The Wrong Girl

“You just married the wrong girl mate.”

“You must be attracting the wrong kind of women.”


“Not all women are like that, you need to go places where the quality women are.”

“Those girls are just damaged.”

Fortune cookie, non-comital internet “wisdom” like this abounds on Twitter and in the self-improvement sphere today.

I read a lot of these rationales from women and male allies whenever a guy makes a general, empirical, but unflattering, point about the nature of women. Even casual observations or questions about this nature are met with subjective answers that put the blame of asking back on the guy. There must be something wrong with you for even making mention of it.

As I mentioned in my last post, there’s a kind of ‘talking past’ one another when it comes to believers vs. empiricists. Notice that all of these common dismissals are based on value judgements. The nature of the conversation between these mindsets begins in the misunderstanding that both are focusing on a mutual goal.

People resort to denial when recognizing that the truth would destroy something they hold dear. In the case of a cheating partner, denial lets you avoid acknowledging evidence of your own humiliation. Short of catching a spouse in bed with your best friend, evidence of infidelity is usually ambiguous. It’s motivated skepticism. You’re more skeptical of things you don’t want to believe and demand a higher level of proof.

Denial is unconscious, or it wouldn’t work: if you know you’re closing your eyes to the truth, some part of you knows what the truth is and denial can’t perform its protective function.

One thing we all struggle to protect is a positive self-image. The more important the aspect of your self-image that’s challenged by the truth, the more likely you are to go into a state of denial. If you have a strong sense of self-worth and competence your self-image can take hits but remain largely intact; if you’re beset by self-doubt (a hallmark of self-righteous Beta thinking), however, any acknowledgment of failure can be devastating and any admission of error painful to the point of being unthinkable. Self-justification and denial arise from the dissonance between believing you’re competent, and making a mistake, which clashes with that image.

Solution: deny the mistake.

Denial, July 11, 2012

The ideology of personal responsibility is the Swiss army knife of subjectivist rationalization. “Extreme Ownership” is a lot like the “just be yourself” non-response people will give you when they don’t know what to tell you about your lack of Game. It sounds like wisdom, but it’s really based on the presumption of knowing a guy must always find fault in himself before any other consideration. Guys rarely struggle with overconfidence, but tell him the solution to his problems lies in him self-deprecating more and that he can get behind.

In this subjectivism there are no outside variables. There is no intentional maliciousness from others, or extenuating circumstances, only how you react to them and what you did to bring them on yourself. All the blame for anyone’s bad condition rests on the shoulders of the individual:

  • Your life is fucked up? Your fault.
  • Your Game/relationships suck? Your fault for tolerating it.
  • You think women are one way – a way counter to the popular norm? You’re just meeting the ‘wrong kind of women’.

Again, value judgements replace objectivity. If your life sucks it’s real easy to presume the individual is the cause of the suck. And any analysis (even the desire to objectively analyze) of other people’s will, motives or outside circumstance is always an excuse; a redirection away from owning the suck yourself.

Maybe that person was the ‘right‘ one all along, you just were the wrong one for her? Self-doubt is a key element in subjectivism.

Your Game/relationships suck? Your fault for tolerating it. You think women are one way – a way counter to the popular norm? You’re just meeting the ‘wrong kind of women’. Again, value judgements replace objectivity. There’s no such thing as a general truth when your grasp of human nature is that, subjectively, everyone is a random unknowable snowflake. “People are people, man. Everybody’s different. If you think different it’s because you’re judgmental.

Own It

The popularity of ‘Success Porn‘ online today depends heavily on this self-evincing subjective ownership. It’s far easier to solve a person’s problems if he’s the source of his problems rather than the particulars of his circumstances. The Tony Robbins of the world have raised this to an art form. Owning your faults locks in very well with stoicism, but too much stoicism and you cancel out the emotional high that you need in an adherent to get pumped on your motivational speaking.

Guys who ‘go black pill‘ are the opposite extreme of this. Black Pill as a movement focuses on objective realities to such an extreme degree that nihilism defines it. But that nihilism is also a necessary part of subjectivism.

It gets a lot wrong in the problem solving department, but what Black Pill gets right is their understanding of the shifting of causality. For Success Porn gurus, optimism is an easy sell in an age of negativity. So maintaining the idea of an endemic negativity in the culture is a necessary part of the ‘rise above it‘ mantra. You don’t have to actually defeat anyone else today, you have to defeat the worst parts of yourself. It’s much easier when there’s no real external opposition and it’s just you against you.

All the salesmen of the “feel-good pill” have an ironclad rationale; people are the source of their own misery. ‘Own your problems’ is a go-to answer because it gets the salesman off the hook with respect to actually analyzing and solving anyone’s problems.

This is the counselor’s dilemma: Most people’s internal struggles are personal to them and require a personal understanding and interaction on the part of the counselor. That kind of personal investment is tough to do when you’ve got 10,000 people in a concert hall all begging for you to solve their unique set of problems. Thus, finding a way to convince the majority of a commonality in their personal problems with those of everyone else is necessary. Personalized subjectivism fills this need for the believers, but it has to have a common root that everyone can commiserate around – me against me.

Subjectivism, social constructionism and blank-slate egalitarianism are the -isms that have defined western cultures and their thinking for the past 60 years. Now, I know the tone of all this seems like I’m picking on Trad-Cons or the new wave of Manosphere Moralism today, but it’s also a mistake not to highlight just how this subjectivism pervades the ideologies of the Village, social justice, intersectional feminism and religion steeped in the Feminine Imperative today.

One common theme I see in researching how feminism and the Feminine Imperative are assimilating mainstream religions is where almost all of them end up – this same, all-is-one subjectivist belief set. In every instance of the Feminine Imperative assuming control of a faith, that faith is converted to unitarian tolerance, then acceptance, of elements that religion was opposed to in its prior iteration. Clear, distinct, articles of faith are replaced with an unconditional doctrine of inclusiveness that homogenizes separate faiths into one global faith based on the ‘cult of love’.

In my upcoming book, Religion, I detail this ‘cult of love’ and it’s end-goal of creating a unitary world-faith that’s dependent on the Feminine Imperative defining it. For now, its enough to consider that this push towards a one-world religion will find its foundation in the same subjectivism we’re seeing clash with objectivism in the ‘sphere today.

False Positives

A consistent criticism I’ve received over the years is that the Red Pill is so negative. Why cant the Manosphere just sweeten up? Its truth is definable and self-evident, but why can’t Rollo adjust the ‘tone’? I’ve lived and written through several waves of newcomers to the ‘sphere and in each generation the same want for a ‘kinder, gentler’ Red Pill is always there. The idea is that if you just changed the delivery of the truth it would somehow make it more palatable to a wider audience.

Who’s It For?

I want reiterate here that it’s never been my goal to write for an audience. Whether it’s writing on this blog, my books or when I’m discussing things on various podcasts my only imperative is to convey the information I think is relevant to the topic of intersexual dynamics. My obligation is to picking apart and considering as close as I can get to an objective truth. And I don’t do this by way of some sense of duty to objectivism – it’s just the way that’s always seemed most efficient to me to come to a usable truth. It’s pragmatism on my part, not dedication.

Yes, I know, true objectivism is impossible for human beings. Yes, I also know that even biases we’re unaware of will subconsciously influence our rationality. Spare me the classicist intellectualism, I’ve been at this long enough to have considered all that. But the fact that objectivism is never perfect doesn’t mean we should strive for our best attempt at it – nor replace it with moralism.

I don’t write for an audience. I write about what I see going on around me and I connect dots. Writers today, of all medias, will tell you to “give your readers what they want” if you want to be successful. Writing about uncomfortable truths that rattle people’s cages is counterintuitive to the write-for-success mindset. If you want to sell books, if you want to monetize blogs, if you want to get more channel subscribers you gotta give the folks what they want, right? That’s how most churches work today; cater the message to the congregation if you want the tithe checks to stay consistent.

And always write to appeal to emotions too. People don’t enjoy thinking, but boy do they ever love feeling something – particularly in an age when female emotiveness is the order of the day.

When I began writing regularly it was in a forum environment. We hashed out many ideas and weren’t afraid to get ugly. It was a necessary part of the process. There was no pretense of appealing to an audience for money, traffic or readership. The sole focus was debating the truth about a dynamic. That debate was always a hot kitchen, but the results were something greater than the process.

As a result my essays carried over a lot of the heat from the SoSuave days kitchen. I wasn’t writing to impress readers or increase traffic to the blog it was just to document and codify the objective truths I came to. There is no monetization and the comment threads have never been moderated (besides spam and trolls). Almost 8 years later my charter is still about the same objective debate.

The drawback to this commitment to objective truth is that it rarely appeals to emotionalism. No, it’s not the ‘tone‘ or the feel of the information being related that’s so off-putting – it’s the information itself, and how it makes one feel, that determines whether it’s perceived as positive or negative.

Feels Before Reals

Most people who are still plugged into the proverbial Matrix are living in a world that prioritizes feels before reals. The purpose of consuming really anything is to judge it by how it makes us feel; and especially so in an era defined by the female experience. Emotion always comes before reason in women’s natural, unlearned, interpretive processes. This is also extended to men who’ve been conditioned to prioritize emotions before reason. And this is exacerbated by their need to be better feelers, better emoters, than those other ‘typical’ guys if they want an emotional woman to ever bear their children at some point.

Anything that prioritizes reason before emotion will always run the risk of being perceived as negative. Even if the sum of the information is positive, the fact that you had to come to the truth by way of reason rather than emotion will make it negative.

If you used your head instead of your heart to figure something out, in Girl-World, at best it’s bad form. At worst, you’re a negative pessimists or a cynic.

Usually those designations are reserved for the men who make a habit of using reason to the exception of emotion to relate an objective truth that’s unflattering to the feminine. Again, it’s the information, not the tone, that’s offensive to the emotions-first prioritization. To the Blue Pill mind, any strong idea that conflicts with this prioritization is an affront to the personal investments they’ve made in ideas that it challenges.

So, understand, I’m not a negative person by nature. I’m an artist. Few people know that my 2nd degree is a BFA. I draw, I paint, I play four instruments, I used to do Shakespearean stage acting – I’ve even done children’s theater.

I fully embrace the emotional as a necessary part of the human experience – Hell, half of Red Pill awareness is acknowledging and confronting emotions. I’m certainly not a cynic or a pessimist. Anyone thinking so usually hasn’t read my work. I’m very much an optimist when it comes to creating a New Hope for men in a Red Pill paradigm. I don’t just stop at clinical realism and leave men hanging. I don’t subscribe to the ennui of the “Black Pill” – I’m certainly not absolutist or a determinist.

However, I also have a commitment and an obligation to objective truth in everything I write. Trust me, there are times I wish I could use my wife and my marriage as a ‘proof of concept’ example of how a Red Pill aware guy can make a relationship work today. But the objective truth would make me look like a charlatan if I tried to convince a man that marriage was at all a good idea in its present state.

That’s tough for me. I have had to hold back from posting pictures of my beautiful wife and daughter to prove something to truly negative naysayers. Ladies, you want me to write something positive about women? I love my wife dearly. She’s been a net benefit to my life for all of 23 years now. My daughter is a model. She’s feminine to a fault and she’s smart and ambitious. I would die for her, gladly.

But I never use my personal life as an example in my work for their protection, but also because I don’t want to lead men astray by in anyway implying that what I have is possible for them. And I’ve had men tell me that, “I want what you have.”

But I don’t make value calls. I consider information, I try to interpret it, and I present it in such a way that it’s useful to men where they’re at. I want to give you tools to use to build your own life, not mine.

Truth & Hustle

Admire the Hustle. We read this a lot in the Manosphere among the guys who fancy themselves entrepreneurs. I think one reason critics think the Red Pill is negative is because all they see is the Hustle. The Hustle has a way of becoming the whole point of anything.

I’m an abortion doctor, but I make six figures and I’m the best at what I do. No one will out-work me. Admire the Hustle baby.

When the selling is more important the the product itself, then you have problems. When the truth is less important than the Hustle inevitably our truth becomes the Hustle. There needs to be a balance and that’s getting harder and harder to find now.

We’re at a moment in the Manosphere where the truth is starting to get lost in the Hustle. I’m accused of it, or I’m accused of associating with ‘too much Hustle’. Well-meaning colleagues with too much perception and not enough information are feeling that salesmen care more about the sale than the product.

I hear you.

Let me finish here by reiterating that my obligation to objective truth will always be my motivation for doing anything I put my name on. It always has been. However, I have worked for amazing companies who sold things that people loved and enjoyed only to watch them crumble and die because the sales team assumed control of the ‘product’. The selling became more important than what was being sold.

My books, my blog, my appearances, every aspect of The Rational Male is my art. I craft each essay. It’s what I care about most. I will never allow the truth to be compromised by the Hustle. The Hustle is important, particularly when it’s about disseminating the truth, but it is secondary to the truth – even to the exception of the Hustle. Sometimes the truth doesn’t sell.

This Is Important

We are rapidly entering a time when our ideas will be vilified. Very soon the objective, life-saving, praxeology that is the Red Pill will be used as a label, as a synonym, for negative ideologies that never had anything to do with the Red Pill. And people who are all about the Hustle will gladly abandon the truth they’re selling now if it means the public opinion of it would compromise their Hustle. It’ll be less about what we’re discussing than how influential and how many followers the person we’re discussing it with has.

Others, those who were appropriating the ‘brand’, will throw the Red Pill under the bus to save their own necks. The coming storm is going to test the resolve of people who are all about the Hustle and all about the Red Pill. I know where my obligations lie, they’ve never changed.

Reminders of Myself

I’m writing this post on the day before I head off to this year’s 21 Convention and I thought I’d just do something a bit freeform to get a few ideas on the page and let you all know where my head is at these days. I generally don’t make a habit of using The Rational Male as a sounding board for my personal thoughts. Most of what you read here is what I can best describe as crafted essays. Last week’s post was a good example of that. I took about 2 weeks to to write that essay, but the the germ of the idea for building an essay on body language and implied meanings was something I’d had percolating for almost 6 months. When you write about what I do for as long as I have I’ve learned it pays to be thorough, and I enjoy the building process.

Now that I’ve said all that, I’m going to break this rule today and do a bit of stream-of-consciousness writing here now.

One thing I’ve learned since I decided to write intentionally is that I’m never off-duty. I’ve always been an artist and I’ve always kept sketchbooks with me to scribble down ideas for larger work, but it wasn’t until I started really writing that I began to keep notebooks for my posts and then my books; and now my talks. I presently have 4 small notebooks that I put ideas in. I just finished filling one up and now I need another one. I was never that Emo writer kid who was so artsy and self-absorbed he had to write a diary because he thought people must find him fascinating. In fact, I’ve always thought of art as something temporal.

Now this is changed for me. I find it an absolute necessity to keep notebooks with me to capture ideas in. I think my brain has changed somewhat since I began being a ‘serious’ author. My mind now works in a way where I get ideas that don’t stay for long, but the internal conversations I have to flesh out those ideas can get pretty involved. I’ve freaked my wife out on more than one occasion when I got up to take a piss in the middle of the night, had an idea and then had to go write it down knowing that it would fade from memory by the morning. I think I’m kind of torn between being a creative thinker and a deductive thinker as a result of applying myself to writing .

I guess that makes me a writer, but I still don’t know what I am in that respect. I do know I have an obsessive compulsion to write, but not so much to write as an author of books but a capturer of ideas. Occasionally I read about authors’ writing processes and rituals and it sounds really artsy. Honestly, I think a result of the self-publishing revolution is that it created a lot of writers who just wanted to be writers. Like they just revel in the identity and love to say ‘I’m special, I’m a writer‘. The same thing happened in desktop publishing when computers started replacing all the analog ways of graphic design. Everyone you knew was a ‘graphic designer’ because anyone could do it then.

I think it was Stephen King who said writing for him was like excrement. Not in the way that his writing was shit, but rather it was something that just came out of him, something he excreted like hair or fingernails. I think I understand that now. I never set out to be a writer, I’m an ideas man. Sometimes those ideas are great and help change men’s lives. Then sometimes I think maybe I’m a messenger for something that just needs to be conveyed in this day and this time. 

The Rational Male, my first book, just turned 5 years old on October 1st. Granted, it still needs to be cleaned up and I’m in the process of a reedit with the help of two editors now. Nothing will change as far as content is concerned, but lets be honest, the font size needs to be kicked up a couple points and there are a fair amount of grammatical errors that need to be corrected. So, I’m reading back through the whole book these days and in doing so I almost can’t believe that the voice is my own. Although the book was published in 2013 all the material is from essays I wrote as far back as 2002, and a lot of that was from conversations and debates I’d had on SoSuave from back in the day. Re-reading it is like having a conversation with myself from when I was 34 years old.

The book is important in so many ways to so many people now. That’s something I have to keep in mind today. The Rational Male is a living text. It’s not a book you you read once and put on a shelf. Readers keep returning to it when the need to be reminded of a relevant truth that they’re experiencing in life.

A year ago, when I was at the 21 Convention the thing that struck me the most was signing men’s copy’s and seeing how well-worn they were. Every one had liner notes and highlighted in at least 2 different highlighter colors. It was then I realized this book was something more than a self-published book turned out from the print-on-demand mill.

I’m sure I’ll see the same this year and it makes me happy to have been the instrument to bring these truths to men. I still get chills when men tell me it saved their lives or it fundamentally changed them for the better. I re-read my work and think ‘who is this guy?’ I wonder how my grandchildren, maybe great-grandchildren, will see what I was about. And this is what concerns me most when I consider the ease with which I could be erased from the online world.

I would be lying to say that recent social events haven’t flustered me. The fact that Roosh’s books could be so casually deleted from all of his distribution sources is unsettling. He wrote about this, prophetically, about five years ago in The Most Insidious Method of Control Never Devised. Roosh has had his bread taken from him. And yes, I understand, his right to ‘free speech’ hasn’t been impinged, he still has the right to say what he thinks, but this is a reminder that for all the high-minded talk about being ‘anti-fragile’ we’re all more fragile than we think.

I don’t know what Roosh’s revenue situation looks like, I know he’s put Return of Kings on indefinite hiatus, but I wonder what men who’ve made the manosphere their sole source of income will do when their ability to generate revenue from it dries up. This is the main reason I advise men against becoming revenue-dependent on the manosphere. It’s too easy to have their convictions compromised for the sake of profit, but it’s also one keystroke away from being deleted by platforms they depend on for that revenue.

My main fear is that the vital work I’ve done with The Rational Male might be casually undone through the ignorant vindictiveness of a feminist critic somehow made an authority over what men should and should not read in digital publishing. My fear is that the men’s lives who might be saved by my book would be prevented access to it. I made a joke on Twitter a few years ago; I said, ‘there will come a day when The Rational Male will have to be read in secret, by candle light among secret societies of men like Christians in Mao’s China had to do. I don’t laugh at that prophecy anymore.

I’ve always encouraged men to buy the physical, print copy of the book. Mainly this is because I’ve always hoped men would in fact discuss it among themselves. It was meant to be a conversation (debate) starter because I’ve always believed in the bottom up approach to making people think in new ways. I want men to physically pass the book on to the next guy they think will need it. I make the least amount on royalties from the print book, but it’s what I think is most important – but also because it is a permanency that digital books cannot insure.

The Red Pill community has grown exponentially since I began writing almost 20 years ago. While I don’t believe we’ve hit critical mass just yet I do think we’re becoming too big to ignore now. The Red Pill forum on Reddit was ‘quarantined’ last week, and unsurprisingly the latent message sent in that act was one that aligned with a pseudo-concern over what an appropriate expression of masculinity is. Ironically, the redirect from the quarantine was linked to the ‘masculinity studies’ department of Stony Brook University – every bit the Vichy male plantation for men to align with the definition of masculinity approved for them by the Feminine Imperative – and led by, the now condemned for sexual assault allegations, Michael Kimmel. 

What the Red Pill reveals is dangerous and threatening to a gynocentric world order. As the #MeToo movement evolves into the opportunistic weapon of social and political control, our online presence and our message stand out in sharp challenge to its false foundations. I can remember when I wrote Fem-Centrism and The Feminine Reality and the hostility those posts generated among critics. It’s always been a man’s world they said; how dare I suggest women were the true power behind the throne. That was 7 years ago. I had a new WordPress blog and although I was semi-well known on SoSuave I was just another blogger who wrote about this new thing called the ‘Red Pill’.

The Gestalt Feminine vs. The Gestalt Masculine

In 2018 the stakes are much higher, the game has changed and the tolerance for challenges to an ideology intrinsic to our feminine-primary social order is at its breaking point. There is now a presumption of authority to go along with the presumptions of entitlement for women and default guilt for men. The very platforms that made our coming together possible are ruled by the world views we’ve always warned against.

I once wrote a post called Appeals to Reason and in it I made a rational case as to why it is never in a good idea for a man to try to reason his way into intimacy or sex with women. Most Beta men subscribe to a very literalist mindset. Our Rational Interpretive process evolved to make men natural, deductive, problem solvers. As such, we evolved different strategies and different communication methods apart from those of women. We believe in the statistics, the empirical data, the proven methods, the ‘science’ behind the processes to make informed decisions. We prioritize information when we communicate.

To the contrary, women prioritize the context of communication – they feel the communication before they apply a rational interpretation to what’s been communicated. Even when confronted with a succinctly reason position founded on empirical facts, their first priority is to personalize how that data makes them feel. Their Emotional Interpretive Process is their evolved default.

What I see happening today on a larger meta-social scale is a collective gestalt of the masculine trying to assert their deductive reasoning to assess the disposition of the meta-female gestalt which is firmly founded in how issues of monumental social importance make the whole of the feminine feel.

In Appeals to Reason I used a guy’s petition of women as an example of this. The kid had created a list of questions for women to fill out as to why they didn’t want to go out with him on a date and to assess what it is that women want. This is classic male deductive reasoning. For millennia men have tried to apply reason to dealing with women only to find themselves confounded by what women say and what they do. The same is now true in a social scope and about decisions that have global importance today.

However, in today’s scenario it is women who presume an authority that is just on the cusp of totalitarianism. It’s like we’re collectively, as Beta, Blue Pill conditioned men, attempting to logically deduce what it is women want in order to satisfy their desire for a total authority. And when that woman doesn’t get what she wants, when men try to reason her into bed, she reacts like a violent child having a tantrum. She says what she feels, not what she needs.

And the gestalt of men turn on one another and blame the other for setting her off. “If only you assholes would give her what she wants we wouldn’t be in this mess” they say. Then to make matters worse we pander to her tantrums, we believe her insanity, we take her feelings as facts and the other half of the gestalt masculinity wonders why the other can’t see the real story while the other is swept up in female hysterics.

Then the gestalt female is pandered to so thoroughly that we come to the point that we follow their Emotional Interpretive process as the only measure of legitimate discussion. This is where we are today, only, to compound things, we’ve collectively approved for the gestalt feminine a universally effective means of destroying the parts of the gestalt masculine who would dare to challenge their feelings, their emotional priorities. We’ve given the feminine the power to wish us away to the cornfield if we upset the child.

And so here we are, at the figurative mercy of the gestalt feminine (and their Vichy male “allies”) keeping our collective heads down for fear that they’ll deny us our bread if we upset the insane, collective female Id.

There will be more to this essay in my address at the 21 Convention this Friday. I will also be doing various videos from Orlando on my Periscope, Twitter and possibly my new YouTube channel. I hope to see you there.

The Lie of Equality

Reader KFG dropped this insight in last week’s post and I thought it was very relevant to something I’ve been contemplating for a while now:

As a general principle genetic fitness is always relative to the environment. A spread of genetic traits makes a species more robust, because it will have individuals better suited for survival in a greater range of environments.

There’s more than one breed of working dog because no one is “better.” Each has its specific strengths, paid for with corresponding weaknesses. A terrier is to small to hunt wolves, but you’re not going to stuff a wolfhound down a badger hole.

This was a great analogy. It’s also one of the primary reasons I believe the egalitarian equalist narrative is a deliberate lie with the hoped-for purpose of empowering people who cannot compete, or believe they have some plenary exclusion from competing in various aspects of life. One of the primary selling points of egalitarian equalism for men is the idea that they can be excluded from the Burden of Performance.

There is no such thing as ‘equality’ because life doesn’t happen in a vacuum.

The tests that a chaotic world throws at human beings is never equal or balanced in measure to our strengths to pass them. Equality, in the terms that egalitarian equalists are comfortable in defining it, implies that that every individual is equally matched in both value and utility within a totality of random challenges. Aside from this being patently false, it also demerits both strengths and weaknesses when that individual succeeds or fails at a particular challenge as a result of their individual character.

This is ironic in the sense that it provides easy, repeatable, excuses for a person’s successes or failures. If someone wins, well, we’re all equal so that person’s strengths which led to the success can be passed off as a result of assumed or circumstantial ‘privileges’ that made them better suited to their challenges – rarely is their hard work recognized, and even then, it’s colored by the overcoming of a presumed-unequal adversity that grants them ‘privilege’. If they fail, again, we’re all equal, so the failure is proof of a deficit, or a handicap, or a presumed repression of an equal person in a state of baseline equal challenge.

Individual Exceptionalism

One of the longest perpetuated cop outs (I should say paradoxes) that equalists cling to is the notion that People are People; that everyone is a unique individual (snowflake) and as such there is really no universally predictable method of testing character or knowing how a particular sex will respond to various challenges. It’s all random chance according to the individual’s socially constructed character and their capacity to be a ‘more evolved’, higher-thinking being.

On the surface this all-are-individuals notion may seem the antithesis of the ‘equality’ narrative that equalists cling to, but it is part of a cognitive dissonance all equalists struggle with. This approach is a means to standardizing individuality, so no scientific evidence that might find patterns of an evolved ‘nature’ of a person – or in our Red Pill case, a sex – can be predicted. It’s the hopeful cancellation of reams of empirical evidence that show how influential our biologies and inborn predispositions are. This ‘higher order’ individualism is always touted so the equailist mindset can claim that the exception to the rule disqualifies the overwhelmingly obvious general rule itself.

“We’re all exceptions to the rule.” – Carl Jung

“…and when we’re all special, no one will be.” – Syndrome

This fallacy is where we get the NA*ALT (not all ____ are like that) absolution of the most unflattering parts of human nature. Not All Women Are Like That is standard feminine-primary boilerplate for women and sympathizing men (White Knights) who’d rather we all ignore the aspects of female nature that shine a bad light on what are easily observable truths about their behavior and the motives behind them. The social convention relies on the idea that if there is even one individual contradiction to the generalization (always deemed an ‘overgeneralization’) then the whole idea must be wrong.

Of course, this individual exceptionality rule only applies to the concepts in which equalists have invested their egos in. When a generality proves an equalist’s ego-investment, that’s when it becomes an ‘endemic’ universal truth to their mindset. A binary over-exaggeration of this effect is the reflexive response for concepts that challenge their ego-investments. Thus, we see any and all of the (perceptually) negative aspects of masculinity (actually the totality of masculinity) painted as evidence of the endemic of ‘toxic’ masculinity as a whole. The individualist exceptionality in this instance is always ridiculed as ‘insecurity’ on the part of men even considering it.

The exceptionalism of the individual is always paired with some high-order consciousness, and/or the idea that anything that proves their ego-investment is “more evolved” – despite any evidence that proves the contrary – is proof of that this individual is a being who represents some evolutionary step forward. If you agree and support feminine-primacy it is ‘proof‘ that you are more ‘evolved’ than other men. Thus, the ‘more evolved’ status becomes a form of reward to the individual who aligns with the ideology. Conversely, the avoidance of being perceived as ‘unevolved’ serves as a form of negative reinforcement.

This is kind of ironic when you consider that the same equalist mindset that relies on the individualist exception is the same mindset that insists that everyone is the same; equal value, equal potential, equal purpose and equal ability. Again, the irony is that everything that would be used to establish the ‘unique snowflake’ ideology (so long as it contradicts innate strengths and weaknesses of an opposing ideology) is conveniently ignored in favor of blank-slate egalitarianism. There is a degree of wanting to avoid determinism (particularly biological determinism) for the individual in this blank-slate concept, but it also provides the equalist with a degree of feel-good affirmation that the individual is a product of social constructivism. So, we get the idea that gender is a social construct and, furthermore, that blank-slate individual is ‘more evolved’ to the point of redefining gender for themselves altogether. Even when that ‘individual’ is only 4 years old and hasn’t the capacity for abstract thought enough to make a determination.

To be an egalitarian equalist is to accept the cognitive dissonance that the individual trumps the general truth and yet simultaneously accept that the individual is just the blank-slate template of anyone else, thus negating the idea of the individual. It takes great stretches of belief to adhere to egalitarian if-then logic.

I apologize for getting into some heady stuff right out the gate here, but I think it’s vitally important that Red Pill aware men realize the self-conflicting flaw in the ideologies of post-modern equalism. Our feminine-primary social order is rife with it. They will disqualify the generalities of Red Pill awareness with individualist exceptionalism and in the next breath disqualify that premise with their investments in blank-slate egalitarianism.

This is easiest to see in Blue Pill conditioned men and women still plugged in to the Matrix, but I also see the same self-conflicting rationales among Red Pill aware men using the same process to justify personal ideology or their inability to de-pedestalize women on whole. There’s a common thread amongst well-meaning Red Pill men to want to defend the individual natures of women who align with the Blue Pill ego-investments they still cling to. All women are like that so long as those women are granola-eating, furry-armpit feminists – ‘Red Pill Women’ then become the individual (snowflake) exceptions to the otherwise general rule because they fit a different, idealized, profile.

The Inequality of Equality

I’ve stated this in many prior threads, but, I do not believe in “equality”.

I don’t believe in equality because I can objectively see that reality, our respective environments, our personal circumstances, etc. are all inherently unequal. Everyday we encounter circumstances in life which we are eminently unequalled for in our ability to address them. Likewise, there are circumstances we can easily overcome without so much as an afterthought. Whether these challenges demand or test our physical, mental, material or even spiritual capacities, the condition is the same – reality is inherently chaotic, unfair and challenging by order of degree. To presume that all individuals have equal value in light of the nature of reality is, itself, an unequal presumption. To expect sameness in the degree of competency or incompetency to meet any given challenge reality throws at us is a form of inequality. And it’s just this inequality that equalists ironically exploit.

As KFG was stating, “each dog has it’s strengths for a given task”. One dog is not as valuable as another depending on what determines a positive outcome. What equalism attempts do to – what it has the ludicrous audacity to presume – is to alter reality to fit the needs of the individual in order to make all individuals equally valuable agents. This is the ‘participation trophy’ mentality, but it is also a glaring disregard for existential reality. Which, again, contradicts the idea of individual exceptionalism; reality must be made to be equal to accommodate the existence of the equally valuable individual.

To say you don’t believe in equality is only outrageous because it offends the predominant social narrative of today. It seemingly denies the inherent value of the individual, but what is conveniently never addressed is how an environment, condition and state defines what is functionally valued for any given instance. Like the dog bred to hunt ferrets out of their warrens is not the functional equal of a dog bred to run down prey at 45 MPH. The value of the individual is only relevant to the function demanded of it.

The default misunderstanding (actually deliberate) most equalists believe is that functional worth is personal worth. I addressed this in Separating Values:

When you attempt to quantify any aspect of human ‘value’ you can expect to have your interpretations of  it to be offensive to various people on the up or down side of that estimate. There is simply no escaping personal bias and the offense that comes from having one’s self-worth attacked, or even confirmed for them.

The first criticism I’ve come to expect is usually some variation about how evaluating a person’s SMV is “dehumanizing”, people are people, and have intrinsic worth beyond just the sexual. To which I’ll emphatically agree, however, this dismissal only conveniently sidesteps the realities of the sexual marketplace.

Again, sexual market value is not personal value. Personal value, your value as a human being however one subjectively defines that, is a definite component to sexual market value, but separating the two requires an often uncomfortable amount of self-analysis. And, as in Ms. Korth’s experience here, this often results in denial of very real circumstances, as well as a necessary, ego-preserving, cognitive dissonance from that reality.

Denial of sexual market valuation is a psychological insurance against women losing their controlling, sexual agency in their hypergamous choices.

This is where the appeal to emotion begins for the equalist mindset. It seems dehumanizing to even consider an individuals functional value. Human’s capacity to learn and train and practice to become proficient or excel in various functions is truly a marvel of our evolution. Brain plasticity being what it is, makes our potential for learning and overcoming our environments what separates us from other animals. We all have the potential to be more than we are in functional value, and this is the root of the emotional appeal of equalists. It’s seems so negative to presume we aren’t functional equals because we have the capacity and potential to become more functionally valuable. The appeal is one of optimism.

What this appeal ignores is the functional value of an individual in the now; the two dogs bred for different purposes. What this appeal also ignores is the ever-changing nature of reality and the challenges it presents to an individual in the now and how this defines value. What equalism cannot do is separate functional value from potential value.

Adopting a mindset that accepts complementarity between the sexes and between individuals, one that celebrates and utilizes innate strengths and talents, yet also embraces the weaknesses and compensates for them is a far healthier one that presuming baseline equivalency. Understanding the efficacy of applying strengths to weaknesses cooperatively while acknowledging we all aren’t the same damn dog will be a key to dissolving the fantasy of egalitarian equalism and create a more balanced and healthier relations between the sexes. Embracing the fact that condition, environment, reality and the challenges they pose defines our usefulness is far better than to assume any single individual could ever be a self-contained, self-sufficient island unto themselves – that is what equalism would have us believe.

The Feminine Imperative in Corporate Culture

The Matrix is a system, Neo, and that system is our enemy. But when you are inside and you look around, what do you see; businessmen, lawyers, teachers, carpenters. The minds of the very people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of the system and that makes them our enemy.

You have to understand that most of these people are not ready to be unplugged and many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it.

I apologize for breaking up the continuity of last week’s post with this one today, but I felt it was necessary to address the recent firing of James Damore by his employers, Google, for allegedly breaking company conduct codes for raising many of the issue I and other’s in the Red Pill community and the Manosphere have been dissecting for a long time now. I generally don’t like to get too wrapped up in current events until more information develops about an incident I think is relevant to how the Red Pill (as it correctly applies to intersexual dynamics) is perceived in mainstream society. It’s easy to make mistakes so if I miss anything here please feel free to correct me or add to things in the comment thread.

To the best of what I’ve been able to ascertain James Damore posted what mainstream media wants to define as a 10 page “manifesto” (really a ‘memo’) about why it is he believes certain gender/sexual stereotypes persist in the tech field. After reading it, there is really nothing all that shocking from a Red Pill perspective in his essay. If anything, Damore is still deluded by Blue Pill conditioned idealistic hopes for gender equalism not dissimilar to those held by the MRM. Really there’s nothing in this PDF that the Manosphere and even the sexual sciences haven’t been revealing for over a decade now. Damore just had the balls to post it on what Google promoted as an anonymous inter-corporate intranet forum, ostensibly established to allow their employees to voice their opinions and concerns about the company in anonymity. Google is only one of many multi-national companies to have these forums set up in some lame effort to make it seem as if they value the opinions and engagement of their employees.

Now we see just how private and dangerous these forums really are to the livelihood of their employees. To be fair, I doubt that Damore is the first guy to get fired for expressing himself on one of these forums. I’m sure there’ve been countless other men shown the door by many companies with a lower profile than Google. What made Damore a target wasn’t so much Google from a corporate sense, but rather the ‘progressive’ feminine-primary corporate culture that is endemic to Google. Once Damore had published his very well-thought op-ed about the fundamental biological, psychological and neurological differences between men and women, and how this affects innovation and employment in the tech industry, the intra-corporate witch hunt was on for the guy who anonymously posted. No doubt Google code monkeys would have little problem identifying and doxxing James, but where this witch hunt stemmed from was far more likely his co-workers and fueled by the egalitarian-equalist, postmodernist mindset that pervades Google.

This is a snapshot of the Google corporate culture. The last gal, Danielle Brown is Google’s “Diversity VP”.

The official line from Google is that Damore’s “manifesto” constitutes a breach of Google’s code of conduct. Yet for all of Google’s insisting that they respect the right’s of speech within the company, Damore’s doxxing came from within Google’s corporate culture:

The employee memo — which was up for days without action by Google — went viral within the search giant’s internal discussion boards this weekend, with some decrying it and others defending it. Sources said the company’s top execs have been struggling with how to deal with it and the fallout, trying to decide if its troubling content crossed a line.

Apparently it did. In a memo to employees titled “Our words matter,” Google CEO Sundar Pichai said that the employee — who has been named on Twitter, although his identity could not be verified — had violated its code of conduct. (I am not publishing his name, because he — and others who disagree with him — have been threatened with violence online.)

Well, apparently James was doxxed identified and was threatened with violence both from within and without Google now. Thus, the predictable constitutional excuse that ‘you can say what you want, but you’ll be held accountable’ and Google was within its rights to fire Damore doesn’t hold water when Google promoted its internal forum as an anonymous place for employees to provide their input so the company can get honest feedback. I’m not a lawyer, but I think Google’s got a really sticky situation on their hands in that their actions technically constitute entrapment.

Furthermore, I get the feeling that Google’s campus is not unlike many other large corporate cultures – a core of skilled labor that actually puts numbers on the board as far as productivity is concerned working within a larger bureaucracy of basically superfluous positions that define the company’s corporate identity to the world around it. The writing on the wall now, that this skilled labor pool is seeing, is that this bureaucracy set of the company can have them fired for daring to voice a dissenting reality to their own ego-investments. How long before that talent pool opts for a more secure jobs in a corporate culture that looks less like the “people’s” revolution in China?

Now, all that said, James Damore, unwittingly or deliberately, has fallen into the trust-trap that I outlined back in 2013 in It’s Their Game. And while I think he’s got a pretty good case against Google, he had to have understood to some degree that Google owns his Frame. Perhaps this was his intent all along (nowhere have I seen how long he’d been employed there), but he was either very naive or very cunning in his in publishing his ‘memo’. Maybe he thinks this is his Atlas Shrugged moment, or maybe he actually bought the lie that Google (any company) cared about his employee feedback – that fact remains that the Feminine Imperative has assimilated every aspect of western society. The frame in which the overwhelming majority of men depend upon in their corporate, career, job, lives is one into which the Feminine Imperative seized social control over long ago.

For as much as it seems that standing up to systemic, calculated, postmodern ignorance is a heroic act of Red Pill aware defiance, never forget the insistent frame of the system you find yourself in. A lot of men in the ‘sphere like to tout the virtues of being ‘anti-fragile’ enough to weather the inevitable retaliations of the postmodern herd for their dissenting world view, and that may well be the case for a few men, but remember, everyone, with rare exception, is fragile about something – family, respect, integrity, personal relationships, the people who depend on him as well as his revenue (and the capacity to generate more) all apply.

Feminine Correctness

Every social, religious and corporate institution has been saturated with feminine-correctness. It’s important for Red Pill aware men to make this distinction because it will inform your decision making for as long as you remain in most corporate environments. I know many ideological and political factions like to trot out the idea about how they are against “Political Correctness”. That term, PC, has been with us for a long time now and its definition has been passed back and forth along political lines almost interchangeably for decades. Whatever it is one side isn’t allowed to address in public discourse becomes politically incorrect conversation. However, the distinction that conveniently (calculatedly) goes unnoticed is what I described as the Sisterhood Über Alles in my most recent book. Feminine Correctness permeates both sides of the political spectrum, but this is only one social arena amongst many where the appeasement of women’s perspectives as being the only correct perspective has been saturated.

Anyone who’s read my essay, Losing My Religion regarding how the Feminine Imperative has covertly (and recently overtly) assimilated authority of church culture – and ultimately doctrine – in mainstream religion can get an idea of what I’m talking about here with regard to corporate culture. The corporate workplace, big and small, has similarly been assimilated over the course of over six decades now; to the point that a feminine-primary influence has become a de facto authority under the premise of diversity, gender-neutrality and combating a presumed endemic male-sexism. All of which feed into the default, feminine-correct, presumption of female victimhood. Thus, we see the rise of the ubiquitous, almost universally female staffed, Human Resources departments whose true purpose is not about hiring, company morale or corporate culture, but rather an enforcement of feminine-correct initiatives and bylaws intended to give unquestioned authority to the feminine-correct social narrative.

In our modern corporate culture we’ve seen a meta-scale enforcement of what I termed Overseers in the Locker Room in my essay, Male Space:

Overseers in the Locker Room

The second purpose in the goal of female inclusion into male space is really a policing of the thought dynamics and attitudes of the men in that space. When women are allowed access to the locker room the dynamic of the locker room changes. The locker room can take many different shapes: the workplace environment, the sports team, the group of all-male coders, the primarily male scientific community, the ‘boys club’, the group of gamer nerds at the local game store, even strip clubs and the sanctuary you think your ‘man cave’ is – the context is one of women inserting themselves into male space in order to enforce the dictates of feminine social primacy.

When the influence of feminine-primacy is introduced into social settings made up mainly by men and male-interests, the dynamics and purpose of that group changes. The purpose becomes less about the endeavor itself and more about adherence to the feminine-inclusionary aspect of that endeavor. It starts to become less about being the best or most passionate at what they do, and more about being acceptable to the influence of the Feminine Imperative while attempting maintaining the former level of interest in the endeavor.

Men unaccustomed to having women in their midst generally react in two ways; According to their proper feminized conditioning, they embrace the opportunity to impress these ‘trailblazing’ women (hoping to be found worthy of intimacy) with their enthusiastic acceptance of, and identification with, their feminine overseer(s), or they become easy foils of an “out moded” way of thinking that the new ‘in-group’ happily labels them with.

Once the feminine-primary in-group dynamic is established a ‘feminine correct’ social frame follows. This feminine correction restructures the priorities of goals, and validates any accomplishments, in terms of how they reflect upon the feminine as a whole. Thus any in-group success is perceived as a feminine success in male space, while in-group failures or simple mediocrity is either dismissed entirely or blamed on out-group men’s failure to comply with, or the rejection of, the Feminine Imperative’s ‘correcting’ influence on the in-group.

In all honesty, Jame Damore’s rationales in his ‘memo’ were very measured, bordering on Blue Pill, in his attempts to preempt what he obviously knew would be a workplace viral insult. However, his experience is a high-profile illustration of how corporate culture has been taken hostage by a mindset fed and raised by the Feminine Imperative. When you consider that this is the corporate culture of a company dubiously responsible for global access to information – ostensibly legitimate, authoritative information by the larger populace – you begin to see the extent to which the imperative as assumed control not just of our social discourse, but the unquestionable authority to direct the acceptability of personal belief and critical thought.

When I wrote The First Female President, I attempted to reveal just how globally extensive the reach of the Feminine Imperative really was. So encompassing is the presumed understanding of feminine-correctness, so ensaturated is it into our societal subconscious that we tend to take its presence for granted until Hillary (the she) was denied the presidency (to the he). Then the societal scale outrage comes to the surface because what was presumed to be correct is not a universally accepted foreknowledge as their social subconscious had presumed was believed.

That outrage was on a geopolitical social scale, yet it was due to the same presumptions that cause the outrage we see over a kid at Google who dared to say ‘no’ not just to Google’s corporate culture, but to all corporate cultures that have been subsumed by the Feminine Imperative for over 60 years now. That any company would need a Vice President of Diversity is an indictment of how deeply embedded the Feminine Imperative is in corporate culture.

Kill Your Idols

The Family Alpha had a motivational post about getting over a past lover this week.

https://thefamilyalpha.com/2017/06/09/getting-over-your-relationship-ptsd-pt-ii-give-love-one-more-chance/

I thought this was a reasonably good post. My only reservation (and this is no reflection on TFA) is I’m seeing a lot of “get back on the horse and ride” positivity attempts to replace rational understanding of intersexual dynamics when it comes to men’s bad experiences with women or break ups in the Manosphere these days. I’m not saying that “steel sharpening steel” encouragement or a sharp kick in the ass isn’t helpful for these men. Lord knows I’m apt to do just that myself with what I’ve been writing for over a decade, but it’s my view that understanding the mechanics of why that experience happened, and learning about women and oneself is vital to a man’s personal development.

It’s not enough to say ‘sack up, go lift and get over it’; a man’s got to learn from that pain, go through the process of developing insight from what Red Pill awareness shows him about it and grow from it. Yes, men can dwell on it and let it consume them or they can utilize those feelings to motivate them to understanding how they came to be in these circumstances. I don’t think I’m exaggerating here when I say that the most common way most men come to my blog (or any number of other Red Pill blogs) or the Manosphere proper is as the result of going through a traumatic breakup.

I’ve mentioned this in many prior posts that, unfortunately, the time men are most receptive to Red Pill awareness comes when they’re experiencing the loss of a lover whom they believed was a key goal of their Blue Pill idealism. Their “perfect” Blue Pill world was destroyed for them, but more importantly their ego-investments in that world reached a point that Red Pill reality would no longer sustain for him. It’s at this juncture men seek out the Red Pill community. Some of the most common search terms The Rational Male blog gets linked to are phrases like “How do I get my girlfriend back?” and “How do I get over an Ex?”

While I can empathize with men in such circumstance, I also recognize that men need to Kill the Beta before it kills them. A lot of guys reeling from having the Blue Pill rug pulled out from under them resort to either suicide, self-improvement or a long-term dwelling upon what they believe was a loss they will never be able to replace. And even after the acceptance of that loss becomes normalcy for him, his subconscious still wont allow him to move on – even when he thinks he has.

Studies have shown that while women may take a breakup the hardest (generally, only when they’re the ones being dumped) it is men who suffer more in the long term, and, because of men’s mental firmware and differing sexual strategy, may never truly get over it:

But men are more “competitive” in their approach, meaning the loss of a woman they see as a good catch could be deeply felt for months or even years.

Anyone familiar with my essay War Brides, understands the evolutionary reasoning behind why women have an ability to move on after a breakup so much quicker than men. However, much of men’s inability to let go is dependent upon his investment in his Blue Pill conditioning; that and how his subconscious believes in where he fits in a sexual marketplace founded on Blue Pill idealism:

“The man will likely feel the loss deeply and for a very long period of time as it sinks in that he must start competing all over again to replace what he has lost – or worse still, come to the realization that the loss is irreplaceable,” says Morris.

And because women have more to lose by choosing the wrong partner, they are also more likely to pull the plug on a relationship – with 70% of divorces in the US filed by women.

Kill Your Idols

This only reinforces my stance on Blue Pill men investing themselves in the fallacy of Relational Equity. One reason men have such trouble getting over a previous lover is because Blue Pill conditioning predisposes men to idolize women on whole, while their old books perspective fosters the idea that their investment in the relationship should be what sustains it – rather than accepting the cold, harsh reality of Hypergamy.

TFA writes:

Many men have given the power over their inner-self entirely to the women of their lives. They let their ex-relationships dictate their future relationships, trying to do the opposite of before or they’ll fall into the same routine ultimately leading to a love life filled with redundancy without progress.

You need to break the cycle.

Married men, divorced men, guys coming out of a shitty LTR, and even the men who had a plate cheat on them thus scarring their soul permanently are not acting in accordance with their masculine self if they’re basing decisions off how they can avoid heartache again.

This is good advice, but I think one of the mistakes Blue Pill men make when they exit (or are ejected from) a relationship is that they see a relationship as the only legitimate form of intersexual dynamics. Once a man unplugs, for better or worse, that idolization, the giving over power of self to the Feminine has to be dispelled – but not at the expense of a full understanding of the Red Pill awareness that brings him to unplugging in the first place.

Most men, the largely 80% Beta majority, are conditioned to be serial monogamists. They are taught to identify with the feminine to the point that only what he believes women’s (old books) sexual prioritization should be is correct and valid for himself. A lot of well-meaning Red Pill men think monogamy is the only rational decision to break the cycle.

One of the maxims of the Manosphere is that the best way to get over a woman is to go fuck 20 more before you consider monogamy with another one. This advice actually makes, an albeit simplistic, sense in that the best way to avoid ONEitis is to Spin Plates. Usually, that’s what a bad Blue Pill rejection amounts to; a losing of the best thing that Beta has ever had in terms of sexual access. The Blue Pill conditioned mindset predisposes men to a scarcity mentality and it does so by training men to believe that exclusive monogamy is the only meaningful condition in which a sexual, intimate relationship can take place for him.

So, stemming from this scarcity mentality, we get generations of preconditioned Betas latching on to self-induced ONEitis-prone relationships. Thus, you get pitiable Beta men just this side of suicidal over average HB 5-6 women. I would argue that the reason we see such a preponderance of men bemoaning their post-rejection state (suicide or self-pity) is directly attributable to Blue Pill conditioning and then taking it from there.

Telling this post-rejection Beta, who thought he’d had his Blue Pill dreams come true, that he ought to Spin Plates, fuck 20 women and go lift is like speaking a foreign language to him. His Blue Pill mindset can’t comprehend it, at least at first. Getting past this state of shock usually involves despair, anger, disillusionment – he’s as likely to fight you for being misogynist as he is to fall apart in tears – but as I’ve always said, unplugging guys from the Matrix is dirty work.

Now, just for sake of comparison here, it should be noted that if we go by the Pareto Principle and presume 80% of men are Betas and 20% are some shade of Alpha, we’ll see the dynamics for a breakup change accordingly. I would argue that for the 80% of Beta men, they are the ones women are breaking up with. And the logic of women’s sexual strategy would also suggest that if a woman perceives her mate to be 1-2 steps in SMV above herself she would be less (if at all) inclined to initiate a breakup with a guy she sees as Alpha. Thus, the more Alpha a man, the less prone to ONEitis and lingering post-breakup psychosis he’ll be.

Doing the Work – Pre vs. Post Unplugging

Recently there’s been a push to paint Red Pill aware men as bitter guys who get stuck in the anger phase of unplugging. No doubt this can happen, and considering the mass effect of Blue Pill conditioning in men it’s easy to see how it happens for them. For the larger part I concur with what The Family Alpha is suggesting here; for both psychological and personal reasons it can be all too easy for men to get stuck dwelling on an experience with one woman and then transferring that anger and regret to a self-limiting outlook that holds him back from interacting with women. I imagine some of my MGTOW readers see this as being pragmatic, but as with everything for men, isolation is dangerous.

On the other hand, however, I still think we need to guard against falling into the trap of thinking that a man’s holding onto his Blue Pill regrets, or transferring that pain to a real misogyny means that fundamental Red Pill awareness is the source of his self-limitations. The point of Red Pill awareness isn’t to make a man ‘hate’ women, but rather to inform him of women’s nature so he wont hate what he’d never expect from women.

I really think there are two opposing sides that evolved from Red Pill awareness. On one extreme we have hardline MGTOW men wanting to remove themselves wholesale from interacting with women – largely because of their Red Pill awareness. And on the other we’ve got the Positive Mindset brokers believing that Red Pill awareness leads to the anger and resentment that causes men to limit themselves with women.

In the middle of this we have men who’ve found a new balance in their lives because they became Red Pill aware and created a new, healthier paradigm for themselves with it. It becomes a game of exaggerated nihilism vs. exaggerated optimism, but in the middle we have to find a healthy pragmatism in how we will use this awareness to redefine ourselves. It appears to me that at either extreme there comes a limiting of just how much Red Pill awareness either set is willing to embrace.

Case Study – Mitch’s Purple Pill

mitch

This week we had an interesting situation arise in the comment threads. A new(?) reader, Mitch, dropped in to recount his affair with a Ukrainian woman he’d become enamored with, emphasis mine:

I’d like to encourage men who still want a good wife to look East. As in, Russia, Ukraine and other former USSR counties. I cannot begin to tell you how encouraged and revitalized I am by this woman I met – and by most of the women I met and interacted with before I found “the One.

Full stop. Whenever a man even casually mentions a woman as ‘the ONE‘ you know he’s still clinging to his Blue Pill, feminine-primary conditioning. This is your first signal of a man’s mindset and is a glaring Beta Tell.

Next Mitch moves on to qualify the object of his, still unmet, ONEitis:

The biggest difference between these women and western women are three things: 1) They have a strong desire to find “their Right Man”. Educated, smart, attractive women with careers find life is not meaningful without husband and family. 2) What they require from a man is reliability, respectfulness and willingness to provide for a family. They want to be treated respectfully and well, but they definitely want to be treated like a woman. 3) They have no ambivalence whatsoever about being appealing to their man.

They celebrate this about themselves, their femininity and sex appeal. These women are genuine, direct, and have no time for games and are generally not interested (but are quite aware of) western feminism. Interestingly, during Soviet times women were “emancipated” from the homes and out into the factory and collectives, and the government propaganda machine even downplayed and tried to discourage marriage. So these women really know what all this means, and since the collapse of the USSR, (which has been a mixed bag for them in many ways) they have enthusiastically embraced traditional gender and marriage relationships. In fact, my woman very explicitly told me early on that she had no interest in an egalitarian relationship – and she has been very clear about what she wants and expects from me, and I couldn’t be more delighted.
(I’ve spent a week with her in person, talk on Skype a couple times a day, am meeting her in Italy in 7 weeks, after which she comes back here, hopefully for good. Oh, and she’s gorgeous and awesome in a million different ways. Wish me luck…. )

Sounds like a Blue Pill dream come true, right? I haven’t done a case study in some time so I’m going to take Mitch’s situation here and riff on it a bit. I really think it’s good to review certain fundamentals for the sake of men who are new to my work, but also for Red Pill men to understand the Blue Pill way of thinking to better help men like Mitch to unplug.

In The Purple Pill I outlined the process by which previously Red Pill men degrade themselves back into their Blue Pill mindsets. Most do this in the same fashion as someone like Tucker Max. They renounce their Red Pill behaviors and, for the most part, make attempts to compartmentalize the harsh truths they know women would rather they didn’t know or expose to other men. Guys of this Purple Pill stripe still cling (or return to clinging) to their old Blue Pill idealism in the hopes that the goals their old conditioning taught them was still possible.

This Purple Pill man still has had some exposure to, and practice with, a Red Pill awareness. The difference is that due to some life circumstance (unplanned or “accidental” pregnancy) or some part of his Beta self he was unable to disconnect from (the soul mate myth) in his Red Pill awareness.

However, Mitch represents another type of Purple Pill man. This is the guy who’s become Red Pill aware, but believes he can make his Blue Pill idealism work in a Red Pill context from the outset of his partial unplugging. As a result, there’s a certain degree of affirmation seeking men of this stripe look for from other men in Red Pill forums. That affirmation is entirely based in the false hope that he can use Red Pill truths to achieve Blue Pill goals. Thus, he looks for affirmation in this feminine-primary idealism without realizing he’s really just asking Red Pill men for their permission to persist in his Blue Pill hope while calling it Red Pill for himself.

Mitch goes on over several comments in an effort to get this permission to define his ONEitis as a Red Pill goal by qualifying her in every Blue Pill way imaginable. Needless to say the stink of Blue Pill conditioning wasn’t hard for my forum members to identify. He insists he’s read my work well enough to be considered Red Pill aware, but his actions and attitudes with this woman tell a much different story.

When called out on this fact we get the obligatory, “Lol…you guys can go fuck yourselves..

Lol…you guys can go fuck yourselves. I appreciate where ya’ll are coming from, though. Trying to save me from myself. And i appreciate how naive my post must sound to a bunch of hard core red pillers like yourselves. However, I am not nearly as inexperienced with women and LTR’s as ya’ll assume. I have learned a lot from red pill in general and this site in particular – it’s very insightful and helpful, and I’ve adjusted my attitude and posture toward women because of it. At the same time, though, it strikes me that many of you are taking on red pill ideas as a kind of ideology, and that’s its own kind of danger. The absolute certainty that ya’ll think you know all you need to know about me and my woman and my relationship from that very brief post is what I mean. As if red-pill theory, or whatever it is, completely and concisely explains the total dynamic between a man and woman. Red pill explains a lot of things really well, but certainly not the totality of the mystery that is between a man a woman in a marriage. If you don’t understand what I’m talking about, then I feel sorry for you. Red pill helps me tremendously in seeing more clearly what is going on. I totally get that I am a beta provider for her, that a large part of my appeal is what I can provide, and I get that she is turned on by alpha traits. Both of these things can coexist in the same person. Understanding this and what’s behind it makes me feel less anxious and insecure about that, because I’m more clear about what to do.

Also, being a beta provider does not make me a bitch. Providing for my woman and family is a large part of what makes me a man, and I derive great satisfaction and pride in doing so.
Also, I am not in any way “settling” for a 44 yo woman. Younger women were/are available to me, but that is not what i choose.

There’s a lot more to life than fucks and bucks, but if that’s all it is for you, then this is the type of woman you will attract. In a relationship, what you get is what you are. If I can’t find a way to live with an open heart, then I don’t know what the fucking point is. But, to each his own.

I don’t get mad with responses like this. It’s really all part of men’s unplugging. I’ve said it a million times, unplugging men from the Matrix is dirty work. Understand this now if you ever hope to aid a guy in coming to the Red Pill, there will always be a lot of anger, denial and frustration that comes from the disillusionment of breaking a man’s ego-investment in a Blue Pill mindset that he’s been conditioned to for the better part of his lifetime.

I found Mitch’s story engaging because it so faithfully follows the progression of rationales Purple Pill men will use in order to hold fast to their old, comfortable mindset. Thus, you see the binary extremes of anything that contradicts those old investments:

The absolute certainty that ya’ll think you know all you need to know about me and my woman and my relationship from that very brief post is what I mean. As if red-pill theory, or whatever it is, completely and concisely explains the total dynamic between a man and woman.

Here we see the attempt to cast doubt, but also a plea for confirmation of theory. He wants to believe that because there are no hard-fast conclusions of the uncomfortable aspects of the Red Pill that the possibility exists that his Blue Pill hopes may still be valid.

Red pill explains a lot of things really well, but certainly not the totality of the mystery that is between a man a woman in a marriage. If you don’t understand what I’m talking about, then I feel sorry for you.

Disqualification, but wrapped in the magical romantic language of Blue Pill idealism. Add a bit of pseudo-heartfelt pity for the men who wont reaffirm his idealisms.

Red pill helps me tremendously in seeing more clearly what is going on. I totally get that I am a beta provider for her, that a large part of my appeal is what I can provide, and I get that she is turned on by alpha traits. Both of these things can coexist in the same person. Understanding this and what’s behind it makes me feel less anxious and insecure about that, because I’m more clear about what to do.

Later on in the comments, Mitch tries to reassure me he’s thoroughly read my essays, but it’s obvious he hasn’t read The Myth of the Good Guy after making this comment. Most of his remaining comments are variations of this, to which he’s entirely oblivious of how apparent his Blue Pill nature is to the forum.

Feel free to read through the conversations, but they all came to a head in his most recent admission here:

 

Guys, thanks for sticking with me.

I sent her a text this morning that basically said I am going to fuck you in Italy. I love you, and this is what’s going down. We’ve had a number of conversations about sex before, about what didn’t happen in Odessa, etc. But I never pushed too hard. She says can we talk. So I skype her. And we go round and round about this. I’m staying calm, even sweet. But firm. The solipsism is off the charts – of course I’d seen this every time we argue, but eh, she’s a woman, what else is new? I just keep gently and firmly sticking to the topic, and she’s doing all she can to change it. Lashing out at me, saying I’m mentally ill, she thought I was different than other men, I’m trying to rape her, etc. Saying I’ve blown our relationship, she has all what I want, but I’m blowing it, good bye. On and on. Jesus Christ.

I’m now strongly suspecting bpd. These women are a fucking magnet for me. I did have interactions with very normal, genuine nice women over there – and tended to be religious – one very nice woman that I enjoyed talking to was very upfront from the beginning that she’s strong Catholic and will not have sex before marriage. I respect that completely. That didn’t even chase me off. It’s just that this other woman was so much more compelling. If she is bpd, she is the third experience I’ve had with this type. They are like catnip to me. Now that I see it, I’m definitely not going down that road with her because I’m all too aware of where it inevitably leads. Good. But, still..fuck!

Mitch, you’re not going to like what I’m about to type here for you, but just know that it’s a necessary kick in the ass and I’m in no way trying to flame you. As I mentioned in my last comment to you, you really need to read all of the links in my Year One collection.

I’m going to pick apart your latest report about this girl you ‘love’ and I think you should really give yourself some time to consider what you think has been your half-measure unplugging.

I sent her a text this morning that basically said I am going to fuck you in Italy. I love you, and this is what’s going down.We’ve had a number of conversations about sex before, about what didn’t happen in Odessa, etc. But I never pushed too hard. She says can we talk.

Two things here; first, you are using texting as a Buffer. This is what I would expect from a teenager or someone with an adolescent social skill set. Texting you ‘love’ her and convincing yourself you do after no more than a week of in-person interaction is a major, jumbotron-scale signal that you are not only Beta and Blue Pill, but also you subscribe to a scarcity mentality. This is rule one.

Secondly, you cannot negotiate genuine desire. You having conversations about how you’re going to fuck her in Italy are evidence that you really have no clue how Game works. Your pre-sex talks about having sex are again a major signal of your Blue Pill headspace:

Iron Rule of Tomassi #3

Any woman who makes you wait for sex, or by her actions implies she is making you wait for sex; the sex is NEVER worth the wait.

When a woman makes you wait for sex you are not her highest priority. Sexuality is spontaneous chemical reaction between two parties, not a process of negotiation. It’s sex first, then relationship, not the other way around. A woman who wants to fuck you will find a way to fuck you. She will fly across the country, crawl under barbwire, climb in through your second story bedroom window, fuck the shit out of you and wait patiently inside your closet if your wife comes home early from work – women who want to fuck will find a way to fuck. The girl who tells you she needs to be comfortable and wants a relationship first is the same girl who fucked the hot guy in the foam cannon party in Cancun on spring break just half an hour after meeting him.

Your conversations are all evidence that you buy into the ‘open communication’ Blue Pill narrative.

So I skype her. And we go round and round about this. I’m staying calm, even sweet. [Beta] But firm.[still thinking RP men will say that’s Alpha] The solipsism is off the charts – of course I’d seen this every time we argue, but eh, she’s a woman, what else is new?[attempt to confirm RP terms, and another plea for affirmation]

I just keep gently and firmly sticking to the topic, and she’s doing all she can to change it. Lashing out at me, saying I’m mentally ill, she thought I was different than other men, I’m trying to rape her, etc. Saying I’ve blown our relationship, she has all what I want, but I’m blowing it, good bye. On and on. Jesus Christ.

All this woman is doing is confirming your status as a Beta for her. Likely she thought you’d be an easy mark, but your overt insistence on preplanned, negotiated and scheduled sex has made her lose interest in you even as a Beta provider.

I’m now strongly suspecting bpd. These women are a fucking magnet for me. I did have interactions with very normal, genuine nice women over there – and tended to be religious – one very nice woman that I enjoyed talking to was very upfront from the beginning that she’s strong Catholic and will not have sex before marriage. I respect that completely.

This woman is not suffering from BPD, she’s responding how most women would when they have a man’s Beta status overtly confirmed for them. You believe these ‘types’ of women are drawn to you when in fact you have the same effect on every woman when you overtly demonstrate your lower value to them by sticking to your Beta Game while thinking it’s some how the correct, Red Pill way of dealing with women.

The only reason you believe you respect a Catholic woman is because you have no choice but to respect her because she reaffirms your Blue Pill nature, but still wont fuck you.

I’m going to invite the commenters to address Mitch’s situation in the comment thread, but I’ll start here by saying you really need to thoroughly read through my posts (or books if you prefer). You are in no way ‘woke’ to a Red Pill awareness Mitch. For as much as you believe you are, your behaviors, your mindset, all point to a guy who’s read some Red Pill ideas, but can’t disconnect from his Blue Pill hopes and attitudes.

You’re trying to force fit a Blue Pill hope into a Red Pill reality. This is why the last 3 women you’ve reported you’ve been involved with have been the same. It’s not them, it’s you.

Again, I didn’t write this post to flame you, but rather to let you serve as an example of how pervasive a Blue Pill mindset is, and how it retards a man’s social intelligence and his maturation.