Sexual Selection & Existential Fear

Way back in the early years of this blog I wrote a post flipping a common feminist trope on its head. In Women’s Physical Standards I laid out the case that it is women, not men, who hold the most stringent and static standards for ideal male beauty.

…from a purely physical perspective, it is women’s idealized masculine form that hasn’t changed in millennia. While there may have been a Rubenesque period when men loved the fatties of the 1600′s, no such era ever existed for women’s physical preferences. The classic broad chest, wide shoulders, six-pack abs and squared jaws of greco-roman athleticism are still the idealized male form that has graced EVERY romance novel cover in existence. I’m still waiting for someone to post me a link for a dating site that caters exclusively to women’s fetish of BBMs – Big Beautiful Men – average to good looking, fit, women specifically looking overweight men. Executive Introductions caters to women seeking affluent, influential men, but women just looking for overweight men, that site doesn’t exist.

I wrote this essay in a time well before apps like Tinder and Bumble became household names. Since then (September, 2011) the sexual marketplace has fundamentally shifted to exactly the state I saw it going to then, and all it took to prove it was a handful of fuckingdating’ apps to facilitate Hypergamy. In 8 years women have proven they are every bit as viscerally motivated by men’s physical appeal as I spelled out in this post. Back then I was run up the flagpole for suggesting women were the ones with “unrealistic beauty standards”, now it seem matter of fact.

Of course, the double standard has gotten much worse with respect to men having any sexual selection standards. In Maryland we have the instance of high school boys being pilloried on a global stage for daring to rate their female classmates’ looks on a 1 to 10 scale. Ironically, the the same teen girls who took such offense to this will think nothing of swiping left or right on a potentially lover on Tinder in just a few short years. In fact, they’ll think it’s normal for a woman to base her sexual selection on the physical, yet the same is sexual objectification for men to do the same. Certainly, men will never be allowed to voice their physical preferences without the fear of personal destruction in our Global Village.

About 5-6 months ago, Pat Campbell, my co-host on Red Pill 101, linked me to a pair of stories about how offensive some social justice warriors found it that young men were avoiding trans-gender ‘girls‘ as potential dates. The logic was that more evolved heterosexual young men should feel attraction towards a trans-gender, biological male, if he was presenting himself as a female. The natural sexual selection process for those young men, and by extension all men, was being circumvented by the social imperatives of others.

Pat also linked me to a story where a popular, heterosexual, high school quarterback accepted the Homecoming Dance proposal of another homosexual young man. As expected, the story was written as a heartwarming victory for modern progressivism and a young man “secure in his masculinity” praised as a hero for essentially accepting a social control over his sexual selection process. Naturally, the predictable hate to overcome would be from ‘less evolved’ guys alleging the quarterback was really gay.

This is the pre-written script we expect will follow (the clichéd triumph over homophobia), but the real story here is that a young man’s sexual selection process has been removed from his direct control. If the quarterback had refused the proposal the best he could hope for would be that no story would be written about it – but the more likely story would be him having to defend himself against his homophobia. In essence, the threat of a global online mob ruining his future makes accepting the proposal a necessity.

In 2019 men’s control over their sexual selectivity is something women don’t want to hear about. Part of ensuring that Hypergamy is the defining social dynamic today includes exercising as much control over men’s sexual selection process as possible. As fluid as men’s selection naturally is, it’s still out of women’s total control. The method to that control is social pressure. Women’s need to insure against their own Existential Fear of pairing with an unacceptable guy is so obsessive they will resort to social engineering.

Tinder and Bumble are social engineering programs as much as they are facilitators of women’s Hypergamy. Body Positivity / Fat Acceptance (exclusively for women) is equally a social conditioning effort. But for these and more the latent purpose is the same – convincing men to repress their evolved sexual selection proclivities in favor of accepting women’s selection process as the ‘correct’ one. The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies states that for on sex’s strategy to succeed the other’s must be compromised or abandoned. In today’s feminine-primary social order, the Feminine Imperative wants nothing less than complete abandonment from men – and it will use every social and political means available to insure men do.

Men must be raised up and conditioned from the earliest age to accept women’s strategy and their role in it as the only acceptable one. Men’s selection of a mate must be made for him according to women’s standards. Many times I’m asked how to go about “vetting for a wife”. I’m asked what the criteria, what aspects, what traits should a woman possess to make her “marriage material”. From a Red Pill perspective a lot of what I lay out seems highly offensive to the sensibilities of men and women conditioned by the Feminine Imperative. But the qualities, and the reasons I define them being desirable, are nothing any man who is invested in his own sexual strategy wouldn’t find mundane.

It’s not difficult to figure out what attributes in women would make for a good pairing – what’s offensive is that a man would ever have the temerity to require a woman to possess them at all.

It’s offensive to feminized sensibilities for a man to speak aloud the things he wants from a woman. How dare he ever have the presence of mind to create a list of acceptable qualities for a potential long term mate. Who is he to make demands? Has he not learned that Hypergamy and women’s needs now define his existence?

I’ve written in the past about how women commodify their own sexuality. We’ve pandered to the security needs of women for so long they feel entitled to their being met. We’ve developed a social order that’s prime directive is to insure against women’s Existential Fear of ever having to worry about a bad Hypergamous decision. We ensure that they can voluntarily reproduce at will via sperm banks and frozen eggs. We demand that men find them arousing no matter what their physical condition and in spite of 100,000 years of evolved arousal cues. Gynocentrism demands men be nothing more than willing participants in women’s sexual / life strategies.

A day ago I posted this quote on Twitter:

Women only see men as breeding stock or draft animals.

Women and their ‘allies’ lost their collective minds. Follow that link, see for yourself. It’s a litany of middle school blathering and presumption about my motives for making public what most of these feminists confirmed. All the responses are the predictable boilerplate you’d expect from a generation of women used to parroting back what the Village has taught them to respond with for so long.

But what is my observation revealing here? Nothing that we don’t already know – women define the reproductive process in western culture. And again, most of these feminists proudly agree with the observation. They say, “Yeah, as it should be”, while their oblivious male ‘allies’ seek affirmation.

The boys at the Maryland high school got caught in the gynocratic gears. They weren’t properly conditioned to know their place. They did what most guys in high school do, they compare notes, they make comparisons, because they still believed they might be allowed to have a preference of who they want to date, bang, have for a girlfriend, have for a wife. How dare they!

When the Beta Bucks / provisioning side of the Hypergamous equation is more or less accommodated for by the social order the only thing left is Alpha Fucks. This is Hypergamy on a meta-scale. Why would any woman bother with the notion of Value Added to make herself more ‘marriageable’? Men aren’t allowed to have preferences. They should feel lucky that a woman would date them in the first place. Feminism has taught her that if she is to be the ideal Strong Independent Woman® she is “never to do anything for the express pleasure of a man.” And besides, the exciting guys, the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys who she does swipe right on; those guys don’t care about ‘value added’ – they care about fucking.

The New Polyandry I described is an extension of ensuring women’s Existential Fear is always compensated for on a societal level.

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

Roissy

I’ve quoted this in other essays. Usually I’m asked why this would at all be feminists goal?

“You think feminism is all about controlling your dicks?”

In essence, yes, but really it’s about affording women unilateral control over their Existential Fear and absolving them of any consequences for the bad decisions made in controlling for it. In the last essay I stated that Abortion is Eugenics, but isn’t affording women total control of human reproduction eugenics? Isn’t socially engineering and conditioning men’s behavior to accept women’s sexual strategy as the “correct”, normal one eugenics as well?

I would say yes, except, the Sisterhood doesn’t have a ‘master race’ planned. There is no uniform conscious direction to this eugenics. It’s all driven by women natural, evolved mental firmware and impulses – all facilitated by the power afforded to them by men. We’ve unfettered Hypergamy. We’ve allowed women to do something unprecedented in human history, we’ve given women the reins of the direction of human reproduction.

And we’ve done this at the same time we’ve maximally restricted male sexuality. Dr. Jordan Peterson once predicted that in the future any expression of male sexuality will be illegal. I would amend that: any Beta male expression of sexuality will be deemed offensive or illegal.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

458 comments on “Sexual Selection & Existential Fear

  1. When men work together

    “I would say yes, except, the Sisterhood doesn’t have a ‘master race’ planned. There is no uniform conscious direction to this eugenics. It’s all driven by women natural, evolved mental firmware and impulses – all facilitated by the power afforded to them by men. We’ve unfettered Hypergamy. We’ve allowed women to do something unprecedented in human history, we’ve given women the reins of the direction of human reproduction.”
    Reproduce ourself’s with both nature and nurture

  2. “For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other
    gender must compromise or abandon its own.”

    “In last week’s essay I outlined the the Existential Fear women hold in their evolved unconscious – that of the Hypergamous doubt. “Is this guy the best I can do?” is the question that their hindbrains ask.”

    First, genders don’t have sexual strategies. Men and women do. Gender is a noun of a adjective. What’s a soy-boi’s gender? Feminine. He’s a feminine soy-boi.

    Secondly, in animal nature doesn’t compromise. The Roissy quote is irrelevant there. Animal nature allows abandoning it’s strategy but it is abandoned under the case of summary violent death outweighing the chance to perpetuate. It’s existential. Better to live another day and fuck then.

    Example: Watched a snow leopard nature series recently. The female was in heat, spraying her scent. Two males descend on the opportunity. The female shows deference by tilting her head upside down to the males. Cut the tape, fast forward and the female lumbering along like she had been brutalized. Apparently male snow leopards are into the rough stuff. The Alpha victor had his way with her. He didn’t choose to bang her, didn’t choose to fight. The Alpha just did it, he had to because he can’t choose not to.

    Women choose to doubt. It isn’t animal-level driven. Doubt is a specifically human emotion. Hypergamy may be animal driven but it isn’t a conscious decision as doubt is.

    TRM conflates a woman’s ability to choose with her inability to choose. When a woman doubts, she, in practice, is static as by definition doubt stalls progress. Stall progress enough with protracted doubt and she is compromising her own sexual strategy as she chooses not to choose.

    Hypergamy guides a woman’s sexual strategy. That’s as far as evo-bio influences her. Beyond that a woman chooses to act on it, overthink it, buffer it or none of that. Though, choosing inaction still a choice. If she goes with straight evo-bio, it’s a rough life for her and all those uncontrollable Alphas. If she chooses to wait….which is not animal evo-bio….she’ll miss her opportunity.

    Women waiting for “the best she can do” is self destructive. That goes for men too.

    The intent of the fucking is at question here. TRM is addicted to conflating “reproductive advantage” as “fucking advantage”. Reproductive advantage sounds a hell of a lot more science-y and legit than fucking advantage but allows the whole downstream debate to continue….as long as we all buffer away the upstream misinterpretations of all the terminology and realities of the human experience with fingers in ears yelling la-la-la-la-I-can’t-hear-you.

    No matter. Nature, human and otherwise rolls on as designed to address irregularities in our behavior.

  3. “She took him to a neuropsychologist, who told them Cracknell had ‘tunnel vision’ and that ‘frontal-lobe injury makes you more of yourself’.

    Having won a place at Cambridge (a year after attempting to become an MEP candidate), the strains on the couple became too great.

    And what of the rower in all of this? Before the split was announced, Cracknell spoke of his determination not to be seen through the prism of the accident.

    ‘I had some bad characteristics before the accident as well, so it’s not fair to label being stubborn and selfish on the truck driver.'”

    Re: Cracknell

    This guy sounds and looks Alpha in all ways and always. He’s too much to handle now he’s sliding down the SMV scale. He’s distancing himself even more from her and isn’t too worried about it.

    The “it’s not fair to label being stubborn and selfish on the truck driver.” is pure genius. “‘frontal-lobe injury makes you more of yourself’.” LOL DPA by closed head injury.

  4. ” Fifteen aircraft reached China, but all crashed, while the 16th landed at Vladivostok in the Soviet Union. 77 of 80 crew members initially survived the mission. Eight airmen were captured by the Japanese Army in China; three of those were later executed.”

    What’d you do today? Me? Nothing of consequence.

  5. “Women’s need to insure against their own Existential Fear of pairing with an unacceptable guy is so obsessive they will resort to social engineering.”

    “Sexually powerful men don’t harass, they seduce. It’s the insecure men who need to use power in order to leverage the insecurity and the inaccessibility or the unavailability of the women. Women fear rape (edited to add: from beta males), and men fear humiliation. (edited to add: if they are beta males)”–Esther Perel

  6. “What’d you do today? Me? Nothing of consequence.”

    I had some imagined somethings of consequence. I had an unusually hard day at work (god, that never happens…), both shooting up hot babes with Botox and having patients acknowledge I saved their lives. (?catching melanoma early? Not cause I was trying to catch external validation. I was riffing with one older guy, perhaps 82 y.o., the guy that arranged to sell me my hunting property/wildlife habitat 12.5 years ago. He only had two melanomas caught early and one squamous cell. I joke about the pimple popper M.D. Seinfeld segment. And he has always been a charming man. But I bullshit. Maybe I was seeking external validation. Sometimes I regress.) And treating new skin cancers. And one thing after another like piecework.

    I couldn’t attend the funeral of my wife’s girlfriend from our neighborhood (cause I worked a hard day). Our son’s were buddies. Lung cancer to the brain. The visitation last night was too pleasant for my taste.

    And I had my red pill buddies poking the shit out of my ribs with a sharp stick on skype while my wife caught up on binge watching Game of Thrones. Burden of performance.

    You think the sexual marketplace is tough, you should be a Game of Thrones character:

    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kateaurthur/game-of-thrones-characters-season-one-seven

    You’re all going to die anyway, you should start living.

  7. I’ve only seen the movie once, but had read the book several times and built up a model of the Hornet with the B-25s on deck before I was out of grade school. These men were in the upper echelon of my personal pantheon of heroes and my mojo has been a bit off today on hearing the news.

  8. “What’d you do today?”

    Wait. There was another HB I walked into the room without my medical assistant to check out her hives (And I never do that ever, except her age was listed as 61. Medical chaperones for a pink clip on the door “girl in her undewear, get a chaperone, uber alles. Whoops. I introduced myself and looked at her and said, wait, what is going on here. “Your not really 61” are you? She looked 41, lithe and a HB8. Genetics. She said: “You told my mom that before, too.” I, though charmed her and medically treated her well. O.K, now I’m starting to do an ASD routine. Maybe I should go fuck my wife.) But I don’t want to digress into ASD territory about how that went. Never mind. I spent a lot of time bantering with 61 and 82 year old guys. And it was a privilege they weren’t dead yet.

    I learned about living, while contemplating existential fear and death.

    And talked with that devious guy EhIntellect. He’s cryptic about his newfound life in a genius way.

    All that stuff about grammar, then logic then rhetoric? Its a way of learning by starting by basics. It’s called the Trivium of Learning.

    It is also a good Red Pill process: Input Knowledge, Processing Understanding, Output Wisdom.

    Who, what, when, where? Why? How?

    It’s not cryptic, when you do it in real life on an ongoing basis.

  9. Regarding the comments the ‘offline’ thing is definitely annoying, it creates too much of the barrier between each post visually and methinks the comments flow much more smoothly without it. Also i reckon you should make the font the same size as the article, without zooming in one has to squint on a laptop.

    Regarding the article, this state of affairs would only be beneficial if the offspring was being born into stable families, but we know they’re not. We’ve basically recreated the environmental conditions of the stone-age Congo, so mud huts here we come.

    I know this blog hasn’t in the past delved into the larger political and power dynamics at play here (and I believe you might have made a statement to the effect that it won’t), but @Poptarts makes a solid point and I have to wonder how long you can continue to maintain that separation.

    Maybe what has occured is an ‘organic’/natural phenomenon, but maybe it isn’t, and if not one has to consider the implications if it has been manufactured and what we’re seeing is nothing more than a bunch of useful idiots doing the bidding of those who stand to profit from creating this paradigm in the first place. It’s one thing to fight against nature, it’s another to fight pre-meditated evil.

    If not an act of god then only one question remains – Cui bono?

  10. Dionysus

    Good morning. So, would you like to see more< i/> heated political content from Rollo, or in the comments or both?

    From what I’ve seen in the sphere, when that happens the blog turns into a giant, yet insignificant echo chamber. Nothing useful imo comes from that, and the ability of readers to learn and hear anything different outside of their own beliefs and experience is blunted.

    Historically the world has always been fueled by genius and useful idiots. The trick is in the discernment between the two factions. Societies have normally been lead by a handful of people, most often leading to an eventual collapse, right? Why is that?

    Institutions and culture become corrupted, but it’s false to believe they become corrupted from the bottom up, not if you’re capable of looking at the situation objectively. For instance, I do believe there’s a Feminine Imperative at work because I have eyes to see it. It’s men that do the heavy lifting in advancing the agenda of a relatively small group of ” evil ” women bent on the subjugation of all things male. Hey it’s men with power that drive the agenda through law and culture influencing media. A message is dictated to you, and a punishment is assessed for non compliance. The ” bottom ” does not control this.

    Politics to a great degree is illusory. A distraction. Compliance demanded. I also agree that it’s important for men to understand politics, yet not be sucked in to being ruled by it. That is the definition of ” useful idiot “.

    You’ll never ever solve a problem if you can’t correctly identity what the problem actually is. You can burn your wheat fields to stop locusts from eating it, but the wheat was never ” the problem “.

  11. “We’ve pandered to the security needs of women for so long they feel entitled to their being met. We’ve developed a social order that’s prime directive is to insure against women’s Existential Fear of ever having to worry about a bad Hypergamous decision.”

    Women do not have judgement. It’s why she’ll date an alpha loser. It’s also why they do not know justice. To her, justice is defined merely by good feelings.

    There is no incentive to be fair. All she knows is that fairness = being a princess. She will accept boundaries from her King or from real dangers, but if there is no king telling her what is right, and no presence of any danger, indulgence in her instincts and desires is her only guide. The feminine imperative has recklessly followed its ‘evolved mental firmware and impulses,’ driving away strong men and potentially strong men, and it has set up large social bubbles in which she is ignorant of the nature of danger.

    Women feel so safe that they truly believe all danger should be dominated; there is no diplomacy or nuance or cooperation. Theft is much more prevalent than rape, and no one complains about having to lock their doors. But the idea of precautions against rape– an inconvenience to her– is deemed an example of rape culture. Why should she have to do anything as long as she can convince men to protect her, no matter the Orwellian lengths that would be necessary or the actual impossibility of 100% preventing any crime, let alone one with such indelible and volatile motivation as libido (the life drive) which is managed in such an unhealthy way (oppression).

    Should we only protect women in our tribe? Should we risk our own lives to protect any woman? I believe that overall society functions well with everyone being protected and safe, but seeing the effects of the unchecked will of women, it is important we draw a distinction and refuse to protect also their feelings and their social status, because they need to fear some real repercussions when they do not cooperate with the men around them. Fear of loss of social status may feel in the same direction as fear of violence to her, but I think only protecting women physically, and allowing social punishments, is a good middle ground.

  12. Interesting development

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-divorce-law-to-end-the-blame-game

    Proposals for changes to the law include:

    retaining the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage as the sole ground for divorce

    replacing the requirement to provide evidence of a ‘fact’ around behaviour or separation with a requirement to provide a statement of irretrievable breakdown

    retaining the two-stage legal process currently referred to as decree nisi and decree absolute

    creating the option of a joint application for divorce, alongside retaining the option for one party to initiate the process

    removing the ability to contest a divorce

    introducing a minimum timeframe of 6 months, from petition stage to final divorce (20 weeks from petition stage to decree nisi; 6 weeks from decree nisi to decree absolute).

  13. @dionysus and redpill77. Your comments are what make the “manosphere” great. Rollo teaching men to understand female nature and be your own mental point of origin is great but it does nothing to actually change the decaying social situation and the mentality of women which ultimately is the problem. This is more serious than just “getting laid”.

    I find it interesting that Rollo and his blog want to stay out of politics while the other two of the three original R’s (Roush and Roissey) now have completely dedicated their blogs and YouTube content to the reality that by certain groups of men aiding the corrupt tendency​ of female nature along with other biological realities involving race and government policy is ultimately going to destroy Western Civilization and then no one is goung to be safe or free from living in fear of big brother. Talking about spinning plates just seems kind of stupid in the face of all this and clearly Roush and Roissey would agree with that as well.

    Also, I find it interesting that Rollo still refers to Roissey as Roissey when he has been Chateau Heartiste for years now. He is still quoting the Maxim’s and Commandments of Poon but not recognizing the fact that Chateau and Roosh have moved on to more meaningful battles and he is still talking about mental points of origins and spinning plates. Which would be fine if the situation wasn’t so serious.

    I believe the reason he hasn’t is why female nature will be continued to be coddled and we will end up in Orwell’s 1984, and that is MEN WITH DAUGHTERS will never go for the idea of taking women’s rights away. Which would​ be the first step towards an actual solution. Their little angels should be able to do whatever they want. These men like Rollo will just say “oh it’s impossible anyway, you can’t do that” etc. Actually it is possible if a majority of men start to discuss it. But you notice that Rollo is teaching his daughter to find the Alpha protector and would love to see her marry some cop no doubt, lol.

  14. Talking about spinning plates just seems kind of stupid in the face of all this and clearly Roush and Roissey would agree with that as well.

    What’s stupid is wasting your precious time and mental energy worrying about and mentally masturbating over 10000 ft macro issues you have close to ZERO ability to impact instead of focusing on individual self-improvement to better your life.

  15. @Blaximus Politics is obviously inherently divisive. Personally I both enjoy and respect the underlying focus of this blog and Rollo’s dedication to keep it how he wishes, productive and on point.

    That being said it is also becoming increasingly obvious that treating topics such as the SMP and especially the FI in isolation from the politics behind them is becoming increasingly difficult. This is because a thorough analysis and correct identification of the underlying problem necessitates taking into account the ‘higher’ power dynamics at play, all manufactured by man, not nature. As such it follows that any solution and advice provided from now on must on some level take this into account.

    Just putting it out there.

  16. I don’t disagree on the whole. There’s more than one cause to the ” problems “, and it’s important that men gather all of the intelligence and attack from multiple angles.

    And the number one ” attack ” any man should first perform is on himself regarding what he’s been taught, what he believes, and who he is. If ” being ” for a man isn’t satisfactory, then that man needs to course correct.

    That message is much more efficient than a man becoming a joiner or followed of any ideological dictate..

    That’s how men wound up where they currently are. Doing the same thing, expecting different results etc.

    The first thing any man can ” control ” is himself and his mind.

  17. @Blax

    “And the number one ” attack ” any man should first perform is on himself regarding what he’s been taught, what he believes, and who he is. If ” being ” for a man isn’t satisfactory, then that man needs to course correct.”

    Robert Greene’s Chapter 4 in The Laws of Human Nature

    The Law of Compulsive Behavior

    When choosing people to work and associate with, do not be mesmerized by their reputation or taken in by the surface image they try to project. Instead, train yourself to look deep within them and see their character. People’s character is formed in their earliest years and by their daily habits. It is what compels them to repeat certain actions in their lives and fall into negative patterns. Look closely at such patterns and remember that people never do something just once. They will inevitably repeat their behavior. Gauge the relative strength of their character by how well they handle adversity, their ability to adapt and work with other people, their patience and ability to learn. Always gravitate toward those who display signs of strength, and avoid the many toxic types out there. Know thoroughly your own character so you can break your compulsive patterns and take control of your destiny.

  18. As such it follows that any solution and advice provided from now on must on some level take this into account.

    @Dionysus —

    No.

    There is no solution on that level. No realistic one at this time, and likely for a long, long time to come. Therefore focusing on that is simply a distraction. You can’t change jack on that level, but you can change a lot on your own personal level — that’s where you focus. Guys who end up focusing on the 30,000 foot level issues generally end up very burned out and bitter because they can’t get anywhere there (timing doesn’t work — you won’t get anywhere with those issues for at least several generations, maybe more, at the very least), when they could be spending that energy on improving their outcomes given the environment we have as a given.

    @Poptarts —

    These men like Rollo will just say “oh it’s impossible anyway, you can’t do that” etc. Actually it is possible if a majority of men start to discuss it.

    Which … will never happen. You will never get a majority of men to discuss taking away women’s “rights”, as they now exist. There are many reasons for that, but the main salient one is that when women are involved, even theoretically, men fight with each other brutally to establish dominance. That is our nature, and it is in our blood. It can be overcome to some degree when males share a kin-bond (tribes, and the outgrowth of tribes) and are aligned against other groups of kin-bonded men. Nations were the outgrowth of this. Our current setup does not facilitate any degree of male cooperation at all, because not only do we not have kin bonds, or any meaningful extension of them in the form of a predominantly ethnic nation-state, but we also have the life of post-modern capitalism, where we all generally live remote from our own kin, among strangers with whom social ties are extremely weak. This facilitates a Hobbesian all-against-all atmosphere among men, and you will be hard pressed to overcome this at all, despite massive efforts. Trust me, other men have tried and they have failed. This is why it’s a fool’s errand.

    Every now and then this issue comes up — “we need to do something!!”, “there’s a bigger picture here, why aren’t you focused on it?!?!?”, and so on. The answer is clear and is explained clearly each and every time, and yet typically the guys in question go away angry and/or disappointed. Alas, if you’re a 30,000 foot kind of guy, today is not when you want to be alive.

  19. Bravo Nova!

    when they could be spending that energy on improving their outcomes given the environment we have as a given.

    Patriarchy… or Re-Patriarchy if you will, begins at home. Win back your dinner table, then your classroom, then your pew…

    It is house to house combat.

  20. There are many reasons for that, but the main salient one is that when women are involved, even theoretically, men fight with each other brutally to establish dominance. That is our nature, and it is in our blood. It can be overcome to some degree when males share a kin-bond

    I would add that women both at the individual level AND AT THE GROUP LEVEL are adept at getting men to white knight for them, and so it would be very easy to play the “victim” and get groups of men to fight against any “reactionary” rollback of female “progress” that has taken place over the last several decades.

    Also, the scope of “acceptable” political discourse and solutions marches in one direction until perhaps something crisis level essentially burns everything to the ground and you start from ashes. Take the typical “conservative” woman, the Laura Ingrahams, the Tomi Lahrens, Ann Coulters, the Katie Pavlichs, you really think they would embrace or support any aspect of a “manospherian” political agenda vis a vis sexual politics issues?

    As Nova knows…he and I have been around these parts for a long long time, and so the same arguments resurface from time to time, but something new over the past couple of years I’ve seen which a previous commenter alludes to with Roosh and Roissy references, is “Red Pill” and the “Sphere” has sort of in my mind been contaminated with political ideologies sometimes bordering on racial and nationalistic ideologies that have absolutely nothing to do with Intersexual Dynamics.

    I’ve actually seen this in my own family as I have a relative, an older guy with Asbergers who seems to have been drawn into Red Pill sites mostly because of the new entries into political, racial, and nationalistic subjects who doesn’t seem to be interested one bit in actually learning practical knowledge to better interact with women. I think Rollo is wise to keep most of that garbage out of his posts so as to not attract lots of those folks to this site.

  21. Poptarts

    I find it interesting that Rollo and his blog want to stay out of politics while the other two of the three original R’s (Roush and Roissey) now have completely dedicated their blogs and YouTube content to the reality that by certain groups of men aiding the corrupt tendency​ of female nature along with other biological realities involving race and government policy is ultimately going to destroy Western Civilization and then no one is goung to be safe or free from living in fear of big brother.

    Run-on sentences are not part of good writing. Doing the same thing as everyone else may or may not be a good idea, however Rollo knows a thing or two about branding. He also might just have a different “mission” than CH or RooshV.

    Talking about spinning plates just seems kind of stupid in the face of all this and clearly Roush and Roissey would agree with that as well.

    Strawman argument is a logical fallacy. Ad populum (“Everyone ELSE agrees!”) is also. Logical fallacies are errors in thinking that do not lead to clear thought. You should avoid using fallacies and prefer logic, instead.

    From time to time, a man will comment on this site that Rollo’s book – now books – has saved his marriage, saved his life. Has anyone ever claimed that Bang Poland saved his life?

    Expending energy fighting windmills is stupid. Pick a goal that can be achieved, most men can find one within the reach of their arm, or in the mirror, and work on that.

    A couple of weeks back I viewed a show about a family that got stuck in mud driving to the north rim of the Grand Canyon in winter. They made some bad decisions and some good decisions, ultimately all survived and no one lost any body parts to frostbite. At no point in the whole ordeal did anyone stop and build a fire…not at sunset, not when snow started, not to be more visible, not to stay warm, not never. Even when one family member broke into a cabin, she still did not start a fire in the iron stove.

    Maybe because nobody knew how to build a fire? I dunno. But sometimes, the best thing a man can do is “build a fire, stay warm, wait for daylight”. Because dead men have no options.

  22. Morpheus

    I would add that women both at the individual level AND AT THE GROUP LEVEL are adept at getting men to white knight for them, and so it would be very easy to play the “victim”

    This is evo-psych 101. Every man should understand this from at least his teen years, but the blue pill obscures it.

    Those men who run around yelling “we gotta ORGANIZE and DO SOMETHING” are always ignorant of the past. How did we get here? In the US who decided that women should be given the vote about 100 years ago? Was it…an organization of some kind?

    There are still too many states in the US where child custody after a divorce defaults to the mother. Changing that is a major fight, because it’s against both White Knighting “traditional conservatives” and the feminist girl-herd. But it’s feasible, unlike repealing the 19th Amendment.

    As Sentient suggested, reclaim your own dinner table first. Then expand that zone of patriarchy.

  23. “Red Pill” and the “Sphere” has sort of in my mind been contaminated with political ideologies sometimes bordering on racial and nationalistic ideologies that have absolutely nothing to do with Intersexual Dynamics.

    I agree, Morpheus — all good points in your comment, but this one is of particular importance I think. TRP has never been about “alt right”, not in terms of the racial politics. There were people who participated in both areas, but they were distinct, and they should remain distinct — TRP doesn’t have anything per se to do with that stuff, and should keep itself distinct from it.

  24. I’m commenting from my phone so run on sentences are a given. I don’t see why that is a needed critique. I also don’t see why you can’t talk about both the individual and the larger issues that are part of the conditions that create the need for all this teaching that will probably only benefit a minority of men. Someone’s marriage might be “saved” and that may not actually be a good thing for that individual in the long run. Basically I view this self help for men while going out of the way to not criticize women directly (almost like it’s an impossible task and could never result in any change anyway) a form of white knighting for the FI. My opinion.

  25. TRP doesn’t have anything per se to do with that stuff, and should keep itself distinct from it.

    Absolutely agree, although I think unfortunately that distinction has been partially lost. I don’t really read Roosh or Roissy (Chateau Heartiste) anymore, but my sense is they allowed if not actively embraced sort of conflating and commingling the intersexual dynamics “stuff” with the “alt-right” politics and its associated racial politics and ideologies if not outright racism.

    It makes it easier to “throw the baby out with the bath water” and dismiss it all as the ravings of extreme crackpots.

    I think a good political classification scheme is the libertarian diamond where you kind of have the extreme left progressive, the libertarian, the conservatives, and then the fascists. I think for a number of reasons the sphere is mostly comprised of conservatives and libertarians, very little social progressives, and up until recently not many with fascist tendencies although that group has been gaining ground…which is a bad thing IMO.

  26. Can the two really be separated? There’s people that see Red Pill as a chance to explain the behavior of people. Those people have historical origins, racial identity, personal inclinations, strategic positioning and concerns, political interests, and more shit I can’t think of right now.

    By all means “return to form” if you think you can. But both poles of the meta-frame are evolving with or without our input.

  27. Novaseeker
    TRP has never been about “alt right”, not in terms of the racial politics.

    Because “They are all girls” is true. Of course social and cultural variations exist and reading women of a different race offers some challenges, but Game works on women. Period. Full stop. Because at the hindbrain level, “they are all girls”.

    There have been real conspiracies through out history, some of them quite seriously dangerous to people. That doesn’t change female “firmware”, but focusing on some “them” who have “screwed us” is just a distraction.

    Over 100 years ago, in the US, the Methodist church was heavily involved in both women’s votes and the prohibition of alcohol. Should I expend a lot of time and energy ferreting out the secrets of Methodist leaders all long dead, or would it be more useful to learn how to manage women with Game and brew my own beer? Rhetorical question…

  28. Which … will never happen. You will never get a majority of men to discuss taking away women’s “rights”, as they now exist. There are many reasons for that, but the main salient one is that when women are involved, even theoretically, men fight with each other brutally to establish dominance. That is our nature, and it is in our blood. It can be overcome to some degree when males share a kin-bond (tribes, and the outgrowth of tribes) and are aligned against other groups of kin-bonded men. Nations were the outgrowth of this. Our current setup does not facilitate any degree of male cooperation at all, because not only do we not have kin bonds, or any meaningful extension of them in the form of a predominantly ethnic nation-state, but we also have the life of post-modern capitalism, where we all generally live remote from our own kin, among strangers with whom social ties are extremely weak. This facilitates a Hobbesian all-against-all atmosphere among men, and you will be hard pressed to overcome this at all, despite massive efforts. Trust me, other men have tried and they have failed. This is why it’s a fool’s errand.

    Every now and then this issue comes up — “we need to do something!!”, “there’s a bigger picture here, why aren’t you focused on it?!?!?”, and so on. The answer is clear and is explained clearly each and every time, and yet typically the guys in question go away angry and/or disappointed. Alas, if you’re a 30,000 foot kind of guy, today is not when you want to be alive.

    Keep that in a handy file so that you can just copy/pasta when needed. It will save you the time of having to rewrite when it’s necessary to remind newbies.

  29. Poptarts
    I’m commenting from my phone so run on sentences are a given.

    Nope. They are a choice.

    I don’t see why that is a needed critique.

    Communication skills are important. I’m always seeking to improve mine, and help other men improve theirs.

    I also don’t see why you can’t talk about both the individual and the larger issues that are part of the conditions that create the need for all this teaching that will probably only benefit a minority of men.

    Because it always turns into a shitshow. Test this assertion by trawling through Heartiste for an actual Game thread, then look at the comments. The same older guys pushing the same slogans at each other.

    Suppose you could really show that the Illuminati are behind all of the current conditions, and that they also did the same thing to the Roman and Persian empires. What then? Form an orgzniation, write a book, rant on the Internet? What?

    Maybe you can find a copy of Robert Bly’s book online, or you can find Warren Farrel’s Myth of Male Power. Notice when those books were written? Something like 25 years ago, back when Monica was under Bill Clinton’s desk – anything changed at the macro level?

    Someone’s marriage might be “saved” and that may not actually be a good thing for that individual in the long run.

    That’s not even an argument.

    Basically I view this self help for men while going out of the way to not criticize women directly (almost like it’s an impossible task and could never result in any change anyway) a form of white knighting for the FI.

    Another strawman? It’s still a fallacy.

    So what is it that you actually want other men to do?

  30. Yollo Comanche
    But both poles of the meta-frame are evolving with or without our input.

    Well, yeah. Because some very large social and economic forces are at work globally. So there’s no need for RP men to rush out and join some group, is there? There’s no need to turn comments into a shitshow of “Jews!” “White people!” “Blacks!” “Homosexuals!” rants back and forth, is there?

    Two thoughts:
    First, hardly anyone is ever convinced by online arguments.
    Second, again there are some very large socio-economic currents flowing.

    If I’m sitting on the beach and the tide is coming in, I’m not going to fight it, but I might go play in it….but not in the rip tide. Because that current is not my friend, so it’s best that I just swim out of it.

    In other parts of the androsphere we can find men who are completely convinced that “all we need to do” is somehow ban hormonal contraception and abortion & society will return to some golden age norm. They get upset when someone points out “not gonna happen”.

    Too many people confuse “is” with “ought” all across the political landscape.

  31. It makes it easier to “throw the baby out with the bath water” and dismiss it all as the ravings of extreme crackpots.

    Exactly — this is the problem. It interferes with the spread of information that is useful to all men regardless of their own personal politics.

    Basically I view this self help for men while going out of the way to not criticize women directly (almost like it’s an impossible task and could never result in any change anyway) a form of white knighting for the FI. My opinion.

    The perspective is pragmatic. Criticizing women for taking advantage of their position is fine, although it may make you bitter, which works to your own disadvantage — keep that in mind — without actually changing a damn thing about what they are actually doing. Criticizing women for acting on their own nature, once properly understood, is completely counterproductive, because under no circumstance can you — nor should you want to — change women’s nature.

    Women are taking advantage of their position now, that’s true, but prior generations of men took advantage of their position in various ways as well. The fundamental natures do not change, but when one sex has the upper hand, it takes advantage, and vice versa. That’s just reality. You’ll have about as much luck in trying to overturn the FI currently (the ascendant norm) as you would in trying to repeal gravity. But you can understand what trend is in the ascendant, the impact it has on women’s innate inclinations and how they play out, and thereby decide best how you should proceed. That kind of use of the knowledge is far more practical than criticizing women for taking advantage or, even worse, for being who they are designed to be.

  32. The speed of light is white, patriarchal toxic masculinity, because it is a privileged speed.

    This is the sort of nonsense you end up with when you let the nose of the camel politics into the tent of fundamental knowlege. You want to talk the politics of it, fine, no problem, but you want room 12A next door.

  33. @Poptarts —

    “These men like Rollo will just say “oh it’s impossible anyway, you can’t do that” etc. Actually it is possible if a majority of men start to discuss it.

    Novaseeker: “Which … will never happen. You will never get a majority of men to discuss taking away women’s “rights”, as they now exist. There are many reasons for that, but the main salient one is that when women are involved, even theoretically, men fight with each other brutally to establish dominance. That is our nature, and it is in our blood…..

    ….This facilitates a Hobbesian all-against-all atmosphere among men, and you will be hard pressed to overcome this at all, despite massive efforts. Trust me, other men have tried and they have failed. This is why it’s a fool’s errand.”

    I went to a huge used book sale today.

    I saw Lord of the Flies by William Golding sitting there. I didn’t pick it up because we all know how that story goes. All you have to do is look around at the shit-show.

    At an allegorical level, the central theme is the conflicting human impulses toward civilisation and social organisation—living by rules, peacefully and in harmony—and toward the will to power. Themes include the tension between groupthink and individuality, between rational and emotional reactions, and between morality and immorality. How these play out, and how different people feel the influences of these form a major subtext of Lord of the Flies.

    The manosphere operates like that by default. So you should trust your gut when walking around on the island. Learn some knowledge, get some logic and then work on wisdom. That is the Trivium method of learning. Which is why EhI keeps mumbling grammar, logic, rhetoric in that order.

  34. “In essence, yes, but really it’s about affording women unilateral control over their Existential Fear and absolving them of any consequences for the bad decisions made in controlling for it.”

    Understand that when men hold their freewill at arms length from their freedom-to-act-consequences, they too lose juice for the squeeze, are dodging the consequence for their decisions too.

    I’m not being judgy here. I repeat: I AM NOT BEING JUDGY HERE:

    There’s a function, meaning, defined use for sex and that is reproduction. Any other attendant emotional feelz or orgasmic joy is a benefit but not the purpose. The further a man finds sexual meaning away from the actual meaning the further away he is from reality and consequence and certainty and then he must overcome the shortfall thereof with buffers, dependency, swapping placeholders with shit and money and trips and toys or even better reject the purpose of himself and others on the basis of sex and blow his brains out after shooting up a campus.

  35. EhIntellect
    There’s a function, meaning, defined use for sex and that is reproduction. Any other attendant emotional feelz or orgasmic joy is a benefit but not the purpose.

    That’s both a tautology and an inanity. Following that notion a married man only gets to have intercourse with his wife 3 or 4 days per cycle, and only prior to menopause. That is way more extreme than the teachings of the Roman Catholic church that you sometimes attend.

    Combine this latest hair-shirt tendency with your earlier comments here and at the very least you convict yourself of being an hypocrite. Is that a good plan?

    The further a man finds sexual meaning away from the actual meaning the further away he is from reality and consequence and certainty and then he must overcome the shortfall thereof with buffers, dependency, swapping placeholders with shit and money and trips and toys or even better reject the purpose of himself and others on the basis of sex and blow his brains out after shooting up a campus.

    This run-on sentence wasn’t thought out very well. Maybe not at all. I can’t tell if you’ve been reading selections from Augustine and 3rd / 4th century desert monks, or you changed medications, or you are depressed, or what’s going on, but you aren’t making sense.

    First all that random emotional junk about nature shows and lions mating, now this. Get a grip on yourself and stop babbling.

  36. “Red Pill” and the “Sphere” has sort of in my mind been contaminated with political ideologies sometimes bordering on racial and nationalistic ideologies that have absolutely nothing to do with Intersexual Dynamics.

    This is the way to lose a ton of utility. Right now TRM benefits from a wide mix of agents on the ground around the USA and overseas. The benefits of observation and reporting about varieties of women from varieties of men should be self evident. The going-political sites inevitably lose these perspectives over time until only one thing is left. They drive away some, or much, of their resources.

    It’s self-constraining from the viewpoint of maximum knowledge and experiences shared about intersexual dynamics. Myopic.

  37. “Following that notion a married man only gets to have intercourse with his wife 3 or 4 days per cycle, and only prior to menopause.”

    You see it though a good-bad binary lens. There you fail and will continue to as to measure yourself outside of your comfort zone is, well, uncomfortable.

    Sex has many on and off-label uses. How a person chooses to define those uses, defines how he relates to the world.

    If he finds sex a validational tool, then he’ll get that validation so long as he can get sex and when he doesn’t sex and the man loses his meaning. It’s not a big deal until it is and the gun goes in the mouth as he can’t get no pussy.

    Sex has many uses. Choose yours wisely.

  38. “Combine this latest hair-shirt tendency with your earlier comments here and at the very least you convict yourself of being an hypocrite. Is that a good plan?”

    It is. It is the only way to become better is to openly admit one’s hypocrisy and faults and act differently. I do and have here often. A man claiming perfection is hiding something.

    If others would side with you and reinforce your position I might find your narrow logic more convincing. They don’t, so I won’t. You refute nothing as you logically can’t and thus are rhetorically impotent.

    What’s your antipathy to Aquinas anyhow? It’s not like he created human nature. What’s your beef with his writings? I haven’t even cracked Summa Theologica, btw. Now I will.

    What makes you so special, btw? No FR’s, no description of yourself, no need for improvement, have tons of unoriginal answers for everyone else tho no questions about you. What are you hiding, you hypocrite?

    You’re a septuagenarian j.

    No that an insult to j. He’s got potential. You’ve topped out.

  39. I just realized something about AR. He’s been following my story since I showed up years ago. He suggested that my story would end badly. He suggested my wife would stick a knife into my chest. That was the extent of his commentary.

    Sure, I’ve had my ups and downs but I am ultimately much much better than I could’ve imagined, in my marriage, in my job, with all my children, with my friends. I could run on and on and on and on with a sentence how much my life has improved since.

    That pisses him off.

    Bucketed crabs gonna crab bucket.

  40. I know this is a difficult thought for you gents to understand, even though many if not most American men before the 1980s or so understood this. For some reason, this understanding has been bred out of Americans. Well, it is what it is, we’ll see where it leads us.

    The understanding is this: most (90% or more) of men are not capitalists. Even white men. 90% of white men in America are not capitalists. If you a white man reading this and you have to get up and go to work, you are not a capitalist. The owners don’t have to work, not in the way you do.

    Which isn’t to say that capitalism can’t be a good system, it’s just that your understanding of it is flawed. Everybody in the past knew capitalism had to be regulated. Heck, even the most diehard American capitalists agreed to regulation in the past so that America would not turn communist.

    But you guys won’t admit it. Betas never do. You are not going to be Trump or Gates or Buffet or Bezos or Musk. Not now, not 50, not 100 years from now. And they don’t give a shit about you, at all. You will live your entire lives and go to your grave not being them, and they will live their entire lives and go to their graves and not give a shit about you. You do not register in their thoughts…zero, nada, zilch.

    But of course, hate me, call me all sorts of names, and love your overlords, like the good little American beta serfs you are. Messengers are always hated and killed.

  41. @Revolution is inevitable

    Call some of us indifferent to that shit. I’m a capitalist and I got stuff packed away.

    That’s not what we are discussing here.

  42. Okay, I’m confused.

    So capitalist don’t work , but they do work, but not the way you work, especially if you’re white, but this somehow makes one beta, and Bezos doesn’t give a shit about you and you’ll never be him….

    Whoa. Too many oysters for me tonight evidently.

    Does this mean that in order to be a capitalist, you don’t work? Wealth just materialized?

    Are you a hater?😁 envious? Jealous? Socialist?

    When Scrib sees what you wrote, he’s gonna set you straight and call you a few colorful names.

    Alrighty then, wealthy ” no fucks given ” men are all lazing about on… A private island or something eating gold plated truffles. The actual backbone of economies/capitalism – the working man is…what exactly?

    Well, I don’t want to live in a world where everyone earns the same. I also have no desire to have billions of dollars…unless you’re giving them away. I don’t think about counting other people’s money, and I don’t stop and ask myself ” I wonder if Elon musk gives a fuck about me today? “.

    Beta you say?😂

    One thing I do know for sure: trolling is inevitable.

  43. But you guys won’t admit it. Betas never do. You are not going to be Trump or Gates or Buffet or Bezos or Musk. Not now, not 50, not 100 years from now. And they don’t give a shit about you, at all. You will live your entire lives and go to your grave not being them, and they will live their entire lives and go to their graves and not give a shit about you. You do not register in their thoughts…zero, nada, zilch.

    But of course, hate me, call me all sorts of names, and love your overlords, like the good little American beta serfs you are. Messengers are always hated and killed.

    That was a good laugh. Thanks for that.

    You obviously don’t know any of us. Enjoy the larpy larp on your keyboard. I’ll give you a shred of credence that perhaps you’re not such a bad guy and mean well. But dude, that comment was so douchey. I can’t speak for others, but the men who’s comments I read on here that I respect more than likely don’t give a shit about any of those guys you mention. I’ll go one step further to write they are quite confident in who they are that they don’t pine after any other men. Up your game on here a bit.

    Extreme wealth is sometimes impressive, but it’s not a means to an end. Gates and Bezos were innovators, which I immensely respect. Both creating products and services that guys like Clayton Christensen will continue writing about. Innovation and creativity, love that. Piles of wealth? Meh.

  44. “But of course, hate me, (masochism projection) call me all sorts of names, (self-loathing projection) and love your overlords (frustrated hope-lost chump), like the good little American (envy) beta (inferiority projection) serfs (chronic self-depreciation anxiety) you are. Messengers are always hated and killed (self-despising and fearful of feedback).”

    Holy freaking false humility.

  45. Eh sez sex is only for babies:
    “Following that notion a married man only gets to have intercourse with his wife 3 or 4 days per cycle, and only prior to menopause.”

    Eh
    You see it though a good-bad binary lens. There you fail and will continue to as to measure yourself outside of your comfort zone is, well, uncomfortable.

    I see your words through the rules of English and elementary logic. The only “uncomfortable” here is you, because you posted some random nonsense and got caught.

    <i<Sex has many on and off-label uses.

    LOL! You just claimed that sex is ONLY for making babies. Self contradict much?

  46. Eh used to brag about his sexytimes with wifey, now he’s all about “sex is ONLY for BABIES”

    “Combine this latest hair-shirt tendency with your earlier comments here and at the very least you convict yourself of being an hypocrite. Is that a good plan?”

    Eh
    It is. It is the only way to become better is to openly admit one’s hypocrisy and faults and act differently. I do and have here often.

    I just outed you as a hypocrite. Where have you ever admitted it?
    LOL

    A man claiming perfection is hiding something.

    So?

    If others would side with you and reinforce your position I might find your narrow logic more convincing. They don’t, so I won’t.

    Argumentum ad populum is the fallacy of the playground. A true statement is true even if nobody agrees. Most men understand this.

    You refute nothing as you logically can’t and thus are rhetorically impotent.

    There’s nothing in your babble to refute. You claimed sex is only for babies, I pointed out logical conclusion and observed your previous actions contradict the current words, ergo you are hypocritical. Easy peasy.

    Maybe you should try logic sometime.

    What’s your antipathy to Aquinas anyhow?

    What’s your antipathy to basic reading skills?
    HINT: Show where I mentioned him at all.

    t’s not like he created human nature. What’s your beef with his writings? I haven’t even cracked Summa Theologica, btw. Now I will.

    Yeah, sure you will. Right after you finish Augustine, right?

    Lol.

    Say, are you triggered again?

    What makes you so special, btw? No FR’s, no description of yourself, no need for improvement, have tons of unoriginal answers for everyone else tho no questions about you. What are you hiding, you hypocrite?

    Yep. Triggered.

    Suggest you dial back whatever recreational chemicals you are using.

  47. Eh
    I just realized something about AR. He’s been following my story since I showed up years ago.

    Sort of.

    He suggested that my story would end badly. He suggested my wife would stick a knife into my chest. That was the extent of his commentary.

    LOl. Nah, that’s not even close. But this fantasy you keep repeating is obviously important to your feelz, so cling to it as tightly as you want. Not my problem.

    Sure, I’ve had my ups and downs but I am ultimately much much better than I could’ve imagined, in my marriage, in my job, with all my children, with my friends. I could run on and on and on and on with a sentence how much my life has improved since.

    You could run on about that, but you don’t. Instead you get into an altered state of mind, post dumb stuff in a lame attempt to troll, and then get defensive when someone points that out.

    By all means post good news about yourself, it would encourage other old men.

    That pisses him off.

    Nah. It’s sad to see your declining ability to think, though.

    Bucketed crabs gonna crab bucket.

    Check your nearest mirror, Eh. Is that a sunburn, or your new natural color?

  48. “Instead you get into an altered state of mind, post dumb stuff in a lame attempt to troll, and then get defensive when someone points that out.”

    AR offers nothing but defeatism. Bleh.

  49. “You claimed sex is only for babies.”

    No, I didn’t but he redefines arguments to refute something he’s more personally indignant about but really doesn’t have to put in any skin. He needs to live the lie as without it he can’t really measure up IRL. He measures himself with himself.

    An internal combustion engine has a use. It can be used as a boat anchor too.

    It all depends how much you want to get out of it. That’s the point AR doesn’t want to address.

  50. Truth
    “You claimed sex is only for babies.”

    Eh
    No, I didn’t

    LOL! Who wrote this? Was it a forged comment?
    There’s a function, meaning, defined use for sex and that is reproduction

    Even your own church catechism doesn’t go that far. Maybe you should try reading it some time.

  51. Eh
    Defined use isn’t only use.

    You aren’t very good at hairsplitting.
    At this point you can claim victory and run away, continue to spiral down into “meaning of ‘is'” territory, troll for flames…or you could admit that you typed out a foolishness, correct yourself and move on….but, nah, that last one is not your style. Too much false pride.

    AR resists change.

    Non sequitur.

    Let’s review:

    Sex is the glue that holds a marriage together – Rollo Tomassi

    There’s a function, meaning, defined use for sex and that is reproduction Eh”Intellect”

    Which man makes more sense? Common, every day, “keep a marriage together” sense?

  52. “Eh used to brag about his sexytimes with wifey…”

    Eh
    Jealous, jealous.

    Lol! No, simple logic.

    Step 1: EhIntellect describes sexytimes with wifey. All men here approve and many cheer.
    Step 2: Eh writes There’s a function, meaning, defined use for sex and that is reproduction

    The actions of step 1 are contradicted by the words of step 2. Eh preaches to other men a standard he doesn’t hold to, he is a hypocrite.

    Can’t smell the stuff you are shoveling? Really?

  53. Re: Politics – What a silly criticism of Rollo. Chateau Heartiste and Roosh’s ideas about politics are a juvenile melange of pop culture white nationalism, hackneyed conservatism and superficial libertarianism. They actually demonstrate the number one reason to “stay in your lane”, as you won’t sound like a gibbering imbecile if you stick with what you know. And if you think those guys are dishing anything worth listening to on geopolitics, economics and political/social order, that merely signifies that you are as uninformed about the world and political thought as they are.

    I think Rollo misses the confluence of politics and the FI, and have registered that view here before, but he does a great job on the subject area he focuses on and that’s an approach that has integrity. I know, it’s an old fashioned idea but Rollo’s intellectual integrity is what sets him apart from those other gibbering fools. Roosh especially should be seen as a cautionary tale to any thinking man. He’s an example of how to fail in life, he’s an example of what not to do. Stick to your knitting, Rollo.

    The problem with discussing politics these days is that the digital infotainment revolution has given people ready propaganda to regurgitate on many issues. Talking heads, first on talk radio, then on cable and now on the internet deal in soundbites and are seeking ears, eyeballs and clicks. They want you to be emotional, titillated and righteously outraged.

    Get this – most of the talking heads you are listening to are not well informed about politics. I’m old enough to remember the pre-internet world well. Back in the day, many people didn’t discuss politics, they would say, “Yeah, I’m just not into it.” and they shut their mouths You see, back then you had to read books and newspapers and magazines to actually be up to speed on these issues. There weren’t Youtube videos on every idea. So, most people didn’t put the effort into it and the folks you would end up discussing politics with were well informed. You see, most people are too lazy to read deeply as it takes a lot of time and focus.

    It’s also a function of how politics are taught and discussed in our society. We simply don’t have honest political conversations and that’s not an accident. Our institutions have been inculcated with a Progressive sensibility and their point is to advance their politics and shape the people – not to have the people shape them. The Prog-Marxist world order necessitates an elite class of politicos who discuss issues honestly, and then they move on to the communications campaigns to manipulate the masses to what they want. Of course, many of their schemes go sideways. Fyi, in my world I get a glimpse into massive political PR operations at work every day, and most of you have no idea how intentionally the news cycle is being manipulated to keep you angry and dumb.

    The reason the Right is on defense is that they don’t have a clear political philosophy. They are dishonest too, as their “ground game” – the real political power of any political movement – is largely based on evangelical and other radical Christians. Their agenda will never have broad appeal, so it is hidden mostly. Beyond that? Libertarians continue to capture a slice of the Right with their post-nationalist, materialist drivel. Then there are a large number of Progressive Republicans who believe in a large state and in many ways are just soft socialists. 2017/18 perfectly revealed this incoherence and insufficiency of the right’s ideas. It played out in the U.S. congress so perfectly, with Republicans unable to deal with any serious issues beyond tax cuts for the most part.

    It’s even more laughable in the UK. Despite a referendum mandating it, 3 years on, the Right in the UK has been stopped from Brexit. The politics on the Right in the UK are so broken, it’s hard to watch.

    The Left runs circles around the Right, politically, nonstop because they don’t suffer from this incoherence. Sure, they have internal conflicts but they have a unifying SJWish/Socialist/Marxist worldview that makes them coherent.

    Hell, most folks on the Right couldn’t even define socialism, marxism and progressivism properly. That’s not your fault precisely as our society has made those subjects off limits for criticism and discussion. You are presented with moronic propaganda on the subject so how could most of you even form proper ideas and criticisms?

    Of course, the unifying ideas of the Right should be the classical liberal values of The Enlightenment. We should be firmly rooted in the modern world, and offer modernist critiques of postmodern thought. We should debate socialism at its root level – as the very idea of socialism was to replace the classical liberal world order. Ask yourself this: How many of you even know that socialism arises to replace the classically liberal socio-political order? That socialism finds it immoral and insufficient? Do you know the very idea of socialism predates Marx? That Marx merely makes “scientific” the broad ideas born of German Historicism and that he’s not really ideologically separable from socialism? How many of you know that Progressivism is innately socialist, but not necessarily Marxist?

    @Ehintellect demonstrates on this thread so perfectly the superficial ideas we have about politics with his comments on Islam on and the threat it is to human civilization. It’s just so childishly put together, and such a hash fo nonsense, one is left wondering why he thinks he should comment on Islam at all? Here’s a short correction: Islam is a civilizational level force, as consequential as Western civilization in many ways. It’s succeeding in its current strategy against the West, first demoralizing us by having us fight useless wars that we don’t win, and also mass immigration, versus an open war that they would lose. They have an incredibly sophisticated strategy and the history of Arab and Muslim politics, geopolitics and diplomacy is filled with examples of it. Hell, Iran runs circles around us diplomatically quite often. Many times the U.S. behaves truly idiotically in diplomatic situations compared to our rivals, yet we assume we are somehow superior. No, we are merely more “modern” than them. But our rivals are figuring out how to be modern without being us, and that’s very dangerous.

    Me? I didn’t comment on Islam until I’d read 5 books on it and its history. That was 15 years ago…To dismiss Islam as not a “threat” is to admit one doesn’t understand what Islam is an isn’t, and also the massive growth its experiencing around the world. Islam is resurgent, insurgent and has very high energy and confidence. They believe they just beat us in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. ISIS is already re-organizing, and Iran was the huge winner out of the Iraq war and Syria. All one need do is look at what they are doing in Africa, Asia and now even in certain parts of South America to realize what idiocy @Ehintellect’s comments are.

    If you actually want to have a valid conversation about Islam, try reading two books. The Clash of Civilizations by Daniel Huntington and What Went Wrong by Bernard Lewis. These are great primers for the uninitiated on the meta-picture, and this is the kind of thing that I find missing from most people who yack about geopolitics today.

    The reason to stay away from politics is that it’s unproductive on the Right due to how stupid and uninformed most right wing folks are on even just the basics. I usually enjoy discussing politics with an intellectual leftist more than a right wing person cuz folks on the left will have a much deeper understanding of their own ideas.

    Just go to CH or listen to Roosh to see it all play out. Hell, about 80% of alt righters are in the same boat. Sadly, the true intellects of the New Right or the Alt Right also reject classical liberalism and the social order demanded by The Enlightenment. Greg Johnson told me the other day that he’d be okay with a socialist white nation, lol. He’s brilliant, incredibly well read, a PhD and yet somehow he misses that socialism always fails due to its economics and the concentration of power in a highly politicized, totalitarian elite. From what I can tell, Voxday essentially wants to revert to something the would be more “feudal”, counting on benevolent dictators with broad powers.

    Psssst: Those guys actually reject “modernity”. They dismiss classical liberalism as “civic nationalism”, lol. But hey, they have to ignore the successes of the American experiment wrt assimilation and culture in order to hold on to their white nationalism. Me? I wouldn’t want about 50% of white people in my nation. And I find certain Black, Hindu, Asian, Hispanic and Arab people a delight. They are the westernized ones, the people who grasp on to modernity and the amazing chances our society offers, leaving their old societies behind. It’s harder for non-white, non-western, non-christians to grasp, but they can. And it’s easy to know who is doing so.

    In fact, America proved that an idea can create a nation and hold it together. What’s been hidden from you is that the Left has expressly set out since the early 19th century to undermine this nation. And you don’t know it. You’ve been told that it’s a conspiracy theory, and the entire national dialog criticizing socialism, marxism and the Left was shut down by the left in the ’50s and ’60s, dismissed as “red baiting”. I guarantee some of you will read this and say “left and right are the same” or be dismissive of how I see the left. Note how just the mention and discussion Leftism and socialism and Progressivism will make many of you guffaw and be dismissive.

    That’s due to our social conditioning, folks. It’s designed to make you blind to our politics. But you better wake up. The Left has just about run the table in the West and are now merely consolidating their gains. Soon, they will own our national politics in the U.S. and it will be over for the classical liberal order. If the right doesn’t deal with its incoherence and mythological view of the world, we will never push back the left.

    Don’t believe me? The rise of Alex Jones says it all. He perfectly represents the populist right’s clown car ideology. He perfectly demonstrates the maniacal idiocy at work in many of their fever swamps. That he has been embraced by so many on the right is disgusting. And oh yeah, any self-respecting platform on the Web should ban him for his violent rhetoric alone. He’s human garbage, and he’s basically just monetizing right wing popular frustration. He’s an opportunist and truly stupid. Yet…

    Okay, I’m gonna carry on. Indeed, please don’t discuss politics if you know little about it and the world. Thanks.

  54. ” . . . the very idea of socialism was to replace the classical liberal world order.”

    The very idea of the classical liberal world order was to replace the right wing.

  55. @Rollo,

    Not a fan of the pop ups that tell us if someone is online. It’s not a big deal on desktop, but super annoying on a phone. I see you’ve not hooked up a Google Analytics tracking ID to the WordPress plugin that is not installed. If you do so you would be able to see what percent of users are on the phone vs. desktop.

    Also, could we get a comment post field box at the bottom of the page so we don’t have to scroll all the way back up?

    Thanks, and appreciate all you do.

  56. @Scribbler
    Back in the day, many people didn’t discuss politics, they would say, “Yeah, I’m just not into it.” and they shut their mouths You see, back then you had to read books and newspapers and magazines to actually be up to speed on these issues. There weren’t Youtube videos on every idea. So, most people didn’t put the effort into it and the folks you would end up discussing politics with were well informed. You see, most people are too lazy to read deeply as it takes a lot of time and focus.

    People have long been discussing politics. When I was a kid my dad went down to the new stand on Sunday morning to buy 3 different newspapers and he would spend time discussing topics before brining the stack home. My personal example isn’t solipsistic. People discussed politics. Ever heard of Father Coughlin and his radio shows? He predated Rush Limbaugh and he had a huge audience. Shit ton of other sources would back up my point that people discussed politics.

    Well informed? Come on man, really? There were fewer sources of information before the Internet. Compare how easy it is to go the the National Science Foundation website and pull their reports on “climate change” to what it was like pre-webs. It should go without having to write this, but “back in the day” the print media was just as skilled/clever at NOT reporting on specific issues, topics and events as they are today.

    Fyi, in my world I get a glimpse into massive political PR operations at work every day, and most of you have no idea how intentionally the news cycle is being manipulated to keep you angry and dumb.

    The media “back in the day” was just as corrupt, biased and used their pulpit for as much propaganda as they do today. The dynamic was different obviously. Anybody that knows about Hearst and Pulitzer knows this shit. You’re not the only one who has read Bernays classic book on propaganda. Assuming you’ve read it..
    For those that want an easy to read primer just read The Creature from Jekyll Island. It’s breezy and easy, but not the end all to be all.

    You are not the only one with insight into the media. I’ve worked in the biz my entire life and see it from the inside. The manipulations of the news cycles is obvious, you’re not bringing anything new to the table with that observation. You can do better, and should considering you think you’re smarter than all of us. : )

    If you spend a lot of time in your car or use earbuds often check out the No Agenda News podcast. Those guys nail it with their analysis. You won’t find anything better, IMO.

    Thanks for sharing you views. But you don’t get the gold star on this one. Keep up the good fight though. Always find your posts interesting.

  57. Re: The superficiality of so many commenters on our politics. While this video reveals the juvenile stupidity of a Leftist with a gamer/politics channel on Youtube (gamer/politics should be your first warning, as people who are smart about politics and the world spend their leisure time learning about the world, not gaming 30 hours a week). John Lott, a true intellectual and thinker, with the credentials to prove it, decimates this man-child. It’s on gun control laws and violence, and Lott is a truly a legend. You’ll enjoy it regardless, even as it’s OT.

    Get this – most of the Youtubers and others you listen to are as dumb as “Destiny” wrt to politics and geopolitics. What you get here is just an amazing example of what real knowledge, study and mastery look like versus the throwaway pose of so many today which supposedly passes for insight or analysis.

    [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuW0a8rtX1w&w=560&h=315%5D

  58. Everyone should read about Jekyll island at some point in life.

    Lol, my introduction to ” political discussion ” came via William F Buckley on PBS when I was about 10-11 years old. I didn’t realize it was a political show at the time, I watched because I was fascinated by how Buckley spoke, slouched and how disheveled he looked from time to time. I caught on to the politics later.

    I agree with Roused though, people have always talked about politics as far back as I can recall. Sunday morning was when my dad would be in the living room with his stack of newspapers, including Muhammad Speaks😁 . He always said to take in information from every source you can, and somewhere in the middle of the noise, the truthful picture will start to emerge.

    The only thing the internet has evidently accomplished with it’s vastness is that it’s increased people’s ability to segregate their sources of information to a much greater degree. A person can literally spend years reading only content supporting his/her specific views.

    That’s not knowledge.

    It’s odd to tell people ” you don’t know about politics ” because you haven’t read these 5 books. It’s even odder to instruct people to stfu because one happens to disagree. That destroys gaining insights outside of one’s self imposed hug box.

    I was raised alongside Christianity and Islam. What I do know for a fact is that just like Christianity,there is no ” one version of Islam “.

    I don’t pay much attention to what books have to say on the matter because the information is everywhere unfiltered and raw. If I were cocooned and isolated, I could see how it would be more difficult to gain a realistic understanding.

    That wouldn’t make me dumb though, just uninformed. There’s a distinct difference between being uninformed, ignorant, and dumb.

  59. @ScribblerG

    Those last two comments were very interesting to read and pretty insightful. So you’re saying that the right believes the only thing uniting uniting the left is their disdain for the right when it’s in fact the opposite? Both the left and right are gynocentric. How do we cure THAT disease?

  60. And now how to address the Right’s disdain for Liberal values? Point out how the left corrupts them and poops all over the liberal’s after party?

  61. “Point out how the left corrupts them and poops all over the liberal’s after party?”

    Because 200 years of doing that has worked out just great.

    As Scribbler points out the “left” has an ideological definition, but the “right” has become associated only with conservatism, which is a relative position, not an absolute. Yesterday’s progressivism is today’s conservatism. And so it goes.

    As Scribbler illustrates when he refers to the definition of the left (the Enlightenment values of secular republicanism) as the right. The right is defined as God and King, the conservative position of hundreds of years ago.

    There can be no political discourse where the language lacks the terms. See 1984.

  62. Then the terms must be invented. Though I think the terms already exist. I’m not well-read enough to know them. But I’m sure I’ve heard them somewhere.

    We may not even need new terms, just reapplying old ones. There’s this frog that commented on Kill the Beta just recently. What a timely post, maybe I’ll research that.

  63. Rollo

    You seen this?

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-10/victoria-launches-uncomfortable-advert-respect-women-call-it-out/10989950

    Ad campaign by the Victoria government demanding men prospectively white knight on behalf of women and DO SOMETHING about guys the men perceive as creepy… Of course given the state of Aussie masculinity today, doing something amounts to not saying a word to the offender and merely getting in his line of sight to m’lady…

    What could go wrong here ???

  64. Collect them all… One for every occasion…

    BBQ!

    Bars!

    Even just sitting around at lunch with your mates!!!

    [I’m going to eat BBQ and whiskey just to stabilize… smh]

  65. Sex is the glue that holds a marriage together – Rollo Tomassi

    There’s a function, meaning, defined use for sex and that is reproduction – Eh”Intellect”

    “Which man makes more sense?”

    Eh
    AR pulls the resident expert card as he’s pooped his rhetorical pants.

    Reading is fundamental, Eh. I quoted Rollo and you, no one else.

    The fact is, Rollo makes sense, you don’t.
    Even your own church doesn’t go that far.
    Your position is obviously nonsense. Keep doubling down on stupid if you want, it won’t make you look any better.

  66. Just to tiptoe around the political morass…

    Suppose that “left” and “right” are not universals. Not just in the sense of who sat where in a building in France for a while in the 1790’s, but in a larger sense.

    Suppose that liberty itself is not universal, as a variety of writers have assumed for centuries.

    What effect does the admixture of genes from vanished humans such as the Neanderthals, the Denisovans and others have on modern humans who carry those genes?

    Suppose that in the argument of “nature” vs. “nurture”, the answer is – both. People come into the world with a collection of behaviors they inherit, and those behaviors are modified by whatever environment they grow in. Plus if they don’t leave any children, their legacy is limited to the people they affect indirectly, via environment.

    Random example:
    Suppose that for centuries any ordinary man in China who was too independent for local authority wound up spending his life working on the Great Wall and didn’t have any children, while more compliant men who farmed as they were told – did have children?

    Suppose that for centuries in some parts of Europe men a degree of independence was rewarded with a little bit more land to cultivate, meaning he had a few more children survive to adulthood?

    Random questions:
    Suppose that some people are libertarians because they were born that way and raised that way — if John Stuart Mill had been born in the same year in China, what if anything would he have written?

    Suppose that some people are socialists because they were born that way and raised that way — if AOC had been born and raised in Cuba, what would her political career look like?

    Flame away…

  67. @Sentient

    Australia is going full Clown-World. Different version of what NZ is doing, but still full Clown-World.

    So’s the US, just in a different way. The cognitive dissonance between SJW’s “ought” and the “is” all around us must be hugely disturbing to them, but since they can’t ever admit they are wrong, we can expect more doubling down. Then tripling down.

    Those vidja spots are just begging for someone to play with – new audio and a few titles supered, the SJW’s cant stand to be laughed at.

  68. “There can be no political discourse where the language lacks the terms. See 1984.”

    Geez,

    I see it all the times in political forums. Leave out the fucking terms of engagement. And then rhetoric on….

    Same thing here.

    EhIntellect has been on a roll (In real life, he packed up his shit and sold it away. Then he started thinking with a clear mind without the cob-webs. And AR has no fucking idea what he is saying. Doesn’t matter. Fucking is still fucking.):

    https://steemit.com/philosophy/@krnel/the-trivium-method-of-thinking-and-learning

    Grammar – Input – Knowledge – Ontology/Metaphysics
    Logic – Processing – Understanding – Epistemology
    Rhetoric – Output – Wisdom – Ethics

    Political discourse and PUA wants to skip to Three.

    In 1984, of course, shit was made up. With Rhetoric. Skipping Knowledge, Grammar and Input.
    Skipping Logic and Understanding.
    That’s what made it farcical.

  69. I like this blog but I can’t hang with “The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies”.

    It implies that nature does not want a successful pairing or mate bonding, whereas it seems self evident that the opposite is true. Nature or evolution or whatever you want to call it, wants good genes to find good genes and create, and nurture, optimal offspring. That’s a win-win, not a win-lose or a lose-win. So how can one sex’s success be the other one’s failure? It doesn’t hang together.

    I think you’ve been done in by your own past experience with a BPD partner and have become blackpilled.

    “One girl each” was the promise given to men in return for building the social order. And in a world with no safety net, women would accept this also. But that unwritten contract was a fabrication of humans, and never agreed to by Nature. And now there is the safety net of a ‘completely built’ civilization, so the deal is off.

    The notion that a man can now merely exist, and follow preordained steps, and achieve a successful family, and has some sort of “right” to this, is an anomaly in evolutionary terms. What the fuck did we expect? That evolution was going to permit second rate creatures to prevail? Generally speaking, it is man against the universe, and only the victor survives. We’ve been through an era of having it too easy, and this makes men soft. Is it a woman’s fault if she does not want this man? Especially now that she has been informed, by both society and the perceived smorgasbord of Tinder options, that she is permitted to follow her own biological impulses rather than those imposed by the old set of books.

    Compared to our far ancestors, Men have had it too easy for too long. Biologically speaking, we are not used to peace and order. We evolved from savagery and strife; that is what we are and that is what our biology yearns for us to return to.
    It’s going to be tough, but the strong will breed and the weak, to use Mystery’s term, will have their genes snuffed unceremoniously out of existence. Yet the end result will be finer, stronger, more capable men – simply by natural selection.

    This is nature’s game, not ours.

  70. @LEX

    The cardinal rule has nothing to do with who mates with who. It has to do with who calls the tunes.

    Try as women might, a man who passes the test passes muster and she’s missing out on him.

    That’s something hypergamy doesn’t allow her to suffer gladly.

    That has nothing to do with who is soft or hard. It has to do with who lives.

    Women actually behave such that both alphas AND betas survive. Both alphas AND betas are born and reproduce because not everyone can win.

    If it were up to women the losers would never survive. But since they never consciously choose to feel attraction anyway, who gives a fuck what she thinks?

    You aren’t a woman. Therefore women; who are interested in fucking you over at their earliest convenience, have no reason to see you as anything other than a potential enemy.

    But that’s rabid feminazi’s we’re talking about here. Would be matriarchs and the like. Bitches that want a gender war. These exist. That’s not Black Pill.

    Your mind is “nature” too. Don’t get that twisted. It IS your game. Whether you drew aces or threes.

  71. Men didn’t get softer because life is too easy. It’s easy for some, not for a majority here or anywhere else around the globe.

    Men got softer because they accepted the training program for the elite wonderbread league. Societal influence betrayed them. Just the constant mentioning of ” tinder ” is an example of accepting Nd trying to play nice by women’s and societies new paradigm, instead of smashing it or ignoring it and carrying on as a man.

    Society teaches men that it’s better to seek ” easy “.. Easy is enormously profitable for those that offer it. Just sit in your couch and swipe, inbetween Netflix and PlayStation while ordering from uber eats and checking social media.

    The shit above doesn’t have anything to do with ” civilization “. Stagnant civilizations turn to dust ( see History ).

    The choosers. Males are accepting women as the choosers in an over the top manner. It causes millions of men to become stagnated because women suck at choosing. Go shoe shopping with them sometime if you can bear it.

    No. This confounding fuckery today boils down to males ceding power and abdicating their burden as men. When this reaches the nadir, we’ll be done, and it will not be the fault of women.

    Cats still aren’t dogs and when dogs start laying around meowing , we are nearing the end times.

  72. @Blaximus. Haha… good post. So what’s going to eventually happen? You know what is going to have to happen. The discussion among men will eventually have to involve taking away the rights of women to choose, like I said. We all know this and yet some are afraid to admit it or say it’s impossible because they have daughters and those men will have to be CONFRONTED with violence if necessary. And if a battle needs to be fought it will be fought. There is no other alternative unfortunately. The alternative to this is either complete social collapse or a very, very dark dystopic totalitarian freedomless world. What would you rather have? It’s a shame if men can’t be convinced through discussion because then violence is inevitable it would seem. Also, I imagine that Islam will eventually gain enough power in the world and make this happen anyway, regardless of what men in the West do. Just a guess.

    1. Any time I hear the “Repeal the 19th” cry of freedom my next thought is “how”?

      What does that look like and is it even feasible to be discussing it? You don’t remove women’s rights without bloodshed today. The toothpaste is out of the bottle. It’s messier to put it back in than to go with something new. Actually, it’s ugly and messy no matter what you do and this is what scares MGTOW. Even if you can force women to give up their rights (they and their allies wont do so without force), what happens the day after the ‘revolution’?

  73. @Poptarts
    [@Blaximus. Haha… good post. So what’s going to eventually happen? You know what is going to have to happen. The discussion among men will eventually have to involve taking away the rights of women to choose, like I said. ]

    It is not about taking away the right of women to choose.

    It is about men standing up within their own mental point of origin, acknowledging their burden of performance and not falling into any woman’s frame. Women’s innate predisposition is to go into the man’s frame. It is their choice to enter into the man’s frame, it is a man’s burden of performance to provide a worthy frame.

    At this point, it can only be done one man at a time with a bottom’s up approach. If things continue as they are yes there will be a massive world change, Islam is just one of many scenarios, and not necessarily the de facto scenario.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: