The Myth of the Alpha Female

On last Saturday’s Red Man Group we took a call from a woman who has apparently just discovered the “red pill school of thought” and looked up what ever convoluted definitions she could find from the ‘normie web’ to better understand it. For context, the whole exchange began around the 2:04:00 mark here, but the bit I want to dissect I’ve cued up to 2:09 in the above video. The Red Pill as a praxeology is often something most uninitiated people don’t have the patience to really want to understand. So when they’re confronted with a Red Pill truth that conflicts with some ego-invested belief they often just resort to what I call “point and sputter” – they spit out some school yard taunt, tell you how unbelievable it is anyone could ever believe such a thing in this day and then move along to whatever ideological site they’re comforted by.

Credit where it’s due, this woman (and I apologize for not getting her name) at the very least was prompted to ask some questions about how we come to whatever misattributed ideas she read were what it is we think. Listen to the whole exchange for context. In the beginning I was asked the standard “what do you tel your daughter about all of this?” as if this is going to somehow shame me back down to earth, but the part she was most distraught over was the idea that “women are only valuable for what they look like”.

My response to her was based on an essay I wrote 4 years ago titled Separating Values. In that piece I tried to outline how women today have trouble separating their sexual market value from their self-perceived personal worth:

Conflating Values

One of the major problems women have, and more than even some red pill men have, is the conflation of sexual market value with their intrinsic personal value as a human being.

It needs to be emphasized that while personal value is influential in sexual market value, SMV is distinct from your value as a human being. I’m stressing this because, in the age Disney Princess empowerment, this conflation of the two has become a go-to social convention; and not just for women.

What [Robin] Korth suffers from is presuming her personal value is her sexual market value.

It’s disruptive to her self-perceptions and ego-investments when that presumption is challenged by a man who doesn’t want to fuck her for reasons based on the intrinsic value she believes she’s entitled to by virtue of maturity and imaginings of self-sufficiency. Just as women aren’t aroused by men’s own self-concepts of virtuousness and aspirations of higher purpose, men aren’t aroused by whatever ephemeral self-perceptions a woman may have.

Listening to this woman’s concerns, it’s a fairly common refutation and one we come to expect from a mindset that presumes men callously objectify women out of hand, or due to their being taught to be so by a chauvinistic toxic masculinity. Women cling to this because it sounds right and reinforces the victimhood narrative that defines the collective identity of the Sisterhood. So when they read it or see it openly embraced, or spoken about men in a positive context it’s confirmation of an offense they want to believe is endemic in men. Thus, we get the “literally shaking”, sound of a quavering voice.

However, all of this gets in the way of women really understanding that they’ve been conditioned to conflate their personal worth with their sexual market value. As I mentioned in my response, a woman can be a wonderful humanitarian, a great mother, the CEO of a Fortune 500 company or someone who adds value to the depth and breadth of humankind, but it won’t make her look any better in a bikini. And that is where sexual market value starts for women when it comes to men’s arousal and attraction. For as long as I’ve been writing this blog I’ve tried to explain this in as simple a way as possible; men and women are different. Part of our differences is that what constitutes sexual market value for one sex is not an equal evaluation for the other. For as much as the equalist mindset pervades our social consciousness, the reality is men and women are different in many fundamental ways.

One reason Red Pill awareness in men gets vilified by women is because it nakedly exposes, discusses and develops sexual and life strategies around some very Darwinistic and unflattering realities of intersexual dynamics based on those differences. But exposing these differences is only offensive to this social order because there is a presumption of a blank-slate equalism that’s been embedded into every aspect of our gender understanding for almost 70 years now. This offensiveness is less about the actual nuts and bolts of evolution, biology and psychological differences between men and women, but more so it’s about the ego-invested idea that men and women should be blank-slate, functional equals in all respects. Even this presumption is a horse-shit cover story for the latent purpose of feminism floating the lie of “equality” – fundamentally disempowering men so women can aspire to be their masters in various ways.

The woman from our discussion expressed this barely containable angst that men only value her as a sexual object, and it’s important to suss out the reasoning for this confusion and rage. As I mentioned, the problem women have is an inability to separate their sexual market value from their personal value a ‘basic human being‘. A quote I’m known for is “virtue is anti-seductive.” No guy ‘virtues’ a woman into bed, and while I get push back for devaluing the importance of virtue occasionally, what I don’t get is any disagreement from men or women on that point. Virtue, intelligence, honor, duty, wisdom and any number of other esoteric features that would make a man a terrific human being do nothing (or sometimes work against him) for his raw visceral sexuality that women are aroused by. For men, however, these traits and many more will definitely add to his attractiveness as a long term prospect for women.

In men, affluence, status, intelligence, improvisation, creativity, ambition, drive, perseverance, humor, positive-conventional masculinity, and many more aspects make this man an attractive choice for a long term relationship with women. These are attributes that contribute to a man’s sexual market value, but they are incomplete without a raw, visceral physical component. Hypergamy serves two masters, Alpha seed and Beta need – and as such it hates the one and loves the other depending on what a woman’s most pressing necessity happens to be at that point in her life. Women have an innate, limbic understanding of what makes a man a complete package – a great catch.

Where this and most other women fail is that their own Fempowerment conditioning teaches them that what makes a man attractive, what makes his SMV appealing to women must necessarily be what makes for her own personal value and sexual market value. The reason this woman is shaking here is because this conditioning has convinced her and generations of women to build a life predicated on a fallacy: What makes her a “good person” should necessarily make her attractive and arousing to men. This is a great falsehood that is the root of many of the gender conflicts and misunderstandings we see around us today.

Gendered Differences in Attraction

The things that make a woman’s sexual market value high are not the same things make her sense of personal worth high. Yet, this is exactly what the Feminine Imperative conditions women to believe and seeks to shame men for not complying with this fallacy. When men opt for younger, hotter, tighter at all ages of their own maturity, the visceral message is clear – it makes no difference what a woman’s personal value is when it comes to sexual valuation. Where women fall short is they presume that men cannot appreciate women for anything but their sexual value.

This is an interesting dynamic since the Imperative teaches women never to implicitly do anything for a man.

The prime directive of feminism for the past 50 years has been founded on women striving to achieve the ideal of the Strong Independent Woman® (SIW). This SIW ideal is the carrot that gets the mules to pull the cart. That ideal is never fully attainable because if it were it would make an end state for feminism a realizable goal rather than the self-perpetuating social mechanism it is. The SIW ideal is intentionally ambiguous, but the concept is based on selling women the idea that they can not only “have it all” but they can be it all too. The ‘independence’ feminism sells predicated on being a self-sustaining, self-satisfying, autonomous ‘thing’ that doesn’t need for anything. A woman is every bit as good a feminine role model as she is a masculine one, ergo, she has no need for men beyond the physical aspect. In fact, an independence from men, from any form of dependency on men, has been part of the feminist charter since Seneca Falls in 1848.

From a Red Pill perspective, and in my opinion, this independence from men has been the single most damaging aspect of feminism in its history. Men and women evolved to be complements to the other and in evolutionary terms are far stronger together than apart. Each compensates for the one’s innate weaknesses with the other’s innate strengths. Feminism preaches two lies in this respect – the first being that a woman can “have it all”, but also she can be an autonomous being with no intrinsic needs beyond what she can provide for or address herself. The lie is that she “don’t need no man” when a hundred thousand years of evolution says different. Men and women need each other, but it’s feminism that’s selling the lie that they don’t.

The ironic part about this socialized lie is that in emancipating women from the ‘dependency’ of men feminism has founded the basis of ‘having it all’ on how closely a woman can emulate a man. The definition of a successful Strong Independent Woman is how closely she can replicate the success of men. This ideal for SIW success is based on a masculine ideal. As feminism has refocused women’s goals on these masculine ideals it has systematically altered the definition of femininity to align with its ideal of ‘success’.

The Myth of the Alpha Female

As part of that new masculine ideal of female success, along came the concept of the Alpha Female. I’ve read dozens of articles about this fantasy creature; how she’s a boss who takes no shit and turns companies around from the brink of bankruptcy by virtue of being female. A woman of the future who emulates and exceeds the successes of any apex-male CEO of those sexist Fortune 500 companies. Even if she’s not a high powered exec, the match (literally) of any man, women still love to imagine themselves in this “alpha” role in their own little worlds.

“I’m an Alpha Female, and maybe I’m not a jet setter, but I’m a Type A personality and as such I’m headstrong, a go-getter woman who knows what she wants.”

This sloganized mental model is part of the new Strong Independent Woman® costume that feminism is selling to women today.

If you’re a woman who’s bought into the Confidence Porn narrative that’s so popular today, allow me to ruin that image for you. There is no such thing as an “alpha” female – at least not in the respect of the idealistic Fempowered fantasy you think applies to you. The Feminine Imperative likes to convince women that they are ‘Alpha’ using that same masculine model definitions I detailed above here. The Strong Independent Woman meme only holds up insofar as it emulates masculine success and a masculine defined concept of ‘Alpha’. By this definition every woman has a potential to be an ‘alpha’ female in her own little way. Like I said, the Confidence Porn women gobble up is so tasty because it’s so achievable – all you have to do is cop the “I’m the boss, I’m a Type A person” attitude, put some foam inserts in the shoulders of your ‘power suit’ and you too can be Alpha because you say so and you walk the same walk as an Alpha Male.

The push for female-primacy has conditioned generations of women to expect an entitled, default respect, and a deference to their authority from men. They’re told at every opportunity from the time they’re 5 years old that they can do anything, have it all, be it all, and they’re the “natural leaders of the future”. By extension this leads women to the Alpha Female trope.

Ironically, the same people who love to ridicule the idea of ‘Alpha Males’ completely accept the concept of an Alpha Female. They’ll make funny videos ridiculing the Red Pill for using ‘alpha’ as a referential term – “These jokers think they’re wolves or Silver Back Gorillas, hur hur!” – but they’ll eagerly embrace the idea of an ‘alpha’ female. That conditioned deference of the feminine makes it believable; and they like the idea that identifying with women’s delusions of empowerment might get them laid.

Attribution Bias Error

The error that women and feminism make in the ‘Alpha Female’ respect is an attribution bias error. Women are conditioned to believe that if they value the aspects of what makes men attractive, what makes them a good pairing, that men must also value those traits in women. If status, power, social proof, affluence, careerism, drive, etc. is what gets them hot for men (in the long term) then possessing those traits themselves must also be attractive in the reverse. Unfortunately for women, they’re painfully (but slowly) learning that men and women are in fact different and the lie of egalitarian equalism has essentially cost them a future with a husband, children and family living.

In order to counter this harsh reality an industry in biotech egg-freezing has sprung up around the very real female insecurity that these confident Alpha Women wont find a suitable man to start a family with now that they are well past the Wall. Feminine-primary society is capitalizing on this fear.

But the reverse is true; men’s sexual selection criteria is far more simplistic than women’s. From an evolved, naturalist perspective men select women based on looks and sexual availability – and on a subconscious level women know this, yet they rationalize that men should be interested in their coequal professionalism, status and any number of intrinsic qualities they believe they possess. The root of this misunderstanding is once again the socialized lie of egalitarian, blank-slate equalism. Only now women expect that if they invest themselves in the same pursuits as Alpha men that this should compensate for their lack of physical appeal. If men and women are functional equals what defines male dominance should also define female dominance. Evolution says differently.

The woman on the left (Reneé Sommerfield) is the true Alpha female by the standards of evolutionary realities. The woman on the right (Sheryl Sandberg) is what our gynocentric social order would have men believe should be considered an ‘alpha’ female. This is the conflict that’s at the heart of so many manufactured crises of attraction for women and the failure of their long-term plans to have a family.

The Alpha Female is really the woman who best embodies what men’s evolved, biological imperatives determine what makes her an attractive breeding and long-term mate choice. Men’s criteria is very simple; fitness, youth, assertive sexuality, playfulness, conventional femininity and genuine desire to please him. Beyond this, submission, respect, nurturing (potential mothering qualities), a natural deference to male authority, humility, admiration and an unobligated desire to recognize that man as her complementary partner are just some of the long-term attributes that make a woman someone a man might want to invest himself in a family with.

Unfortunately all of this criteria is counter to the message ‘alpha‘ Females are taught are valuable today. They are taught that anything a woman might do for the expressed pleasure of a man is anathema to the Strong Independent Woman® meme. The presumption is that a desire to meet any of this criteria is a failure on the part of a woman who demands to be the ‘equal’ of a man. Even acknowledging the innate, complementary natures of men and women is an affront to the equalist narrative. Furthermore, any man who would base (much less express) his own decision making criteria as such is shamed via social conventions. The narrative is that he must be needy, or threatened by a “strong woman” or he must want this woman to be his Mommy substitute. All of this is a social mechanic meant to force fit that natural complementary criteria into the box of egalitarian equalism.

Value Added

I don’t write for a female readership per se. In fact, I don’t really direct my writing towards any audience, but in this instance I want to end here with a message for my female readers. Take this message to the bank: the sexes evolved to be complementary to each other, not adversarial. But that adversarial feeling you get when you read me describing some unflattering aspect of female nature is the product of your own Blue Pill conditioning that’s taught you the lie of egalitarianism-as-female-empowerment. If you truly want to ‘empower‘ yourselves set aside your self-importance, look inside yourselves and ask this question –

What is it about me that a man would find attractive from a naturalistic perspective?

What do I possess that a man would truly believe is Value Added?

That may feel a bit counterintuitive to you, but understand that the reason this introspection is alien or offensive to you is because you’ve been conditioned to believe that your masculine qualities are what men should find attractive about you. You turn this offense back on men and make it their fault for not finding your ‘alpha femaleness’ the root of their attraction to you. Is the idea of changing yourself, to add value to your package, for the pleasure of a man a source of anger for you? Why is that?

I see far too many otherwise beautiful women who destroy themselves on the lie of the ‘alpha’ female and a never ending struggle to perfect an equalist archetype in themselves. They rail on about infantile men, or bemoan that men are afraid to ask them out, or ask “Where are all the good guys nowadays?” Understand that these efforts to shame men into finding something attractive about you based on your masculine criteria for attraction will always fail; leaving you a lonely childless middle aged wreck all because you refused to accept that you need to be someone worth marrying.

Men and women are better together than they are apart. We evolved to be complements to the other. But, feminism, the Feminine Imperative and an endemic Fempowerment culture have taught you to believe “you are enough”, you are complete, you don’t need a man because you can satisfy all of your own needs. This is the most damning lie ever perpetrated on womankind – that you can be it all – and only when it’s too late do women realize that they’ve been had.

5 2 votes
Article Rating

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

Speak your mind

519 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
kfg
kfg
3 years ago

In today’s episode of We are Doomed – LGBTQIA2S (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender,queer,questioning, intersexual, asexual, and two-spirit; no, I’m not making that up) Mathematx:

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED581384.pdf

“In this article, I seek to bring into conversation ideas from ethnomathematics (including Western mathematics), postcolonial theory, aesthetics, biology, and Indigenous knowledge in order to propose a new vision for practicing mathematics, something I refer to as
mathematx. I do so in order to promote interaction between different knowledges, different ways of knowing, and different knowers.”

https://infogalactic.com/info/Ethnomathematics

kfg
kfg
3 years ago

The video presentation, preceded by 20 minutes of administrative bullshit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAW0kAgQMRU

https://education.illinois.edu/faculty/rg1

Sentient
Sentient
3 years ago

Mathematx

Well we’ve tried Ebonics.

Zeus send 🔥

SjR
SjR
3 years ago

Ugh.. I don’t even know what to say after reading most of these comments… @Blax – You’re growing on me.. In between the petty troll wars you have with others I see an old school thinker and I appreciate that. Your typing sucks though. 😂 @Cole – You expose feminism’s blatant ‘women are better’ agenda.. You and hubby (of just one year, lol) have the same career.. so why exactly does he pay most the bills. The problem you’ll find one day is that the relationshit is clearly in Your Frame, and you will tire of that, despite it being… Read more »

theasdgamer
3 years ago

Illinois…no wonder they are going down the tubes

rugby11
rugby11
3 years ago

Oxytocin, vasopressin flatten social hierarchy and synchronize behaviors
New findings from a study of male rhesus macaques could lead to treatment alternatives for social impairments in disorders like autism and schizophrenia
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180529092143.htm

theasdgamer
3 years ago

@Blax – You’re growing on me

Kind of like a tumor…

Keep throwing those hanging curve balls….

Anonymous Reader
Anonymous Reader
3 years ago

@kfg
From the Latinx’s page, a link to her Twit:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1013909617812926465

An important day in history. Although racist, Lyndon B. Johnson signed into office the 1974 Civil Rights Act. Did…

Clearly the kind of keen thinker with attention to detail that a College of Ed desperately needs.
I see tenure in her future…

Orson
Orson
3 years ago

@Rugby

The men above suggested to man up and post your own thoughts instead of copy-pasting links you find over the web. After that you somehow intensified the trolling of the comment section. They tried to help I think and was not meant as shit test for you to agree and amplify!

kfg
kfg
3 years ago

” . . . the Latinx . . .”

You have mispronouned mujera. Mujera goes by Chicanx.

SjR
SjR
3 years ago

Whoever it was that linked “theatlantic” article on dating preferences, very nice find! I just read it.
That seems to be a pretty concrete academic study based on metadata that completely validates Rollo’s SMV chart as well as the 80/20 principle in that desirable women only replied to 20% of the messages they recieved from the 80% of men who initiated first contact.. Doesn’t get much more proven that that!

rugby11
rugby11
3 years ago

Alright Orson

Anonymous Reader
Anonymous Reader
3 years ago

kfg
You have mispronouned mujera.

Your heteronormative transphobia is showing….

Anonymous Reader
Anonymous Reader
3 years ago

@SjR

No idea what is in Atlantic anymore, frankly don’t much care.
Perhaps this is the study in question:

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/8/eaap9815

Let me see if I can link to the extra special graph in question.

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/4/8/eaap9815/F2.large.jpg

SjR
SjR
3 years ago

Correction, Yes AR that is one of the graphs in there.. just posted from another site.

Anonymous Reader
Anonymous Reader
3 years ago

SjR
No, AR this was it.

You just pointed me to the Atlantic. Not to the study.
In the article in the Atlantic there is a pointer to the study that the Atlantic is citing.

This is the link to the study from the Atlantic article:
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/8/eaap9815

This it the link that I generously provided for you above:
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/8/eaap9815

I prefer primary sources. Your milage may vary. Please read more carefully.

SJF
SJF
3 years ago

Rugby’s posting are sub-communicating a frustration and a sign of his own squirming like a toad/choad. I don’t feel annoyed by it much. It is annoying, though. You have too much too gain, by having nothing left to lose Rugby. What he is doing is exhibiting “pressure of speech”. Gods know I’ve had it here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_of_speech If I can be self observing it is because I’ve had slight anxiety, in getting to unconscious competence from the threshold of conscious competence. It has been because of blind spots, most of which I’ve been enlightened by red pill buddies on a regular… Read more »

kfg
kfg
3 years ago

It comes to WordPress:

https://jaysanalysis.com/

SJF
SJF
3 years ago

When Bears hang out at Blaximus’ they are non-nonchalant.

https://youtu.be/77dtqOOaGLo

SJF
SJF
3 years ago

Mommy: “Let animals be animals…”

Kids: “Dadddy, Do Something!…..”

Go figure.

kfg
kfg
3 years ago

Mommy equated the cubs with teddy bears to the kids. That’s something that could come back to bite them.

kfg
kfg
3 years ago

Reports of 911/Sandy Hook “truthers” sites being purged from WordPress using an unannounced change to the TOS to do it:

“malicious publication of unauthorized, identifying images of minors.”

SJF
SJF
3 years ago

“Mommy equated the cubs with teddy bears to the kids. That’s something that could come back to bite them.”

Retarded anthropomorphic sentimentalism, is what I say.

A firearm should have been employed.

See one, do one, teach one.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4785880/

kfg
kfg
3 years ago

“A firearm should have been employed.”

An air horn would have sufficed.

Keith
Keith
3 years ago

Feminism is just a cover to save face for the 80 % of weman that don’t secure a Alfa mate. Invest in cat litter and wine company’s

Lisa
Lisa
3 years ago

I am a woman. I have no desire to pass on my genes. I am no Renee Sommerville. There is nothing special about them. So what is the big deal?
I hate pronatalist bullshit that says you have to reproduce. No, you don’t.

SJF
SJF
3 years ago

Keith

It’s called the Pareto Principle. Invest in being there.

Lisa

https://youtu.be/JYlPhFj_3T0

SJF
SJF
3 years ago

Keep in mind that Don Draper is in a role. That role is also an unreliable narrator.

The psychic scar of childhood never went away. Now where have we heard that before?

https://youtu.be/-RcBWhTyffI

Heh, universal human aches.

foxguy148
foxguy148
3 years ago

In regards to MGTOW, I can’t help but think there is something there worth exploring, while not MGTOW myself, it’s always struck me they are on to something , I wonder if that something is the search for freedom , not necessarily from women or constraint but freedom from western societal expectations and norms which are unrealistic and frankly unachievable in the modern environment. Perhaps in the future we will hopefully see a MWCGTOW movement, ala the hippies but in reverse, with more conservative family values and structure. We are quickly coming to a crossroads/fork in the road, if one… Read more »

Orson
Orson
3 years ago

@Lisa

You don’t have to reproduce! Maybe you can take some time for introspection and think why the hell your parents brought you to life! What’s the point of it?
Why they would invest so much time, effort and resources to raise you? Maybe because they hoped you would do the same by reproducing and passing on their genes to the next generation instead of wasting your life that was so close to never happening by being just another load on your mom’s face!

theasdgamer
3 years ago

Lisa may truly not have the genes to reproduce. Probably unhealthy. But the elites have used the schools to program the middle class to not want to reproduce because the middle class is the biggest threat to their power.

theasdgamer
3 years ago

nature may still yet throw us a curveball.

nature is weeding out the sheep who are more easily programmed to not want to reproduce

kfg
kfg
3 years ago

“The point they don’t get is that they’re also de plat forming their customers.” I don’t know that I originated it, but there’s a meme I’ve been pushing for about 20 years regarding “free” services that in the past year or so has suddenly started to spread: If you’re not the paying customer, you’re the product. Still, running out of product is also a problem for a business. “Ad revenue will drop.” Q.E.D. Disclaimer of Bias: Google deplatformed me from YT years ago. It had nothing to do with content. They refused to honor my YT account to force me… Read more »

kfg
kfg
3 years ago

“They got superfucklucky to be attached to the business model at the right place right time . . .”

The business model was the dot com era model of getting bought up by a bigger fish. Google is still trying to figure out how to extract the first dime of profit from it.

kfg
kfg
3 years ago

Pronoun trouble: “It” refers to YouTube. Facebook, which also ditched those million pairs of eyes has been profitable, but is shrinking fast.

Roused
Roused
3 years ago

“And these assholes drop 1M in the bat of an eye? And thats only the start of it?” YouTube is under pressure from major brands to keep their preroll away from content that the brands call controversial or extreme. YT and Google (they act as separate entities in their business practices) have automated systems to delist individual web pages, video clips or entire sites. You might be surprised by the lack of floors of people combing over all the content. YT is not in danger of losing much business over the Alex Jones situ. Some of those “million” people will… Read more »

Sentient
Sentient
3 years ago

roused

Host your site on the many other systems and manage the server yourself, it’s not that hard and is very cheap.

None of that helped Stormfront…

The site abruptly vanished Aug. 26 after Network Solutions, an internet registrar with control over its web address, seized the Stormfront.org domain name after receiving complaints brought by a legal group that said the site had violated its terms of service, effectively making it impossible to access the site simply by visiting Stormfront.org.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/30/stormfront-webs-oldest-white-supremacist-site-reem/

Snip… Lights out.

Sentient
Sentient
3 years ago

Rollo and his squad should get an IT committee in place and figure out how to become antifragile viz Stormfront’s woes… Because it is coming. I expect the Chateau to go dark come fall.

Blaximus
Blaximus
3 years ago

Stormfront😂 I guess if you don’t find anything dangerous or highly offensive about a ( long running) sites content, then it’s all good. Censorship is the domain of the government. That’s what you’re constitutionally protected from. Roused is correct. Either one supports every have filled violence inducing rhetorical site ( no favorites because muh FEELZ), or you do not. Private companies, as I’ve been told a million times over the last decade, are ” kings ” and the foundation of our economy😀 so either they are, or they aren’t. If the supreme court can uphold a cake makers right to… Read more »

Blaximus
Blaximus
3 years ago

Clarification: there’s usually 2 sides to every ” story “. My perspective will most likely differ from a majority here because of experience. One sided information isn’t really information wrt to people imo.

kfg
kfg
3 years ago

“That’s what you’re constitutionally protected from.”

This is correct, but does not imply this:

“Censorship is the domain of the government.”

A defining characteristic of fascism is that censorship is not primarily done by the government.

Blaximus
Blaximus
3 years ago

Oh, one last point.

YT de-platforms people every day. Sometimes with any real explanations. It’s happened to a lot of people I know personally. Nobody has a ” right ” to have content on private company’s websites.

Sentient
Sentient
3 years ago

No freedom from consequences. Take note of the last line… “… They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and… Read more »

Blaximus
Blaximus
3 years ago

Kfg

Point taken. I’ve been told over the years that we aren’t lurching towards fascism though….😁.

When I’ve tried posting rebuttal on heartiste in the comments, no single comment is allowed to go through. Been like that for years. Roosh actually banned me ( for countering how opinion that Asian women don’t find black men attractive…) After he replied to me something along the lines of ” don’t come here with that stuff “. Lol, no more posting allowed.

So I find some of the censorship talk a little odd.

Sentient
Sentient
3 years ago

also note Heartiste would be quite at home in a Philly coffee house circa 1773…

Blaximus
Blaximus
3 years ago

Yes. Both ways.

Sentient
Sentient
3 years ago

Who owns the internet Blax? Who determines what traffic can pass where and when?

kfg
kfg
3 years ago

” . . . on heartiste in the comments, no single comment is allowed to go through . . . Roosh actually banned me . . .”

Been there, doing that.

But then they have always been publishers. YT and FB like to be carriers when it protects them, but publishers when it suits them.

Pick ONE.

theasdgamer
3 years ago

A lot of you conservatives think that Big Business is Ok and laissez faire. Laissez faire only promotes large monopolies. If you want competition, you have to fight the tendency of business to form monopolies. Just look at history. Antitrust lawsuits are a good thing. Big business promotes socialism, gun control, compliance regulation, crony capitalism, illegal immigration, and fights free speech. Big Business tries to minimize competition, which is essential to Adam Smith’s capitalism. Look at history.

Traditional Republicans were for small business and against Big Business. Just like Big Government, Big Business fights classic liberalism.

rugby11
rugby11
3 years ago

palmasailor
https://twitter.com/PC1170/status/1030465460180004864
Hows the sea?

kfg
kfg
3 years ago

“Traditional Republicans were for small business and against Big Business.”

That is traditional republicans, like Jefferson. The Republican party ended slavery in the US by creating Big Government.

kfg
kfg
3 years ago

Big Government is the source of Big Corp.

Pinelero
Pinelero
3 years ago

Interesting… we (USA) have freedom of the press, and print what we want. However, that doesn’t mean anyone can force a newspaper/magazine business to publish their article/content. We have the right to publish freely, but an author has no right to force a business to publish them.

When an internet site refuses to “publish” content does that business have the same precedent as a newspaper or is the internet a different communication medium falling under freedom of speech in that we can just say whatever we want.

Blaximus
Blaximus
3 years ago

Up until recently, it was mostly teh people that ” owned ” the internet, to a great extent.

But pay attention. Corporations/ip providers have been slowly changing the rules to garner more ” control ” ( wrt how average citizens gain access ) over the net, content, speeds and delivery.

And along with that will come varying degrees of fuckery for most of the population.

The bright side is that cat videos will always have highest priority.

kfg
kfg
3 years ago

“When an internet site refuses to “publish” content does that business have the same precedent as a newspaper . . .”

Yes, but that causes it to fall under the terms of those legal liabilities.

” . . . is the internet a different communication medium falling under freedom of speech in that we can just say whatever we want.”

Yes, but that causes it to fall under the legal terms of those legal restrictions of action.

A site owner can choose which path he wishes to take, but he can’t choose “both as it supports my own interests.”

theasdgamer
3 years ago

Point taken. I’ve been told over the years that we aren’t lurching towards fascism though… Fascism promotes Big Business and crony capitalism and penalizes small businesses. In some ways, fascism is closer to the American Left than it is to the American right. Fascism promotes gun control and fights free speech and promotes certain privileged groups. National Socialism wasn’t exactly the same as fascism because it incorporated ideas about racial purity. National Socialism understood correctly that tribal loyalties override national interests, but its ideas about racial purity were bullshit. During WW1, Jewish Socialist leaders called for a strike and shut… Read more »

theasdgamer
3 years ago

“Traditional Republicans were for small business and against Big Business.” That is traditional republicans, like Jefferson. The Republican party ended slavery in the US by creating Big Government. And by fighting compliance regulations, it has fought against Big Business. Big Government is the source of Big Corp. And John Sherman, who authored the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was a Democrat. Oh, wait… Which party pushed Antitrust legislation? Which party sought to enforce Antitrust legislation? The Sherman Act did not have the immediate effects its authors intended, although Republican President Theodore Roosevelt’s federal government sued 45 companies, and William Taft… Read more »

SJF
SJF
3 years ago

I’m having an internal debate over selling my selling my thirty shares of Google stock to help fund my daughter’s wedding next year. My cost basis is half$222 and the other half is$444.

And I hope to have grand-kids Asap.

kfg
kfg
3 years ago

@Pinelero:

An analogy; a UPS guy does not face prosecution because there is something illegal in a package he’s carrying. A runner for a criminal cartel does.

UPS doesn’t decide what goes into the packages, so it has a level of immunity. The cartel does decide what goes into it’s packages, so it is liable.

theasdgamer
3 years ago

kfg, your point that Republican commitment to small business ended with Jefferson is such utter bullshit.

kfg
kfg
3 years ago

“Which party pushed Antitrust legislation? Which party sought to enforce Antitrust legislation?”

Both, depending on interest.

Disclaimer of Bias: I’m an adult life long registered independent. I’m not backing a particular stable, I don’t like any of them.

kfg
kfg
3 years ago

The Democratic-Republican Party of Jefferson has nothing to do with today’s Republican Party and has been claimed by both the current Democrat and Republican parties, as suits their interests.

theasdgamer
3 years ago

kfg, what do you think about Trump’s actions as president?

Blaximus
Blaximus
3 years ago

…. Southern strategy for one.

Anonymous Reader
Anonymous Reader
3 years ago

All the anecdotal evidence that I see tells me Facebook is losing customer base in the under 25 cohort, although plenty of middle aged momladies, catladies, grannyladies etc. are still hooked up. Alphabet / Goog is in a much better position than FB. YouTube is one of the money-pits that GOOG bought earlier this century. Twitter is in a more ambiguous state from what I can tell. Deplatforming for reasons of ideology is one sided for now, we’ll see how that plays out. As long as TWTR and other socials are trying to maintain a pretense of even-handedness, “just a… Read more »

theasdgamer
3 years ago

When the Republican Party decided to adopt a “Big Tent” strategy in the 1980s, it harmed its brand and its unity. Since then, the RP has been undermined from within, so that frequently voters are given a choice between a Democrat and a RINO–which is basically just a choice of personalities, not governing philosophies. The “Big Tent” strategy has been a disaster for Republicans. Why vote for a RINO, who is obviously an inauthentic democrat, when you can have an authentic democrat? And then there’s all the internal bickering and confusion among voters about what’s going on. So people like… Read more »

kfg
kfg
3 years ago

@ASD: Overall they seem to suit my interests more than they don’t.

Anonymous Reader
Anonymous Reader
3 years ago

Blaximus
…. Southern strategy for one.

Cornwallis or Sherman?

Anonymous Reader
Anonymous Reader
3 years ago

Who said / did what to whom in the election of 1980 is almost as irrelevant as who was in the 90-minute trench with Benito Mussolini on the Austrian front. Not quite, but almost. Might as well rant about the Paris Commune.

kfg
kfg
3 years ago

” . . . people like kfg say “A pox on both your houses.””

And their little dogs too.

They are as they do, not as they say. Neither party does anything much like what they say, and what they say has changed a number of times in my own lifetime. They virtually swapped places circa ’65. Goldwater warned them that that was going to come back to bite them in time, so his own party defeated him.

kfg
kfg
3 years ago

Around these part the Southern Campaign would imply Burgoyne.

theasdgamer
3 years ago

Neither party does anything much like what they say

Let’s talk individuals…Trump has been keeping his campaign promises.

IAS
IAS
3 years ago

A few threads back there was some discussion of the eventual decline and that it would be good to have “valuable skills / knowledge”, such as for example medicine (SJF is well covered as he also has some guns). Any suggestions of stuff that won’t take several years to learn (i.e. not a medical degree)?
Preferably stuff I could make use of before a dramatic decline, which I suspect is not even going to happen during my lifetime.

kfg
kfg
3 years ago

“Let’s talk individuals…” That is a change of subject, but apropos because . . . “Trump has been keeping his campaign promises.” Trump is not a Republican, he is a Trumpian whose biggest political problem has been being opposed by the Republican party, which he captured to promote his own ends. He is still fighting to form a party, which might be labeled “Republican,” but will not be the same party he seized. I have found a lot of shit in tins labeled “Candy” over the years. Sometimes candy is even labeled “Shit” to keep people away from it. I… Read more »

kfg
kfg
3 years ago

“Any suggestions of stuff that won’t take several years to learn”

Honey is an effective topical antiseptic.

” . . . a dramatic decline, which I suspect is not even going to happen during my lifetime.”

It’s not something I normally recommend, but you might want to watch Gone With the Wind again.

Sentient
Sentient
3 years ago

IAS

” . . . a dramatic decline, which I suspect is not even going to happen during my lifetime.”

A turkey has a fantastic life for 364 days of the year…

Or ask a Romanov…

Before

comment image

After

comment image

Anonymous Reader
Anonymous Reader
3 years ago

kfg
Honey is an effective topical antiseptic.

Blucher after Ligny. Honey, ginger and another horse.

IAS
IAS
3 years ago

I have someone in the family that knows how to do beekeeping so I could certainly learn that. But bees themselves are in decline right now, that might indeed be one of the possible ways for civilization to decline – lack of food due to lack of pollinators.

Anonymous Reader
Anonymous Reader
3 years ago

Returning to that study I linked earlier, one of the graphs shows results that shouldn’t be a surprise here: while “some college” makes women more attractive, anything beyond a bachelor’s makes them less attractive. One of the items pushed in credential land: more degrees. One of the key Sandbergian “alpha” female qualities: more degrees. It is demonstrably not true, the data show this clearly. The graph I linked to earlier clearly depicts time passing: women = milk, while men = wine. Another strike against the Sandbergian myth that explains why women who “settle” post 30 are likely to be restless,… Read more »

kfg
kfg
3 years ago

Bees are in distress, they are not in decline.

” . . . lack of food due to lack of pollinators.”

Protips 2 and 3:

Stalking the wild asparagus is a great way to starve to death. Your life will depend on securing fat.

If you’re planting a survival garden, note that peas self-pollinate, but the above still applies.

theasdgamer
3 years ago

Trump’s victory is a return to 1980’s era Reagan Republicanism.

The country club republicans (aka “RINOs”) are currently in decline.

The democrats have unity in their party, unlike the repubs.

Reagan’s weakness was that he trusted dems to keep their word after they made a deal. Big mistake. Trump doesn’t have that problem.

Sentient
Sentient
3 years ago

“Trump’s victory is a return to 1980’s era Reagan Republicanism.”

Nah

Blaximus
Blaximus
3 years ago

@ A R

Lee Atwater.

Anonymous Reader
Anonymous Reader
3 years ago

Lee Atwater.

Still dead, right? Like Cornwallis, Sherman, Mussolini, Francisco Franco… History book stuff.

theasdgamer
3 years ago

“Trump’s victory is a return to 1980’s era Reagan Republicanism.”

Nah

…because Trump’s policies are so much more like Eisenhower’s than like Reagan’s

theasdgamer
3 years ago

The Nation magazine released a 42-minute audio recording of the [Atwater] interview.

Blax, you should reveal your sources.

Anonymous Reader
Anonymous Reader
3 years ago

Elon Musk looks to be melting down in some emotional fashion, along with the share price of TSLA.

Which of his women – wives, GF’s, etc. – were “alpha women”? Some? All? None?

theasdgamer
3 years ago

“Southern Strategy” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater From the paragraph on “Southern Strategy”, it looks like the interviewer is projecting a race-baiting frame of reference onto 29 year old Atwater’s politics. From the Wiki article, it looks like Atwater wasn’t clever enough to figure that out. I’m not 29 y.o. and I have the benefit of hindsight to recognize the trap and the lie posited by the interviewer. Atwater at least had enough sense to deny that race-baiting was overt: all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.And subconsciously… Read more »

Blaximus
Blaximus
3 years ago

Lol.

Read Atwater words ( not wiki ). You were alive when this was going on, how did you manage to just ignore itnall?…😂😂😂 ( rhetorical . It didn’t affect you..).

Dixiecrats, the angry pro racist ones, deserted to Democrat party over civil rights legislation ending segregation and Jim crow. They became….wait for it….. Republicans.

If you’re a diehard rethuglican, how can this escape your knowledge? Or better yet, why try to sugar coat it? History and Atwater were very clear.

Blaximus
Blaximus
3 years ago

Oh, and there are plenty, PLENTY of interviews, books and recordings of them ” shooting their mouths off ” consistently and in unison.

Never saw any????

For real??

Blaximus
Blaximus
3 years ago

…. What time does Disneyland close?

theasdgamer
3 years ago

Earth to Blax, Earth to Blax…come in… Lol, most of what I quoted was Atwater, but of course, your mental framework REQUIRES that Atwater be racist because everyone (Blax) “knows” that Repubs are really racist. No question that some southern Democrats were racist in the mid 60s and that they went Repub. Doesn’t mean that they didn’t change over time, as most people do. So, you really, really, really need to move past the Jim Crow era into the 22nd century. I still find overtly racist white people occasionally, but they are few and far between and they get my… Read more »

theasdgamer
3 years ago

This guy analyzes the Atwater-Lamis interview pretty well:

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/06/what-did-lee-atwater-really-say.php

Blaximus
Blaximus
3 years ago

Duh…..

I was born in the south. I have seen him crow up close and personal. I’m not guessing, speculating or reading.

First hand.

Don’t make excuses for what Atwater was doing. Just let it go.

theasdgamer
3 years ago

Atwater needs no apologies…but false accusers need to apologize.

theasdgamer
3 years ago

I’m perhaps a touch on edge…Mrs. Gamer’s mother just passed away.

Johan
Johan
3 years ago

@Cole,

Let me get this straight, your husband pays for majority of the bills, you said you both “respect each other”, and you are talking about the future is Feminism and “Drone bees”. Make up ur mind, what exactly do u want?

Btw, when ppl say they respect their spouse, esp at such a young age, I always get the impression that that the attraction and desire start withering, hence the “respect” take over.

Pardon the English, not a native speaker.

519
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
%d bloggers like this: