The Existential Fear – Men

You need to understand WOMEN HATE BETAS in fact they hate them so much that they would prefer to work soul destroying jobs to support themselves than attach themselves to a Beta provider that wants to fuck them and impregnate them with his shitty beta genetics.

Incubus Rising

This was a comment that I meant to include in last week’s essay, but I’m glad I saved it for today’s article. It serves as a good starting point for men’s Existential Fear. If there’s one buzz-term that’s been bandied around by women since the rise of feminism it is “fear“. Men fear this. Men fear that. Men feel “threatened” by a strong woman. More recently it’s, “Men fear working with women today over concerns of workplace sexual misconduct.” So, I want to state here from the outset that I’m using the term fear in both these essays for lack of a better one. But what really gets the point across?

“Rollo, why does it destroy my soul to imagine my ex-wife / ex-girlfriend banging another man? I can’t sleep because I’m imagining her giving up herself sexually to a new guy.”

Some variation of this question is something I get a lot from guys I counsel who are going through a breakup or divorce. Sometimes it’s from men who’ve been separated from the woman for a long time. This is to be expected from Blue Pill conditioned men, but even guys who are Red Pill Aware will still feel the rage of infidelity even after the breakup has been official for years. Guys will tell me they wont even go out socially or associate with friends so as not to be in the same space as their ex for fear that they would do something rash if they saw her with another guy. There’s just something in their DNA that’s unsettling about imagining their ex giving herself willingly to another man – and they’re conflicted because the fem-centric world tells him he’s “insecure in his masculinity” for his possessiveness.

I can remember the same anxiety after I’d mercifully split from my BPD girlfriend. Even years after it was all over I’d still have nightmarish dreams about her. What the hell was that all about? What is our subconscious trying to get across to us with this?…

“Why am I so jealous and suspicious of my wife / girlfriend cheating on me? Should I feel bad that I root through her texts and IMs? Am I just ‘insecure in my masculinity’ if I feel like that? Why am I so possessive?”

This is another common one I get from men I counsel. I detailed a bit of this in Gut Check. Our subconscious mind has a way of warning us when our ‘aware’ mind is unaware of, or ignoring, the inconsistencies in our peripheral awareness. We’re actually much more aware of our environment than we appreciate, we simply refuse to acknowledge these inconsistencies. More often than not that denial is conditioned into us for purposes that aren’t always in our best interests. And sometimes it’s outright manipulative of male nature.

In Gut Check I related a time in my life where I had instinctively been suspicious of my wife because my instinctual awareness turned on the warning lights in my head. I had no rational reason to believe my wife was cheating on me, but I had a very real, evolutionary, reason that my instinctive mind would be suspicious of infidelity. Millennia of evolution has written anti-cheating failsafes into our mental firmware.

“Why are DNA tests illegal in some countries? Why is it illegal for a doctor or their staff to tell a “father” that the child he thinks is his own really isn’t biologically his? Why do we legally protect women’s cuckoldry?”

More and more we are seeing feminine-primary social conventions and legislation crop up that can only have one purpose – the systemic disempowerment and disenfranchisement of men’s interests in the reproductive process. The cover story for this Removing of the Man from any semblance of reproductive authority is what I call the Cult of the Child. I’ll be publishing a full essay on this soon, but the short version is that anything that serves women’s sexual strategy is always deemed to be “in the best interests of the child.” The interests of children has become the shield of what is really the interests of women’s sexual strategy.

For decades now, feminist ideology has successfully convinced most western societies that what serves the female reproductive interests is always what serves the a child’s interests. Men are superfluous at best, and pose a danger to the child at worst. This presumption is rooted in the Duluth Model of feminism, but women’s sexual strategy always comes at the cost of the reproductive interests of the man/father. I wrote about this in Children of Men. There is an open war on paternity today, but as with all intersexual conflict we need to look deeper to determine what the latent purpose of that conflict is all about. What interests are served in unilaterally disenfranchising men from the reproductive process?

Existential Fear

The answer to all of these questions finds their root in men’s Existential Fear – All men have an evolved need to determine and ensure his paternity.

Ascertaining paternity, and ensuring his parental investment is vested in perpetuating his genetic legacy, is the prime directive of men’s existence. This is a male imperative that virtually all higher order animals share.

Despite what many blank-slate academics still promote, men and women are different. Contemporary thinkers would have us believe the sexes are more alike than not, but the truth of it is we are different in fundamental ways that most equalists are uncomfortable admitting. Yes, we are the same species, but the fact remains that our differences, and in particular our sexual strategies, conflict in profound ways.

The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies:
For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other
gender must compromise or abandon its own.

In last week’s essay I outlined the the Existential Fear women hold in their evolved unconscious – that of the Hypergamous doubt. “Is this guy the best I can do?” is the question that their hindbrains ask. Since the time of the Sexual Revolution, and the systemic Fempowerment that followed, women have collectively used this authority to ensure the preeminence of their sexual strategy (Hypergamy) in our social order. I outlined many of the resulting social changes we see were the result of this in last week’s post, but this preeminence came at the cost of men’s interests and influence in the larger, meta-conflict of the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies.

Men’s evolved reproductive interest is very simple; ensure that the child a woman bears to him is his actually his own. Up until the last 60 or so years patriarchy, true, legitimate patriarchy has always been the order of society. Despite the ignorance of feminists protesting it, patriarchy has been a beneficial aspect of our advancement as a species since we formed tribal hunter-gatherer bands millennia ago. But that patriarchy depended on a simple doubt that formed men’s base sexual strategy – ensure his genes were passed into the next generation.

There are two ways a man can achieve this outcome. In The New Polyandry I explained men’s Strategic Pluralism Theory:

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

Essentially, men follow an ‘r’ or ‘K’ reproductive strategy according to their (perceived) sexual market value (SMV). Since a majority of men fall on the low SMV side of the reproductive equation social conventions that served those men’s reproductive interests had to be developed and standardized. The resolution of men’s Existential Fear needed to be instituted and standardized to ensure the largest number of men could be relatively certain that the children they sired were indeed their own.

A lot is made of women’s reproductive costs in academia. In a fem-centric social order it pays to focus on women’s suffrage/victimhood narrative. But, men bear reproductive costs in this equation as well. Men’s biological imperative is unlimited access to unlimited sexuality. Our best shot at sending our genes into the next generation is ‘spreading the seed’. Our biological hardware is made to do just this, but there are costs and obstacles to solving the reproductive problem. And the easiest solution for men has always been exercise their direct control over women’s sexual strategy. Imposing our natural strength (in many forms) on women has historically ensured that it’s women who were the ones to compromise their sexual strategy in favor of men.

Patriarchy & Monogamy

Socially enforced monogamy was the least barbaric of those compromises, but in this century destroying that monogamy has been a priority for the Feminine Imperative. In theory, socially enforced monogamy was the most beneficial mating strategy for largest number of (low SMV) men to solve their reproductive problem. But the fact remained that it was still an exercise of control over women’s Hypergamous natures. In essence, monogamy worked for men, and it was beneficial as a compromise in parental investment for women, but it also assumed direct a control over women’s sexual selection process.

Patriarchy and monogamy answered a woman’s Hypergamous doubt for her, and that is the crux of women’s Existential Fear – to have the control of her Hypergamy, her selection process, and ultimately the cost associated with that choice determined for her. This fear is exactly why the primary goal of feminism has always been the maximal unlimiting of women’s sexuality and the maximal restricting of men’s sexuality. It seeks to replace the social-scale compromise of the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies with the total capitulation of the male strategy. Today, the Gynocracy has achieved this almost entirely.

But for one sex’s strategy to succeed, the other’s must be compromised or abandoned. For a gynocentric social order, only men’s abandonment of their own strategy is acceptable – and this abandonment insists men deny the evolved imperative of their own Existential Fear – insisting on paternity.

In the evolved scheme of things men’s reproductive best interest involves sacrifices. When a man commits to parental investment with a woman he takes on sunk cost risks. The time he spends investing himself committed to one woman and the children they produce comes at the cost of reproductive opportunities with other women. Women’s sexual strategy necessitates he compromise or abandon his biological imperative. Naturally, both men and women have adapted ways to circumvent monogamy to optimize their sexual strategies (infidelity, short-term breeding schema), but the basic equation is the same; if a man is invested in one woman it limits him from seeking other (potentially better) reproductive opportunities. If you want to know why Plate Theory irks women so much look no further.

The only way this compromise of sexual strategy can be advantageous to men is if he can be relatively assured that the child he’s raising is his own. This is where men’s Existential Fear of paternity fraud begins. He cedes his own strategy and the sunk opportunity cost for reproduction in exchange for the certainty that he’s invested in a child that bears his name and his blood.

I call this men’s Existential Fear because denying men the certainty of paternity presents the same existential anxieties as a woman’s control of Hypergamous doubt taken from her. Women fear the idea of being forced to birth and raise the child of a suboptimal man not of her choosing, while men fear the idea of being deceived into raising a child not of their own genetic lineage. And until the advent of DNA testing only a woman could be certain that the child was her own.

This is root level stuff here. So important was the determination of paternity for men that an obsessive concern for it was written into our mental firmware. The risks of falling for paternity deception was that important, and the men who evolved this compulsion were selected-for. The reason we Mate Guard, the reason our hindbrains default to jealous suspicions, the reason we cannot bear the thought of another man mating with our woman is rooted in the fear of investing ourselves in a child not our own.

In the previous essay I mentioned the natural revulsion response humans have towards things that are inherently harmful to us. A reservation or revulsion of snakes, spiders, feces, rot and necrosis are part of the evolved firmware we’re born with. I would also argue that the revulsion women feel towards “creepy” (low SMV, Beta) men and the revulsion men feel towards “slutty” women is part of this. Both these revulsions are adaptational protections against our respective Existential Fears. Each represents our Instinctual Interpretive Process letting us know what our ancestors had to avoid.

The Mentor

“But Rollo, isn’t it a noble thing to adopt or mentor a child that is not your own?”

I get this response a lot when I discuss this, and yes, it absolutely can be when the choice to do so is of your own making. In fact, the reason adoption/mentoring seems such a noble undertaking is exactly because it requires a man to repress his natural concern for his ow paternity. Kinship affinity will always play a role in men and women’s relationships with the next generation. Human beings are innately tribal and familial because tribalism promotes the advancement of selected genes. So repressing this innate predisposition is exceptional, maybe even noble depending on the social context, but it is so because it requires a man to ignore his natural wiring. For what it’s worth, I think multi-generational mentorship in Red Pill awareness is going to be a new imperative in the coming decades.

It’s just this pushing past our natural, evolved, concerns about paternity that’s been the operative dynamic of the Feminine Imperative in consolidating power. The human revulsion response can be molded. Usually this is through some form of operant conditioning. Revulsion can even be conditioned to be associated with pleasure. The Feminine Imperative has been remolding men’s evolved need for paternity to its own ends for some time now.

The popularization of ‘Poly Relationships is one of the more recent redirects of men’s paternity need. As I mentioned above, the goal state of the Feminine Imperative is ensuring that women’s sexual strategy – and anything that foments it – is the socially ‘correct‘ imperative. Men must become more like women if they want to be accepted by a social order defined by women’s experiences. Men’s sexual strategy is only acceptable when it serves a woman’s purpose, so men’s existential imperative of ensuring paternity is always going to be in conflict with women’s strategy. A man insisting on his own paternity and the perpetuation of his name is in direct conflict with women ensuring she chooses to breed with the best specimen and be provided for by the best male she can lock down.

This being the mechanics of it, it comes as no surprise that the social conventions of this era encourage men to abandon that evolved need. We make “heroes” of men who marry the single mother and assume the parental investment costs of the man she chose to breed with. A fem-centric society makes this a noble responsibility – “He Manned Up for the loser who wouldn’t take that responsibility” – all while ignoring the simple fact that this ‘hero’ is only completing women’s Hypergamous imperative. And it’s come to the point that a man abandoning his sexual strategy is part of women’s expectations and entitlements of Beta men.

For the men who insist on their own strategy, the message is one of shame. Only a man who’s “insecure in his masculinity” would think that a child would need to be his own. In fact, the very title of “father” is offensive to a social order based fulfilling women’s imperatives. Father’s Day must become, ‘special persons’ day‘. Men should never insist that a wife assume his last name. And of course, DNA testing to determine paternity (even in light of life threatening illness) is to be discouraged if not outlawed.

Now You Know

In The War on Paternity I explored a lot of the ways our feminine-primary social order ensures women’s sexual strategy stays the operative one. Our divorce laws, our child support and custody laws all center on one thing – making sure women’s imperatives supersede men’s need for paternity certainty. Even when a child is not biologically a man’s, he has no right to know the truth, but he has every expectation to be financially and emotionally responsible for the “best interests of the child.”

Going forward I think the Red Pill aware man must embrace his existential need for paternity – and do so fearlessly. If a new beneficent patriarchy is to take root then men will need to reject the social conventions that insist a woman’s sexual strategy be the preeminent one. I think mentorship of the next generations of young men should also be emphasized, but I think this needs to be a conscious decision of the men doing so. Today we have the decision to be a ‘cuckold’ made for us proactively and retroactively by women and a feminine-primary social narrative. If you’re an adoptive father then I salute you, but understand, at least you had the decision to make yourself. Most men’s decisions to be the step-dad only amounts to him acquiescing to supporting the decisions of women. 43% of births today are out of wedlock, either electively or based on a bad decision by that mother. We also call single mothers ‘heroes’.

My advice to men today is to be aware of the game you’re involved in with respect to how your need to know paternity is being used against you. That need is well known to the Feminine Imperative and has always been a threat to its interests. Make your own decisions to mentor based on that knowledge and never marry a single mother. If you do so understand that your sacrifices of this paternity need will never be appreciated by women. You may believe it’s the “right thing to do”, the moral choice, but in doing so you absolve both the woman who made her decision for you and the biological father of their total responsibility (and the underlying evolutionary reasons) to consequences of that decision.

Remember,…

WOMEN HATE BETAS in fact they hate them so much that they would prefer to work soul destroying jobs to support themselves than attach themselves to a Beta provider that wants to fuck them and impregnate them with his shitty beta genetics.

Are you really willing to accept that your paternity need counts for so little? Are you willing to accept this truth and fulfill a woman’s life strategy in spite of it because you believe it’s your moral imperative to do so?

Widows & Warbrides

warbrides  

I received the following Tweet from a reader this week:

Hi Rollo, thanks for all of your amazing work. I think one topic that you have not touched upon in detail is the conflict between alpha widowhood and war bride dynamic. If women are constitutionally inclined to move on, then how can they remain sad about their ex alpha lovers? Even if alpha’s SMV was much higher than her, isn’t the whole point of the war bride dynamic is to enable a woman to move on and reproduce without lingering thoughts of her former lovers? This happened to me recently when I had to end a relationship due to unacceptable logistics (long distance). What followed was extreme anxiety on her part about losing me. So this contradicted with what I always hear about women moving on easily.

This was a great question, and one I haven’t addressed before (no, I haven’t written everything), so I thought I’d pick this one apart today.

The TL;DR version is this: Women only ‘widow’ for men that made an Alpha impression on them. If their previous Alpha was somehow ‘killed’ and replaced by a lesser man, their hindbrains resist that man’s authority over her while using her previous Alpha as the lesser man’s SMV (sexual market value) benchmark. In the most extreme examples, a woman who’s been forced to accept the authority of a lesser man who defeated her former Alpha will resist him and/or plot revenge for the idealized lover.

Historical accounts and various cultural fiction are rife with this archetypal story. The woman who is married off to a lesser man or becomes the War Bride of an undeserving rival (usually by subterfuge or sinister means) is an archetype because it reflects women’s deepest evolutionary, existential, fear – to have her Hypergamous sexual selection strategy forcibly chosen for her by a man (or men) who are undeserving or are suboptimal breeding prospects. As I mentioned, this is an existential fear for women; anything less than unilateral control over her own Hypergamous destiny is tantamount to rape. The fear is that she will spend her life raising the child(ren) of a suboptimal man.

War Brides

The premise of the War Brides dynamic is thus: Evolution selected for women who could more easily transition psychologically from one dominant male to another. In our chaotic ancestral past women and girls were a commodity to be preserved for a conquering tribe. While men or boys were either killed or enslaved, fertile age women would be preserved as spoils of conquest for superior, invading, men. Simply put, women have reproductive value – men (and often their sons) were mostly obstacles in the way of resource acquisition and those reproductive opportunities.

That may seem like a bleak proposition to a Blue Pill conditioned mind today. We want to believe in some egalitarian dream of humanism and cooperation, but our evolved, ancestral past is responsible for what we are today in terms of base biological and psychological imperatives. I first proposed this theory in War Brides:

“Evolution has largely selected-for human females with a capacity to form psychological schema that preserve their psyches from what would otherwise afflict them with debilitating anxiety, guilt, and the stresses resulting from being continuously aware of their own behavioral incongruities. Evolution selects-for solipsistic women who are blissfully unaware of their solipsism.”

A lot of critics of the Red Pill make two key mistakes in their assessment of basic truths. One is that we don’t fully consider the dynamic, and/or two, we think too much about it. The fundamentals we consider about female nature, with respect to women’s psyches, are rooted in our evolutionary past. So, when I deconstruct certain aspects of that nature I have to ask the question, “why would a dynamic be something beneficial to women and/or our species on whole?” When I consider Hypergamy, female solipsism, women’s collectivist mindset, or any number of other characteristics the question I’m going to ask is why is this dynamic still present in modern women, and what are the outcomes of that dynamic in today’s environment?

Look at the obesity epidemic in western cultures today. 68% of adults in the U.S. are overweight today and 34% are morbidly obese. Childhood obesity is at an all time high. Evolutionarily speaking this is the result of how our metabolism evolved to solve certain environmental challenges we faced. Back then food was scarce. Finding a way to insure we fed ourselves and our tribe was at a premium and our biology adapted to give us the best chance of survival. Today this metabolism is a liability in an environment where food is plentiful and what we need to do to get it is much less strenuous. That’s the quick way to illustrate what I’m getting at in the War Brides dynamic:

Given the harsh realities that women had to endure since the Paleolithic era, it served them better to psychologically evolve a sense of self that was more resilient to the brutal changes she could expect to be subjected to. Consider the emotional investment a woman needs to put into mothering a child that could be taken away or killed at a moment’s notice. Anxiety, fear, guilt, insecurity are all very debilitating emotions, however it’s women’s innate psychology that makes them more durable to these stresses. Statistically, men have far greater difficulty in coping with psychological trauma (think PTSD) than women. Why should that be? On the face of it you may think that men’s better ability to rationally remove themselves from the emotional would make them better at coping with psychological trauma, but the reverse is actually the case. Women seem to have a better ability to accept emotional sacrifice and move on, either ignoring those stresses or blocking them entirely from their conscious awareness. Women possessing a more pronounced empathic capacity undoubtedly served our species in nurturing young and understanding tribal social dynamics, however it was also a liability with regards to a hostile change in her environment. Stockholm Syndrome is far more pronounced in female captives, why should that be? Because women’s ancestral environment dictated the need to develop psychological mechanisms to help them survive. It was the women who could make that emotional disconnect when the circumstances necessitated it who survived and lived to breed when their tribe was decimated by a superior force. This is also known as the War Bride dynamic; women develop an empathy with their conquerors by necessity.

So how does this relate to the Alpha Widow dynamic? Let’s parse that out a bit.

Alpha Widows

Alpha Widows are women who’ve had an Alpha man in their past make such an impression upon them that any man that comes along after him must essentially fight with that impression in order to replace him as the optimal Alpha in her life. This is usually the man a woman pines for from her Party Years. Often he’s the first guy who ever fulfilled her Hypergamous dance card. Generally, this man is at least her perceptual ideal of the sexual selection criteria she was prioritizing during that phase of her life. Usually this guy is her sexual ideal as well. That sexual impact forms a strong psychological attachment because the memories of the sex she had are associated with hormonal triggers. The memories of a significant Alpha male are enough to prompt a physical arousal response in women.

Furthermore, that Alpha impact is so significant it can alter her future sexual strategy for every man who comes after him. This is one reason women generally have a Plan B man on hold should that Alpha ideal not present himself, or should he not be ‘tamable‘ by her in the long term. Women’s long term sexual strategies tend to be punctuated by holding out for their ‘soul mate’ who also happened to be the best sex she’d ever had. Lesser men who follow in his wake are simply contingency plans. In today’s feminine-primary social order, where women are encouraged ‘never to settle for less than they deserve‘, we see generations of women experiencing the consequences of this Alpha widowhood. In fact, we go to great efforts societally to placate to it, to lessen the impact of it, and to plan contingencies for it.

But where does that leave us?

One reason I detailed the War Brides dynamic in my earliest writing was because I’d had so many men ask me this question; ‘Why is it that women can so easily move on after a breakup? We were together for years and it’s like she never even knew me now!‘ The ugly, visceral truth of this is that women are far less convicted to feel remorse, guilt or shame over abandoning (Beta) men who didn’t meet their Hypergamous ideal. We all know the stories of the ‘ride or die‘ girl who would literally do anything for her man. I once had a reader link me a story about a woman who stole a police car whose arrested boyfriend was handcuffed in the back seat. There are definitely women who will help their man bury the bodies. However, that man almost universally is that woman’s Hypergamous, Alpha ideal. And this is where the power of Hypergamy comes into the equation.

Women’s prime reproductive imperative is consolidating in the long term on a man who best embodies her Hypergamous ideal. Even now I’m not sure readers really understand the influence Hypergamy has over women. Even factoring in the War Brides dynamic, there will always be women who will literally kill for a man who best exemplifies what she believes is (or was) the best she could ever do Hypergamously.

I covered some of this in SMV Ratios & Attachment. Hypergamy influences women’s concept of love, so much so that it forms the basis of who they will allow themselves to feel ‘love’ for when it comes to reproductive opportunities. If a man embodies this Alpha ideal no substitute will replace him, unless another man exceeds the previous man’s Alpha impact.

So, how does this modify the War Brides dynamic? Hypergamous imperatives can supersede the War Brides phenomenon in that it incentivizes women to mate guard and even kill a rival to preserve a long term reproductive opportunity with an idealized Alpha man. We can add layers of social and moral doctrines to this (marriage, tribe, religion), but it’s all really embellishments or a cover story for what’s really a biological phenomenon.

Women who monogamously pair with Beta men are far less motivated to feel remorse over that man’s death or replacement by a more Alpha rival. This is where the War Brides dynamic comes in full. Hypergamy never seeks its own level and if a woman’s lesser man is defeated by more Alpha rival this only gives her a better excuse for pivoting into that superior man’s Frame. That may seem duplicitous and self-serving, but this is the ugly, visceral truth, remember? The inverse of this is that Hypergamy dictates that women will only become Alpha Widows for worthy (Alpha) men – and sometimes even the fantasy of that ideal man is enough to replace a lesser man.

So, it follows that the degree to which a woman becomes an Alpha Widow or more easily adopts a War Brides mentality is directly related to what her perception of her former partners was. Regret, remorse and jealousy are reserved for what a woman’s hindbrain believes is her ideal reproductive opportunity. In light of this I’ll have to add some caveats to both the Alpha Widow and War Bride dynamics. Neither are mutually exclusive of the other, and both depend on a woman’s perception of the man (men) involved.


In case you were wondering about the title image here: Dutch and French women who slept with German soldiers during World War II publicly had their heads shaved to shame them for their natural Hypergamous impulses. This is an example of the survival-level conflict between Hypergamy and tribal affiliation.

The War Brides of Europe

(h/t to greyghost for today’s video)

Comment from Kaminsky on Dalrock’s thread:

What I find with that video of the Danish feminist. If there were such a thing as a Master’s Degree in the manosphere, you could show the candidate that video and have him break down all the elements of the female mind displayed. Point by point;

  • Let’s you and him fight
  • Shit-testing
  • Extraordinary lack of accountability
  • Collectivism to the depths of her soul
  • A form of AF/BB…In that men have to be both ends of behavior to meet females’ changing needs. Meek and placid during the forty years of feminist play-acting fun-time, now all of a sudden a different kind of man is needed.
  • Victim/victim convenient duality. Victorious feminists imposed their will and opened borders, now they’re victims and it’s up to men to clean it all up.
  • Equalist/androgynous when it suits whatever need, strong gender roles when it suits whatever need.

So amazing.

“Intractable solipsism” belongs in that list as well.

I apologize in advance if this post comes off as overly dramatic or kicking a hornets’ nest. It’s not my intent to wax poetic, but it will serve a purpose.

I was asked about my take on the current ‘migrant crisis’ in Europe by several Red Pill friends (both online and in person I should add), and how I thought it played into what I’ve written in the past about the War Brides dynamic. As my readers know I never delve into issues of politics, race or religion on this blog unless those issues are directly related to intersexual social and personal dynamics.

So it was with this in mind that I considered connecting the dots between Hypergamy and the War Brides dynamic and what I believe we’re beginning to see now in Europe. However, before I get too deep I thought I’d pick Ms. Thranholm’s interview apart first.

A Schism in the Feminine Imperative

I’ll agree with Kaminsky on his take for the most part; the degree of default entitlement women feel they have to men’s physical protection is glaringly evident, especially coming from ardent feminists, but the side-glance vitriol for European men wearing skirts in protest to the rash of ‘migrants’ raping/harassing European women only highlights feminist duplicity.

Is this rash as widespread as these women are making it? Hard for me to say, but not a day’s gone by since this migration that several ‘incidents’ of these migrant’s sexual assault (assault that would land the average European male in jail or make an American man a sex offender overnight) has been in my Twitter feed. I’ll leave that interpretation up to my readers, however what’s glaringly evident is the duplicity in the reaction strong independent® feminists are having to these assaults.

In the video Thranholm at last drops the feminist boilerplate and makes the concession all feminists (and Red Pill deniers) are loathe to hear – our society has become feminized. I’ve been making this point since the days of my writing on SoSuave; western society has become founded on a feminine social primacy that prioritizes women’s imperatives (Hypergamy) above all other considerations (lead photo NSFW). The fabric of western society from our religions, to our work cultures, to our personal relations, to our educational institutions, to the foundations of our parenting, have been progressively and systematically feminized over the course of 60+ short years.

To have a woman like Thranholm voice this from a visceral, fear based necessity is an indictment of how unignorable this feminization as become. In a similar fashion to how Open Hypergamy and soon Open Cuckoldry are becoming too socially evident to ignore, so too is the fact that an increasing majority of western(ized) men believe that touchy-feely feminized solutions to conflict are their first best alternative to violent, physical, in-your-face conflict resolution.

“This militant feminism that has been going on for decades, now we see the consequences that many men here are brought up to be like women, and to think like women, and be soft-minded.”

Iben explains in no uncertain terms that a lack of conventional, complementary masculine strength is so lacking in Europe that even feminist women are beginning to feel uneasy in the uncertainty that their safety could be insured by average European men. Underneath all of the posturing of strength, feminism still needs “muscle” for its physical defense. When feminism looks to its loyal White Knights for that muscle it finds them dressed in mini-skirts and high heels.

Without missing a beat, scowling feminist interviewer, Anissa Naouai, presents the complete obliviousness of the gravity of the situation women are facing…

“But that is what Europe is about, that is part of the European qualities that the European Union promotes.

[…] “These refugees are coming to Europe, shouldn’t they adapt to that?”

This is a glaring example of the degree of cognitive dissonance that has been cultivated in our feminine-primary social order. The idea that men who wouldn’t recognize that feminine social primacy exist, much less who would entirely ignore it, is so alien a thought that it never enters Anissa’s mind.

An Appeal to Honor

Iben continues and answers Anissa’s question without really realizing it.

“Now we see that these post modern values are just a construction.”

I thought this was interesting when we consider how long we’ve been told the opposite – that the popular concepts of conventional, evolved gender roles are the social construction. However once these ‘post modern values’ are slammed into the harsh conditions of a reality that diametrically contradicts it, then, then it becomes a question of “where have all the cowboys gone?” Now the truth is revealed that it is in fact this post modern, feminized interpretation of gender that is the social construct – and one with potentially disastrous consequences.

“…and now we see that we don’t have any male that can stand up, that can fight, who can fight back those male aggressions that we are feeling. So the vacuum that feminism has created means that women are the victims of those male aggressions”

And now we come to the standard appeal to the Male Catch 22 I described in The Honor System many years ago:

Man Up or Shut Up – The Male Catch 22

One of the primary way’s Honor is used against men is in the feminized perpetuation of traditionally masculine expectations when it’s convenient, while simultaneously expecting egalitarian gender parity when it’s convenient.

For the past 60 years feminization has built in the perfect Catch 22 social convention for anything masculine; The expectation to assume the responsibilities of being a man (Man Up) while at the same time denigrating asserting masculinity as a positive (Shut Up). What ever aspect of maleness that serves the feminine purpose is a man’s masculine responsibility, yet any aspect that disagrees with feminine primacy is labeled Patriarchy and Misogyny.

Perhaps we haven’t reached it quite yet, but we are approaching a social tipping point where the physical necessity of conventional masculinity will outweigh the liability to women in ceding the power that feminine social primacy represents. The need for ‘Man Up’ will outweigh the need for ‘Shut Up‘.

This need for women’s defense predictably gets couched in men’s Burden of Performance, and now that shit’s gotten real we see this dynamic laid bare in women’s shaming of men for not putting themselves bodily between them and an attacker. This is where Iben’s premise, and the sham of the Feminine Imperative’s social engineering, breaks down. And ironically the very idea of a new “male revolution” or supporting conventional masculinity on a social scale is even more appalling to Anissa than the reality of rising potential sexual assaults on women:

“It means that men need to take responsibility to go back to the old male virtues, to defend the women, the children and the culture. Because now this post modern project is dead, it doesn’t work…”

Iben goes on for a bit repeating the same men need to take responsibility for defending women trope in various ways and tries to explain to Anissa in as black and white a way that reality necessitates this. However the real disconnect, the most poignant illustration of feminisms denial of reality comes from Anissa after all of this:

“But the mass rapes shouldn’t be happening in the first place.”

“I’m sorry, uh, what?”

“The mass rape, the violence shouldn’t be happening in the first place. These are guests essentially who Europe has welcomed.

[…] should (women) have to protect themselves against mass rape on their streets at home?”

The utter cognitive dissonance of Anissa with her inability to grasp that these male ‘guests’ (who should be beholden to the Male Catch 22 by default) wouldn’t honor the dictates of feminine primacy is staggering. So much so it even fazes Iben for a moment. However, this disconnect is a textbook example of the sociological and psychological schism that is (or will soon) taking place for European women given their present reality.

I’ll stop here because Iben goes on to reiterate most of her points, and gets in another about the need for complementarity in conventional gender roles, but do watch the whole clip. The point I’m making with this is that there is a coming reckoning that a feminine primary society is beginning to face; post modern feminized gender constructs have fundamentally compromised the security of western culture.

Real Solutions

This then begs the question, what comes as a response to this? As I mention, the typical go-to strategy of the Feminine Imperative is to lean on men’s shame for not taking the masculine responsibility for women’s (and children’s) defense. However the same characteristics that make a conventionally masculine man a good defender are also a liability to women’s sphere of control once all her would-be attackers have been subdued. These are the same characteristic that have been ridiculed, marginalized, denigrated and punished by feminine-centric society for going on 7 decades now.

So what’s the proper response here? No doubt there will be the scorched earth factions who’ll quote us the following:

This city is afraid of me. I have seen its true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout “Save us!”… and I’ll whisper “no.”
– Rorschach, Watchmen 2009

If men need to take responsibility to go back to the old male virtues, to defend the women, the children and the culture it needs to come with a reciprocal incentive for men in doing so. Relying on men’s sense of duty to honor only works insofar as women are appreciative and rewarding of it. As it stands now, the average man either blindly believes his honorable action is to be more “soft-minded” in his approach to honor or has absolutely no motivation to risk himself for women who’ve told him they don’t need his “macho bullshit masculinity” for the past 60 years – right up until she’s assaulted or raped in 2016.

For a complementary gender restructuring of society it implies a reciprocal incentive on the part of women; one I don’t see forthcoming even in the desperate tones of Iben and Anissa.

It may be all well and good to let women such as Anissa to burn along with the rest of feminized Europe, however, Iben does make a valid point; if (European) men don’t do something by reassuming conventional masculinity they stand to find themselves in precisely the position I outline in War Brides:

Evolution has largely selected-for human females with a capacity to form psychological schemas that preserve an ego-investment that would otherwise afflict them with debilitating anxiety, guilt, and the stresses that result from being continuously, consciously aware of their own behavioral incongruities. Evolution selects-for solipsistic women who are blissfully unaware of their solipsism.

[…]women’s peripheral environment dictated the need to develop psychological mechanisms to help them survive. It was the women who could make that emotional disconnect when the circumstances necessitated it who survived and lived to breed when their tribe was decimated by a superior force. This is also known as the War Bride dynamic; women develop an empathy with their conquerors by necessity.

Men are the disposable sex, women, the preserved sex. Men would simply die in favor of a superior aggressor, but women would be reserved for breeding. So it served a feminine imperative to evolve an ability to cut former emotional ties more readily (in favor of her new captor) and focus on a more self-important psychology – solipsism.

Now, here is where I’ll step off the diving board and into the theoretical. It’s my purview that a lot of what men would complain are duplicitous acts of indifference towards them are really rooted in this innate feminine solipsism. That’s a bold statement, I realize, but I’d argue that what men take for inconsiderate indifference in a break up or in ruthless shit tests is really a woman tapping into this innate, self-preserving solipsism. Combine hypergamy with the chronically hostile environments of the past and you end up with a modern day feminine solipsism. Add to this an acculturated sense of female entitlement, social conventions that excuse this ‘duplicity’, and a constant misdirection of intent by women themselves, and you come to where we are now. As if that weren’t enough, throw in the element of hypergamy and the countdown in terms of fertility and long term provisioning that a woman must deal with before hitting the imminent Wall, and now you have a fuller picture of the conditions and stresses that necessitate this solipsistic nature.

It seems clear to me that women who align with Anissa’s feminine-primary mindset exhibit exactly this self-preserving solipsism in the subconscious knowledge that the men of their ‘tribe’ have become acculturated into becoming more like women and unable to defend them from a stronger, more conventionally masculine tribe.

Both Iben and Anissa are on either side of this War Brides dynamic, but both also illustrated the other’s solipsistic approach to dealing with it. I don’t claim to have the solution to this circumstance, and perhaps that should be the focus of discussion, but this is exactly the War Brides dynamic I laid out.

Dominance

Dominance

I’ve been watching with some interest the proceedings of the Ariel Castro kidnapping case. As more of the details come to light and the media aggrandizes the victims (virtually insuring a book or TV deal), there’s a lot of uncomfortable questions that need to be answered.

“Most of the sex that went on in that house, probably all of it, was consensual,” Castro said. “These allegations about being forceful on them — that is totally wrong. Because there was times where they’d even ask me for sex –many times. And I learned that these girls were not virgins. From their testimony to me, they had multiple partners before me, all three of them.”

I covered this a bit in He’s Special, making modern comparisons to the War Brides:

,..there’s been a lot of discussion on the forums I frequent about  Michelle Knight, Amanda Berry and Gina DeJesus being held captive by Ariel Castro for a decade. Let that sink in a minute, a decade. That’s 11 years. That’s a lot of life to live. That’s a lot of normal to get used to. There are other cases like this; Jaycee Dugard and  Elizabeth Smart come to mind, but are all of these instances the results of a hard-wired Stockholm Syndrome in women?

Just for the record here, I wouldn’t dream of trying to defend Castro, but in eleven years time a lot can become normal. I have no doubt that Castro held these women captive for 11 years, and the media would have us believe they endured sex dungeon conditions living like the Gimp in Pulp Fiction, but there comes a point of normalcy in ones daily routine life.


“I am not a violent person. I simply kept them there without being able to leave.”

“We had a lot of harmony going on in that home,” he said.

In our lives there is a certain degree of routine and structure most people become accustomed to. I get up at 5am most mornings, I’m at the gym until 7:30 and I’m off to work until 5pm. Somethings change every day but I live in a set of patterns and I know what to expect most of the time. The more I read about Castro the more I’m thinking the guy settled into a state of normalcy with these women and they with him. In 11 years they made no reasonable dramatic effort to escape? They endured a forced abortion and a homebirth (not unlike Jaycee Dugard) and still no collaborative plan they could come up with was effective for 11 years until one day Ariel left the door open? None of these girls were malnourished, and they could stand to lose some weight.

Naturally the feminine-primary meme is that Castro was “blaming the victim“, but I don’t think that was his point. He knows he’s going to prison for life plus 1,000 years, why not just shut up and go away? There was something of a normal life that became a routine for them all for 11 years. That’s 11 Christmases, 11 Easters, 11 independence days. The MSM will spin the story of their heroic support of each other and I don’t imagine the girls wanted to be there, but at some point living with Ariel was their ‘normal’.

Ariel, got sloppy. He got comfortable in that normalcy. Even if he was abusive, after 11 years my guess is he expected for that normalcy to continue and this was what his plea was really about. He actually thought they “had a lot of harmony going on in that house.” It’s easy to pass off his words as insanity, but here was a guy who at least wanted ‘harmony’. At the end of it all, all he wanted was what most men want – his means were evil and reprehensible, but wanted harmony.

Domination

A week back CH had a study and post regarding the importance of dominance and how it’s ultimately dominance that attracts women to men. Of course Roissy would like for looks to play a lesser role in attraction, and my perspective is that arousal is based on the physical to a much greater importance than women can afford to let on, but dominance is a key factor in attraction. I would also argue that an elite physique is the most obvious environmental cue for male dominance. The best form of peacocking is a good build.

However, all of that breaks down if the guy lacks a dominant Alpha mindset. Without that self-confidence and competitive spirit, the best looking guy becomes a foil for a more dominant one. Conversely, enough bravado and fearless genuine Alpha dominance can make even the ugliest of guys attractive by order of degree.

Ariel Castro was one ugly motherfucker, my guess is he never had the Game needed to even sniff at the women in the porn he claims he’s addicted to, but what Ariel had in spades was dominance. Raw forceful dominance he used to enslave not one, but three captured women. Capturing  and physically coercing them to be his prisoners was an act of dominance, but the want, and the expectation that he could have a harmonious normal life with these women was a testament to his (delusional) sense of self-importance.

Irrational self-confidence is the cornerstone of attraction.

When we contemplate male dominance it’s important to remember that to whatever degree we can actualize being dominant – at work, with women, in competition – our own personality, both flaws and attributes, will be manifested in our dominant actions and our beliefs. Castro is a piss poor example of a human being, but he’s an excellent illustration of how his frustrations and his personality were transferred into his actions.

He’s the negative side of that coin, and much of what is termed the Dark Triad of personality traits might also be considered dominant self-importance. However, that same sociopathy that makes for the bad examples is also the root of the positive ones. It really comes down to the individual, their sense of purpose and how they choose to direct that dominance.

If all this sounds like a pep talk to get you to adopt a more dominant mindset it wasn’t really my intent. I’m asked a lot, “Rollo if confidence is the key, then how do I get more confident?” This is a common deductive argument, as if they sold confidence in bottles at the drug store and all you had to do was buy the right brand. It doesn’t work this way. You have to believe it.

It’s fine for me to tell you act irrationally confident, and hope that the act becomes a permanent fixture in your personality, but most men don’t feel confident even when they’re acting confident. Confidence, and dominance, come from real established options and the knowing that you can successfully generate more. This is what makes confidence attractive, it’s the unspoken message to a woman that this guy can, has proven before, and potentially will again, produce more than he needs and other men aspire to do so.

Women & Regret

Paradox on the SoSuave forum had an interesting question after reading War Brides:

I’ve seen it mentioned here in passing but I would like to know how women handle regret.

How do they handle decisions that may affect their destiny?

Moments like:

Seeing someone on a train, bus, coffee shop, grocery store but not saying hello when the moment comes.

Meeting someone great at a party but not exchanging numbers.

Not calling back a guy

I have seen low IL changed to high IL but do women generally waver in their interest level all of the time?

The funny thing about regret is, it’s better to regret something you have done, than regret something you haven’t done.

Any observational answer I could offer here is going to have to be adjusted to account for women’s inherent solipsism – everything is about her, and everything confirms her assessments as the default. As such, you have to bear in mind that regret, for women, usually begins from a point of how a missed opportunity could’ve better benefitted themselves. The root of this is grounded in women’s constant, in-born psychological quest for security. Hypergamy, by necessity, makes for solipsistic women in order to best preserve the survival integrity of the species. That’s not to say women can’t sublimate that impulse as necessity dictates, but just as men must sublimate their sexual imperative, women begin at a point of tempering the insecurity that results from hypergamy.

Guilt and Regret

Using hypergamy as a woman’s point of origin, this affects how women process regret. At this point I should note that guilt and regret are not cut from the same vine. You can feel guilty about something you did or didn’t do, as well as feel regret for something you did or didn’t do, but the two are not synonymous. I want to avoid that confusion here from the outset, because guilt is associated with a lingering negativity, while regret comes from different motivations. If you did something you feel guilty about, you probably regret it, but you can regret something you have no feelings of guilt about.

After you finish reading this post check out the ‘Missed Connections’ section on your areas Craig’s List. Read the differences in tone, vernacular and purpose of both men and women lamenting a missed chance at something they hoped might develop. There’s no guilt involved in this wishful thinking, only a regret for not having taken an action.

Women’s Regret

Women’s experience of regret depends upon the degree or intensity of the encounter in relation to their own conditions. I know that sounds like psycho-babble, but let me explain. If, and to what degree, a woman experiences regret in the situations Paradox is describing, these are directly proportional to her self-worth versus the (perceived) value of the encounter.

At the risk of coming off as shallow again, the fat chick who thinks she blew a shot at a Brad Pitt will regret it more than the HB 9 who happened to lose an “average” guy’s phone number. I’m going to catch fire for this I’m sure, but it’s really an autonomous response for human beings to make subconscious comparisons and employ a natural ego preservation. While it’s latent psychological function is to help us learn from experience, generally regret is painful, so our natural response is to defend against it. We tend to regret not capitalizing on situations where the perceived reward value is high. The psychological buffer of course comes in rationalizing the actual value potential of that missed opportunity or minimizing the negative impact of the taken opportunity.

So the debate is really how do women in particular process this reward valuation with regard to men? Again, I’ll say it breaks down to subliminally recognizing their self-worth, modified by social affirmations and then comparing it with the value of the encounter. Even semi-attractive women (HB 6-7) have a subconscious understanding that most intersexual encounters they have are mediated by their frequency – how rare was that opportunity? Meaning if a girl is constantly reinforced with male attention (guys asking her out all the time, social media influences, etc.) the rarity of any one encounter is compared against the frequency with which guys are hitting on her. This is female Plate Theory in action. If you happen to be one among many of the throngs of her suitors she’s less likely to regret not following up with you in relation to the extraordinary (see Alpha) guy she perceives has a higher value than she’s normally used to being rewarded with.

Moral to the Manosphere

Putting angel’s or devil’s wings on observations hinders real understanding.

I say that not because I don’t think morality is important in the human experience, but because our interpretations of morality and justice are substantially influenced by the animalistic sides of our natures, and often more than we’re willing to admit to ourselves. Disassociating one’s self from an emotional reaction is difficult enough, but adding layers of moralism to an issue only convolutes a better grasp of breaking it down into its constituent parts. That said, I also understand that emotion and, by degree, a sense of moralism is also characteristic of the human experience, so there needs to be an accounting of this into interpretations of issues that are as complex as the ones debated in the manosphere.

Although I’m aware that observing a process will change it, it’s my practice  not to draw moralistic conclusions in any analysis I make because it adds bias where none is necessary. The problem is that what I (and others in the manosphere) propose is so raw it offends ego-invested sensibilities in people. Offense is really not my intent, but often enough it’s the expected result of dissecting cherished beliefs that seem to contribute to the well being of an individual.

Let that sink in for a moment; the reason that what I propose seems nihilistic, cynical and conspiratorial is because it’s analytical without the varnish of morality. For example, when I wrote War Brides, it was in response to men’s common complaint of how deftly and relatively unemotionally women could transition into a new relationship after they’d been dumped by a GF or wife. I wanted to explore the reasons how and why this functioned, but from a moralistic perspective it is pretty fucked up that, due to hypergamy, women have an innate capacity to feel little compunction about divesting themselves emotionally from one man and move on to another much more fluidly than men. If I approach the topic in a fashion that starts with, “isn’t it very unjust and / or fucked up that women can move on more easily than men?” not only is my premise biased, but I’d be analyzing the moral implications of the dynamic and not the dynamic itself.

I always run the risk of coming off as an asshole because in analyzing things it’s my practice to strip away that moral veneer. It challenges ego-investments, and when that happens people interpret it as a personal attack because those ego-investments are uniquely attached to our personalities, and often our own well being. Although there’s many a critic on ‘team woman’ shooting venom from the hip as to my emphasis on the feminine here, don’t think that iconoclasm is limited to the fem-centric side of the field – I catch as much or more vitriol from the manosphere when I post something like Looks Count or Women’s Physical Standards and the importance women actually do place on a man’s physique.

If you choose to derive your personal value from some esoteric sense of what sex ‘should’ mean, more power to you, but I find it’s a much healthier position to accept a balance between our carnal natures and our higher aspirations. It’s not one or the other. It’s OK to want to fuck just for the sake of fucking – it doesn’t have to be some source of existential meaning. If you think it means something more, then that’s your own subjective perspective – even in marriage there’s ‘maintenance sex’ and there’s memorable, significant sex – but it’s a mistake to think that the totality of the physical act must be of some cosmic significance.

It is as equally unhealthy to convince oneself that self-repressions are virtues as it is to think that unfettered indulgences are freedoms. There is a balance.