A Sense of Ownership

When I was studying behavioral psychology there was a point when I came across this phenomenon called the Endowment Effect. A friend showed me this video recently and it reminded me of when I’d studied it.

It’s really fascinating how early our sense of ownership develops. There is a school of thought (one I happen to agree with) that this need for ownership is an innate part of out psychological firmware – it’s something we’re born with. We value things more highly once we believe we own something. It makes perfect sense that this would a selected-for part of our evolution. Individuals that possessed this Endowment Effect, theoretically, might have been more adaptable to their surroundings by having something on hand that would aid in their survival at the cost of a competitor. For early man this was likely to be physical tools, but this Endowment Effect would also extend to our progeny and long-term female partners – more on this later.

By extension, our belongings literally become a part of us. This is observable even on a neurological level. Furthermore, our belongings have an essence that becomes unique to us. In other words, we wont settle for (even exact) imitations of our stuff even when they are exact duplicates.

As you might expect from a TED video, the bias towards making this ownership dynamic one of being a bug, rather of a feature, of human development is evident. The new-agey narrative goes like this – if we’re ever to reach the utopian state of egalitarian equalism the Village would have us believe in, we need to somehow unlearn this innate Endowment Effect we evolved to hold. This anti-materialist sentiment is part of a larger socialist/collectivist message that seeks to disempower us by convincing us that this connection to our things is innately bad. Issues of socialism, communism, collectivism, capitalism, etc. are beyond the scope of this blog, but it’s important to consider the drive behind this ‘anti-materialism’ push and how it affects our sense of ownership in intersexual dynamics.

I think it’s interesting that we have a part of our psyches that evolved for ownership; a part of our nature that is decidedly unegalitarian.

If you’re ever read Dawkin’s book, The Selfish Gene, you kind of get a clearer picture of it. Selfish, self-concerned, organisms tend to survive better than overly altruistic or egalitarian ones. Now before you tell me, “On no Rollo, Bonobos are the peacenik, free loving hippy example of egalitarianism in the wild” have a read of The Naked Bonobo and you’ll understand how deliberately false that impression is. If anything Bonobos are far better examples of the more visceral side of Hypergamy in humans. Self-interest is the driver of a great many survival instincts and adaptations in all animals.

Getting back to humans here, combine that evolved, adaptive, selfishness with a hindbrain level, intrinsic sense for ownership – one in which we feel as if it has a direct connection to ourselves – and you can see what social constructivists and equalitarians are trying to undo in humans. If you watch today’s video you’ll better understand this deep connection we have with the things we, selfishly, consider our own. There is a neurological connection between our sense of self and our things.

I’ve mentioned the concept of ego-investment in our belief systems many times throughout my past essays. Briefly, ego-investment is phenomenon of being so intrinsically connected with our beliefs and ideologies that they become part of our personalities. So, to attack the belief is to, literally, attack the person. In a similar fashion the connections we apply to our things also become (to varying degrees) part of who we are. In essence we invest our egos into the things we consider ours – and the greater the effort, cost or the applied significance involved in getting those things the greater the injury is to the self when they are lost, destroyed, damaged or stolen.

In the video there is also a mention of how original items are more valued than an exact copy of those items. Again, this is part of the evolutionary side of humans investing their egos into those things. There is a limbic level need to know that these items are our things because only those things somehow contain the essence of us. Also in the video it’s postulated that the higher price of common items owned by celebrities we admire are a cost we’re willing to pay because we believe part of that celebrity’s essence is somehow contained in that item.

Why is it that we evolved to place such importance in knowing that some thing is ours, and only that thing is ours? Why do we, sometimes obsessively, need to imbue that thing with the essence of us? Why is this (apparently) part of our evolved mental firmware?

The Need to Know

I’m going to speculate here a bit. I think a strong argument can be made for men’s intrinsic need to verify his own paternity being linked to the Endowment Effect. In fact, I’d suggest that this ownership need can extend to not only a man’s children, but also to the women (even potential women) in his life. This isn’t to say women didn’t also evolve this sense – women display the Endowment Effect as much as men – but I’m going to approach this from the male side for the moment.

The video refers to this compulsive need to verify the authenticity of a thing as ‘magical thinking’, but is it really so magical? I think the writer and researcher would have us think this dynamic is silly because it’s ‘just a thing’ right? We shouldn’t place such a high degree of importance on a bicycle or an old guitar. That’s just vulgar materialism, right? Granted, some things, heirlooms maybe, can have sentimental value, but ultimately even those might well be replaceable too. It shouldn’t be so important to know something is magically your own.

Unless the thing that’s your own is your only shot at passing something of yourself into the future.

The butter knife that Elvis used to spread peanut butter on his peanut butter and banana sandwiches could be anything you can find at Walmart, but if his ‘essence‘ was in someway invested in that knife (and anyone cared to know about it) that part of Elvis might go on into perpetuity. That seems like childish magical thinking until you realize that the only part of the average person’s essence that might actually do this is their children. And until just recently, evolutionarily speaking, there wasn’t any completely dependable way to know if a man was 100% invested in his own ‘things’ – his progeny. His kids would carry on his essence, so in our evolved past it made sense to be obsessive-compulsive about the things that we’re one’s own.

As I stated, women also exhibit this effect as well, and I’d argue for much of the same reasons. Though, in none of the research related in this video was this Endowment Effect controlled for by sex – at least none that I’m aware of. Again, this is conjecture, but I would think that with the intrinsic certainty a woman has in knowing a child is her own, and the collectivist communal nature of women in hunter-gatherer society from which we developed, it might be that women place a higher ‘endowed’ value on different things than men do. I think this effect may be more pronounced in an era where women are almost unilaterally in control of Hypergamy.

I recently saw a video of a fertility doctor who had either used his own sperm to fertilize women’s eggs, or completely random samples to father about 40 children. The women, the children (mostly female) were absolutely aghast that he was their father or some donor who they would never know had contributed to half their DNA. The idea that the selection and control of Hypergamy was taken from them was worthy of the death penalty. Yet this is exactly the control we expect men to relinquish in this age. We will pat men on the back for abandoning their evolved instinct to ascertain paternity. We’ll tell a man he’s a hero for wifing up a single mother and “stepping up to be a father” to a child he didn’t sire and at the same time pretend that father’s are superfluous. We’ll change ‘Father’s Day’ to ‘Special Person’s Day’ and tell men they’re insecure in their masculinity for preferring a son or daughter of his own – but try to remove that control from a woman, try to tell her that Hypergamous choice wasn’t hers to make and it’s tantamount to rape.

“She was never yours, it was just your turn.”

I think it was my fellow Red Man Group friend Donovan Sharpe who coined this phrase. I might be wrong. I’ve read this around the usual Red Pill Reddit subs and other manosphere forums, but it wasn’t until last month (July) when I read yet one more story about a husband whose wife was leaving him and was in the process of Zeroing him out when he decided to kill her, their three kids and then himself. You can read the Twitter reaction to this here:

Naturally women were appalled at the deaths of the wife and kids, as they should be. Pre-divorce women will prep months in advance for their new singleness. Often they’ll check out of the marriage and live without any real connection to their, usually Beta, Blue Pill conditioned, husband who languishes in this Blue Pill hell for the duration it takes his wife to establish a new mental persona and finds a way to exit the marriage. She’s already gone from the marriage, but the typical Blue Pill husband believes that he is the source of her discontent and resorts to anything he can to ‘keep things fresh’ or ‘rekindle the old flame’ that a feminine-primary popular culture tells him should be his responsibility. Unfortunately, this guy’s situation is typical of middle aged men today, and I honestly believe is the source that drives suicides and murder-suicides in this demographic. This man was going to be Zeroed Out and he knew it was coming.

That’s when I thought, ‘Was this guy’s turn with her just over?’ Was it as simple as that? If you read this couple’s story there wasn’t a history of him losing his mind. If anything Matthew Edwards was a pretty dedicated and invested father. No history of depression, suicidal tendencies or abuse; just another average frustrated chump who built a life for himself likely based on his Blue Pill conditioning.

But his turn was over and he likely believed the soul-mate myth. How was he supposed to live with out her?

The fem-stream media offers up their standard pablum – “Misogynistic society teaches men that they’re entitled to women’s bodies. Men need to be taught that they don’t own women.” or something similar that goes entirely against a man’s evolved Endowment Effect. What exactly does a man get to think is his own if not his family? When a woman finds out that her Hypergamous choice was made for her by a fertility clinic doctor rather than herself they’re out for blood – again, rightfully so. Then why are we surprised that men, particularly men in Matthew Edwards demographic, resort to murder and suicide when faced with losing everything they’ve invested themselves in.

Now this week we see another, almost identical, tragedy in Colorado this week.

And once again we have what looks like another guy being Zeroed out and another quadruple homicide. How man more of these murder-suicides (or just murders in this case) is it going to take before we collectively see the commonalities in all of them?

I had a conversation with several women in the wake of this latest tragedy and every one of them couldn’t wrap their head around why the guy would kill his kids? They could understand why he might kill his wife – the assumption being her unborn child was sired by guy who wasn’t him – but not his kids. I think this is interesting in the light of how men and women approach paternity/maternity and the Endowment Effect. The best answer I could come up with is that a man doesn’t want that part of him to go on into the future without him. The idea that his kids bear some of his essence and he would rather erase that essence entirely than live or kill himself with the knowledge that his children wouldn’t have him in their lives. Killing a wife might be the result of an uncontrolled rage, but killing your kids takes premeditation – there has to be some point to the act, some reasoning (corrupted as it may be) that made sense to him.

The Strategic Pluralism Theory is from a research study by Dr. Martie Haselton:

According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), men have evolved to pursue reproductive strategies that are contingent on their value on the mating market. More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring. In contrast, the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities, is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.

From a woman’s perspective, the ideal is to attract a partner who confers both long-term investment benefits and genetic benefits. Not all women, however, will be able to attract long-term investing mates who also display heritable fitness cues. Consequently, women face trade-offs in choosing mates because they may be forced to choose between males displaying fitness indicators or those who will assist in offspring care and be good long-term mates (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000).

The commonalities in every one of these murder-suicides is a Blue Pill conditioned, Beta husband who by all indications was playing by the First Set of Books. By all indications these men would fit into the second type of man mention in Strategic Pluralism Theory – they did everything right, they played by the rules, they did their best to invest themselves in their mates and offspring and likely believed they’d earned some Relational Equity from it. But then, their turn was over with their wives. For whatever reason they were faced with a complete loss, a Zeroing Out, of everything they believed they owned. The things they invested so much of their lives in, the things they worked so hard for, the things that retained his ‘essence’, the things they invested their egos in were all being taken away from them. When faced with such a reality men tend to look at only two options; remake and rebuild what they had in the knowledge that this too might be taken from them, or they can simply erase all themselves and all the ‘things’ they were attached too.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

564 comments on “A Sense of Ownership

  1. Take women’s political rights away by force, and restore the patriarchal system that has worked for the last 99,900 years and this will end.

  2. Nate,

    Right, because men never killed woman and children prior to the 20th & 21st century…

    Bottom line. These are weak, cowardly men. I have to imagine being zeroed out puts you in a dark place, but taking your own children’s lives is a sign of weakness, full stop. That is probably the same weakness that led them to be more in line with a “Beta” lifestyle as you call it.

    The sense of ownership that these men needed to take was with themselves (who they were and what led them to that point in their lives). Want to remain in ownership of your “essence’? Fight to stay in your kids lives, improve yourself and build a better relationship with the next one.

  3. The “First Set of Books ” is gone and nothing in the short term is going to bring it back, we are in uncharted territories. You must invest in yourself first , especially mentally, if you have lived a hard life such as myself then it’s easier, if you have lived an easy life then it’s very hard, probably the hardest task you will undertake in your life mentally(unplugging from the blue pill).

    Guys keep talking about game and it saving live’s etc, but the fact is the deck is stacked against you, the house always win in the current day if it chooses to(game or no game), nothing can change that. All you are truly in control of is your mental thoughts(if you are redpill) and that’s about it, freedom my ass.

    I hate to say it, but in the current day you must become hard both physically and mentally, but especially mentally. I see guys put so much effort and develop strong attachments to their dogs, pets, etc, and I wonder how hard they are mentally, in my culture animals are just animals and that’s about it. Guys are wired to be this way mentally, to develop attachments , much more than women I would say, it’s being used against them currently by the FI. Imagine the attachments they actually develop to other human beings.

    I believe the hard work never truly ends for a man, there is no release from the burden of performance, but you can sure as hell decide where that hard work will be applied, rather than be stuck in some Sisyphean task, of “well it didn’t work with this one, so let’s try again with this other woman now that I am all improved” that’s bullshit make yourself your own mental point of origin as Rollo often states, and you stand the best chance.

  4. I’m not ready to wade into the tall grass here polemically, but may I suggest that much of the irrationality in these murders and especially murder-suicides can be clarified by a competent understanding of shame. Not being able to live with it. Needing to remove the shaming object. Etc.

  5. It’s vengeance on the wife that callously thinks she can take his essence away from him. He’d rather see the world burn than it fall to someone else. I think rollo gets to the core feeling and it would be interesting to see what men can do to defend themselves from having this switch flipped.

  6. @Rollo: interesting video. There is some bias in the video about it being a bug rather than a feature.

    You speculate the endowment effect contributes to the examples you gave of Blue Pill guys being zeroed out and doing murder, so I’d say it does have a strong component of bug… At least in modern society.

    @Sentient as well:
    Some Red Pill men here (I remember Sentient) refer to this concept indirectly, if I paraphrase, “ownership of the wife”. I think it was cited as one possible “pro” of actually marrying (assuming the man can handle being married, which is clearly not for everyone etc.).

    Women are also pretty upset if their babies are “swapped” (which is rare but sometimes happens in maternities). I think that is an interesting corner case to consider the endowment effect, as at least some cases I’ve read about, the switched parents discovering the swap when the kids are still children decide not to switch back after discovering.

  7. The Endowment Effect looks like a part of the status game. Ownership defines being alpha in our economic-financial hierarchies, doesn’t it? And communist ideas are generated by rationalizing losers, right? Loosing “the turn with your wife” is such an ego and status smack.

  8. I’ve never understood the whole killing the Ex and kids thing. Even with as vicious as my Ex was during our divorce, and with all the lies she told about me, I never wanted her to be hurt by any means.

    I may not like her very much anymore, but i do still care about her and the three kids.

    I think that men AND women who do things like that, just don’t have a sense of self-value or respect.

    If you don’t want me in your life, I am better off without you in mine. And knowing that i will continue to do well, while you turn yours to crap, is somewhat delicious.

  9. As I have noted before, every juvenile cockroach with a chocolate chip cookie crumb understands the concept of ownership.

    “I’d say it does have a strong component of bug… At least in modern society.”

    Modern society is not the standard. T-Rex will continue to want to hunt.

  10. Five more casualties of the Feminine Imperative

    Sense of ownership or mental illness?

    The above quote from Rollo’s tweet. I don’t do much posting on Twitter so I’m glad this was addressed. There is much to be said for a man and his kingdom and or family, but killing his children and blaming the feminine imperative is a stretch. The guy appears to have too much invested in his wife and saw no options outside of divorce. Okay, she wanted to divorce him, so move on without her. Create a new life with your children and demonstrate some positive masculinity. Taking the lives of your children is a cop out. We always have options and killing innocent children is simply unacceptable. The Twitter post title really seems inappropriate.

    This man might have had plenty of reasons to be angry and depressed about his wife wanting divorce, but we really don’t know all the details.

    “they did everything right, they played by the rules, they did their best to invest themselves in their mates and offspring and likely believed they’d earned some Relational Equity from it”

    We don’t know that he did his best. Hard to imagine a guy who would murder his own kids was really motivated to do his best.

    Maybe he was a complete fuckup, maybe he was a great dad, or maybe not. The news article doesn’t go into the details. Who cares what the women think about the guy killing himself and family. What do men think about it?

    “Take women’s political rights away by force, and restore the patriarchal system that has worked for the last 99,900 years and this will end.”

    Major buffer for not accepting your burden of performance and relying on the “system” to make up for your inadequacies. I know by my own experience how the courts, work what happens when you file for divorce and how men get screwed over. That is no excuse for not getting your own shit together and having a positive mental point of origin. If you’re going to spawn children then accept the responsibility and consequences of procreation. Raising children is a challenge and difficult at times. Killing them out of weakness and fear is the ultimate rejection of accepting responsibility and being a father.

  11. Zero’ed out. I was in my divorce to my first wife. That guy in the in blog pic murder/suicide, but for me it was a cathartic experience to be free from her emotionally and financially. My father was very supportive and said it was worth any amount of money to be divorced from her. I think he may have been living his fantasy through me from my future discussion with him. I agreed with the advice, and he actually was willing to pay for it. I wouldn’t have him paying for it, as I could manage. The minute I got my own place it was great and my bank account re-grew and I started dating. I shed the plethora of junk she accumulated and her debts. No kids with her and I got out without alimony or garnishment of retirement. I have only contacted her once in the years since then, when I knew she was stealing my SSN# to use to establish fake electric and phone accounts to tell her to stop it.

  12. “The sense of ownership that these men needed to take was with themselves (who they were and what led them to that point in their lives). Want to remain in ownership of your “essence’? Fight to stay in your kids lives, improve yourself and build a better relationship with the next one.”

    This. Instead of killing your kids you could just run off with them.

    As an aside – Watts situation looks like a cluster… May not fit the narrative. Careful about forcing a narrative…

  13. This reminds me of darker days in my past. Killing a wife and or your children is no more fucked up than killing your co-workers or shooting up a school. Some people are just crazy. How many people do you walk around with and come into contact with on a daily that are on meds ? I read some where that 18% of adult females In the US are on anti-depressants drugs or anti- anxiety drugs. You take a guy that is already mentally unstable and add stress , duress , fatigue and drama, hopelessness of a no win divorce situation. Struggles without support, information, state or charity help. Combine that with a failure is not a option ( get rich or die trying ) societal up bringing. And it’s a wonder they is not more violence than it is. Violence is generally a last resort for most men but it’s still a option.

  14. I’ll note that Hayden had tried playing by the rules and had asked permission first, so he was under an actual court order not to do it at the time he ran off with his kids. It became the biggest Hollywood news story at the time and his messy Hollywood divorce had already been a pretty big story.

    Of course not every man has a large yacht standing by both ready and able to make the run to Tahiti.

  15. Understand, gentlemen, that with these examples of failures as a result of strategic pluralism, we are not sympathizing, rationalizing or excusing the awful behavior of these men. We are simply, and coldly, describing WHAT IS, the central tenet of what we’re about here. That they did evil is given, but how could that happen from an EvoPsych perspective? What hard wired impulses were they unable to resist despite their socialization?

    Another easily identifiable biological manifestation of these hardwired impulses: when a father sees his newborn for the first time. Given that it’s his (I’m being nice here), he will immediately see his own features in the baby’s face when it stops crying. He may even think he’s looking at his own baby picture.

    That’s what evolutionary biology wants him to see. So he doesn’t get the impulse to maybe eat it for supper if it’s not recognizably his.

    (I turned this notion into a bad taste joke when my daughter was born: nurses would say, “enjoy your baby”, and I’d answer, “with a side of fries? Sure”).

    I have always been amazed at the totemic aspect of fandom, and the prices some people will pay to own, say, a guitar Tom Petty played, or a team sports jersey emblazoned with a famous player’s name, or autographed baseballs, books, what have you. To have that ownership of a bit of the soul of the fandom object.

    Important post, definitely a good dot-connection here.

  16. “…obsessive-compulsive about the things that we’re one’s own.”

    were, not we’re.

    “…and at the same time pretend that father’s are superfluous.”

    No apostrophe required/allowed (it’s not a possessive).

    …”simply erase all themselves and all the ‘things’ they were attached too.”

    To, not “too.”

    “How man more of these murder-suicides…”

    Many, not “man..

    Please have someone proofread your otherwise excellent work! I’m begging you.

  17. Solo Prosperity

    Right, because men never killed woman and children prior to the 20th & 21st century…

    Bottom line. These are weak, cowardly men. I have to imagine being zeroed out puts you in a dark place, but taking your own children’s lives is a sign of weakness, full stop. That is probably the same weakness that led them to be more in line with a “Beta” lifestyle as you call it.

    The sense of ownership that these men needed to take was with themselves (who they were and what led them to that point in their lives). Want to remain in ownership of your “essence’? Fight to stay in your kids lives, improve yourself and build a better relationship with the next one.

    “This will end” meant no more murder suicides because a c*nt took everything a man has away.

  18. Partially related:

    Even better example for women might be an accidental (better still – deliberate) swap of children in maternity ward. She would get somebody else’s child and not knowingly raise him/her as her own.

    What would happen or even better – what were historical reactions of women when they found out something like this? It would be interesting to know. Was it: “ok, no biggie, a child is a child, who cares…” like it is expected for cucked fathers to react nowadays. Or was it nore something in the line of: “i want my own child back!”

  19. I could not have ever hurt my kids and did my best to spare them any of the usual pain of divorce. I can understand parts of it, despite doing everything l could to rebuild my life l was physically, emotionally and spiritually spent. I had a bout of heart rhythm problems caused by all the stress that put me in the hospital, laying there in the emergency ward l hoped it was going to fatal… l can’t say l felt it was much about ownership, it was more about how everything l’d done for 24 years in my marriage was garbage and l was expected to shovel all up myself.

  20. This essay touched on an observation made by Theodore Dalrymple in his essay collection in “life at the bottom”. Dalrymple is a London based prison MD / Psychiatrist. In several essays, Dalrymple discusses the high rate of violence against women in the low income neighborhoods where he works. However, Dalyrmple is extremely observant. He also notes that not a single one of the female victims will date a non-violent man, and they will break up with a man who is not violent toward them.

    He gave one example of a women whose current boyfriend beat her 17 year old son unconscious because the boy was trying to protect his mom from his attack. When the boy regained consciousness in the ambulance, the mom told her son to keep his mouth shut because her boyfriend was a better F than his dad ever was.

    Dalrymple attributes women’s tolerance for violence as women being conditioned to expect violence. I believe he even mentioned women desiring men to “own them”. I need to go back and re-read his exact phrasing.

    Dalrymple sees women desiring violent men as an effect of violent men. Most of the red pill women in the alternative media such as Karen Straughan give women more agency, and see violent men as the effect of women’s desire for violent men. If women didn’t desire violent men, violent men would become incels. Jordan Peterson often states women want to date men high on the dominance hierarchy. Barbarossa has several videos in which he explores women’s attraction to violent men. And 5 foot 2 inch pipsqueaks like Charlie Manson would normally be invisible to women without his propensity toward violence, which attracted a harem of young fertile women. All of these observations center around something that is difficult to describe.

    This essay makes me wonder if women’s attraction to dominance is related to their desired to be “owned”. Is this a complimentary trait the sexes evolved? Men owning and women being owned by a strong dominant man? Of course, this is only one biological impulse that will manifest itself differently in different environments just as men’s desire for young fertile women will manifest itself differently in different environments.

  21. Being owned implies being maintained and protected, even if you are sometimes “rode hard and put away wet” (which has an obvious double meaning in this context).

  22. Watts is saying that his ex-w killed the kids, and then he killed her. I am not sure how credible that is, but apparently they are looking into DNA testing the necks of the kids and so on so perhaps there is more to come there. If what he is saying is true (and there’s certainly no reason to assume that it is true at this stage), then the spin on that particular story would be a bit different.

  23. The only explanation I can come up with that would make these men kill their kids is if at some basic primitive instinctual level they perceive the kids are not theirs. In that case, they would presumably kill off the genes of the competitor, not unlike how new alpha male lions kill off the cubs of their predecessor.

    But knowingly killing your own kids makes no sense on any level. People who do that are just crazy, man or woman.

  24. https://mobile.twitter.com/nypost/status/1031931086702559234

    So did Bourdain Bourdain himself because he finally realized what a WK pussy stooge he was? Upon seeing her pics with her new in between lover?

    I’m guessing we will see he bought her this drink.

    Yep. Didn’t want “bad publicity” probably. Very unlikely that anything that happened between the witch and that kid constituted sexual assault (likely was statutory rape due to his age … wonder if any prosecutor in CA would be interested in taking that case LOL), and it was just a fishing expedition for money in which Bourdain blinked. There are cases of actual F on M sexual assault, but they’re not common, and looking at the pics here, anything that happened looked like it would have been extremely unlikely to constitute a sexual assault.

  25. as rollo notes, women are aghast at the prospect of being denied the right to choose the 2nd half of the dna of their children

    while men are supposed to be happy with none of the dna of “their” children

    feminine imperative uber alles

  26. Seems simple enough to me, these “men” kill the kids for one of two reasons.

    1.) they find out or believe the kids aren’t theirs and now the woman is leaving then why not kill them as well as an act of revenge for being rejected/ zeroed out.

    2.) the old “if I can’t have you/them then nobody else will “ loser train of thought brought to it’s ultimate violent conclusion.

  27. I remember when i was with Special Forces in Vietnam. During one tour, we went into a small village to inoculate the children for Polio. After we left the village, an old, mainly blind man came running after us, crying.
    We returned to find that they had come, and they had hacked off every inoculated arm. All stacked up in a pile…a pile of little arms. I remember crying…weeping like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out..i didnt know what i wanted to do.

    And then i realized and thought, my God, the genius of that. The will to do that..genuine, complete, pure will. Because these were not monsters. These were men, trained cadres, with families, and love in their hearts. But they had the strength..the strength of will to do that.
    If i had ten divisions of these beta men, then our Western feminist troubles would be over very quickly.

  28. “Being owned implies being maintained and protected, even if you are sometimes “rode hard and put away wet”

    but the bike doesn’t take itself out of the garage every day and go for solo rides into town where every guy with a pulse wants to mount it

    hot women are like range cattle in mountain summer

    when i come across a young cow by itself that doesn’t have a noticeable tag…

    i still know it’s somebody’s property

    if you start early you have better chances of finding truly wild ones that aren’t owned yet

    most guys are used for routine domestic stuff. this makes them largely interchangeable

    if you live your life in such a way that she asks if she can be your property…

    it means she’s counting on you for something bigger and probably more elusive

    which makes you less easily replaceable

    she needs to be totally yours, but you can never be totally hers

  29. “but the bike doesn’t take itself out of the garage every day and go for solo rides into town where every guy with a pulse wants to mount it”

    Maybe not, but there’s a Ducati down the street that gets curb parked every day.

  30. Funny via red pill lens.

    News story about Grimes saying Elon Musk smokes weed because she turned his beta ass onto it and that’s why he used $420 as a taking private dollar amount per share instead of $419. And got in trouble.

    But the funny part is the corollary: Azalia Banks poking her to get pregnant by Beta Blue Boy. That would be a neat trick to get pregnant by Elon Musk.


  31. Dawkins Selfish Gene stuff has been debunked, fyi. Read E.O. Wilson…Kin selection theory is wrong. I loved that happened to him, he’s such an insufferable cunt.

    There is absolutely something ‘back of the brain’ going on with having a family and then losing one’s family. As a child I lost my mom and then dad and stepmom got divorced. But when my wife and I divorced, there was no comparison. The sense of devastation and loss and lack of meaning and emptiness were all encompassing.

    When I divorced, I lost an entire life. Now of course, as most here know, don’t feel bad for me, that was long ago. I’m having fun now and have been for quite some time now. He he. Platinum Rule baby, ZFG…

    Just got another 20yo hottie snapping w me, he he. HB8. She’s an interesting project. Lots of interest in me, having to escalate to seduction intelligently. It’s interesting how much of seduction is about logistics, lol. At 56, I think i’m gonna bag another one.

    Confession: I think this endowment thing has something to do with me wanting to come inside of every girl I can. I’m basically operating like a ghetto thug in this way, lol. I just want to come inside young women, there is absolutely nothing like it. And the thought of more of my offspring in the world, no matter the circumstances, appeals to me more and more…

    Becoming a grandfather is like that too in a way. It’s given me a new sense of place and belonging and ownership in the world. So interesting.

  32. SJF/kfg
    How has your journey been coming along?
    hey scribblerg been wondering about your lust for life.

    also silver fox been jamming to this
    going to get back to getting my harmonica in order.

    I wonder if you could change your whole around as someone like Elon musk. If you could create a state of red pill awareness while living in a different mentality to change to start with. New meaning halfway through your life.

  33. @Palma

    Elon Musk got careless with generally accepted rules about being an officer in a publicly traded stock, according to U.S. Securities and Echange Commision.

    You can’t necessarily Pump your Stock with Tweets that don’t hold true.

    He was frustrated, blue pill wise with his Blue Pill ideal situation. No chick wants to release his constraint. So he tweets his frustrations about the short sellers in Tesla. With a stock overvalued, to begin with.

    It’s not fraud per se. It is violating SEC rules.

    Blue Pill case study. The guy is super-frustrated (it bleeds through on media). He’s whining about working long, hours. Whining about how hard life and girls are. Whining about how he deserves Ambien once in a while. Whereas his life would be a little more chill by having sex with a pretty girl on the regular that didn’t see him as a beta provider to her and her children.

  34. “The most dangerous man is the one with nothing left to lose.”

    Girls with nothing left to lose are more likely to make a man the most dangerous one because of nothing left to lose.

    We’ve all seen that train wreck happen.

  35. Regardless of the rhetoric: Elon Musk is a Blue Pill Exemplar.

    Don’t do that shit.

    Yes he was silly inappropriate at suggesting he had a going private at $4:20/share. He had to be totally fucking high on weed to think that he could do that via private equity. Show equity investors some value/the money.

    He was blue pill leaning. He’s fully constrained and needs to get his rocks off more. He’s about to break.


    Chester Bennington, Chris Cornell, Anthony Bourdain, etc…..

    Elon Musk has more intellectual and monetary resources not to get zeroed out.

    But he might not have the MINDSET resources not to fuck himself or his companies out.
    And to think someone might go up in a spaceship with him having girl problems down on the ground as his/her backup?

  36. My comment was sarcastic, not really what i believe. BUT it is what women will say to try to get the upper hand in court. And the system is too quick to believe them, even with zero facts supporting the claim.

  37. I’ve had no kids so glad to never have had the opportunity to get zeroed out by some heartless bitch, but next chance i get to cum inside a young hottie i will too, hey scribb! By this stage of life it would be good to knock one up if i could keep myself from getting too attached, which is always the challenge when you like them. Not so much fun growing older alone…

  38. Just had a woman who i fancied a bit in the day (we didn’t fuck) when i was rocking out in a happening band, send me some pics of us together in the bandroom after a show. My response was, “What ever happened to that shirt? (I was wearing). She immediately responded, “I don’t know. But i made a big mistake with you. But then again, i like to be chased. Hahahaaa”

    FoX: “Good timez x”

    Her: “Did we??”

    FoX: “You missed out, baby…”

    Her: “Too bad, hey?”

    FoX: “Maybe we should continue this in pvt…”


  39. The first reaction I have to the thought of killing a child is a knee jerk. Hell no killing weman and children is terrible wrong. But after thinking on it a while i think the the Spartans , Romans , Viking and a lot of other ancient cultures would kill children if something was wrong with the child. I think Roman fathers had the power of life and death over their children even into adulthood. Even king David had his son killed when he got rebellious. I think it comes down to control. Endowment plays its part but it’s more about control of the environment. If your wife and children are the property of yourself can you not do what you wish with your own property ?including punishment and termination. If your a part of a clan or commune is your wife and children not subject to the rules of the tribe in a joint ownership ? With out modern society wouldnt abandoning a child or wife in the wilderness be the same as killing them.

  40. ” . . . wouldnt abandoning a child or wife in the wilderness be the same as killing them.”

    It was not Abraham’s expectation that Hagar and Ishmael would survive.

  41. Kfg, I think that it may be a evolutionary link between killing and abandoning that equals the same thing when it comes to off springs. Not out of evil but mercy. It’s like kidnapping and rape. Totally evil now but 10,000 years ago the norm. Society may evolve faster than human nature. But the nature of the beast is alway just under the surface. Hypergamy doesn’t care what societal norms are neither does Alfa. That’s why prisons and army’s are full of both.

  42. “Society may evolve faster than human nature.”

    The word “evolve” has two different meanings when applied to society and to biology. Most of what most people call the “evolution” of society is simply fad.

    Biology is not tested against fads, fads are tested against biology. If you adopt a biologically untenable fad, you die.

    The postmodern ideological idea that biology must change to accommodate the ideology is a biologically untenable fad, although I note that many who adopt it are actually seeking death.

  43. To be completely honest, I am surprised this sort of thing doesn’t happen more often. Imagine a guy who is going to jail because he can’t pay the child support and vagina-money payments, and his wife is living large on his dollar.
    Like Chris rock said “I’m not sayin’ he should have done it, but I understand”

    Once enough of Blue Pill fathers start doing this, women may start to think: “Can I trust that he’s not going to filp? Am I 1000% certain?” We may even see a shift, out of pure selfish need to survive, and women not ruining mans life in the divorce out of fear.

    We can dream…

  44. Now and then, in the haste of business, it had been my habit to assist in comparing
    some brief document myself, calling Turkey or Nippers for this purpose.
    One object I had in placing Bartleby so handy to me behind the screen, was to
    avail myself of his services on such trivial occasions. It was on the third day, I
    think, of his being with me, and before any necessity had arisen for having his
    own writing examined, that, being much hurried to complete a small affair I had
    in hand, I abruptly called to Bartleby. In my haste and natural expectancy of
    instant compliance, I sat with my head bent over the original on my desk, and
    my right hand sideways, and somewhat nervously extended with the copy, so
    that immediately upon emerging from his retreat, Bartleby might snatch it and
    proceed to business without the least delay.

    In this very attitude did I sit when I called to him, rapidly stating what it
    was I wanted him to do—namely, to examine a small paper with me. Imagine
    my surprise, nay, my consternation, when without moving from his privacy,
    Bartleby in a singularly mild, firm voice, replied, “I would prefer not to.”
    I sat awhile in perfect silence, rallying my stunned faculties. Immediately it
    occurred to me that my ears had deceived me, or Bartleby had entirely misunderstood
    my meaning. I repeated my request in the clearest tone I could assume. But
    in quite as clear a one came the previous reply, “I would prefer not to.”
    “Prefer not to,” echoed I, rising in high excitement, and crossing the room
    with a stride. “What do you mean? Are you moon-struck? I want you to help
    me compare this sheet here—take it,” and I thrust it towards him.
    “I would prefer not to,” said he.

    I looked at him steadfastly. His face was leanly composed; his gray eye dimly
    calm. Not a wrinkle of agitation rippled him. Had there been the least uneasiness,
    anger, impatience or impertinence in his manner; in other words, had there
    been any thing ordinarily human about him, doubtless I should have violently
    dismissed him from the premises. But as it was, I should have as soon thought
    of turning my pale plaster-of-paris bust of Cicero out of doors. I stood gazing at
    him awhile, as he went on with his own writing, and then reseated myself at my
    desk. This is very strange, thought I. What had one best do? But my business
    hurried me. I concluded to forget the matter for the present, reserving it for my
    future leisure. So calling Nippers from the other room, the paper was speedily


  45. Palma

    Yeah… She said yesterday in her statement she never had sex with him… now she is saying he was on top…

    classic caught woman.

    Thing is, she now admitted to sex with a minor.

  46. It is black letter law of fact. If she has admitted it happened, she has admitted guilt. “He came on to me,” is not a defense.

  47. sad for Bourdain… Stupid WK fucker believed her lies to him, PAID for her escape and she thanks him by snogging a 28 YO photographer…

    And now she is pushing that it was his fault she’s been silenced…. lol

    silly fucker.

  48. In my state “she hit me over the head, tied me up and raped me” is not a defense.

    Of course in my state the issue would be moot, because he would have been over the age of consent.

    I’m not sufficiently familiar with California case on this (I’ve avoided the place so far, and every year I’m given even more reason to do so), but it would have to be on that order, that she was actually incapacitated, not merely “it’s forcible rape because I didn’t really feel like it.”

  49. “Naturally women were appalled at the deaths of the wife and kids, as they should be. Pre-divorce women will prep months in advance for their new singleness. Often they’ll check out of the marriage and live without any real connection to their, usually Beta, Blue Pill conditioned, husband who languishes in this Blue Pill hell for the duration it takes his wife to establish a new mental persona and finds a way to exit the marriage. She’s already gone from the marriage, but the typical Blue Pill husband believes that he is the source of her discontent and resorts to anything he can to ‘keep things fresh’ or ‘rekindle the old flame’ that a feminine-primary popular culture tells him should be his responsibility. Unfortunately, this guy’s situation is typical of middle aged men today, and I honestly believe is the source that drives suicides and murder-suicides in this demographic. This man was going to be Zeroed Out and he knew it was coming.”


    “The commonalities in every one of these murder-suicides is a Blue Pill conditioned, Beta husband who by all indications was playing by the First Set of Books. By all indications these men would fit into the second type of man mention in Strategic Pluralism Theory”

    “Now this week we see another, almost identical, tragedy in Colorado this week.”

  50. “No” is a very powerful word.. True, but the ‘power’ comes from having the total emotional state control to mean it, with all implied consequences.

    That’s the true nature of power as has been discussed here many times. Control over oneself and by extension one’s situation.

    So linking this back to the ‘Ownership’ theme of the OP, the first best thing a man can own is himself, in a mental control sense.

    I could see arguement for both sides regarding a man chosing violence as a means of asserting control. Perhaps he lost mental control over himself and acted out in a futile attempt to control the situation and his wife/kids future (lack thereof), or perhaps he was in control of himself and judged his course of action as just?

    To me, the point is mute because the result is a total loss of control over himself and HIS situation.. the endgame is either suicide or jail.

    So my point is: control yourself first, be assertive, say No and mean it fully, but understand that in these (and most) situations, murder results in the loss of the only control you ever really had to start with.. that over yourself.

  51. I fucked up fellas. I fucked up and need to vent. Been a year since my 5 year LTR ended and have finally made some peace with it. Banged about 8 chicks since from dating apps and the bar scene, all 1 night stands. I realize I want a relationship at this point. Girls I have met have been cool, but nobody that really made me excited. I have been riding a very positive wave lately and finally matched with a girl that was totally my type of vibe. I KNEW we would hit it off. Went out yesterday and did my usual routine and things were going outstanding, we drank more than I usually do on a date and then it happened. At our third venue she bought us drinks. She had not checked her phone all night, but she took it out and she had a notification on the screen from the dating app. She did not go into the app at all it was just a notification. And for whatever reason it got to me, I made a comment and that’s all it took. When we went outside she said something along the lines of “things were going great until that” and just like that what was going so great blew up in my face. I’m so disappointed in myself and how things turned out. I got ahead of myself and convinced myself this was “the one”. The connection was there and real and I’m just bummed about it. Texted her today and she responded with “I’m glad we met but honestly there’s no coming back from that”. So lesson learned I guess. Just sucks that I finally thought I was over the hurdle and had finally met someone I was into but fell flat.

  52. SJR
    Your post on ownership and self control is brutal because of the truth it carries behind it.

    That’s tough man, you got this and your still engaging with yourself and not secluding yourself. I made the mistake once of calling things out that never did me any good. For one thing bring up a red pill truth that didn’t serve the situation.

  53. Waffles… if one comment sent things off the rails so easily I PROMISE you this woman is a gigantic pain in the ass that would have been a major hassle in your life. 100% certain about that. Reasonable women who are into you would not get so easily bent over such things.

  54. You’ll trim the sails and catch the prevailing wind again, with a lesson about the difference between the prevailing and the apparent.

  55. ” . . . this woman is a gigantic pain in the ass . . .”

    No. He would have been a pain in the ass to her, that’s why it’s lucky for him that he failed so quickly, before he mistakenly thought they were “in a relationship.”

  56. “He would have been a pain in the ass to her, that’s why it’s lucky for him that he failed so quickly, before he mistakenly thought they were “in a relationship.””

    exactly. that’s why I’ll purposely tell girls offensive jokes I find funny because based on her reaction, I’ll know whether or not she’d make a good partner or not. I don’t want to be with someone I feel I have to censor myself whenever I’m around them.

  57. @waffles

    There are internals (What you are and can control. Your thoughts. How you feel). There are externals (her, her behavior. What she did. Reality. Something outside yourself or outside your power).

    Aim to regard externals without attachment (importance). Refuse to worry about things beyond your control or otherwise get worked up about them.

    Detachment also means not letting happiness depend on getting or avoiding externals–pussy, for example, or the good opinion of others.

    Everyone will have preferences about externals. You’d rather have access to good pussy, than not and prefer to do without adversity.

    There is a distinction between preferences and attachments.

    “Now a qualification: of course everyone will have preferences about those externals and many others. The Stoic would rather have wealth (or pussy) than not have it, and would prefer to do without adversity. But we have to distinguish between preference and attachments. The difference between them canbe seenmost easily by comparing how you feel when they aren’t satisfied. Imagine wanting one thing more than another and not getting it, but not being too upset as a result. That sort of wish is is what we might call a (mere) preference. Having what you prefer is a pleasing, and not having it is a dissapointment, but it’s no threat to your equanimity. And the same can be saied when something happens that you would have preferred not happen. I is just spilled milk, and Stoics try to look at all things they can’t control the same way. An attachment is different because it makes your happiness depend on the object of it. It pushes and pulls you. Stoics try for an equilibrium based on the quality of their thinking (internals, mindset) and their actions (Game) — one that doesn’t depend on anything beyond their control (externals).” — The Practicing Stoic, Ward Farnsworth parentheses mine.

  58. @kfg

    I know better than to think that, especially after one date but definitely put this one on a pedestal in my head because I was digging her more than others I have gone out with. As I said it is obvious where I went wrong and am kicking myself. It bothers me how hard it is to find a genuine connection and that’s the real loss here. I have been single for a year now and have learned a lot about myself. I am confident in myself and my game and while it feels great to get a same night bang, for me the run of banging chicks has felt hollow. It has almost been paint by numbers courtship on these first date bangs. I miss that connection. And I have it better than a lot of guys out there. There are guys who can’t even get dates. I am grateful for Rollo and you guys on here. I don’t want to go full “lonely old man” myth here but it genuinely does bother me that I almost have to over question the “realness” of my future relationships with women. I miss someone loving me if that makes sense and I miss certain aspects of relationships so I got over excited because for the first time in a year I saw something with potential to grow.

  59. @kfg… yes he would have been a pain in the ass to her because her “I’m offended” threshold is set so low… at least where he is concerned.

    I would say that anyone who has their “I’m offended” threshold set this low is the one who is the actual pain in the ass.

    Just my way of looking at it.

    (Of course we dont know what he ACTUALLY said or how he said it. Maybe what he is describing as an offhand comment was actually a passive aggressive butt hurt tell and her ejection was a reasonable response. But I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.)

  60. ” . . . anyone who has their “I’m offended” threshold set this low . . .”

    She wasn’t offended. She appears to have been disappointed, because she wasn’t offended. She had been having _ _ _ ?

    ” . . . we dont know what he ACTUALLY said . . .”

    I take his word that he said something. That’s when the _ _ _ stopped.

    ” . . . what he is describing as an offhand comment was actually a passive aggressive butt hurt tell and her ejection was a reasonable response.”

    Now you’re on the right track. She was a girl who just wanted to have _ _ _.

    In the Secret Society, what is the one thing you absolutely Must.Not.Do?

  61. @SJF

    Thanks. I am actually reading the Daily Stoic right now and have been trying to apply the wisdom each day to my life. What you said is probably my biggest issue on a personal level, making myself my own point of origin and not caring about outside voices. It was an issue in my past relationship that I wasn’t making enough money for her. After we split I foolishly thought about a career change etc. Finally just started doing what makes me happy and have been feeling better. Every now and then however I still feel the need to feel validated though. Need to be better about going with the flow.

  62. I agree that she wasnt offended in the literal sense… I used offended as a catchall term for “something you did made me unhappy and now I dont want your penis inside me”

  63. “It is not knowledge, but the act of learning, not possession but the act of getting there, which grants the greatest enjoyment. When I have clarified and exhausted a subject, then I turn away from it, in order to go into darkness again. The never-satisfied man is so strange; if he has completed a structure, then it is not in order to dwell in it peacefully, but in order to begin another.”

  64. Love that Gauss quote… though I doubt he would agree that you have exhausted the subject. Though he probably would agree that this particular thread is not worth pursuing.

  65. This is the reverse human version of a lion eating the cubs of a beaten male in nature.
    In some way they gain control by destroying what they believe is theirs before their “soul mates”, whom they believe were never capable, do so.

  66. @kobayashii1681

    I know, I’ve read all his stuff. I have a self imposed burden of performance and I struggle with it a lot.

    1. @Waffles I get you mate. On the way to mastering yourself you will make mistakes. I still do. But you learn and improve.
      As Bruce Lee said, knowing is not enough you must do. And in doing you will struggle once in a while, but get up every time you fall.
      Never pedestalize, be your own mental point of origin, have options for a while and have fun.

  67. There are tools to struggle less.

    First of all: Relax.

    Game is meant to be fun.

    Then follow along with mentors. Rollo, BlackLabelLogic, Donovan Sharpe, Rian Stone. These guys are sharp in TheRedMan Group.

    If you want to get better with struggling less:

    Here are some reading recommendations:

    How I found Freedom in an Unfree World , by Harry Browne.

    Reality Transurfing, by Vadim Zeland.

    The Practicing Stoic by Neal Farnsworth,

    Anti-Fragile by Nassim Taleb


Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: