now that we largely take it for granted that it is the only correct style of teaching. Today, men account for less than 25% of all teachers in the United States. In the UK it’s 25% and n Canada only 17% of elementary school teachers are male. Teaching is a female dominated profession and especially for younger kids. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics only 2% of pre-K and kindergarten teachers, and 18% of elementary and middle-school teachers, are men. How do you think stats like these affect the learning methodologies applied to boys and girls?

Yet still this lie that boys are the victims of some overwhelming toxic masculinity in their upbringing is the first reflexive explanation we hear from women and feminized men when a kid commits a criminal act. Why?

Lies for Equalism

Because it sounds right. It sounds like it should be right. The presumption is that boys are, in fact, girls; or at least they should be a functional equivalent of girls when it comes to educations. Over the past 50 years the baseless presumptions of blank-slate egalitarian equalism has not only inserted its lies into our social consciousness, but also into our presumptions about educating kids. I’ll repeat, men and women are biologically and psychologically different and boys and girls are equally different. The ways they learn are distinct to their sex. Yet for the past 4 generations egalitarian equalism has convinced (mostly female) educators that boys and girls are functional equals and gender differences are learned rather than innate.

While equalism informs (mostly female) teachers that boys and girls are the same, the teaching methodology that works best for girls and women is the predominant one today and for the recent past generations. The only way to justify this method as the universal one is to presume that boys are the same as girls – just ‘defective’ girls that must be taught to quash their innate maleness. If boys and girls are presumed to be blank-slate equals then it must follow that boys are just as emotion-prioritizing and sensitive as any girl, and it is through a process of an imagined patreo-misogyny social conditioning that boys psychologically cover over their “true” natures – that of precious little (defective) girls. In essence the equalist belief is that all babies are born as little equal blank-slates, but the ideal template for those blank-slates is a female nature irrespective of the sex of the child.

When a boy’s real, masculine, inborn nature expresses itself the first thing it meets in this equalist-but-feminine-primary education is derision and shame. For as much as boys would be boys they are taught that they aren’t good for being so. They’re encouraged to self-repress, self-deprecate their gender and self-police their brothers. They’re taught that the correct way to think is to emote like girls because that’s correct for the template of a “good human”. Despite the female-centric teaching boys innate nature still find ways for boys to be boys and when this happens an egalitarian (feminine-primary) social order presume the ‘bad behavior’ must be the result of the influence of an evil patriarchy that truly hasn’t existed in the way they believe it does for 50 some odd years.

 

As I’ve detailed in past essays, society only sees fathers as tolerable and superfluous when it comes to raising boys. Single mothers are celebrated as super-human and in the equalist lie that would have us believe that women can not only ‘have it all’ but they can ‘do it all’ we rarely question the necessity of a masculine influence in a child’s life. We give it lip service and parrot back the need for a man to “step up and take responsibility as a parent”. The message to dads is always “do better”, because the pretense for fathers is that they are inherently irresponsible and ‘broken’ just like all boys are.

The Village might even concede that a father is some advantage to a child, but ultimately he’s superfluous – that is until that kid is involved in some kind of criminality. Then the questions become “Where was this kid’s father? Why wasn’t he around to teach this kid some discipline and respect for human life?” The children of single mothers are overwhelmingly more likely to be come involved in criminality, but we don’t look at her half-measure parenting as a possible cause. Remember, she’s a super-hero and blameless, so any blame for this kid’s acts fall on the shoulders of a weak or absent father. Then fathers are necessary. Then the kid needed to ‘toughen up’ and dad should’ve taught it to him. And all of this comes full circle and feeds into the idea of father’s inherent incompetence again.

Lies for ‘Defective Girls’

The next lie is that boys can be,…

…both tough and fragile, vulnerable and resilient. Being vulnerable doesn’t affect your manliness.

I’ve written a lot about the lie of transvaluation and  Vulnerability in the past, but this was really in terms of how women perceive men and require strength and dominance. Another aspect of masculinity that is encoded into women’s mental firmware is to seek out men with superior competency. A woman just is, a man must become is the first maxim of a man accepting his Burden of Performance. Part of this masculine competency involves strength, know-how and determination; all things that have been replaced with feminine-primary emotionalism and naval gazing for boys.

Men are expected to know how to do everything and what they do not know, what they are not competent in is one criteria of how they are judged by women. A lot of guys might think, “So the fuck what? I don’t base my self-worth on the opinions of women.” As well you shouldn’t, but it doesn’t change the truth that if you don’t know how to change a tire when you get flat, or you need another man who does know how to do it to change it for you, a woman sees you as less competent – and by extension less capable of providing her with the security she needs from a masculine ideal. Women evolved to see men as a Jack of all trades, master of some.

A man’s vulnerability (taught to him as a child by his female-primary teachers) most definitely affects his manliness. Vulnerability is, by definition, a weakness. It is a flaw in the design, a chink in the armor and vulnerabilities will be exploited by enemies and rivals to ensure that man fails while a stronger one succeeds in all things. This is Darwinism so simple that to question it seems illogical, but in our equalist utopia toughness and fragility find no contradiction; vulnerability and resilience are bed partners. Again, we must consider that this illogical balance can only exist in the female ‘good human’ template and the idea that everything is learned and nothing is innate about male and female humans. Promoting the idea that ‘vulnerability doesn’t affect manliness’ presumes that the person declaring it is in some way an authority on a manliness that has been already demonized and conditioned out of our boys today.

They hate the very idea that a boy might act in accordance with an inborn masculine proclivity. They hate the idea that a boy might learn to be tough and resilient at the expense of a vulnerability (weakness) because it contradicts the equalist belief set. They hate the idea that boys and girls have innately, biologically, different ways of dealing with emotions that don’t align with their belief in a blank-slate. To force them to accept this would be to force them to abandon deeply ego-invested beliefs that they themselves had conditioned into them by the same feminine-primary education.

Boys don’t naturally emote like girls, but when they refuse to align with the female-correct way of emoting we say that some patriarchal macho man, somewhere, in some movie, in some song, in some household taught that kid not to feel. He somehow learned that allowing his emotions to rule over him, to be vulnerable, to prioritize his feelings above his sense of rational self is what it actually is – a weakness that in our evolutionary past was far likelier to get him killed than to earn the praise of his equalist teachers.

Boys are simply not as emotional as girls – our brains did not evolve that way – but because we value the feminine above the masculine today we say this kid is doing it wrong. We say he learned to be an asshole from his macho dad or he learned to love firearms because of the latest rap song or a toxically masculine society that doesn’t exist. A kid like Nikolas Cruz was bound to happen in a world that teaches boys to prioritize feelings above rationality. He was taught like a defective girl. He never learned the masculine inspired discipline, determination and resiliency because all that conflicts with the lie that vulnerability is ever a strength. All that conflicts with his feminine-primary upbringing.

As such, these ‘defective girls’ are unequipped to handle the rejection of a girlfriend. The participation trophy generation, the one where everyone’s a winner and no one ever has to deal with defeat, never teaches these ‘defective girls’ what to do when they finally do taste a bitter defeat. They never learned how to come back from it because that would mean admitting that vulnerability and emotionalism (the female-correct way to handle it) are in fact weaknesses. So, predictably, a ‘defective girl’ like Nikolas Cruz does what any petulant teenage girl would – he has an emotional outburst. Only his outburst consists of gunning down 17 kids with an assault rifle.

The answer to incidents like this doesn’t lie in gun control or further feminization of boys. It lies in reimagining how we educate boys and how we see masculinity as a net positive that can deter exactly this kind of emotional outburst. If you truly want these shootings to stop it’s time we embrace real men teaching real toughness and resilience in our boys. It’s time we teach boys like they will become tough, strong, invulnerable young men we may need to provide future generations with a much needed security. And the time where we’ll need them is coming faster than anyone today really thinks.

259 comments

  1. KABA

    Great article , total opposite of the guardian article above.

    More men need to swallow the red pill and take charge of the masculine training of their sons.

  2. What goes around, comes around eventually. This is being proven again and again almost daily. It’s one of the most fascinating things for me to watch unfold, and it has taken many decades.

    The article posted is almost golden.

    Imo, the rising tide of angst over male behavior is not anything new. I maintain that it’s only the target that moves. There’s been a centuries old western/American tradition of societal anxiety of the male tendency toward violence and dangerous violent behavior, lol. I’ve heard the quiet yet constant underlying narrative running in the background my entire life. I’ve heard it from The Left, from The Right, and from The Center.

    Pro tip:: The ” data ” is being compiled right now, and as everybody knows ” data ” is irrefutable. The ” data ” will enable forces both political and cultural to single men out using the most extreme examples as being precise narratives illustrating the inherent, genetic and hormonal ” problems ” males foist on society in the form of rampaging, out of control and deadly violence that all XY chromosomes are prone to.

    All I can muster at this point is Welcome To The Club.😀

    You can look forward to your ” male problem ” being codified by ” science ” and tons and tons and tons of never ending scholarly writings and miles and miles of studies. And what I can asure you of, is thatnif males cannot or will not stand up and fight back in significant numbers over the long haul, that societal narrative will stick to you forever and a day, like dog shit on the soles of your shoes.

    In a hundred years it will have been as if all of the identified ” problems ” with ” your kind ” have always been a problem. Wars and conflicts will define your entire existence. Medicine and agriculture and building of cities and raising of families will not be enough to excuse you for the penis between your legs and the testosterone and violence coursing through your veins.

    By the time you understand what’s happening, you will be older and grayer. You’ll be a bit tired and jaded, because all of this bullshit does take quite a bit out of you.

    None of this will stop unless you do whatever is necessary to make it end, lol, and unfortunately that might just include the very violence that you are being shamed for.

    Catch fucken 22.

  3. “Wow, that “Preparing sons for war” article is amazing.”

    And the article he based his article on (How to Raise a Boy I’m not sure what to think about what my dad tried to teach me. So what should I teach my sons?By Will Leitch) was amazingly retarded and disingenuous so as to be lying his ass off at trying to shoot a Winchester 35 single shot 20 gauge gun just prior to high school. And his dad didn’t put ear protection on him and he held the gun with outstretched hands. Retarded Moronic Lie, I say.

    Shit, when I was in high school, we used to reload Winchester AA 12 gauge hulls and compete with other high schools in trap competition. No way a 20 gauge would knock a pre-high schooler on his ass.

  4. Read carefully…there’s a graphic entitled “School Shooting Incidents Since 2013” at the following site:

    https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Shooting-Investigation-Underway-at-St-Marys-Co-High-School-477374093.html

    Observe how the data has been massaged…

    Everytown.org defines the incidents mapped below as any time a firearm discharges a live round inside or into a school building or on or onto a school campus or grounds, as documented by the press and, when necessary, confirmed through further inquiries with law enforcement or school officials.

    What is actually mapped is firearm discharges, not events where people were shot. This includes bb guns, accidental discharges (even by safety officers), where equipment was shot up, etc. But the article would have you believe that there have been so many incidents of people being shot at school. The graphic title is a prevarication

  5. ” . . . unfortunately that might just include the very violence that you are being shamed for.. . .”

    Nothing moves other than by force.

  6. @theasdgamer – the definition would not include BB guns – I doubt they are considered “firearms” and in any case, they don’t have “live rounds” to discharge.

    The other examples you give would be included in the statistics, yes, but a) I suspect the number of accidental discharges etc is too small to make any meaningful difference to the statistics; and b) even if the number is significant, it’s probably fair to include them in the stats because of the risk posed to safety by a firearms discharge, even if it is was accidental and no one was hurt (would you exclude a school shooting by a nutjob trying to murder people, just because he missed?).

  7. ” . . . the definition would not include BB guns . . .”

    I would be arrested for a firearms violation if I discharged a BB gun in a school zone, and would thus be included in the statistics. I might even be convicted of it.

    Quite possibly in my own yard as well. It’s certainly illegal. And under the right circumstances* would also be a firearms violation. I’m not sure if the limits have been legally tested yet (the code is only about 5 years old), and I don’t intend to be the test case.

    * >600 fps muzzle velocity. But I note that the wording has been changed in public information documents (I haven’t had a chance to look up the actual code at the moment) to simply say “bb guns.”

  8. @kfg – yes, and you’d also be in breach of the code (I suspect – I haven’t gone and read it) if you fired blanks from your assault rifle, but that wouldn’t qualify for that website’s stats because they specify live rounds only. Just because the code treats BB guns as firearms, doesn’t mean that website uses the same definition – especially in the absence of live rounds.

  9. “But it is also hard not to notice that the world is now run by the aggressive and the bullying.”

    Those “enlightened” attitudes are destroying young boys, and bullies are filling the vacuum of power. Strong men are not toxic to society. They are the protectors of society”

    IDK, this guy is trad con WACF masculine. Yeah, it’ll do, old books, but his young boys, being told the’ll catch hell if caught “bullying” without really defining it…it’s strikes me as virtue signaling, posturing for his readers. He’s training mini white knights.

    The world has always been run by the aggressive and bullying.

    Oh the original article on which his was based was written to toxify guns and men and fatherhood is a fraud. Pure virtue signaling too.

  10. ” . . . that wouldn’t qualify for that website’s stats because they specify live rounds . . .”

    And how do they define “live round,” and what means do they use to determine whether the round was live?

    Everytown is a Bloomberg funded, fake grass roots org that has recently “rebranded” to escape its reputation. You will be hard pressed to find a more virulent hive of SJW disingenuousness.

  11. @M Simon:

    I might suggest SUNY Buffalo, Columbia, UC Berkeley and Antioch.

    In any case, I had actually considered using “villany,” but decided to restrict myself, despite the consequent lack of euphony, to the actual parameter under discussion, to wit, their capacity for veracity.

  12. @Culum

    The point of the article was people attempting to murder other people at schools using firearms. Automobiles, knives, swords, and polearms are excluded, along with chains and tire tools. Poison as well. (This leaves out the kitchen staff and their mystery meat.) Accidental discharges are actually quite common.

    According to EveryTown, there have been 17 school shootings in 2018 alone, and 290 since 2013, shortly after Sandy Hook. These incidents range from mass shootings like last week’s in Florida to accidental discharges of firearms, after-hours fights between adults in a school parking lot and suicides.

    http://time.com/5168272/how-many-school-shootings/

    You have to ask the question, was there an attempt to murder someone else using a firearm.

    You also need to consider whether there’s an agenda in the way the statistics are reported.

    The graphic title is still a prevarication.

  13. “When the excessive aggressive reaches crescendo, shit deflates and falls apart.”

    The Feudal Lords would have gotten away with it if it weren’t for those meddling pestis.

  14. Blaximus
    March 20, 2018 at 12:42 pm

    Yet, people will still submit.

    The three laws of thermodynamics
    1. You can’t win
    2. You can’t break even
    3. You can’t get out of the game

    Submission seems inevitable. And on occasion profitable.

    The question always is ==> How far do you take it? Balance. And profit.

  15. If he has enough cash to buy all that shit in his room, why doesn’t he put a down payment on a hair transplant?

  16. @ Blax

    You’re a mountain of a man with the fists to back it up.

    No one fucks around with you if they know your rep, if they don’t and test you, you lay them out…right?

    Do you attribute your existence, your gains in life by diplomacy? Fuck to the no. Prophylactic bullying (aka frame) is still bullying.

    What you define as being you, others define as bullying.

  17. Ever know a woman who’s blown through all her Rolodex cards resort to calling you plain old mean?

    Mean = Bully

  18. Eh

    Lol, I’m the shrimp in my family. That’s partially why I needed those fists in the first place, because no one gave a shit about a 6 foot tall 145 pound dude.

    I am actually a very nice, very loving guy. It’s a ” weakness ” that I didn’t want to totally obliterate. I just needed to control it with deadly precision.

    I don’t like bullies. Never have. So I never bully people – do unto others and all that jazz.

    But what I do absolutely LOVE is dismantling bullies from the top down.

    Now, someone ” testing ” you is another story. I grew up where tests could get out of hand and turn ugly rather quickly.

    Men’s aggression doesn’t concern me. In fact, I barely notice it unless it’s going overboard and unchecked. There’s an awful lot of unchecked aggression out in the world today, and not enough Aggression Checkers. Like societal safety valves.

    Lol, women call me mean damn near daily. One just did so about an hour ago – but she was smiling and twirling her hair while saying it.

    I’m not super religious or overly spiritual, but I definitely do believe in some kind of karma. I try to be a little mindful of the energy I put out in the ether.

    I’m very diplomatic imo. It’s just that once diplomacy fails, the nuclear option can always come into play.

    https://media.giphy.com/media/OMPqWQVhND9Vm/giphy.gif

  19. Yeah, so, just for the record if you’re stupid enough to promote your own pirate torrent site of my books on my own blog comments, you’re getting a ban.

    Not only is that spam, it’s stupid spam. Spammers and blatant trolls will be banned.

  20. So, gentlemen, i’m back from a long sojourn out of the hills and into the world, and it was an interesting experience i must say. Seems i was surrounded by a whole bunch of blue pillers at the party i played at, which ended up being a bit of a sausage fest with very few single women in attendance. So, we partied hard and the subject came up of women’s AFL (Australian Football League). Now, any of you non-Aussies who have seen our great game would recognise it as being by far the best contact team sport on the planet (i know some of you yanks will argue this, but you can’t really if you actually watch the game. No pads, boys, amongst other things…)… when played by men. Just recently women have forced their way into a women’s league being established called AFLW. Now, whilst it isn’t very feminine for women to play such brutal contact sports in my opinion, if some want to play, let them, of course. But for me (and most other men i would guarantee) it is like watching U/14 boys play. Women just do not have the physical capabilities to perform such a fast, skillful, high contact sport at anywhere near a level any real sports lover would want to watch. Life is just too short for that shit. So when I was asked by an acquaintance (a pretty cool guy) what i thought of the game, i told him what i have just stated here. And you should have heard the response! They totally white knighted me, calling me all sorts of predictable names, whilst they huffed and puffed. I was pretty high (we all were) and feeling good so just laughed at them all, called them blue pill beta’s etc with a big shit-eating grin, maintaining excellent frame whilst they lost their shit. It was hilarious. One of the few fuckable single women there was present, and whilst she also argued with me, it was with no-where near the passion of these white knighters. She actually had a grin and i could tell that my one out Alphaness was impressing her, surrounded by all these simps. She wasn’t my type (way too skinny), but it was very interesting to experience the response of all these pussies and hers.

    Later i was able to talk some red pill stuff when no women were present, and really challenge some of these guys (most of who i had just met that night). Talking about MPoO got their ears tuned in. But make no mistake, we are surrounded by blue pill betas down under just as much as anywhere else. No wonder women are starting to play contact sports! Most of those guys would be pretty ordinary in bed from what i witnessed.

    Oh, one last thing. I was enjoying everyone’s indignation so much that i brought up this example of why the concept of “equality” is a crock of shit. I said to the skinny chick and some of the guys, “so we get a super sports bike, and in the men’s corner i nominate Valentino Rossi as the men’s rider, whilst you girls choose your female rider. Then we see who cuts the fastest lap?” The silence (apart from a few “sexist” splutters, “that’s not fair!” etc) was palpable, and i just smiled, winked and walked away. She was also smiling… but i still didn’t go there…

  21. In a way though it is true. The act of approaching a woman shows much vulnerability, because you expose yourself to rejection.

    When I flirt with a woman, I am showing interest, and that is a vulnerable (but not necessarily weak) position. When you touch a woman for the first time, when you pull her in for that first kiss- these are all extremely vulnerable situations for a man.

    But he does it anyways. He approaches, and flirts, and touches, and escalates, and pulls her in for a kiss. He exposes himself to the chance of a brutal rejection, but he demonstrates strength by doing it anyways.

    Obviously, this is hopefully based on a basic understanding women and how they communicate. You know when you should escalate your touching, and when she becomes receptive for a kiss. But there is always a doubt, always a risk, and in my experience, always a certain amount of nervousness the first time you go for it. Even when she’s been giving heavy IOIs.

    So yes, you need to be vulnerable. But never completely vulnerable.

    You let Delilah tie you to the bed, but never tell her about your hair.

  22. Oz is definitely filled with feminzis and blue pill “guys”. Probably more so than USA

  23. Women practice emotional manipulation and men practice emotional detachment. It’s been a game playing out for thousands of years. Somehow the roles got scrambled in the last century. Things will balance out one way or another in the coming future.

  24. What you believe is ’emotional detachment’ is not a manipulation tactic of men. Men’s mental firmware processes emotion differently from women, but because we live in a feminine-primary social order we’re conditioned to believe that the way women process emotion is the “correct” way for men to process them as well.

    Men lack the hardware to do this, but they are conditioned to reflexively respond as women do from the earliest age. Thus, when a man processes emotion naturally it appears he’s not “feeling” correctly or isn’t “emotionally available” to female-correct sensibilities. Rather than accept that men and women are different and deal with emotions in different ways we presume the man is being inauthentic.

    “He’s not really that way, it’s an act, or he’s just withholding his emotions to hurt a woman.” This is the rationale that female-correct society has to resort to because accepting that men evolved to process emotions differently would also mean that men and women are not the functional “equals” that blank-slate equalism is founded on.

  25. Women practice emotional manipulation and men practice emotional detachment.

    It’s not practice, it’s internal and inborn. Doesn’t matter if you are 6-day creationist or a total randomized evolutionist or anything in between: men manipulate matter, women manipulate men. Women emote because that makes them effective mothers, men don’t because they aren’t mothers.

    It’s been a game playing out for thousands of years. Somehow the roles got scrambled in the last century.

    Trace back blank-slate equalist lies and see where they lead. You’ll find the bending and warping of science, you’ll find a lot of other things, eventually you wind up back at Rousseau.

    Things will balance out one way or another in the coming future.

    Oh, really? How will that happen? The current momentum is towards even more cultural deformation. Feminism is the standard, de facto position for anyone who doesn’t actively push back.

  26. “How will that happen? The current momentum is towards even more cultural deformation.”

    And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
    When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
    As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
    The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

  27. I think your comments are pertinent and you brought good rational(no pun intended) arguments. However they are along the lines of “that’s how we are, men and women”, that’s how we evolved and we can’t do anything about it because it’s in our DNA and our mental programming. Feminism is marching on the fact that we’re born equal, even if there are obvious biological differences. Yes, women emote more and have the means to be greater emotional manipulators. But men can learn the so called feminine behaviours(The so called Game actually involves this and I noticed some of the PUAs mentioning that it’s the bisexual men who are actually the greatest players) and women can also learn the so called manly behaviours(there are a lot of examples especially in our current society). Is it good, is it bad? Hard to say. The thing is that the family is an artificial construction that helped our civilization flourish and it’s been lately systematically destroyed due to what you’re calling feminine primary social order.
    Evolution is a continuous process and my opinion is that it’s either people will somehow transcend their biology(see AI or some kind of other conscious (r)evolution) OR after some “dark” times of men being more like women and women more like men the things will come to the previous “normality” of feminine women and manly men.

  28. Human’s will not transcend their own evolution, they will adapt with it, but they will not be removed from its influences. We’ve been force fitting and conditioning men to be women for the past 5 generation. We presume that the feminine is the correct, unitary way that humans should be. We call that egalitarian equality, but what it comes down to is adopting a universal correct mode of being and it’s founded on feminine/female control of what is right and wrong.

    It force fits boys and men into an unnatural state they never evolved for and all because the feminine is the presumed correct gender norm that we base equality on. We’re all expected to be equally female. What has that got us in those past 5 generations? A male suicide rate 5x that of women. Boys prescribed sedatives for acting like boys instead of ‘correct’ girls. I can go on.

    The fact remains that you and many others of your mindset believe that evolving or being in control of that process only progresses if boy and men “transcend” their biology and think like correct females. It is the height of new agey metaphysical woo woo hubris to expect one sex to behave counter to its 100,000 years of evolved nature and become like the other to accommodate what it thinks should be correct.

  29. Evolution is a continuous process and my opinion is that it’s either people will somehow transcend their biology(see AI or some kind of other conscious (r)evolution) OR after some “dark” times of men being more like women and women more like men the things will come to the previous “normality” of feminine women and manly men.

    Clueless, empty platitudes. Did you even read the OP?

  30. Really cannot make a cuddly pet of a wolf – even a wolf born & raised in captivity.

    Some will try, of course . . .

  31. “The fact remains that you and many others of your mindset believe that evolving or being in control of that process only progresses if boy and men “transcend” their biology and think like correct females. It is the height of new agey metaphysical woo woo hubris to expect one sex to behave counter to its 100,000 years of evolved nature and become like the other to accommodate what it thinks should be correct.”

    “I and others” meaning blue/purple/black/red pill or some other category that the alt-right movement decided to split the world into ?
    It is what it is and the current state is also part of THE Evolution(want it or not and no matter what we comment here or what new anti-current social orders we create). What did you expect after so many generations of women only raising the children? We cannot have it all as men and that’s exactly what biological evolution “wanted”. The wheel spins. The big worry is that we will become a kind of an androgynous world. But even if there is an artificial want for something like that the evolution of life doesn’t and won’t allow it unless we “decide” to perish as a human race.

    On the other hand, if as a man you cannot Control how, when and where you stick your penis into then you’re definitely less than a wild animal. And it’s the same for women. I think that’s the best definition of being a bitch. I read and am totally agree with your view on the extended hypergamy because I see how it works on a daily basis.

    If you read some medical studies on the brain neuroplasticity and how what you do and how you live your life changes your very DNA you would know that you can be just like a woman. Just kidding, haha, you can change your character so that nobody will recognize you after some decades.
    And you cannot and you would not like to erase the human basic software of breathing, the sexual urge, the way our organs do their thing and so on, but you can unlearn everything you “learned” in those 100,000 years and add your own thing, more or less.

  32. A man can understand how women think, and the underlying motivations without resorting to ” acting and thinking like a girl “. Game has zero to do with adopting female behaviors. Anyone promoting anything remotely like that is an agent, witting or not, of the FI.

  33. What did you expect after so many generations of women only raising the children?

    Which has never happened. Maybe half of kids are raised by women only since the ’60s…maybe 3 generations max. Not enough time for evolution to take hold, even granting the erroneous assumption that kids are mostly raised by women only.

    The big worry is that we will become a kind of an androgynous world.

    Women are trying to be men (e.g., women in combat and MMA) and men are trying to be women (e.g., men are encourage to process everything through their feelings). Everything becomes 2nd rate when that happens. Women become 2nd rate women and men become 2nd rate men. Does it really sound like everything is tending towards androgyny? Seems like just a cultural clusterfuck to me.

    On the other hand, if as a man you cannot Control how, when and where you stick your penis into then you’re definitely less than a wild animal.

    Baaaaaaah!

  34. Self discipline is not self suppression.

    And:

    Never Allow Your Desire to Become Suppressed or Depolarized

    When a man denies his desire for the feminine, either by choice or due to familiarity, it is a sign of his depolarization even toward the world. He may seek a mistress in order to re-invigorate him, but this is usually only a temporary and complicated solution, since it is only a matter of time before his mistress also becomes familiar, and thus tiresome. Any woman toward whom a man becomes depolarized will feel his rejection, disgust, and turning away. In response, she will become angry and de- structive. Her “unhusbanded” energy will begin to move chaotically, becoming even self-destructive. A man has no excuse; he must cultivate a polarized relationship to his woman and his world if he is to remain in relationship with them. –Heh, Deida

  35. nsdimbo
    March 28, 2018 at 2:22 am

    “I and others” meaning blue/purple/black/red pill or some other category that the alt-right movement decided to split the world into ?
    It is what it is and the current state is also part of THE Evolution(want it or not and no matter what we comment here or what new anti-current social orders we create). What did you expect after so many generations of women only raising the children? We cannot have it all as men and that’s exactly what biological evolution “wanted”. The wheel spins. The big worry is that we will become a kind of an androgynous world. But even if there is an artificial want for something like that the evolution of life doesn’t and won’t allow it unless we “decide” to perish as a human race.

    On the other hand, if as a man you cannot Control how, when and where you stick your penis into then you’re definitely less than a wild animal. And it’s the same for women. I think that’s the best definition of being a bitch. I read and am totally agree with your view on the extended hypergamy because I see how it works on a daily basis.

    If you read some medical studies on the brain neuroplasticity and how what you do and how you live your life changes your very DNA you would know that you can be just like a woman. Just kidding, haha, you can change your character so that nobody will recognize you after some decades.
    And you cannot and you would not like to erase the human basic software of breathing, the sexual urge, the way our organs do their thing and so on, but you can unlearn everything you “learned” in those 100,000 years and add your own thing, more or less.

    ==============

    Interesting informative yet — too wedded perhaps?

    It’s a 3-D target intercept problem.
    Success requires distance sufficient to maintain aspect and triangulate an intercept solution.

    Otherwise one risks overshoot – suddenly becoming the target.

  36. Vulnerability is exposing yourself to the possibility of attack, not being weak. It’s fearlessness. I don’t accept the premise of the post that vulnerability is a weakness.

    I think what is being taught to men is to display weakness. There is room for men to display weakness – with each other – but not with women or intimate partners.

    I have a good male friend who shares his weaknesses with me. Without it he would just be a shell of a man trying to hide this from others. By talking and then acting upon it, he is able to eliminate these fears and grow.

  37. You wouldn’t think this was the case in any western country…

    It just proves that a majority of women who have kids are lazy bitches that have gotten what they wanted and their Beta simp hubbies just accept these fatties with almost no shame at all…

    It just makes the yummy mummies even more desirable for older men…

    https://www.theage.com.au/national/act/having-babies-doesn-t-make-you-fat-according-to-new-research-20180517-p4zfz7.html

Leave a Reply