Instinct, Emotion and Reason

Before I dig in here today I want to give credit where it’s due. I was inspired to consider what I’m about to go into here by a quick-hit Tweet from Illimitable Man. I didn’t bookmark it so I apologize for not linking it here today, but the general gist of it was about the mental processes humans go through when we’re presented with environmental stimuli that demands interpretation and a behavioral response. I considered this process quite a bit while I was studying behavioral psychology – Instinct, Emotion and Reason (or rationality if you prefer) – and I’m almost embarrassed that I haven’t covered this in terms of a Red Pill perspective in over 600 essays now.

The idea is fairly simple; when we are prompted by environmental (and sometimes internal) stimuli human beings process this information using three psychological mechanisms – our primal instincts, our emotional interpretations and our rational (reason) facilities. I’m not sure these processes get their proper due in Red Pill theory today.  I’ve detailed all of these processes individually for years on this blog, but generally they were outlined in the context of whatever topic I was focusing on. In this essay I’m going to elaborate on these aspects individually. Later, as part of this series, I’ll explore how they act in concert for our overall cognitive process, and then how they influence intersexual and intersocial dynamics. I think this is a useful exercise because a lot of foundational Red Pill ideas stem from these processes as well as the social conventions and interpretive priorities the Feminine Imperative relies on today.

For sake of clarity I am going to use a few behavioral psych terms like stimuli in this essay. This isn’t to throw $10 words at you, it’s just easier to elaborate on these processes with abstract terms. For example, when I use stimuli I mean any physical, environmental or cognitive prompt that our conscious or unconscious mind demands an interpretation, processing of and response to. That can be a wide variety of things so, stimuli serves as a general term.

Lastly, the following here is my interpretation of these processes. While a lot of this will align pretty well with established theories, this is my take on them and not some official, settled science of facts. If you think I’m full of shit please tell me why, this is still a work in progress for me.


Instinct seems like the easiest of these processes to understand, but it’s really the cognitive aspect that’s most misunderstood, marginalized and often demonized. The reason for this is because our instincts reside in our subconscious (hindbrain) processing of stimuli. When I refer to men or women’s evolved mental firmware in my essays it’s our instinctual process that I’m referring to. These are the unlearned, inborn aspects of our human nature that influence the other processes and remain largely in our subconscious. Our instinctual processing is a direct result of our evolution. It evolved as a vitally necessary aspect of our cognitive processing in that it aided in our ability to survive in, and adapt to, a chaotic, primal environment when food was scarce, predators and rivals wanted us dead, and reproductive opportunities and raising a child to a survivable age were at a premium.

There are a lot of examples of our instinct level processing and each instinctual response triggers more complex processing up the cognitive chain through emotion and reason. If we were presented with a dangerous stimuli (a sabertooth tiger) our instinctual process triggers a fight or flight response physically in our bodies (adrenaline release). Needless to say this was an evolved adaptation that served our species well and was passed along genetically as part of our mental firmware. I’m going to use some simplistic examples here but, if you really want to dig into our preloaded mental firmware and how we developed it I would suggest looking into the earlier works of Dr. Steven Pinker and The Red Queen by Matt Ridley (I’ll post links in the comments).

Another example is human beings’ innate fear (reservations at least) of snakes and spiders – poisonous animals that looked easy to kill, but could kill humans without warning. That’s an example of relatively beneficial firmware, but the reason instinct gets a bad rep is due to the instincts that once were beneficial to us individually, but are less beneficial to us socially. Greed and gluttony were very practical, instinctually motivated behaviors that stemmed from a need to survive in a time when resources were scarce. Today greed is (mostly) seen as anti-social and a compulsion to overeat in a time when food is abundant is why we presently have an obesity epidemic.

Those are easily understood examples, but where things get more complex is in how our instinctual process influences the other processes (emotion and reason). Instinct gets demonized because in our ‘enlightened‘ era we like to believe that instinct is more trouble than it is beneficial. Most of that is due to a belief that our other processes are superior to (or at least should supersede) our instincts. Most of what we call sin or immoral behavior is motivated by the instinctual process. In fact, the only time our instinctual awareness and reactions are really credited with anything positive is when it gets us out of some life threatening situation or it leads to some prosocial outcome. For instance, the male instinct to protect women by putting ourselves between them and danger; that’s an instinct and resultant behavior (seemingly altruistic male self-sacrifice) that gets a lot of praise in our feminine-primary social order. However, for the most part, we tend to judge ‘baser instincts’ as a net negative.

The truth about the instinctual process is that none of our other processes function at full efficiency without it. Today, as a result of our feminine-primary acculturation, we want to relegate instinct’s influence to something “we’ve evolved beyond”. The popular consensus is we’ve raised ourselves above base instincts by either acknowledging the importance of the emotional process or that rationality and the self-control based on it immunizes us from its influence. Not only are these belief foolish and hubristic, they’re provably untrue. When it comes to concepts like the ‘selfish gene‘ and the physical differences in the evolved instinctual processes of men and women, it becomes necessary for a social order based on blank-slate equalism to demonize and marginalize the influence of, and behaviors attributed to, instinct.

The survival benefits and behaviors that make up the instinctual process were so necessary that they had to become part of our unconscious species firmware. Because the instinctual process is part of our animalistic hindbrain mental subroutines it’s something we have little or no direct control over until its effect is brought (often forced) into our conscious awareness. As such, and because we prefer to think of ourselves as emotional and rational beings, we tend to think of the influence of instinct as something we either have or need to have mastery over, and to a large extent this mastery makes sense. The truth is that instinct is an aspect of ourselves that needs to be controlled as well as embraced depending on circumstances.


From an evolutionary perspective, the emotional process of interpreting stimuli is a mechanism of how our brains and biochemistry interact to affect our moods, demeanor and ’emotionality’ in response to both instinctual cues and the raw information of stimuli itself. Furthermore, the emotional process can also be influenced and/or modified by the rational process. I’m trying to be concise here, but our emotional response to information/stimuli is very much an evolved dynamic with latent purposes and practical functionalities. I’m making this distinction here because for millennia we’ve raised the effects of emotion to a mythical, metaphysical, importance.

While emotion often has immediate effects on us, emotion also has long term effect with regard to the stimuli it processes. There are dozens of definitions of emotions and there’s no way I’m going to lay them all out for you here. However, popular psychology asserts that there are as many as ten and as few as six base emotions:

  • Anger.
  • Disgust.
  • Fear.
  • Happiness.
  • Sadness.
  • Surprise.

Sometimes Contempt is added to this list. If these seem overly simplistic they are, again, abstracts to build more complex emotions on (some paleo-researchers insist there are only four base emotions across our evolved ethno-histories). For our purposes these base emotions will serve to show the connections between the instinctual process which prompts them and the rational process that modifies and sometimes informs them.

Each of these emotional responses is prompted by how our senses, brain and then instinctual process interprets a stimuli. Again, using our sabertooth tiger example, the instinctual process determines imminent danger and triggers a synaptic and hormonal response to that danger. As a result of that instinctual process an emotional process and response is triggered – likely fear (flight in most cases), but sometimes anger (fight).

Another example: you see an arousing woman (stimuli) at a party who is displaying behavioral cues and environmental indicators of interest (IOIs). Your instinctual process determines a high potential for a reproductive opportunity. From there the emotional process kicks in: hormones and dopamine (and not a small testosterone spike) that your instinctual process triggered flushes your system and serves as the basis for your emotional process to form an emotional response to the same stimuli. If it all passes the smell test that response (hopefully) will be happiness (and a little surprise mixed in).

There is a visceral biochemical interrelation between emotion and the stimuli/instinct relation that prompts the reaction. Adrenaline is one easy example, another is oxytocin or the “love hormone”. This is a bit of a mischaracterization of the hormone. Oxytocin induces feelings of trust and comfort and is thought to be a significant factor in human’s forming pair bonds and parental investments. There’s a lot more to oxytocin’s implications to our evolution than that, but for now lets look at how our biology influences the emotional process.

We proceed from stimuli to an instinctual response. If there is nothing mitigating that response (such as a rationally learned buffer to mitigate it) the next step in the chain is a biological reaction to that instinct – such as dumping adrenaline into our bloodstream or a post-orgasm flush of oxytocin after sex. From there the emotional process picks up the interpretation of this information as prompted by the cocktail of chemicals moving through our bloodstream and affecting our mental and physical interpretation of that stimuli. That biochemical factor prompts one, or a combination, of the base emotions listed above.

From there more complex emotions (feelings) and combinations thereof begin to form an emotional interpretation and response. This emotional response can be anything from a fast, reflexive one to a more nuanced and contemplative one. Furthermore, this emotional interpretation and response can also be modified by our rational mental process as well as our gendered capacity to process emotions. One thing to bear in mind about our emotional process is that it can imprint its interpretations into our ‘hard memory’ – sometimes so significantly that the memory of that stimuli can re-trigger that physical and emotional response.

Gender-modified interpretation of our emotion process is an important aspect to consider in Red Pill praxeology and one I’ll be elaborating on in the next part of this series. Until recently the accepted ‘science‘ about our emotional process has been based on a blank-slate equalist approach to emotion. In fact we still suffer from the outdated presumptions of academia that both men and women process emotion in the same manner, and, in theory, ought to be expected to have an equal capacity to interpret, respond and express emotion. In light of new technology and new research in a variety of interrelated disciplines we know this is old presumption is patently untrue. Men and women have different mental hardware and are born with different mental firmware. Both sexes interpret and process emotion in gender-specific manners.

I’ll be getting into the personal and social implications that the legacy of this (deliberate) misunderstanding presents in the next essay. For now it’s important to consider that human beings have an innate predisposition to elevate the emotional process above instinct and reason. Likely this is due the to the survival dependency we had on our feelings in our evolutionary past. In a time when we lacked the greater rational facilities and information we’ve developed in our more recent past, depending on and learning from emotion, and the latent purposes it serves, was a species-beneficial system. We depended on our emotions to guide our behaviors (long and short term) for us more in our prehistory when we lacked the more developed rational process we take for granted now. Emotions served latent evolutionary purposes for us in our prehistory and today are still overly emphasized – often to metaphysical attributes – as superior to reason. More on this soon.


The final piece of our interpretive process is reason, or rationality (I’ll use these interchangeably). Ironically, for all of the social preconceptions that our emotions have made us “more evolved” above instinct, it is our rational process that has evolved us above both instinct and emotion. From and evolutionary standpoint our rational process is a relatively recent development; pushing us past the limitations of instinct and emotion. The definition of rationality is the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic. It is the quality of being able to think sensibly or logically and being endowed with the capacity to reason.

Biologically it’s postulated that our larger brains allowed us to develop a capacity for reason, but that doesn’t mean other animals lack the same facility, it’s just that the rational process is less developed (some would say less environmentally necessary) in those animals by order of degree. Dogs, for example, rely primarily on the instinctual process and the mental (vestigial) firmware they’re born with to solve most of their existential/environmental problems. That doesn’t mean that they lack the ability to learn and form novel (adaptive) behaviors using a rudimentary form of logic. Animals can be taught things, but their capacity to form novel ideas and behaviors is limited to their cognitive abilities. Humans, being the apex species on the planet, had the leisure to take the time necessary to evolve a capacity for logic and as such the rational process developed in us.

Of all our interpretive processes reason is the one that takes the longest to function. Our rational process forms our interpretation of stimuli based on information dissociated from the interpretations of instinct and emotion. Reason requires (accurate) knowledge derived from learning and experience, but there is also an improvisational element to the process.

Before I get too far in the weeds here I need to make a distinction; what I’m outlining is the rational mental process we employ to interpret and interact with stimuli, not rationality, the concept of reason or rationalism. That’s important because it’s all too easy to get lost in philosophical implications of reason when we look at the process of how we come to it.

As mentioned above, the rational process modifies the instinctual and emotional processes. Example, in high school, in drivers ed class, we’re taught to turn into a skid rather than turn with the skid. When we’re driving and we find ourselves in a skid our instinctive impulse is to slam on the the breaks and/or, worse still, to turn with the skid. Our self-preservation instincts tells us to do this, but all it does is make a precarious situation worse. However, when we’re taught, and we practice, not hitting the brakes and not turning into the skid, we make this our default reaction and we avoid disaster. This is the rational process interpreting a stimuli and forming a novel behavior that modifies the interpretation of the instinctual process.

The limitation of the rational process is in its necessity to take time to interpret information and develop a new apparatus. Where instinct and emotion are intimately linked with our biological hardware and psychological firmware, the rational process is dissociated from them in the same immediacy. Instinct and emotion are processes that evolved from a survival-need for fast interpretation and reaction. The rational process requires time, repetition and the right biological structures to be effective. Human beings are remarkably fast learners (even with complex challenges), but the learning that the rational process leads to is slow in comparison to instinct and emotion – which are essentially preloaded firmware in humans.

The rational process deals with the nuts and bolts of what we can understand of our reality. From there it can modify the other processes or it can serve to interpret stimuli on its own.

In the next part of this series I’ll be exploring how these cognitive processes interact and cooperate and conflict with each other. I will also consider the gendered advantages and disadvantages these processes represent to our individual experiences as men and women and the influence they play in intersexual and intersocial dynamics.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

582 comments on “Instinct, Emotion and Reason

  1. To be diagnosed with schizophrenia, a person must have two or more of the following symptoms occurring persistently in the context of reduced functioning:

    Disorganized speech
    Disorganized or catatonic behavior
    Negative symptoms

    Delusions or hallucinations alone can often be enough to lead to a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Identifying it as early as possible greatly improves a person’s chances of managing the illness, reducing psychotic episodes, and recovering.

  2. @ SJF

    “It’s the nature of tribes. It’s the nature of in-group altruism and out-group malice. It’s practice for when the SJW’s come forward to call out The Red Pill Tribe. It’s not all bad, it’s purposeful for a certain mission.

    You don’t have to join any certain tribe. But you have the opportunity to do so. If you do, sometimes you want to resonate with that tribe and not go all Rugby (blue pill idealism) or YaReally like (Anti-OMG abstractions, concrete ideas or bust..) on that tribe.

    Yes there is Groupthink going on. It’s not bad…”

    Well written. You are one of the most intelligent men here. A worthy side-kick for Rollo. I do agree with you. I guess my issue has been the more combative nature of some of the interactions, but all of us are free to choose to engage or not, granted. It’s just not my style to be so combative. I’m more of a lover than a fighter. But i am right into being part of a tribe for sure. I have my own little tribe of alpha men out here who i ride with and hang out with, men that have taught me a lot and whom i respect, and it’s the best thing ever. That has been my path for a long time. Even a music band is a small tribe. So all good, gentlemen, i’m happy to step back and let a few of you slug it out, if that’s how you wish to roll. But i also feel it’s important to stay on point and not get too personal, too abusive, unless someone’s being a total arsehole, of course…

    @ EH

    “What do you have to prove to yourself, yet?”

    That, my friend, is the million dollar question, isn’t it…?

  3. AR – A tranny should run that marathon as a tranny. Won’t get much respect for a first place finish though, except among the trannies. If the tranny would like to have wider respect, then run against the men (in that eventuality maybe temporarily amp up the test to normal optimum levels if necessary – shouldn’t be a problem – aren’t the trannies already master of hormonal manipulation?) Still won’t win though – with the extra weight of their fake fun-bags and all. Maybe get those temporarily removed then. But wouldn’t that just make them a man again? Ahhh – so that they always were then ….mmmmm.

  4. Yollo Comanche – your comment – “The old order social contract has been torn apart. Read the article about the Old books, it’s in the search bar.”

    The key then is, within the new social order, women must be held accountable for the
    consequences of the decisions they make around personal interactions. Not much of that is happening. Not something that is really even recommended here. That needs to change. How? Well let’s look at your further comment:

    “One that women sometimes use to shake a Beta tell loose from you, getting you to marginalize your sexuality either early on or later on(depending on whether you REALLY get this shit or not) to try to get you to play the game in a way that primarily benefits her(or if she gets tired of you always winning, women are pretty petty sometimes). ”

    Marginalize her sexuality when she acts like a sexualized child (and hey – that be gross – right?). She is not a child.

  5. There are only Male and Female. Occasionally someone is born with both sex organs, but even then they usually don’t both function properly.

    Guys can put on dresses and panties, and cut of dick and balls, and they are then disfigured men. Chicks can pump testosterone until they grow ZZ Top beards and 6 inch long clits, and they are still only disfigured women…. with crazy sex drives and deep voices.

    No hate intended. People can do whatever they like. But if I have feathers protruding from my asshole, it will never make me a bird. And I will not insist that everyone recognize me as a special bird species.

  6. According to the organizers of the Boston Marathon, at the moment, there are men and women. Which you are is determined by whether you have an “M” or an “F” on your legal ID when you submit your entry, and that’s it.

  7. AR – A tranny should run that marathon as a tranny.

    Your blank-slate equalitarian “merit” removes that option.

    Try again.

  8. ‘Your blank-slate equalitarian “merit” removes that option.’

    It’s actually ‘original meaning of egalitarian => merit -system’, ….. but in any event – why does the merit system remove the option of trannies requesting a new category of rankings of their own (which if they had any balls would be the most they would consider asking for), and the officials agreeing to that?

  9. @ SJF

    “Stop playing around the edges, my friends, start living. Be alive and stop dicking around.

    But penetrate the world by dicking around. And around, and around…”

    Right on, bro! I only got into motorbikes mid-40’s due to my “big brother” encouraging me, teaching me the basics once again on his old Ag bike (farmers style bike), then taking me on some very challenging bush track rides where my instinct just kicked in and i knew i just had to hold on & follow him through some very challenging terrain. I never knew i had it in me, but he challenged me and didn’t go easy on me. True Alpha. True leadership. No bullshit. Changed my life for the better. Now we ride road bikes together, him on a Harley (he throws it around tight corners like very few Harley riders could ever do), me on a sports bike and a couple of other mates on sport-tourers. I can now pass him on both bikes, when the moment is right. Very cheeky. It’s great! Nothing like riding bikes fast with your mates through windy country roads in the mountains for experiencing true freedom and facing possible pain or even death. If you haven’t tried it you must, gentlemen! But i would never have had this growth opportunity if not for my little tribe and having the balls to overcome my fears and just go for it…

  10. Expect trannies to continue to compete as women, because of the blank-slate equalism of feminism. In anything not figure skating or maybe water ballet, expect trannies to eventually dominate all women’s athletics because of biology. Even a surgically mutilated 20 year old man overdosed with estrogen will have bigger lungs and more muscle strength than a woman, unless he started hormones before puberty. College women’s softball would be a logical place to see trannies in a few years, in the name of “inclusion”; better at fielding and harder hitting in the batter’s box, for a start. Teams that don’t have a tranny or two will be at a competitive disadvantage. Ditto hockey (ice or field).

    What happens when a tranny college athlete on a Title IX bestowed scholarship wants to pledge a sorority?

    The cognitive dissonance will be remarkable to behold.

    Stimulus. Response.

  11. The other “dicking around” i have been doing successfully for the past 25+ years…

  12. Wild Person
    why does the merit system remove the option of trannies requesting a new category of rankings of their own

    No such request has been made, nor will it be made, so this is moot.

    Under your “original meaning of egalitarian => merit -system” should a tranny run a maration as a woman or not?

    Use all the words you want.

  13. AR – yeah – like I said above the Boston Marathon officials – beans for brains (assuming U.S. government issued ID is gendered by way of what you yourself say you identify as, despite how you look, like here in Canada).

    AR – are you confusing ‘blank-slate equalism’, or ‘blank-slate equalism of feminism’, or ‘blank-slate equalitarianism’ with ‘the original meaning of egalitarian => merit -system’?, ….. because they equalism stuff is a completely different thing than what I am promoting. I explained the differences upthread.

  14. “Under your “original meaning of egalitarian => merit -system” should a tranny run a maration as a woman or not? ”

    No. Obviously. I only got wordy because I thought this was so obvious that you were instead after something more arcane. My bad.

  15. The original French coining of the word translates into English as “equalist.” Just what that meant was a matter of debate from the first second and people killed each other over the matter.

    There is a technical meaning of the word in anthropology, which arose circa a century after the coining, in which “egalitarian societies” are contrasted with “Clan Societies.” In a Clan Society your social status is determined by that of your family. It is a birthright (or perhaps a birthwrong if you’re an Untouchable). In an Egalitarian Society social status is earned by individual acts. It is a matter of personal merit.

    So, in that sense, if you become King by knocking off the head of the old King in single combat, you are egalitarian, as opposed to becoming King because your father was King.

  16. @The Solitary Silver FoX
    Well, flattery will get you some comments by me. Because I had an odd solitary day out at my farm. It was a hoot because I picked up this energy drink before the 40 mile drive. And I didn’t eat anything all day except two pieces of beef jerky and a tiny hunk of cheese from the gas station on the way out. Totally fucking ketogenic all day.

    Make no Mistake – BANG® is not your stereotypical high sugar, life-sucking soda masquerading as an energy drink! High sugar drinks spike blood sugar producing metabolic mayhem causing you to crash harder than a test dummy into a brick wall. Power up with BANG’s potent brain & body-rocking fuel: Creatine, Caffeine, & BCAAs (Branched Chain Amino Acids). Life is an Xtreme Sport and Bang is the Xtreme Energy Source to Live Life Xtreme.

    LOL 300 milligrams of caffeine. YippeeKayay Motherfucker.

    So I was buzzing along splitting and stacking firewood and thinking about life.

    Yes I’m intelligent as I want to be. An Inscrutable Mastermind. wild man accuses me of not having original thoughts. He’s correct in that assessment actually. But I do process stuff and turn it into artistry for myself, not others. I grew up in grade school that was limited in how we were taught. It was all left brain teaching. No right brain creativity, imagination, and artistry.
    But on my own, I had an affinity for consuming books, books and more books and I built a life outside of being taught, namely teaching myself what I wanted to learn.

    In high school, college and medical school, and two medical residencies, the same pattern existed. They gave information and told me to regurgitate facts. I probably had a 20 year stretch that consisted of answering multiple choice questions and getting them mostly all right. One brief stint of being creative in college by being forced to express myself ended up in abject failure. And when I’ve been subjected failure in my life, I’ve vowed to never let that happen again. I don’t like constraint. Freedom from constraint is the essence of masculine ecstacy.

    I’m not really a mastermind. But I do know how to obtain mastery.

    One of the things the manosphere has given me is a way to learn how to derive things and regurgitate them. At one point I couldn’t say things in my own words. I can now. So I’m happy about that. I’m thankful for The Red Pill to overcome Betatization that happened out of my own ignorance. The not being a mastermind part of me really sucked. A fat, drunk Beta is no way to go through life.

    (Side note. I’m low on Agreeableness, like 1% on the Big Five personality inventory. That does not mean I can’t be agree-able. Just ask my closest red pill guy buddies–I can be 100% agree-able with them. I’m also super high ranking on Conscientiousness. Hence my desire to integrate my dark side/shadow self. An infusion of Dark Triad, if I may. I’m not very psychopathic that way, but I do want to share those guys more positive traits for the win.)

    “Enough about me, let’s talk about you for a minute….

    Combativeness is not such a bad thing in context. In the context of Knowing Thyself and sticking to your purpose and mission it can be a good thing.

    To wit (namely):

    @ EH

    “What do you have to prove to yourself, yet?”

    That, my friend, is the million dollar question, isn’t it…?

    Knowing thyself is a big part of knowing when to be combative. “Should I stay or should I go?” Should I get on the battlefield? Should I engage or should I retreat?

    You as a lover should be like this:

    So all good, gentlemen, i’m happy to step back and let a few of you slug it out, if that’s how you wish to roll. But i also feel it’s important to stay on point and not get too personal, too abusive, unless someone’s being a total arsehole, of course…

    So that’s exactly right. Wild Man is actually being an ass-hole and should be dis-abused of his privilege of talking here. Because it is antithetical to Red Pill. He’s not even really trying to get somewhere. I’m not sure he even likes to fuck girls.

    “Enough about you, let’s talk about life for a while
    The conflicts, the craziness and the sound of pretenses is falling
    All around, all around…”

    Tribes are important, because that is where men do their best work. It’s not best to be insulated or to be solitary.

    Law 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.

    Tribes are tricky business. They are best done small. They are best when the unlucky and the unhappy are pruned from the ranks (thus, the abusiveness towards Wild Man, and the tough love towards Rugby). They are best when mates resonate with each other and are not forced to go along willingly, but have desire to do so. Best when having common interests, i.e. married red pill vs. YSG, PUA based. Best understood with a framework of meritocracy and respect for merit, skill, and the fact that human relationships are made of exchanges (which is recursive to having mates you can resonate with). Tribes have structure. Male only space tribes are rare and should be maintained well. Very tough to do so, but the payback is great when done well.

  17. AR – look – when it comes to all this femcentric shite in the culture, I’m on Rollo’s side, same as pretty much everybody in the ‘man-o-sphere’ (wow that be a nerdy term – eh?).

    Maybe one difference though, I have with Rollo, is that that this isn’t just about ‘it’s the hypergamy – man’. There be powerful forces that are shaping the cultural narrative, and using the various peccadillos of human nature (like hypergamy for instance), to run soe interference, so as to better shape that narrative to their liking. Guess who? – it be the psychos who have coalesced at the top of the dung heap, …… and they have been able to coalesce there because in the much larger organizational groups we now live within, the psychos can hide their psychopathy much better than ever before – big, big problem. We need to right this.

    There are a ton or reasons why this ‘celebration of psychopathy’ that is taking off all over the place in our culture is unbelievably retarded. I would hope that this place (this blogspot and commenter forum) would see past those manipulations. But I’m not having much luck here in that respect!

  18. There is a technical meaning of the word in anthropology, which arose circa a century after the coining, in which “egalitarian societies” are contrasted with “Clan Societies.” In a Clan Society your social status is determined by that of your family. It is a birthright (or perhaps a birthwrong if you’re an Untouchable). In an Egalitarian Society social status is earned by individual acts. It is a matter of personal merit.

    This makes a ton more sense. I avoid wading into the Egalitarian equalist debates/discussions, because the way the words are being used doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. The way egalitarian seems to be used in the sphere appears to be the exact opposite of what it’s supposed to mean.

    Too bad we don’t live in an anthropological society, as language seem more concise.

  19. Lol, I’m avoiding the psychopathy thing too, but I will give 1 opinion, just for the hell of it.

    I haven’t noticed men fawning over psychopathic behavior, but what (( I )) do understand, is that our society is becoming more and more enamored with varying degrees of displays of psychopathy.

    And it appears that women, for better or worse, are more affected by male displays.

    So it behooves a male to understand and develop his own level of psychopathy so he won’t find himself trampled under foot. Nobody says you have to ever go full pyscho, but you might need the understanding to deal with the true pyschos.

    The only way to avoid this scenario, is to live on a mountain top and grow your own food and have minimal contact with modern society at all. If you have any plans for your life that include dealing with various people to accomplish various goals, be prepared to run into psychos, but don’t get run over in the process.


  20. @ AR re: Wildman

    “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”

    ― Mark Twain

  21. “The way egalitarian seems to be used in the sphere appears to be the exact opposite of what it’s supposed to mean.”

    Blax – yes. I’ve been saying that for years now. Very frustrating. If you allow you enemies to usurp and mutilate your language – what do you have left? Personally, I think those in the man-o-sphere that go along with that mutilation of the original meaning should be shamed for that. It’s sorta like treason.

  22. ” . . . the way the words are being used doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.”

    War is peace, Brother. The Orwellian machine has been grinding the language for some time and it is now nearly impossible to discuss politics because the terms have lost their meanings.

    Also, in an American context, the terms of the French Revolution “left wing” and “right wing” have never had any proper meaning. America had come down on the side of the “left” (republicanism and secularism) before the term was even coined and sent the “right” (monarchists and churchists) packing off to Canada.

    And then to confuse the issue further the actual political division does not fall along the lines ascribed to the political philosophies at all, which makes hypocrites of all the “parties.”

    The actual divisions are far more primal than political philosophy. Collectivism/Individualism, Predator/Prey, Urban/Rural.

  23. “So it behooves a male to understand and develop his own level of psychopathy so he won’t find himself trampled under foot”

    Blax – not quite right. More like this: It behooves a male to understand and develop his own level of masculine principles so he won’t find himself trampled underfoot by psychopaths, or worse, find himself falling down the slippery slope of those that end up joining thier ranks.

  24. “Under your “original meaning of egalitarian => merit -system” should a tranny run a maration as a woman or not? ”


    Why? Why not?

  25. AR – Why or why not? But you already gave the reason. Because it would not be fairplay then. For all the reasons you gave above @ 5:38 p.m.

  26. The socialists are looking at weaponizing #metoo against betas.

    When employers know that they will have to pay for the harasser who grabs butts or whispers and texts lewd messages to co-workers, they will make sure he is gone and gone fast. In the world where #MeToo means strict liability, harassment policies and reporting mechanisms would be geared to prevent occurrence rather than circumvent complaints, to focus on “problem men” who harass rather than “problem women” who complain.

  27. On the job, women not on the receiving end of Alpha harrasment will claim harrasment out of envy and Alphas are at risk #too.

  28. Upthread someone was talking about trannies playing on men’s teams. Someone needs to check the NJ Devils lockeroom…

  29. @Wildman, some contextual definitions of egalitarian as used here.

    “What made Damore a target wasn’t so much Google from a corporate sense, but rather the ‘progressive’ feminine-primary corporate culture that is endemic to Google. Once Damore had published his very well-thought op-ed about the fundamental biological, psychological and neurological differences between men and women, and how this affects innovation and employment in the tech industry, the intra-corporate witch hunt was on for the guy who anonymously posted. No doubt Google code monkeys would have little problem identifying and doxxing James, but where this witch hunt stemmed from was far more likely his co-workers and fueled by the egalitarian-equalist, postmodernist mindset that pervades Google.”

    “I’m often asked by ‘fempowered’ women critics whether I ‘believe‘ in some of the more socially acceptable tenets of feminism in some sort defense to the affront of my Red Pill lens being cast their way. It’s usually something to do with, “Do you or do you not think women ought to have the right to vote?” or the ever-reliable “Shouldn’t women have the right to do with their bodies what they choose?” These questions are always binary (“yes or no will do”) and usually couched in a context that implies that if you even slightly disagree or have a marginal caveat to answering ‘appropriately’ you’ll be dismissed with a name tag that has “misogynist” printed on it. Say no and you’re a despicable misogynist. Say yes and you’re tar-pitted in “yes, but” caveats – mansplaining – that are disqualified because you’re a man.

    Say no and you’re a despicable misogynist. Say yes and you’re tar-pitted in “yes, but” caveats – mansplaining – that are disqualified because you’re a man. Up until recently, it’s been a very effective means of silencing uncomfortable truths about the Feminine Imperative.

    I’ve always found it ironic that a movement (feminism) that predicates itself on the ostensibly egalitarian notion that rational, reasonable considerations of issues should lead us to ideals of equality is the first to reduce itself to unquestioned, blind faith binaries at the first sign of rational reasonable truth being unflattering to women. If you want to know who holds power over you, look at whom you aren’t allowed to criticise – or even hint at criticism.”

  30. “Because it would not be fairplay then,,.

    The Crux. The fucking Crux of your problem. Thank you for mentioning Fair Play. You dick.

    Stop exposing yourself as such a dick.

    Abject worthless drivel.

    Life actually is not fair. You are not living in a fair life.

    Your life sucks. You are just not willing to submit to that fact.

    One step closer to the edge. You’re about to break.

    Stop with your bullshit.

    Lol. My indifference. My Dis-Agreeable-ness. Go home Wild man.

    Don’t be such a snively jerk.

  31. palmasailor
    I helped my mom when i saw her come home with blood all over the place… Brought me back to being a child again. But something happened and still dont know what. Apparently she went to the bank and then started bleeding all over the place. She came back and their was blood everywhere. I approached in the bathroom and she gazed at me while i wasn’t sure what to do. It can be so brutal seening something like blood on someone you think is hurt who dosnt want your help.
    She is asleep at the moment but im worried about her heath. Loving someone who has been both abusing and who created you is a tricky situation. So does that count as help? Or just an observation of concern?
    Perhaps helping for me is making a situation better than ive found it. I took care of my buddys dog Cooper? Golden retriver who has eyes i admire and a heart i listen to when passing by his home. Hes a puppy that roles over a lot.
    I also may of helped Lydia and Monroe get over a cold at a work meeting. But i am not sure if i did any good to their overall heath condition as of Yet.

  32. Wild Person

    A concept that is fading out even faster than the root culture it came from.

    Unless that’s a South Park reference, then you’re just wrong.

  33. Rollo has stated more than once “Men are the true romantics” and that sure looks likely in Wild Person’s case.

    But not just a romantic, a Romantic.

    “All romantics reach the same place, someday,
    Cynical and drunk,
    And boring someone in some dark cafe’…

    Here you go, Wild Person, from your fellow Canadian Joni Mitchell. From the 80’s when her voice was probably at its peak.

    Go ahead, wallow in it. It’s Romantic!

  34. SJF – look – why do you got against me? You keep striking out at me, and mostly the vitriol is not attached to a cogent point. So its just unhinged vitriol. Why do I have you coming unhinged now and again that way?

    Look – we were talking about marathons and other sporting events. The idea behind sporting events is to make the game fair, so that winning will be roughly aligned with ability, skill, dedication, perseverance, real talent …. the winning mindset. That is why it is called a game or sporting event – to set it up so that fairplay allows for the more virtuous aspects of the human endeavor to come to the forefront.

    I never said life was fair. In fact I said earlier in this thread, in response directly to you:

    “the existential conundrum ….. existence is ordered in a way that appears to be almost completely devoid of meaning ….. yet we are designed (probably by way of the non-design of Darwinian fitness selection), to seek meaning nevertheless”

    Where is the fairness in that?

  35. AR – nice. I did enjoy that. Thanks.

    What we people gonna do? Gotta pick ourselves up and carry on …. and maybe find love again. It’s actually all around …. there for the taking. But you gotta pay your way – with the melancholy of love lost. Bittersweet it is.

  36. I hate your comments Wild Man.

    They are for shit.

    No we weren’t talking about sports and fairness.

    There is nothing “fair” about inter-sexual sports.

    And just because you don’t fuck girls, maybe you shouldn’t have a voice in that game.

    Fairness doctrines? WTF? Out of meaninglessness? YGBFSM. Fairness isn’t in the doctrine.

    But that is your game: Fairness. Otherwise known as egalitarian equalism. Cant we just get along and be equal here? Give every male a female an equalist blank slat here?

    Not hardly, you dick.

    So I swerve from indifference to malevolence towards you. Can’t help it. Can’t.

    You scum.

    Out loud: You suck.

    Sorry, you lose. You are a loser.

    Can’t stand that no more.

    I’m not indifferent to you. Anymore

    Sorry. Ummn.

  37. Wild Person

    Joni Mitchel had a very pretty voice. Still not bad. She always had excellent musicians backing her. The lyrics are catchy, they get under the skin. I used to enjoy her music, until I realized a truth:

    Her songs are poison. Sweet, sweet, poison. Brimming with Blue Pill chumpiness.

    What we people gonna do?

    Kill your Beta before he kills you.

    Gotta pick ourselves up and carry on …. and maybe find love again.

    That way leads to making Luv your mission, self-blinding to reality.

  38. “That way leads to making Luv your mission, self-blinding to reality”

    Make love your mission? No – it doesn’t work that way. Like I said on an earlier thread here:

    “alot has to go right for genuine empathy to actually occur, in my estimation. ‘Love’, to me, is like a wish for boundary disintegration/penetration, yet respecting that personal boundary nevertheless. The most sublime high-wire act and the source of so much beauty in this world, though often so fleeting.”

    Though love is all around …. there for the taking – the precondition is the ‘wish’. You can’t will that. It just happens. It’s a mystery. But you still get to decide what to do about it. If you decide to enter into that wish, in the way I quoted above, … you are risking an awful lot …. but it’s worth it … life is not nearly as beautiful without taking these risks ….. the risk that is full of the melancholy of love lost …. but without the risk ….. none of most sublime beauty – bittersweet … to fill you up and flood your senses, despite it’s fleeting nature.

    I lost my dear sweet son recently, extremely suddenly – without any prior warning. He was 27. I love him very very much.

    AR – maybe you split the world into bluepill/redpill more than is warranted. Redpill is only a tool.

  39. Joni Mitchel had a very pretty voice. Still not bad. She always had excellent musicians backing her. The lyrics are catchy, they get under the skin. I used to enjoy her music, until I realized a truth:

    Her songs are poison. Sweet, sweet, poison. Brimming with Blue Pill chumpiness.

    Isn’t it Ironic?

    Recommending Joni Mitchell to Wild Man.

    Turns out she had too many internal conflicts in her brain, probably stemming from what out to be, instead of what is.

    She turned out bat shit crazy.

    Go figure.

  40. @Wild Man

    Bro. Love is pretty sweet without you fucking up your alpha presentation by pedestalizing it up front.

    The only people in history who ever got to feel love the way it’s packaged today is wealthy European nobles, IF they never got ugly or unpopular along the way.

  41. Incubus_Rising – thank-you for your kind words. My son was the most wonderful person. So kind-hearted, yet stubborn – could not be pushed around – made up his own mind. But he gave me alot of advice. It was about the value in being kind. Not wishy washy or feely feely. Advice designed for my ears. Then …. he would leave it for a month and bring it up again, a bit more adamantly. Until sometime down the road – I would finally start to hear what he was saying. He was a person that knew about people. He knew what people were thinking and feeling when he was preschool. So …. manipulative then – yes …. but it was never ever malicious. Then we he got a bit older – he stopped with the manipulation …. and I guess he grew into his own as a lover. A lover of people and of life.

    Kindness is a virtue.

    It turns out he touched so many more people than I could know about. Because he didn’t brag about things. A young man that knew all about what merit actually is. What am I and his mother going to do now, when we no longer have him? He featured so prominently in all my hopes and dreams about the future. I guess it means I have to try to do better.

  42. @Wildman – very nice Eulogy for your son, and maybe those things you said are an accurate description of his worthy purpose on this earth, which he fulfilled. God Bless you and your family, man.

  43. The key then is, within the new social order, women must be held accountable for the
    consequences of the decisions they make around personal interactions.

    The key, then, is to bell the cat.

  44. And you’re right, Jesus was a socialist, you can tell by his words:

    “What does it profit a man…?”

    “While they were listening to these things, Jesus went on to tell a parable, because He was near Jerusalem, and they supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately. So He said, “A nobleman went to a distant country to receive a kingdom for himself, and then return. “And he called ten of his slaves, and gave them ten minas and said to them, ‘Do business with this until I come back.’ But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us.’ “When he returned, after receiving the kingdom, he ordered that these slaves, to whom he had given the money, be called to him so that he might know what business they had done. “The first appeared, saying, ‘Master, your mina has made ten minas more.’ “And he said to him, ‘Well done, good slave, because you have been faithful in a very little thing, you are to be in authority over ten cities.’ “The second came, saying, ‘Your mina, master, has made five minas.’ “And he said to him also, ‘And you are to be over five cities.’ “Another came, saying, ‘Master, here is your mina, which I kept put away in a handkerchief; for I was afraid of you, because you are an exacting man; you take up what you did not lay down and reap what you did not sow.’ “He said to him, ‘By your own words I will judge you, you worthless slave. Did you know that I am an exacting man, taking up what I did not lay down and reaping what I did not sow? ‘Then why did you not put my money in the bank, and having come, I would have collected it with interest?'”

    “And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name’s sake, will receive many times as much, and will inherit eternal life. “

  45. @Wildman: Thanks for sharing happy memories of your son.

    Thoughts and prayers for you and your family.

    Stay strong.

  46. @ Wildman

    How would you have described your relationship between you and your son? No wrong answers.

  47. Wild Man

    Condolences. When young life is lost, the search for meaning and answers intensifies. Explains much of your recent commentary.

    Best wishes.

  48. Asd

    Not defensive. I don’t have any measurable skin in the ” socialist/communist/capitalist ” game. I only observe everything as a whole without the labels, because ” good and evil ” and ” right and wrong ” is readily apparent without qualifiers.

    Like,.believing in christ, calling oneself ” Christian “, attending church, yet not following the teachings and ideals of the one claimed as ” savior “.

    Even Jesus warned of those who would come ” in his name “.

    I only observe the ongoing hypocrisy and muse at the notion of ” one ” omnipresent boogey man responsible for most evil and societal ills. That’s not logical. Man/men are fallible, as are their ideologies and systems.

  49. Paging Rollo Tomassi

    First off, I want to thank Skills360 for pointing me to that book. Was a very interesting read, got it yesterday and finished it almost in one read (slept once in between). I really enjoyed several points made, like the different SMV peaks of men/women and a lot of other stuff. Reading it has also helped me realize how much of a Beta (by the books definition) my father really was and to this day is. Not sure about myself (who could really be honest about that to himself?)

    Yet there are certain points made that find myself struggling with, so I’d like to ask further opinions of some of you guys:

    I seem to have (more or less by accident) gotten a lot of the stuff he advises right over the last few years, like, spinning more plates, letting go of the idea of OneItIs or white knighting. Last December I even kind of heaved it onto another level by realizing how a) I’ll always be poly in nature and b) the competition of any woman I connect with isn’t mainly with other women. The question is whether she adds value to my life or not, she can be dropped from my life without needing another woman to replace her as a reason. I can be by myself if needed, which is a very interesting sort of “power”.

    You might say I’m lying to myself there and that I’m far from that level, but let’s just assume it is indeed true. It would make me quite “powerful” in a way, and perhaps have many women compete for my attention (which generally seems to be the case although I’m usually too stupid or not interested enough to make much use of that). It still makes me wonder though whether I would not deny myself the possibility to achieve more in my life, for one by himself who decides he will not rely on others completely can only accomplish so much, can he not?

    As far as I understand it, the book basically tells me to not rely on women because they cannot really be trusted long-term. So the solution is only trust men, for they are more reliable or at least come with the potential for reliability?

    I’m not that old and experienced yet (29 to be exact), but at least I kind of realized how I’m very competent in certain areas of life while I’m fairly incompetent at others. Sure, I can work hard to better myself in those areas, but that’s somewhat ineffective. I could pay someone to take care of them and thus create more reliability perhaps, but is it really that inconceivable or impossible that one could create and sustain a relationship with one or more than one women (in addition to the ones with men) that actually endures and is reliable? If the book is right and opposites attract (which would make sense to me), staying opposite and relying on each other would then be at the same time somewhat attractive (he’s different from me) and create trust because you actually depend on each other to a point?

    Up to this point I rather had this mental model about how there’s unconditional love you may feel for someone, and then there’s conditional love you feel depending on whether people meet the expectations of roles they play in your life. The second is circumstancial, the first is pretty much “just there”. Over time people change and they may not fit their original roles anymore, but if there was an unconditional love part there you can grow into new roles for each other. Happened with one of my ex-gfs who I still love but wouldn’t take back as a gf even if she begged me (she seems to be happy the way it is herself). So.. you think this is pretty much just imaginary, and in fact all there is is the conditional part (which would fit the book’s description pretty well I guess)?

    Please mind I’m not trying to annoy you or tell you how I’m right, I’m actually trying to integrate what the book says into my past experience (or the other way round) in a way in which it makes sense, and I’m struggling somewhat with certain parts of it.


  50. I only observe everything as a whole without the labels

    By denying labels, you obscure truth…you cast shadows to hide criminals…you cloak evil. What is a name but a label? And how can there be an indictment without a name?

    I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were naïve, but now it appears that you are sinister. It makes me sad.

    Capitalism doesn’t prevent opportunistic evil; capitalism also allows benign self-interest to send out a wave of blessing. Socialism is coordinated evil by design; socialism gives more power and control to the elites. The elites use both capitalism and socialism, but socialism gives the elites more control and socialism reduces infighting among the elites. The little guy would do better without socialism, but not without capitalism.

    Have you read Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations”?

  51. asd,

    It’s amusing how you turned

    “I only observe everything as a whole without the labels, because ” good and evil ” and ” right and wrong ” is readily apparent without qualifiers.”


    “More evidence of Blax’s puerile statement that there is no right or left in politics…”

  52. Asd

    Never said there’s no right or left in politics. Politics is mostly shit nowadays, more akin to gangs than the true political.

    Hence my assertions that ” right and left ” are both useless, not that they don’t exist politically.

    The bulk of people normally fall somewhere in the middle. Extremists have hijacked both dominant political parties. Sure, some folks absolutely love that idea, lunatics running the asylum, but objectively it’s really had news.

    And I’d wager that it’s mostly people older than 40 or so that cheer on and support the more extreme ideological positions, on both sides.

    There are national elections happening pretty soon. Get some popcorn and check it out. That is ifn” the dominant party in power ” doesn’t all quit, retire or choose not to run because the climate is just so extreme and ridiculous.

  53. @ chump no more

    Lol. There are numerous tutorials online that ” teach ” people how to debate and respond to challenges. The whole ” reframe ” thing is prominent in all of The ones I’ve read. Never stop reframing. Make your opponent respond to the reframe, obscuring the original point(s).

    It’s not debate imo.

  54. Society also used to restrain hypergamy once upon a time too. Circumstances change. Eyebrows get modified unchecked, old books don’t really apply that much any longer.

    Make sense?

    In a world of fuel injection, I don’t rely on manuals about carberateurs.

  55. “In a world of fuel injection, I don’t rely on manuals about carberateurs.”

    Let’s agree on a mutual hatred of batteries…

  56. Sentient

    I don’t abhor labels, just the use and reliance on them as absolutes.

    Some will call this site, and all the commentors and its author ” misogynist “. An inaccurate label most likely borne of emotional disagreement rather than actual content and intention.

  57. Thanks all for your words and concern.

    Like TuffLuv said – gotta try to find a meaningful way to frame it.

    My son died about a month ago now. It all happened pretty fast (over 4 days post surgery, which occurred a day and a half after his mother and I found out what was causing his recent headaches of about 4 weeks, by way of finally getting a CAT scan, instead of another round of neurological function testing which continued to show no deficit throughout). After surgery my son knew he was dying. He was conscious with full faculty (but now paralyzed on left side) but gravely ill, and about 18 hours after surgery continuing uncontrolled hemorrhaging into the center of his brain caused massive destruction of midbrain structures causing him to fall into a deep coma that was supposed to be absolutely irreversible, as per another CAT scan, ….. but ….. he refused to go until it was on his time. That evening he rose to conscious awareness (we were told that would be impossible), with complete cognitive faculty, until he passed two days later. So ….. he told everybody that he loved them (signing with his hand mostly – respirator was still in during most of this, ….. put back in to rescue him during the turn for the worse, in order to preform the CAT scan to see what was what), and he had a chance to say goodbye to so many people who loved him. On the last day, near the end, I read him some of Jordan Peterson’s new book, because I suggested that the day before and he indicated he very much wanted me to do that. He died (complete brain failure) while I was reading that to him (but technically, time of death is downstream from that, when heart stops). It was my son that told me about this fascinating JP, before he got really famous actually, and suggested I watch some of his youtube.

    My son continued to show me a thing or two right to the very end. I know he had fear. But he never said (he told some reassuring jokes instead). I also know he suffered intense pain on the last two days – but he never complained even once. He was showing deep concern for others, but also was appreciating, absorbing, and soaking in all the concern bestowed upon him during those last days. He never got lost in grief, or lost in pain, or lost in fear. Stoic but open. It’s courage he showed me. That’s what I gotta try to do better. I guess that is what everybody is trying to do here, each in their own way. Because that is the core of masculinity.

  58. It’s easy enough to identify two political teams who play the game against each other and assign them team names. Perhaps “left” and “right,” or “Snakes” and “Mongooses.”

    Less easy would be to define political philosophies of left and right and fit those philosophies to actual behavioural positions of the two teams.

    And even harder to take the historical meanings of those words and fit them to the teams of a functioning republic which upholds some sort of democratic principles.

    People do not believe what they say, they believe what they do.

  59. Extremists have hijacked both dominant political parties.

    I agree that the dems are run by extremists and that pretty much all dem politicians are extreme leftists.

    But the repubs???? Does the KKK runs the Republicans? lol

    Maybe you are saying that the left has also hijacked the repubs and that most repub politicians are extreme leftists? Cuz I don’t see most repub politicians as right wing extremists. Repubs push more govt. spending…more immigration (e.g., Lindsey Graham & widdle Bob Corker & Jeff Flake & the Bushes & a lot of repub donors like the Kochs)…

    …of course, if the media narrative shifts so far to the left that moderately right wing positions are suddenly seen as extreme…

    And I’d wager that it’s mostly people older than 40 or so that cheer on and support the more extreme ideological positions, on both sides.

    And you’d lose that bet. Older folks dominate the right, while younger folks tend to be communist–especially young women (due to their biological desire to get free shit). Younger folks haven’t experienced the Cold War, so they don’t know a lot about communism except the propaganda and ideology they are fed in school.

    Blax, abhorring labels, appears to be a “reactionary” Progressive, circa 1948 variety.

    Cockroaches don’t wanna be seen. (Not calling Blax a roach. Just a general observation.) Label-abhorrence was a leftist tactic in 1948 when “communist” was an epithet. The “communist” label was abandoned for the “liberal” label. Later, “liberal” became an epithet, so leftists again reached into their playbook and pulled out label-abhorrence. The “liberal” label was abandoned by leftists and leftists adopted the “moderate” label. Two things you find in the middle of the road–moderates and dead skunks.

    Since Blax is promoting label-abhorrence, is it any big surprise that I call him out as a leftist? (Blax has tweaked the label-abhorrence tactic, saying that labels “don’t matter.”)

    Adam Smith promoted free market capitalism, not crony capitalism…IIRC, Smith warned against crony capitalism.

  60. Lol. I luv ya asd.

    … Left hijacked republicans…. Kkk reference….

    I’ll quote my dad ( who’s older even than you are ) ” not all republicans are Kkk members. That’s a ludicrous notion. But all Kkk members identify as republicans “.


  61. And if I say I don’t believe in baseball, doesn’t matter if you keep calling me out as a shortstop.

  62. Wildman,

    You’re quite proximal to his death and no one expects much from you other than your good faith honesty a la your above comment.

    Putting it down in words frees your mind for other things and you’ll come back to it later.

    Have you been taking time for your mental health? How? Weekend is here, plans?

  63. As far as label uselessness goes, when it comes to ideological content, “republican” is pretty useless…

    memo to Blax…the republican platform has as much relevance as a hill of mushy beans…by contrast, the democratic platform is pretty much granite and adhered to by dem politicians

    The label “dem” has meaning–“leftists”…the label “repub” has little meaning–“might not be a leftist”


    lol at you thinking I’m a 1980 conservative

  64. “lol at you thinking I’m a 1980 conservative”

    lol at you thinking that I think you’re a 1980 conservative.

  65. For Wild Man & marelius –

    Convinced that the cultural process is a progressive development and that our own culture is the most developed of all cultures, we assume that every change in our cultural condition is evidence of a higher cultural development. This accurately describes a predominant sentiment held by most Americans for several generations. Does it not?

    For Blaximus –

    Read “The True Story of Fake News” by Mark Dice. You may or may not agree with everything Mark Dice seems to prefer, however, his work is very well backed up by a reliable combination of sources. I recommend this book to everyone here. This is Red Pill awareness at its best.

    For all –

    Ask yourself these questions:

    Why do MSM sluts and social media orchestrators now use “conspiracy theorist” and “conspiracy theory” as a social shaming label rather than to simply objectively describe the phenomena?

    Haven’t conspiracies of some kind or another always been a normal part of human social interaction?

    Why is “conspiracy” now recently been put in such a negative spotlight by MSM and social media orchestrators? And, more importantly, who wants to use MSM and social media to illuminate it as such a negative thing universally?

    Who wants to squelch all considerations of conspiracy by shaming anyone and everyone for just considering the possibility of it? “Conspiracy theorist” today is almost as bad as “communist” during the McCarthy era.

    Who would want this to occur other than conspirators?

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: