Heirs of the Blank Slate

“Yeah, well, not all women are like that. Men do it too and they’re even worse!”

“People are people. Everyone is different, you can’t predict human behavior because we all have freewill.”

“What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”

“Everyone is born equal.”

“If women are hypergamous, men must be too.”

“Double standards are so unfair.”

The legacy of the Blank Slate has been one of the most pivotal influences on understanding intersexual dynamics for over the last century. In the time I’ve been writing I’ve covered egalitarianism’s influence on Blue Pill conditioning on at least 5 occasions. In all of these essays I’ve made the case that what we consider the Blue Pill, and the perceptions it instills in us, is firmly rooted in a preconception that an egalitarian state between the sexes is not only possible, but eminently desirable. In fact, I would argue that the presumption that an egalitarian state between men and women is ideal is the foundational premise of a Blue Pill social order.

Since I began writing on these topics one thing I’ve experienced that underpins people’s understanding of intersexual dynamics is an established belief that men and women are functional equals – or ideally they ought to be – who exist in a state of disequilibrium. This equalism (my term) is akin to a religious belief, albeit one most people are unaware they believe in. I first encountered this belief when I was in college. Around the same time I discovered that among the most rational of my fellow students and professors in behavioral psychology, most clung to the soulmate myth, I also noticed that most of them held to the hope of an “equal partnership” with whomever their ‘soulmate‘ turned out to be. Here I had some very empirical minds who would write thesis papers on human nature according to what we knew about evo-psych, evo-bio, anthropology and sociology, yet they would revert to the Blank Slate hope that ‘people are people‘ and we’d evolved past our innate natures when it came to finding their ‘One‘.

The idea that humans have ‘evolved beyond’ our animal natures is the lynchpin in the modern belief of the Blank Slate.

What we know as the Blank Slate, as a concept, evolved from the Enlightenment era idea of Tabula Rasa. Originally it was Aristotle who came coined the term, then it passed through the Stoics, then other notable minds of antiquity, but the root of what it has become today began in the Enlightenment era with John Locke.

On paper it’s a very ennobling idea. All people are born with the same intellectual (and later spiritual) potential; we’re all the same except for what society, environment and circumstance writes on the slate that is our intellect and personality. The object of this essay isn’t to give you a history lesson, but if you’re really interested in the development of how we got to our default, equalist, concept of the Blank Slate I’ll refer you to Steven Pinker’s great book The Blank Slate.

From the time of the Enlightenment the concept of the Blank Slate has been embedded into our core cultural beliefs about human nature. It dovetails very nicely into the concept of freewill and it also satisfies the of hopefulness human beings need to combat the determinism that might lead to nihilism. It’s exactly this human need for hope that makes the Blank Slate so appealing. People who hold a belief in the Blank Slate take it for granted to the point it becomes an ego-investment, and internalized thoroughly, it becomes the subconscious point from which people begin when it comes to understanding human nature. So, challenging the validity of whether human’s have innate, evolved, aspects of their natures – and their influences having a bearing on our decisions – borders on attacking their religion or who they are as a person.

From a Red Pill perspective, proposing that men and women are different physically and mentally, and that we’re subject to evolved influences as a result of these differences, is also sacrilege. The Blank Slate ideal is what defines every aspect of what Blue Pill conditioning would have men and women believe about intersexual relations and gender ‘equality’. In fact, as James Damore found firsthand, the Village forbids even the discussion of questioning the Blank Slate. The religion of the Blank Slate is also the state-approved religion, and this has implications in social realms that go well beyond intersexual dynamics.

With the rise of feminism and a feminine-primary social order, social adherence to the Blank Slate ideal became vital to the survival of feminism’s power base. Once the modern research and understanding of human beings’ evolved nature became unignorable the social institutions founded on the Blank Slate were challenged. Today, Red Pill awareness in men is one of those challenges.

A Blue Pill, equalist, mindset doesn’t coexist well with empirical evidence that shows men and women are more different than alike on fundamental levels. Today’s Blank Slate is, as Dr. Pinker describes, a ‘modern denial of human nature‘. The Blank Slate belief set is codependent on Social Constructionism. The idea is that we are all just empty vessels that a nebulous ‘society’ builds through media, culture, school, religion, family, etc. And while all of these outside influences certainly mold us, by necessity the Blank Slate ignores the import of our mental ‘firmware‘ – the innate proclivities that come standard in males and females.

The Human System

I use the term “evolved mental firmware” a lot in my writing. I look at it like this; we have the hardware that is our biological reality, a firmware that is our in-born, evolved proclivities (and the psychological aspects of how men and women’s hardware affects it) and the software that accounts for the social programming we learn from our environments and circumstances. From the perspective of my theory on perceptive processes (Instinct, Emotion & Reason) our firmware influences all three of these processes.

Blank Slate equalism would condition us to believe that our biology (hardware) is insignificant, our firmware is non-existent or inconsequential, and our programming (social learning) is the only thing that makes us what we are. If this sounds like progressivist boilerplate you’re not too far off. Modern concepts of social justice use exactly this social constructionism to justify their positions on a great many issues – and especially gender issues.

However, it’s a mistake to think the Blank Slate is a religion only for leftists and feminists. Equalism is the starting point for the beliefs of many well-meaning Blue Pill conservatives too. Feminism depends on egalitarian ideals setting the intersexual ‘Frame‘ for selling its ideology.

“If only men would cooperate and help smash the Patriarchy we could live in an ideal state of egalitarian equalism.”

The cover story of a ‘push for equality’ all depends on the Blank Slate notion that men and women are functional equals and all this inequality is the result of social doctrines (and plenty of evil men). If it’s all about social constructionism then all that’s needed is to change everyones’ programming and thus an idealized gender neutral world ought to be possible.

Male feminists, Mens Rights Activists and Masculinity Apologist organizations all have this in common – they buy into the Blank Slate and the feminist lie that gender equality is an achievable goal based on it. Most of them don’t realize they’re carrying feminist water in their egalitarian beliefs. They just believe in the hope of an “equal partnership” in their marriages and ignore or demonize the influence our evolved firmware exerts in themselves and their wives. So even when they accept intersexual differences and the influence of our firmware, the next defense of the Blank Slate is moralism.

Moralism for Rationalists

The Blank Slate is a lie, but it’s a lie that’s pregnant with hope. Men and women are different; and our differences are too significant to ignore. But even when the Blank Slate is effectively challenged and our evolved natures are acknowledged, the next rationale is that, if we’re only moral enough, intelligent enough, or “evolved” enough, we ought to ideally be able to effect the ideals of the Blank Slate above our base natures. The appeal to rising or evolving above the influences of our evolved natures is always the path of the moralist and the intellectual. Shouldn’t we strive for Equality? Would an equal state between the sexes not be a good thing? If we were good enough, and exercising our powerful freewill, men and women should be able to be more equitable, right?

The question isn’t whether we can overcome our evolved natures – we do this all the time actually – but whether we should strive for the egalitarian ideal. In the most egalitarian societies on the planet human being still opt for “traditional” (conventional) gender roles. Given the freedom to believe in a Blank Slate ideal and choose their roles in an egalitarian social order (or its best approximation) men and women still prefer the roles we’re supposed to believe are so constraining for us. The roles we’re supposed to believe are foisted on us by social constructionism.

I would argue that much of the gender conflicts we experience today are the result of force-fitting men and women into an egalitarian ideal with the expectation that our evolved (or designed) proclivities are ‘unnatural’ creations of a nebulous society. We’re told that gender is not binary and it’s really a social construct, yet we still need hormone therapy to alter the biochemistry of children to help them ‘transition’ to another binary gender.

I find it kind of ironic that a mindset, a social force and a belief system that would otherwise call for a natural balanced harmony in life is the most disharmonious with respect to a natural evolved order among men and women. The conclusion I come to then is that promulgating the Blank Slate social religion is more about power dynamics than a real push for an equalist harmony.

In 2019, after decades of advancements in the cognitive sciences, neurological study, anthropology, sociology, etc. we can lay the Blank Slate to rest, but so much of our social and intersexual understanding of human nature (or even the denial of it) is dependent on it being an ideal to strive for.

When I make an unflattering observation of women’s nature the first response from conditioned men and women is to firing back with some equal-but opposite-reaction. Our natural, human inclination is to look for symmetry and balance in things. The default belief is to think that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, or to distract from the observation by making value judgements.

Well, men do it too, only worse.

Deal with the plank in your own eye before you pluck the mote from mine.

If it’s true for one, there’s an opposite truth for another.

The reflexive need for a symmetrical balance – even when there is none – is a human default. ‘Men and women are different’ is a radical statement in this era, not the least of which because it contradicts the Blank Slate religion that persists in spite of itself. When people ask me whether I believe men and women are equals and I answer ‘no’, they look as if I pulled the wings from a butterfly. I believe men and women are complements to each other and we’re better together than apart, but we are not equals. We are different, with differing motives and strategies that are part of who we are. We could achieve a far more harmonious social state by accepting and embracing these differences.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

122 comments on “Heirs of the Blank Slate

  1. “When people ask me whether I believe men and women are equals and I answer ‘no’ …”

    Who gives a fuck what your opinion is. The question is: are men and women equal under the law?

    That’s why one should read dalrock’s recent postings about the American Airlines incident.

  2. “On paper it’s a very ennobling idea. All people are born with the same intellectual (and later spiritual) potential; we’re all the same except for what society, environment and circumstance writes on the slate that is our intellect and personality.”

    If I may be so bold, allow me to point out that this is most certainly NOT what John Locke’s notion of Tabula Rasa was about. Tabula Rasa was a theory of epistemology, not a social or biological or psychological or spiritual theory of human equality. Tabula Rasa was Locke’s way of saying that he didn’t believe anyone was born knowing specific facts about the world. He saw that people were born with various capacities, such as for language, but he asserted that, for example, French babies were not born knowing French, but instead he believed that even French babies had to learn the specifics of the French Language. Of course different French babies would have different levels of talent and ability when it came to wielding the language once it was learned.

    No way no how was John Locke an “egalitarian,” he believed in limited monarchy. No way no how did Locke believe that men and women had no innate differences, especially when it came to sex. He was a Vive La Difference kind of guy. No way in hell did Locke believe that everyone was “equal” in ability or talent or temperament or inclination.

    So, please, for the love of God, do not blame John Locke for the stupidity and asininity of our present Clown World era.

  3. Women are born equal to men, except when they want female privileges. Question the narrative and get labeled misogynist.

  4. Lots of ideas to understand, but this blog post has helped me to clarify some.
    These ideas don’t have a simple sound-byte to express them. If you say men/women are not equal, they automatically assume the worst possible interpretation. No one is going to listen to you explain evolved natures.
    Instead of saying men and women are not equal, it would be less threatening to say we are not similar, which is obvious physically and then explain the other dissimilarities.

    Feminism is not about blank slate equality. Can a female see beyond solipsism to embrace any “blank-slate” that is not in her feminine-primary image. No they can’t so let’s make the ‘evil’ men into neutered men and more feminine acceptable or for the radical feminist let’s get rid of all but 10% of them (from the parteo principle we know which 10% will survive). Feminism (3rd wave +) is just about control of men and feminine women to conform to their feminist/feminine primary view of the blank slate. Conform or be cast out to the group is the means of control in this matriarchy.

    When feminist talk about fighting the “patriarchy” they are really just fighting our evolved natures. In the past these natures did lead to social structures and policies limiting females. Modern polices ensuring equal pay, voting rights, equal opportunity for women have been enacted, which are good things, but taking it beyond ensuring legal, voting, and financial equality is where feminism has jumped the shark.

  5. Perhaps what he calls “patriarchy” is nothing but the expression of the difference of the sexes, that would amount to saying that this “struggle” is a “struggle” against the freedom to be different and opposes fundamental human rights.

  6. Women will always bring you to the “fair and unfair” slippery road.

    I recall Heartiste saying something like “women are the reproductive enemy of man.”

    I just call them reproduction machines. They will reproduce at all costs, as witnessed we are descendants of 4 women vs. 1 men in the modern era. Beta provisioners are central to women’s reproduction strategy.

  7. “Would you say men are hypergamous ?”

    No, they are promiscuous. This is innate to the biology of many seeds vs. one womb. We have not “evolved beyond” that.

  8. Worrying about this, beyond an intellectual exercise, is a complete waste of time for me, personally. It’s really important to parse this out and understand the evolutionary drivers behind the differences for several reasons. Most importantly as a tool for men to survive in a world where the wrong word, or a misunderstood glance, can get you in trouble. It gives one more control over themselves and their environment. Especially in the workplace. It’s also a tool to be used in the sexual marketplace for pick-up reasons and also helps in long-term relationships. Aggregated personal observations along with longitudinal behavioral studies is good data and is ignored at your peril..

    The challenge here for most men is to learn how to use that data effectively in getting their needs met. A woman is a woman is a woman, despite the adherence to a claim of blank slate equalism. I don’t argue, nor do I explain, to either women or Blue Pill men. It doesn’t work. What I do is observe, consciously interact, and try to maintain detachment.

  9. Blank slate feminism has emasculated it’s blue pill adherents with the result of these men being victimized with divorce, loss of shared parenting, and internal respect. Blank slate men taming their dominance or thinking they can chuck the burden of performance is something men can survive and re-group from. Can a woman fighting her instincts, hence her emotions, ever be happy? Blank slates impact on females appears to hit them harder, as they are in denial of their desire for submission to masculine leadership.

    Hypergamy doesn’t give a shit about feminism.

  10. Monty Python were well ahead of the egalitarian curve in The Life of Brian in the very funny scene with Stan:

    FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?

    STAN: I want to be one.

    REG: What?

    STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me ‘Loretta’.

    REG: What?!

    LORETTA: It’s my right as a man.

    JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?

    LORETTA: I want to have babies.

    REG: You want to have babies?!

    LORETTA: It’s every man’s right to have babies if he wants them.

    REG: But… you can’t have babies.

    LORETTA: Don’t you oppress me.

    REG: I’m not oppressing you, Stan. You haven’t got a womb! Where’s the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!

    LORETTA: crying

    JUDITH: Here! I– I’ve got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can’t actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans’, but that he can have the right to have babies.

    FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.

    REG: What’s the point?

    FRANCIS: What?

    REG: What’s the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can’t have babies?!

    FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.

    REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

  11. I bet you’d be able to find a large group of people who agree that “blank slate equalism” is bullshit when it comes to comparison of the sexes, but if you substituted “ethnicities” for sexes suddenly they’d be in an uproar, even though the determining factors are the same. Why is that?

  12. @jsolbakken “So, please, for the love of God, do not blame John Locke for the stupidity and asininity of our present Clown World era.”

    Rollo said, “What we know as the Blank Slate, as a concept, [[evolved]] from the Enlightenment era idea of Tabula Rasa. Originally it was Aristotle who came coined the term, then it passed through the Stoics, then other notable minds of antiquity, but the root of what it has become today began in the Enlightenment era with John Locke.”

    I would hazard a guess that what Rollo is saying is not necessarily that John Locke was proposing Blank Slate, but that he seeded the germ of the idea into the future generations that has become the clown world we live in today. For instance, Locke’s writings influenced Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

  13. I would argue that the advent of HBC and aggressive indoctrination of the blank slate by the feminine imperative has led to two uncomplementary actions, Feminism and MGTOW. Feminism and MGTOW are both knee jerk responses to the current social undertone and in fact, both responses are negative reactions to denying oneself of one’s primary sexual identity. MGTOW denies itself the complementary female connection that is a primal need and feminism denies itself the male connection that is primal. As a result, both mgtows and feminist live in a very unnatural and distressed state of existence. It is an emotional starvation of the submissive-lead complementary dynamic that evolved in women and men.

  14. “MGTOW denies itself the complementary female connection that is a primal need . . .”

    https://byrdwords.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/a-to-z-squarerig.jpg

    You can’t even get some space away from women by going out on the yard these days. Might have something to do with it. It is not a primal need to be around them all the goddam time, like it or not, and the current situation is historically anomalous. Perhaps unprecedented.

    It is also a primal need for men to spend most of their time with men, absent women.

  15. KFG I agree it is a historically unprecedented time, perhaps, and I concur men must form tribes, but within my point I did not say to complement one’s primal need that one must spend all one’s time with the other sex, just that the natural order is being disrupted. In fact everywhere I turn I there is one, although at this moment I am reveling in the complete absence of a woman, however very very fleeting that may be.

  16. Wow. 😂

    …. I’d better catch up on my reading and forego all this life experience shit.

    Youngmaster please expound and tell me what you know.

  17. From what I’ve seen, a majority of men that I’ve known that have gone Mgtow ( before it had a moniker ) were guys that had bad enough experiences with women/woman that they pretty much said ” fuck this shit “. That’s a perfectly good personal choice, and any man has a right to do what works best for him….as long as he doesn’t say shit like ” they’ll all cut ✂your dick off while you sleep “.

    Too much rationalization.

    I don’t know about the whole ” primal ” need thing though, as ime 90% of the population has zero primal left. Anger and violence have replaced ” primal ” descriptively.

    Buuuttt….

    I.haven’t read the full op yet, so I.could be talking out of my ass.😁 just browsing the comments quickly.

    On to the op!!!

  18. What is the price? Does anyone know?

    Just looking at the internet, here in DC the price for a HB7.5+, white/slender/no-tats/looks-like-a-hot-young-secretary type is about 900-1200 per hour.

    The question then becomes how does that price/time compare with what is available to you without paying that cash, and what downsides it comes with. Every man’s calculus will differ.

  19. I think there is a difference between wanting sex and wanting to be with a woman.

    Sex is a primal need.

    ‘Being with a woman’ is not. Indeed, in my experience, ‘Being with a woman’ is the price women expect (Beta) men to pay if they want regular sex.

  20. @Novaseeker

    What’s the price for a 9? Those ones you look at and wonder why they are doing that job and not the fashion model.

  21. @Youngmaster

    The programming of racial unawareness interests the elite more than the feminine-primary programming, hence it’s been more intense.

  22. @Palmasailor

    What is the price? Does anyone know?

    Well…
    Depends on how do you feel when you read:

    Must be a gentleman/Treat me like a princess [= Must abjectly pretend, butter up, and bow down]

    Must make me laugh [= Must squeeze his wits every 2/3 messages / minutes to come out with someone original and interesting enough to make her Hahaha Hohoho, but not so original and interesting that she doesn’t grasp it and gets resentful — is this even possible for a mature man?!]

    and how easy or not easy to play-act is on you.

    Then there’s the other routes, where you pay with cash (through marriage, or in more direct ways).

  23. I inherited two things,first the physical and mental capacity for hard work and second the necessity of desperation to survive.
    Having squandered the first gift,I still have plenty of the second.

    Now I find out that part of my core belief system is a lie and this is a relief, in the knowing that some people really do need to try harder just as I had suspected all along. Being an heir to a lie is a simple thing to remedy, once the truth is known simply delegate responsibility to the proper positions.

    IMO the best reason to cling to the theories of “blank slate-‘equalism”
    is absolution of responsibility. If everyone is equal and some are doing better then they are the lucky ones and should share the wealth. I know there are some girls in my circle that can’t manage and need help,I am willing to help them if they are possessed of the proper attitude.

    As a society we need to be careful to avoid incorrect idealism’s that promote an irresponsible outlook on such a massive scale that all fingers are pointed at only those that put forth an honest effort.

    The trouble with enlightening those with corrupt ideals that absolve them of responsibility is not only does the truth mean they will have to work harder it also sets those free that have been taken advantage of. This is a double threat to survival.

  24. I have thoroughly enjoyed and materially benefited from the writing of Rollo for several years. That said, I have taken exception with his views where my experience differs. However, I also think he is light years ahead of most of his peanut gallery, echo chamber, peer group.
    This post on equalism, Tabula Raza and related ideas is very consistent with my reality, with one exception: Equality
    The measure of equality can only be made within a specified context. Is a dog equal to a flower ? Are taller people equal to shorter people ? How about black people being equal to white people ? I vehemently believe that each example, dog, flower, tall or short, black or white cannot be compared because each has its own niche. Only there, in that niche, can it be evaluated for equality, and only then against the same animal: man against man, lab rat against the same, and so on. To say that a man is superior, inferior, or equal to a dog, or a woman is to misuse and misunderstand the concept we think of as “Equality”.
    We disregard the niche. In doing so, we lose the objective metric to make a valid evaluation.
    One of the most egregious abuses of the concept of equality is in the realm of IQ. If you think that a higher IQ is somehow superior to a lesser IQ, just put the genus to work on something very boring. Watch him go crazy. All the while, the lesser endowed person happily plods along getting the task accomplished. Who is superior there ?
    Men and women have very different roles in human survival. Women make lousy fathers, and vice versa. We absolutely are better together, especially when we tend to our own lanes. Only there can equality even be considered.

  25. Christ on a bike. The Gay Pride festival is in my city today. Absolute pain in the arse because it took forever to get too and from the gym, because it was bumper to bumper with traffic.

    However it got me thinking, when I was on the bus, and it leads me straight into this blank slate discussion.

    This is my experience and I know not all men are equal. I was raised by my lesbian sister and my very traditional grandmother. Both awesome women and I still see my sister today.

    So, from a young age I was exposed (no laughing at the back) to gay communities and socialised with gay communities in my teens and early 20s. We all know homesexuality is not a choice. Scientists are not too sure but it maybe genetic. But by all reasoning of the blank slate theory I should be gay due to my social upbringing and conditioning.

    However I am very heterosexual and I have always had a very high sexual attraction for the female of the species. What being brought up in a very feminine environment did was cripple any chance I had of ever having a healthy relationship with a woman and it really broke me as a man because I thought everything I did was what women wanted, based on my feminine upbringing.

    When I last spoke to my sister she apologised for the way she raised me. No apology is neccessary, she is a good woman. She raised me the best way she could but she could never teach me how to be a positive masculine man. She said she never wanted me to be like my alchoholic, abusive father. I undestand her reasoning but that just hammered home a ‘promise keeper’ mindset. She was not to know.

    I find this is a very good life story to use when a blue pill is calling me a misogynist or spouting equalism (Rollo’s word) nonsense at me.

    I really do not undestand this need for a binary gender. It would destroy the very fabric of society.

  26. Blax “Evidently you’ve not spent a lot of time around geniuses.”

    Jack “If you think that a higher IQ is somehow superior to a lesser IQ, just put the genus to work on something very boring. Watch him go crazy.”

    Are you referring to responsible or irresponsible geniuses?

    Just being a genius doesn’t eliminate laziness any more than being average does. A shirker will shirk for any excuse. A lazy man will argue any point that justifies his sloth even unintelligibly. Blank slate,egalitarianism and equalism all fall into this excuse category.

  27. “A genius will make even the the most tedious of tasks interesting by utilizing innovation.”

    The direction of the innovation will be toward not having to do the task at all and will rather quickly become the main focus, rather than actually getting the task done. At that point someone else will have to brought in to do the actual task again, until the genius figures out how to put him out of work.

    The people working on automated systems to replace fast food workers may have, at one time, been fast food workers, but they are not now. Their time and attention is entirely absorbed by the automation problem.

  28. “Just being a genius doesn’t eliminate laziness any more than being average does.”

    The fast food worker will do their shift and then go home to drink beer and play video games.

    The worker innovating automated systems will forget to eat and sleep for 48 hours because he is so absorbed in the work.

    It is a truism in programming that the best programmers are so “lazy” that they’d rather spend two days figuring out how to automate a routine process than spend 10 minutes actually doing it.

    i.e. it isn’t about “laziness.” It’s about the approach to the work.

  29. I don’t know how Tabula Rasa got any traction to begin with. If you have kids of your own or have been around some since their birth and watched them grow a bit it is difficult to believe anybody arrives on this planet with a blank slate.

    Just two kids raised by the same parents in the same way can amaze with their radically different personalities, which will often begin to emerge before they can walk.

    You definitely can lean hard on them with your own socialization programs going forward – what are they gonna do about it – but you are not working with any kind of blank slate.

  30. “The struggle against reality” sums up exactly where we are in 2019. The more science advances the more we turn away to delicately avoid what it might tell us.

    When I first started reading Rollo it hit me hard how equalitarian my mindset had always been with women. No matter how feisty and independent, I wish I’d realized that as Blaximus reminds us, “They’re all just girls.”

    Back in the 70s there was some positive vibe to all this equalism but it has mutated into something angry that undermines individuals and society. I dodged a bullet to some extent by finding someone well grounded with a solid traditional 1950s-style upbringing.

  31. “i.e. it isn’t about “laziness.” It’s about the approach to the work.”

    How does a lazy man approach work?

    The trouble with using genius to describe cookie cutter educated engineering intelligence,is the indoctrination involved to achieve the degree. this promotes laziness. Indoctrinated people believe everyone is lazy so education should be free, but don’t forget to pay the professor.? There is genius everywhere.

    The IQ test doesn’t require more than average reading comprehension and pattern recognition.

    Pattern recognition supplies evidence that some people get paid for doing one job while masturbating their ego’s online at the same time. These goofoffs are threatened by genius as they rely on the kindness of genius to keep their covers from getting pulled.

  32. “How does a lazy man approach work?”

    Not by working 48 hours without eating or sleeping.

    “The IQ test . . .”

    I made no reference to IQ tests, although certainly an aptitude for pattern recognition is a desirable trait when trying to innovate.

  33. Wild side

    “She said she never wanted me to be like my alchoholic, abusive father.”

    FTFY

    Lesbianism has nothing to do with it. You were raised just like any single mom would raise you …

  34. @Sentient

    These scary rates (the rate for the 7.5 is scary too) enlighten the radical disparity between supply and demand when it comes to men women and sex between them.

    Somewhere on this blog it’s reasoned that who most needs the other in a relationship will be the party with the less power.
    The same reasoning applies to the sexes whole, and this is the spring of feminine primacy in every society and culture that don’t make a point of constraining it and subjecting it to another force.

  35. @TheBoom

    And men (their wide majority) won’t organize to end this, which of course is going to grow in quantity and quality because power needs checks and lacks the ability to check itself, till forever.

    Lol-not-lol.

  36. “The fast food worker will do their shift and then go home to drink beer and play video games.”

    This^ is what is know as a generalization. How much beer can a fast food worker afford? Some may go home and study 48 hrs straight for their engineering degree.

    “The worker innovating automated systems will forget to eat and sleep for 48 hours because he is so absorbed in the work.”

    This happens to workers in all fields although most eat a lot and
    some sugar is required to fire the brain.

    I had one genius employee that figured out after some years,he was spending more time saving time than if he just stepped up and did the work. Having a vested interest helps to sort things out.

    Getting back to the point. Being an heir to the blank slate and hanging on to the attached ideals after learning better is lazy IMO.

  37. @JACK: Equality, absent a hard mathematical context, requires a qualification (oftentimes moral) to be defined. We expect people to be equal under the law. Why? Because the law should be rules by which everyone abides, and treatment of people based on such should be fair. Why? Because we want justice, and justice and fairness are “good.” There is a moral ideal that people’s actions, absent their personal identity, should define how justice applies to them. But you’re wrong in that things can’t be compared; EVERYTHING can be compared. You can judge whether a dog is equal to a flower when it comes to reproductive success within their environments, for example.

    So when you say “a dog isn’t equal to a flower,” your overall point is correct, but only if you’re arguing from a completely amoral, objective, material perspective, which humans do not do by default. People as a whole, in general, consider certain things “good”: justice, for example, or civilization. Therefore anything that damages either of those is considered immoral or bad by virtue of the harm done to that which is good. Political corruption applies to both these examples, and low IQ applies to the latter. This doesn’t need to be stated by most people, though they would likely not be able to properly articulate it without serious thought, but most humans have preset moral qualification contexts in which “equality” has a meaning that is pivotal. Is a chronic criminal equal to a law abiding citizen? No, they aren’t, and I don’t need to lay out this whole argument to a random person for them to understand that, it’s why they go to prison and oftentimes can’t vote. Is a high IQ equal to a low IQ? No, it isn’t, when we look at the requirements for building and maintaining a civilization; those with lower IQ are incapable of keeping them going, and we consider civilization “good.” I could go on.

    Humans see things from a subjective, human perspective by default, not a “tenth dimensional alien with no conception of morality or value judgments” standpoint. The “niches” as you put it are already understood to be there in context when a discussion of whatever pertains to that arises. So while technically, a 6 foot 200 pound good looking muscleman with a high IQ “can’t be compared” to an ant, we all know what is meant when someone says “they are not equal.”

  38. “This^ is what is know as a generalization.”

    Certainly. A caricatured, representative model of that portion of the curve. It’s a silly place and just a model. But we can all see it is all that, and at the same time “a castle.” At least I hope we can.

    Outliers are, ya know, outliers.

    Do you understand that I have implicitly agreed with your premise? Here, I will make it explicit: I agree with your premise, to the degree that I might have stated it myself.

    Ergo, what I am saying is not aimed at discrediting it. Ergo, I must be aiming at some other target.

    Hint: I agree with the Original Premise as well, as least so far as the OP can be formed without explicitly bringing bringing the idea of IQ into it (because then we’ll get all wound up on the side track of what IQ is and what it “means”).

  39. “I agree with the Original Premise as well, as least so far as the OP can be formed without explicitly bringing bringing the idea of IQ into it (because then we’ll get all wound up on the side track of what IQ is and what it “means”).”

    With all due respect I didn’t bring up IQ ,rather JACK did.I argued with jack and ended up at the bottom of the dog pile.

    My first guess is you don’t consider custom cutters as yard workers,just guys with big size mowers?

  40. “With all due respect I didn’t bring up IQ ,rather JACK did.”

    Exactly my previous point, hence, I agree with that too.

  41. “I argued with jack . . .”

    You stated a premise which implied an argument with Jack. At the moment I’m not sure what your position is as you seem to be arguing both sides against your own premise.

    My argument is that your premise, which was in context implied to be an argument against Jack’s premise, is in no way contradictory to it. It is, in fact, a corollary of Jack’s premise.

  42. “One of the most egregious abuses of the concept of equality is in the realm of IQ. If you think that a higher IQ is somehow superior to a lesser IQ, just put the genus to work on something very boring. Watch him go crazy. All the while, the lesser endowed person happily plods along getting the task accomplished. Who is superior there ?”

    A genius will make even the the most tedious of tasks interesting by utilizing innovation.

    My point is even the notion of equality isn’t worth my consideration,as it may have taken some form of genius to map out the boring task in the first place,or pound for pound the ant can outwork and out focus the 6′ 200lb jock that would accidentally crush the ant with little repercussion.

    As well the ideal of blank slate as for the most part we are all subject to the same conditioning in this country,all proffered the same education,yet somehow some do better than others. And some that reject the whole system of conditioning do better than even those.

    The trouble arises when we become conditioned to turn every discussion into a political one,this distracts from the basic problem and solutions as well.

  43. TT

    And men (their wide majority) won’t organize to end this

    What do you suggest ? How should men “organize to end this”?
    Be specific.

  44. Ah Equalism, How I used to worship at that altar

    It was only after listening to Jordan Peterson that I began to realize what had happened to our modern consensus of gender.

    I remember growing up that it was accepted women were more emotional than men and therefore had behaviors that bordered on the irrational. Then in a few short years even mentioning that a woman’s behavior changed during the month was verboten.

    Why did this happen? How did this happen? We became ruled by counterexample.

    Women more emotional than men? Oh I’ll show you a man who cries more than any girl.

    Women are weaker than men? Oh I’ll show you a woman powerlifter

    Women are less technical than men? Oh I’ll show you a woman who coded a black hole

    and on and on it goes meanwhile the majority of people under emotional psychiatric care are women

    men hold all the records in most weight lifted, and men and women are not competing in the same competitions for powerlifting

    and 82% of engineers world wide are men

    Jordan Peterson cracked the rhetorical code on this one. When he patiently explains that on average men are more capable in certain areas than women. It’s just a fact. It’s a proven fact. Yes there can be outliers yes there can be a few cases but on average, averages matter.

    Hierarchies matter. When we want heart surgery we want the best (Man, woman, trans) we don’t care just the best. We WANT the best.

    Best is determined by hierarchy and that hierarchy will have more men than women in certain cases.

    What happened in society is that we started to notice that one woman “is like that” and we somehow make the stupid illogical jump and said that the

    COUNTER-EXAMPLE PROVES THE RULE, and all women are like the outlier!

    we started to organize society around outliers rather than averages. And now we are shocked SHOCKED when on average, women do indeed behave as AVERAGE WOMEN.

    The same effect is happening across demographics, geography, and other criteria. A whole cottage industry has sprung up to look for the odd inequalities for gender. In Norway now ALL corporate boards must have half women members. No thought is given to the question do women “on average” make good board members. Oh no government mandates equal membership… there shall be equality!

  45. TheBoom
    Man suspended from college for flattering a woman before sex

    That article about PSU is very interesting.

    First of all, the John Doe was running basic college-level Game; he got a number close, used text game, got a kiss close, etc. The results were pretty predictable; she invited him into her dorm room when her roomie was out, he probably gave her an oral orgasm, she went to a friend and got a condom. It is entirely possible she was a 1st year student or at most a 2nd year, and this was her first time…

    Second, his post-coital Game was obviously not good enough: “regret rape”. Note that he was accused of sexual misconduct 6 months later; plenty of time for her to get hurt feelz, spin up an emotional storm with her friends, tell herself some lies about what rilly happened, etc. He’s obviously young and so is she…

    Third and most interesting from a legal point of view: the Penn State officials edited their standard for sexual misconduct in the middle of the process. This is ex post facto, and by including “cajoling” in the category of “force” they are setting themselves up for a legal challenge IMO (I Am Not A Lawyer).

    Fourth, this is an outlier case but it’s common enough for young men to be a lot more careful around younger women. In mah day, it was wise for a college undergrad to stay away from the “townies” because they were typically 18 or younger with various issues about “feelze”. Nowadays it sure looks to me that women are not maturing as fast mentally; treat anyone under 21 as if they were 16 to be safe.

    Thanks for the link.

  46. Lost Patrol
    I don’t know how Tabula Rasa got any traction to begin with. If you have kids of your own or have been around some since their birth and watched them grow a bit it is difficult to believe anybody arrives on this planet with a blank slate.

    There’s always someone to blame for the bad behavior of a child. “Who taught you to do / say that?” is an old question. I once knew a feminist who was very upset because her daughter took the trucks and made dolly-haulers out of them, while her son kept stealing towels out of the bathroom so he could be Batman in the yard. She’d brought them up to be gender neutral, given them gender-neutral toys, books and limited exposure to video, yet the girl kept acting girly and the boy boyish.

    She was very earnest about writing on the blank slates of her children, yet there seemed to already be something scribbled on them.

    it was a mystery to her. Here were bits of reality in front of her that totally failed to conform to her ideology – so she rationalized away the reality, because something mumble something “institutional patriarchy” something – and doubled down on her ideology. No idea where she and her children wound up, but it would be no surprise if the boy ran away and joined the miitary at age 18.

    “Man is not a rational animal, man is a rationalizing animal” — Robert Heinlein

  47. JACK
    One of the most egregious abuses of the concept of equality is in the realm of IQ. If you think that a higher IQ is somehow superior to a lesser IQ, just put the genus to work on something very boring

    What is the AFQT? Is it reliable? Why does it matter?

  48. “we started to organize society around outliers rather than averages.”

    Except in medicine, where all outliers are average, even if it kills them. And if we don’t like the average, we “consensus group” up a new average.

  49. When you tell a woman the 3 criteria for female to male attraction are 1. Leader of men 2. Protector of women and children 3. Pre-selected by other women—-it completely fries their brains.

    They want to believe they’re strong and independent but that insight always puts them into a state of wide-eyed fascination.

    I bring it up when I’m gaming a woman who’s hot and shit-testing me. For the last one I usually say “Other women want to fuck him…” which instantly sexualizes the conversation around some psychological premise.

    But this very idea of attraction criteria for men and women being different underscores the point about Blank Slate.

  50. Paragraph 4, Line 3, Word 1 is unnecessary.
    Paragraph 6, Line 3, Word 13 is unnecessary.
    Paragraph 10, Line 6, Word 10, Letter 1 is not formatted red.
    Paragraph 17, Line 3, Word 11 should be pluralized.
    Paragraph 21, Line 2, Word 9 reads “firing” but should be “fire”
    Paragraph ~22(last Para), Line 3, starting at Word 3, reads “…not the least of which…”
    This probably should have been edited out.
    Paragraph ~22(last Para), Line 4, starting at Word 3, reads “…persists in spite of itself.”
    Not really sure if this is a grammar thing or a style issue, but this phrase does not feel right.
    Just a good proof reader trying to be helpful.

  51. @Mitch Davis

    Thanks for your Autistic Spectrum Disorder contribution.

    But I couldn’t follow your paragraph tabs due to the formatting.

    Can you be more detailed and specific, down to the actual specific detail, in order to get due credit.

    Thanks.

    For absolutely nothing.

    Only a Fool Would Say That
    Steely Dan
    A world become one
    Of salads and sun
    Only a fool would say that
    A boy with a plan
    A natural man
    Wearing a white stetson hat
    Unhand that gun begone
    There’s no one to fire upon
    If he’s holding it high
    He’s telling a lie
    I heard it was you
    Talkin’ ’bout a world
    Where all is free
    It just couldn’t be
    And only a fool would say that
    The man in the street
    Draggin’ his feet
    Don’t want to hear the bad news
    Imagine your face
    There is his place
    Standing inside his brown shoes
    You do his nine to five
    Drag yourself home half alive
    And there on the screen
    A man with a dream
    I heard it was you
    Talkin’ ’bout a world
    Where all is free
    It just couldn’t be
    And only a fool would say that
    Anybody on the street
    Has murder in his eyes
    You feel no pain
    And you’re younger
    Then you realize
    I heard it was you
    Talkin’ ’bout a world
    Where all is free
    It just couldn’t be
    And only a fool would say that

  52. @Rollo: the funny thing here is how fast the “equalists” will contradict themselves.

    From the top of your article… We are all the same… But men are worse.
    “Yeah, well, not all women are like that. Men do it too and they’re even worse!”

    We are all the same… But diversity matters, must have more women in STEM.

  53. “it was a mystery to her. Here were bits of reality in front of her that totally failed to conform to her ideology – so she rationalized away the reality, because something mumble something “institutional patriarchy” something – and doubled down on her ideology. ”

    I’m looking forwars to Rollo’s release of Religion. I think that is going to be his breakout.

  54. We are all the same… But diversity matters, must have more women in STEM.

    We are all the same isn’t what they actually teach anymore. What they teach now is that we are all different, but that power needs to be shared between each class of different — that is how they now define equality. Not as “we are all the same” but as “we are all different but we need to thumb the scales so that we are all equally powerful despite our differences”.

    So what they mean when they are all hair on fire about “diversity in tech” is that they know that tech is powerful, and that the decisions made by engineers and tech companies are shaping human life in profoundly powerful ways. They want a part of that power. They aren’t saying “women are every bit as good at engineering as men are” (yes, I know that they do say that, as a pro forma matter, but it isn’t the core of the argument, or the core of the persuasive thrust), but rather “tech is uber-powerful, and we can’t have that kind of power concentrated in the hands of white and south asian geek men … we need to have everyone else at the table, even if they aren’t as technically skilled, so that every “identity” has a hand in shaping what tech does, given its influence over everyone”.

    Now, I don’t agree with that ideology — not at all. But I think if we want to fight it we have to understand what they are really saying. They are all about power. Not ability, not opportunity, not anything else as such — it’s all about power. Once you understand that, you can easily decode their cant.

  55. “I’m looking forwars to Rollo’s release of Religion. I think that is going to be his breakout“

    It has too narrow a topic, but I hope I’m wrong. Some studies show about 20% are regular church attendees and almost all of those will be locked into the mindset. The other 80% would prefer distractions than read a book titled Religion.

    Better to expand the scope and use Nova’s idea: Power. Power in the churches, power in the workplace, power in the schools, power in the courts, power in the military.

  56. Redlight

    I don’t think religion means what you think it means.

    Equalism IS a religion. And Nova is right as rain – it’s all about power AND control.

  57. “I don’t think religion means what you think it means.”

    I doesn’t matter what I think it means. If you need to explain it to the potential reader the title doesn’t get the buy.

  58. Decent essay Rollo, unfortunately you are fighting a battle already lost brother, academic arguments at this point mean little to nothing in the actual lives of men in the USA in the year 2019.

    The average man and especially the average woman doesn’t give a shit about blank slate. The conversation/focus is moving away from academic arguments to the practical/implementable very quickly, the mask and pretending/academic arguments are being discarded by hypergamy/feminism very quickly, they don’t need it anymore. I like the discussion of putting an actual figure on the cost of pussy, it would be interesting to get the cost of pussy in time/hours/minutes by city/geographic area as that is the most valuable to us. I may be in the top 20% of men based on height/weight/zfg attitude/looks/money but at some point you begin to see the game is simply rigged and there is no way to win under traditional male standards long term. I like pussy a lot actually but at some point the hoop jumping and gymnastics just start to interfere with my own mental point of origin and it’s time to eject.

    A little anecdote from yesterday in the parking lot, I saw my wife as we were loading groceries in the car fix her hair a little and figured there was a good looking guy around, sure enough a good looking black guy was unloading his kids the next car over, it annoyed me a little but hey hypergamy is hypergamy if he has better genes than he is the winner in that department, I accepted and move on with a chuckle. I wasn’t prepared for what I saw next , there was a young black woman/his wife/ltr in the drivers seat(strike 1, she was driving), he was unloading the kids(strike 2), and then when she finally got out , she was on the phone in the car(strike 3) making them wait outside. When I looked at the two kids one of them clearly had a white dad and was not this guys(a cuck in your definition), the woman had a good body, she was dressed in some type of yoga overalls, I just shook my head and looked at the clearly half white kid for some seconds. Society and culture are fucked at this point, it is everywhere, game or no game, women are going to take this to its end conclusion, you cannot win by playing this rigged game.

    Gentlemen enjoy your life, enjoy women, pursue excellence/improvement everyday but these whole academic arguments will go nowhere, the battle is lost from a culture/societal standpoint, no putting the genie back in the bottle. At this point practical/implementable strategies/solutions are what will have value for the average man.

  59. What I find funny is that Christianity is such a hated religion but here we are talking about what the hell is wrong with religion.

    Jesus Christ took the piss out of the charlatan Sanhedrin and exposed their hypocrisy as so-called counselors and spiritual guides.

    There are people who hate religion because they perceive it to hinder their experience of this life. Yet there are people trying like hell to start religions of their own.

    The first group is trying to fuck around without any heed of possible consequences.

    The second thinks they can manage unwanted consequences by taking control of the social group.

    Poor pieces of shit. Rich pieces of shit.

    Both sets of people need correction.

  60. Novaseeker
    Now, I don’t agree with that ideology — not at all. But I think if we want to fight it we have to understand what they are really saying. They are all about power. Not ability, not opportunity, not anything else as such — it’s all about power.

    Looks just like “equality of result” to me. Therefore all that babble for decades about “equal opportunity” was just squid ink, bullshit and outright lies.

    Ok. So they were lying 50 years ago, lying 25 years ago, lying 10 years ago…what are they lying about now?

  61. Unpopular, but true assertion ahead:

    Equal opportunity isn’t a bad thing. It’s not the same as equal outcome at all.

    My dad worked at an auto body shop when he was in his 20’s, in the South, during jim crow, while my mom was carrying me. He was basically a clean up guy, but he had been learning on his own basically as an apprentice.

    The shop needed to hire more people and since there weren’t many body men around, they offered training for any new hire off the street.

    My father was told point blank ” n***ers can’t do bodywork in this shop “.end of discussion.

    Equal opportunity isn’t a burden. It’s not unfair. It’s not a socialist or leftist idea.

    Ime, anyone against opportunity doesn’t deserve opportunity either. Everybody ends up blind.

    Imagine if radical hateful feminist types garnered enough power, and decided white males didn’t deserve opportunity or anything else, and even codified in into ” law “. Where they could not only deny opportunity, but trumpet it to your face with a smile while hiring a woman.

    Don’t get confused. Opportunity is different from outcome. Denying opportunity is a shitty thing, and shitty things can be cyclical if not addressed.

  62. Blaximus

    Equal opportunity isn’t a bad thing. It’s not the same as equal outcome at all.

    So?

    Strong, independent wahman is strong and has equal opportunity to fire a cannon salute…

    https://youtu.be/NwwMlfSEznE

    “Diverse” editorial team means “100% female”.

    https://politicalsciencenow.com/apsa-announces-the-new-editorial-team-for-the-american-political-science-review/

    Check your calendar, Blax. You may be commenting from a previous century.

  63. Blaximus
    Imagine if radical hateful feminist types garnered enough power, and decided white males didn’t deserve opportunity or anything else, and even codified in into ” law “.

    “If”?

    Paging James Damore…paging former Googler James Damore.

    How’s the weather back there in 1964?

  64. “Equal opportunity” in veterinarian school since the 1970’s – 80;s.. Now 80% of vet students are female. There’s a shortage of large animal vets in rural areas…because women don’t do that, yet men who want to do large animal work increasingly find it difficult to get accepted into a vet school. I know one such 20-something man, he’s applied to multiple schools with no success. Maybe his undergrad grades aren’t that good. Or maybe he’s the wrong sex? The unequal sex?

    When 80% of practicing veterinarians are female, maybe feminists will proclaim that equality has been achieved…but I doubt it. Because there will sill be “more work to be done”, of course.

    https://www.vmdtoday.com/news/veterinary-medicine-is-a-womans-world

  65. Looks just like “equality of result” to me.

    No, it isn’t about that at all, and that’s a common misperception.

    This is a game of thrones among the elites. They could not care less about equality of result for the masses — they know that this is impossible.

    What they want is equality of power between different kinds of elites (male/female, race, sexual orientation), so that the rules/tools forced on everyone by the business/academic/political elite reflect the priorities of the elite part of every identity group.

    The non-elite parts of those groups are merely a vote-chasing meme. The actual elites who care about this stuff (power being equally divvied up by identity group) couldn’t care less if the non-elites all suddenly died at the bottom of the ocean.

    It’s a game of thrones between the elites.

  66. Blaximus, I sincerely hope that 50% of the tech support, software engineers, hardware engineers, and software engineers at your Enormous Corp are women. Anything less than 50% is totally proof of Sexism, Bias, Misogyny and other bad things.

    Because women are just men with boobs, with absolutely equal interests in abstract thinking & nerd work; girls are just a blank slate, a Tabula Rasa that eeeeeivl men write onto. Therfore, true equality of opportunity MUST produce equality of result. Any inequality of result is proof that there is not equality of opportunity.

    Because it could not be anything else. It could not be that men’s brains and women’s brains are actually physically different. It could not be that spatial visualization matters.
    No, it must be some form of bias. Perhaps implicit bias? Stereotyping?

    Men and women are exactly the same, therefore anything less than 50% women in STEM is the work of the demon Patriarchy.

    https://www.aauw.org/research/why-so-few/

  67. Novaseeker
    It’s a game of thrones between the elites.

    In other words, a tribal-based spoils system, with different upper class tribes tusseling over the spoils.

    Well. Ok.

    After a couple or three generations, it will become more like a caste system, along the lines of India. Which is, by the way, a pretty stable social system…for those who don’t unreliable electricity, regular riots between poor groups, reserving a few streets for the poor to shit in, etc.

    I wonder who’s gonna get assigned the role of Dalits?

  68. @Blaximus

    I’ve been told to my face during job interviews (yes plural) that they are really looking for “diversity” and that means female or minority status, but they always interview general cross section of demograhics because its required. That’s what “equal opportunity” has become. If you’re non-white male then you might think of way to rationalize that, but it won’t help you if they are really looking for female (or other different minority category).

  69. “This is a game of thrones among the elites. They could not care less about equality of result for the masses — they know that this is impossible.”

    They (the “elites”) have been sold a bill of goods as well. They believe that the world we live in is overpopulated with people and as a result their environment is screwed. Equality is effective population control. Selling to DINKs and FEMcentrics is a way to keep everyone drained of cash. They want control and will get it by keeping the masses in debt.

    “The non-elite parts of those groups are merely a vote-chasing meme. The actual elites who care about this stuff (power being equally divvied up by identity group) couldn’t care less if the non-elites all suddenly died at the bottom of the ocean.”

    Once they get full control,absolute power corrupts absolutely,vote chasing becomes a moot point when most of the voters have died. I predict these so called elites will eat each other in the end.

  70. Blax, we’ve long since passed “equal opportunity.” We’ve been living in an age where “affirmative action” and diversity quotas are literally used to determine the outcome (“equality” being a misnomer descriptor attached to that in word but not in action) and keep out undesirables, like straight white males. These are used to fix the “problem” of “X isn’t diverse enough.” I know how ludicrous that sounds, but we’ve entered Bizarro world in the last decade, a world where there are concepts and mindsets so absurd you’d insist no one could possibly believe or use them. You know better than most how women can practically rationalize absolutely any line of reasoning into existence; well, now imagine that sort of rationalization applied to justifications of how ridiculous bullshit is now in the modern West.

    I agree with you, equal opportunity is fine, and that is precisely what was chanted over and over when equality for people was being pushed. Now, “equality” is being pushed, but it’s a euphemism, and it is a complete lie when you see the tagline “equal opportunity employer.”

  71. AR,
    😁

    It’s 2019 and I’ve had my eyes and ears open since 1961.

    You think things are so different,because you’ve only been on one side of the equation your whole life, and now things are ” changing ” and you are aware.

    Welcome. Pull up a chair.

    The mechanisms are always the same. First, there’s talk of somebody being a ” problem ” of some sort, then academics chime in to scientifically identify that problem, then legal redress follows, and nobody Will give a shit because ” whew, it’s not me, sucks to be them “.

    Nothing I can say will make sense to you ( you think it’s last because you’ve not been paying enough attention. Not speshul.) And that’s okay.

    Really it is.

    Btw, I know exactly what year and time it is do you?

  72. That it’s all about power dynamics hits the nail on the head. What would an apex sociopath do? After combining this with Z Mans latest post about the religion of reality denial, it makes sense that the elites would intentionally push ideologies which they know to be in direct opposition to reality. It’s about creating de-facto justifications for forcing people to do as some central authority wishes, while using the useful idiots to push the notion that it’s somehow good for us. Keep the proles evangelically distracted with one hand, whilst creating totalitarian processes with the other.

  73. Blax, I don’t think anyone is saying that equality of opportunity is a bad thing. Only that no one is seriously fighting for it, even if they mouth the words.

  74. Culum

    In the debate it seems that any form of just the word ” equal ” generates more pushback than understanding and any historical perspective. I was born in Virginia at a time when my constitutional rights meant shit, but the consensus seems to be that that was a century ago or something.

    There’s always been a level of subterfuge. Factions have always taken words down the Orwellian path. Right now the slog to use legislative hammers broadly against men is starting to pick up steam, and the tactic isn’t new. I grew up seeing it and being aware of it my entire life, like neo in the matrix.

    I’m not a huge fan of the term ” elites ” because it’s becomes a catchall and vague word, but I do believe in power that’s not readily apparent. People are manipulated by ” power ” to be distracted and be in opposition to one another instead of being in competition. Equality is the enemy of the division tactic, but the meaning of the word gets turned on it’s head so that there’s a need to fight against it.

    The whole Man vs Woman thing has been brewing for generations in the background. Power lines it that way, dupes play along with ever increasing pronouncements of ” us vs them “. It’s extremely effective and I don’t think there’s an answer to it other than knowledge…..But even that word has gone down the rabbit hole.

  75. Blax , some changes take time,they always have. White men hardly invented slavery and black people hardly were the most enslaved. The mindset of superiority of class is the catalyst of slavery. Equal rights have been fought for and granted long ago yet the outcome hasn’t changed as much as was hoped for. Mainly because not enough time and people ie; man -woman aren’t equal.

  76. Wahoo

    Off topic, that everlast song is one of my favorites. Watching him go from House of Pain to a massive heart attack to a pseudo folk type ” singer ” was interesting to say the least.

    People need to have life journeys, no matter how much they cling to the safety of resistance of being bummed out and maybe uncomfortable.

    Hell, even building serious muscle requires tearing and breaking down muscle fibers.

  77. From Rollo’s Twitter feed:

    “People don’t believe me when I say I’ve talked to 10y.o.boys who are near suicidal because their “girlfriend” left them. This is how early the Blue Pill is smashed into their skulls.”

    From my comments here:

    “5 is not too young. 12 is much too late.”

  78. “There’s no such thing as bad weather, only unsuitable clothing.” ― Alfred Wainwright

    Perhaps this might be paraphrased to suggest that the choice of vehicle is a key factor to traversing bad roads.

  79. “Perhaps this might be paraphrased to suggest that the choice of vehicle is a key factor to traversing bad roads.”

    Even the best horse will fail if it’s constantly rode hard and put away wet.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: