Barbarians at the Gates – The Way of Men

For how incredibly smart many male scientists are, it is amazing how ignorant and brain-washed they are about male behavior and psychology.

In his recent book about ancient DNA and human population history, entitled Who We Are and How We Got Here, David Reich relates the story of early genetic work on the population history of Indian subcontinent, which showed discrepancies between the mitochondrial DNA (passed down through mothers) and Y-chromosome DNA (passed down through fathers).  There was some sort of “event” or series of events several thousand years ago, which led to the maternal DNA being almost entirely drawn from native Indian populations that pre-dated that time, but the paternal DNA showing a large portion from western Eurasians.  Those western Eurasians, likely the same group known as the “Aryans” in Vedic literature, were descended from the same Indo-European lineages that settled Europe.  In short, modern Indians are largely a mix of native female lineages and immigrant male lineages from that period. 

Reich suggests that this discrepancy was deeply “confusing” for a long time, and didn’t make sense.  He goes on to suggest that they eventually realized that the female immigrants must have not left many children, and perhaps the discrepancy was due to male-female power imbalances, aka “the patriarchy”.

Of course, the simplest answer was that those “male immigrants” were actually invaders.  Barbarians at the gates.

It is very possible they brought few females along.  And after swarming into India, they gradually monopolized sexual resources for themselves.  In fact, one could easily argue that the manifestation of that process was Hinduism and the caste system that persists in India till today.  Particularly when you realize those western Eurasians would have likely been lighter skinned than most native Indians.  It is simply the process of male sexual strategy playing out.

But what is amazing about this is just how far off the radar scientists like Reich are, simply because they seem completely ignorant of the fundamental nature of male psychology or sexual strategy.  Brainwashed by modern Feminism to see those products of evolution as “evil”.  Unless one is a practicing scientist, you often don’t see how much dogma and prior beliefs can taint the findings of even the most brilliant scientist.  Even they are not immune to the realities and foibles of human nature.

There is interesting book by Jack Donovan, entitled The Way of Men, its central premise being that men have evolved to create gangs and “defend the border”.  This principle lies at the heart of male psychology in humans.  You can see similar behavior in our closest primate cousins, chimpanzees.

In Reich’s book discussed in the first section, he also points out several modern day examples of the “Barbarian at the Gate” phenomenon: 1) the fact that South American Latinos have a 50:1 ratio of their European DNA coming from males, or 2) the 4:1 ratio in African Americans of European DNA coming from males.  This phenomenon can be seen throughout history and the world.  The Yamnaya (a widespread ancient Indo-European culture that invaded Europe) had just a few male lineages but hundreds of female ones. The overwhelming presence of Bantu male lineages and local female lineages across African peoples.  The fact that nearly 1 in 10 East Asian men have Mongol heritage.  Ethnic Han Chinese male heritage has a similar out-weighted genetic dominance in China.

The point of all this is that this is exactly why men have an innate desire to form gangs and defend the borders.  Lest other men come in and take our women, and exclude us from breeding.  This is also the exact reason most men have such a visceral reaction against mass waves of immigrants in the modern West. At least those not brainwashed by feminism.

Those immigrants are the modern-day barbarians at the gates.  And, although exact numbers are hard to pin down, they are mostly male … with recent immigrants to Europe for instance anywhere from 62% (according to Time magazine) to 72% male (according to London’s Financial Times).  There are those who try to argue that is not the case, by cherry-picking data only looking at Syrian immigrants in a narrow time frame, but we’ll ignore that.

Despite the shaming about racism or white supremacy or other Progressive demagoguery, the visceral reaction of native born men in Europe and the United States to this wave of young male immigration is perfectly natural.  In fact, it is entirely in their own rational self-interest, from a classical liberal perspective.  Likely a response bred into them by millions of years of evolution, a psychology that made their male ancestors successful.  Because men who didn’t defend the border were largely washed away from a genetic standpoint. 

History tells us that lesson, repeatedly.  Indeed, from a scientific standpoint, the observational evidence is overwhelming.  But the real lesson here is the dangers of scientists applying modern day social mores to the realities of biology, evolution, and human behavior.  Not only does it cause misunderstandings, but it can have a punitive effect on people who buy into the dogma, with real-world consequences.

Even science can blur into brain-washing, if we are not careful.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Chains of Freedom – The Era of the Harlot and the Domesticated Man

Real “freedom” is not the freedom to choose to do whatever you want … it is the freedom to make good choices.  Our feral nature is as much a cage as any other.

On an individual level, we are raising women these days who don’t seem aware of the trade-offs, who don’t seem to realize the supposed “chains” they’re railing against are, in fact, the chains of freedom.  Because none of us are ever really truly free, only free-er.  We all live as part of some social contract … the question is what form that contract takes.  That is the price we pay for living as part of a functioning society, and all the opportunities such a society affords – there are some things we cannot do.  Forbidden, outlawed, taboo, frowned upon.

Yet it is often the very same things that bind us – these Chains of Freedom – which also enable us.

A society that permits anything, that has no social contract, is not a society at all.  It simply descends into a war against all, bellum omnium contra omnes.  Our feral nature comes to the fore.

It is interesting to see this clash play out in real time.  A quick way to do so is to date a lot of women in the modern West.

For example, over the last few years I’ve gone out with several Asian girls here in Chicago, whose parents were all first generation immigrants from places like China, Taiwan, and South Korea. Very Americanized ladies.  I’ve also dated a couple Asian girls who grew up in those countries and came over to the United States as young adults, still seeped in their traditional upbringing.

In fact, I just went out not that long ago with one girl in Chicago whose parent came over from northern China.  She grew up in DC and New York, went to college in Boston.  And she was about what you would expect.  Early 30’s, spent her younger years clubbing, has a few tattoos, fucked who knows how many guys at this point.  And she is still living down near the Loop in Chicago, delaying giving up that Sex and the City lifestyle till she’s 40.  Or maybe never, who knows.

I’ve also dated an Asian doctor in Chicago, whose parents came over from Taiwan.  And despite her seemingly “put together” upstanding professional life, her personal life was a little more sordid.  She had some very suggestive tattoos, and definitely a bit of a freak in the sheets.

All that to say, it is interesting to see how girls brought over as toddlers (or born here) from traditional countries with parents having those conservative Asian values – yet who grow up in our Western society – turn out so altered from their parents. So blunt. So masculine. So brusque. So sexual. So feral.

Embracing their harlot nature.

In contrast, the girls I’ve dated who grew up in Korea or China and came here later are very different.  More conservative. More feminine. Much harder nuts to crack either emotionally or sexually.  And some may say that would be good for an “undomesticated” man like myself, but in all truth I actually enjoy the challenge.  I know how to play the game.  Indeed, when I am forced to rise above my own feral nature to truly “conquer” a girl, then I am often at my best as a man.  Even if, in this promiscuous era, I know that such conquest will likely not last long.  She is not yours, it is just your turn.

To which I will posit this curious yet counterintuitive principle: to be free is to overcome our feral nature, not to embrace it.  And in that sense, haphazardly casting off the chains which restrain us makes us no more free.  Rather, it is those chains that allow us as humans to carve meaning out of a world where there is otherwise none.

Those Chains of Freedom have another curious side effect: they also force us to introspect more.  When we must work within constraints, we are forced to take a good, long hard look at our choices.  In contrast, when there are no boundaries, there is no need to question if, and why, we must cross them.

I made some similar comments on a recent post on the TRP reddit.  How, from a TRP perspective, there is no going back at this point, and it is incumbent for a Red-Pilled man to understand the current cultural landscape of the West and how to navigate it … but it is a fair question whether the trade was worth it.  As well as the question of whether generations of the future should embrace the values of the Baby Boomers – diversity, androgyny, progressivism, post-modernism, etc.

There was an article in the National Review last month, written by famed Russian novelist and communist critic Aleksandr Solzhenitzyn, about the reaction to the commencement speech he gave at Harvard University.  During the speech, Solzhenitzyn argued that the West’s dogmatic approach to sociopolitical changes and social justice have led it blindly toward an erosion of individual freedom and meritocratic principles.  And that such dogma raises an important yet rarely voiced moral question: who is it exactly we are helping?

Solzhenitzyn’s arguments echoed ones I made years ago: that in our efforts to empower the weak, we have in the end empowered no one.

They also raise the question of whether it is truly acceptable to be self-critical of certain “progressive” principles in the modern West?  Concepts like diversity, androgyny, progressivism, post-modernism, etc.  Or are we once again, just like the Christian hegemony of middle age Europe, caught in an invisible dogma apparent only from the outside?

We see the same principle in recent missives from the Heterodox Academy, which if you are unfamiliar with is an organization of professors, researchers, and other academics who hold “support for increasing viewpoint diversity – particularly political and ideological diversity – on university and college campuses.”  Currently it has over 2000 members and rapidly growing.

The emphasis for Heterodox Academy is how do we train students and young people in self-critical thinking and rationalism in the face of such invisible dogma?  Rather than just shouting down speakers or ideas they don’t like.  Or more acutely, how do we continually teach each generation that dogmatic thinking is like an ocean beating against our shores, eroding the sand, with rationalism our only beachhead to hold against.

Indeed, such invisible dogma is a seductive mistress, perhaps the greatest harlot of them all.  A siren of the sea.

It may be, much like stories of the Asian ladies I dated told above, that we find freedom is a thing derived from boundaries.  That there is no freedom without the chains of freedom.  That casting off those chains doesn’t make us more free, but less.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

I Held a Protest for Poor White Boys From Appalachia – Nobody Came

I held a protest here in Chicago for poor white boys from Appalachia – nobody came.  Not the feminists.  Not the black folks from the south side who call cops murderers.  Not the social justice warriors who deplore the plight of brown children.  The progressives were nowhere to be found.

I am being facetious of course.  I didn’t actually do this.  But I make the example to raise a point: we are all bigots.  But more importantly, from a classical liberal perspective: we are all selfish.  Sure, we care about people … but we care about them more if they look like us, talk like us, think like us, or are our own children.  The difference is that classical liberalism knew that the key was to channel such rational self-interest, to align those selfish desires of individuals with the greater good for society.

A perfect example of this: recently here in Chicago there was a black barber shot by police on the southside.  The shooting launched a series of violent protests by blacks in those neighborhoods, aided by various white SJWs.  It was interesting to see the protests, with cops there ensuring the peace so they could go on, while those very same protesters screamed in their face calling the police “murderers”.  Of course, the police chief released the body cam footage of the shooting, showing the suspect clearly carrying a gun, pulling away from the police as they try to question him, ignoring commands, and reaching for the gun at his waistband attempting to draw the weapon.  Interestingly, the police trying to stop the man were a black cop and woman.  Yet somehow this is all about racism?

Contrast this with the Massachusetts cop shooting that occurred the very same day.  Brown guy grabs gun and shoots a cop 4 times during a traffic stop, as well as shooting and killing an innocent bystander.  All that to make this simple point: these are volatile situations, when a suspect is acting crazy who knows what they might do.  Cops are naturally afraid for their life too, ignoring that ignores human nature.  It’s important to put yourself in their shoes.

But the real aim of contrasting these stories goes back to point above about rational self interest.  Should we be surprised that black people are protesting the first example, even in light of the second example?  I would posit that we should not.  They are bigots, just like you and me.  They look out for their own.  That makes sense.

The problem comes when we as a society fail to appropriately channel those self-interests.  The result is anger, violence, fighting amongst groups.  This is why we see the outcomes we do in socialist societies, who attempt to temper the rational self-interests of some groups in order to create a false Equality of Outcomes.  A la Harrison Bergeron style.  This is the ultimate problem with things such as Feminism and Progressivism.  With countries like Venezuela.  With the misplaced outrage we see in the police shooting examples above.  It is a failure of society to adequately channel that selfishness.  A failure of a society that thinks it has the power to alter human nature.  A society that thinks it can overpower a raging flood, rather than build canals and dams ahead of time to control the floodwaters when they come. Or perhaps even put such floodwaters to good use like irrigation or a reservoir for the future.

The educated question then is how to we harness those rational self-interests … because if we are doing so then, from a Classical Liberal perspective, we are successful, despite the outcome.

The above issues are a perfect parallel with how we deal with women and Feminism in modern day society.  It would be easy to deplore women’s hypergamous nature, and their resource exploitation of men.  But like above, we should expect them to be selfish.  AWALT.  The issue is how we channel those selfish desires.

An interesting recent example comes from Sweden, where apparently feminists are now berating mothers in public parks for not putting their kids in daycare and going back to work.  Of course, Sweden has a 61.9% personal income tax rate to support that, due largely to policies pushed by Feminists and Progressives.  This is the flipside of generous maternity leave and state-sponsored daycare, women no longer have choices.  As Friedrich Hayek eloquently argued in Road to Serfdom , such “central planning” core to communal socialist states is a slippery slope to slavery and tyranny.  In this instance, Feminists have all but made normal motherhood an illegal, impractical choice.

In a broader sense, women and feminists generally expect men to act against their own rational self-interests, and there’s the rub.  Such a system only works if men are given certain privileges for acting against their own self-interest, such as respect and opportunities (what some people might even call “patriarchal”).  And if what is good for an individual man aligns with what is good for society.  That is the basis of classical liberalism.

Gynocentrism and Classical Liberalism, in that sense, are at direct odds.

Even on the individual level, we are raising women these days who don’t seem aware of the trade-offs, who don’t seem to realize the supposed “chains” they’re railing against are, in fact, the chains of freedom.  Because none of us are ever really truly free, only free-er.  We all live as part of some Social Contract … the question is what form that contract takes.

Indeed, many of the women I date these days only give me respect when I threaten to walk away completely, or make it apparent thru my behavior.  I suppose that is one way to channel women’s rational self-interest, to repeatedly slam the door in their face, so to say.  But such a last resort on the part of individual men bespeaks a misalignment of those desires with what is good for society. She wants the best available man (i.e. hypergamy), and I signal that I am such a man by showing I have options and can walk away at any time.  But she can never be sure, so she continues to push, until I ultimately do walk away.  Who wins?  No one.

And perhaps that misalignment is the ultimate failure of Feminism.

Striking parallel: what would happen if we started NOT policing black communities?  93% of blacks are killed in black-on-black crime, not police shootings.  Would those black folks prefer the cops not come around?  Because they are definitely not going to police those communities if guys like the one in the video can pull a gun on them.  I certainly wouldn’t.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

The Orwellian Curse – How the Democrats Became the Anti-White, Anti-Male Party

Totalitarianism is always a losing strategy in the long-run. Whatever power you may gain from it, will always come back to haunt you. Call it the Orwellian Curse.

I wrote about this  a couple years ago, when we watched the Boomerang Effect of identity politics come full circle to bite Hilary Clinton’s 2016 presidential election campaign in the ass.  Clinton not only lost to Trump amongst white men, she even lost with white women.  This is a stark shift in voter demographics from even just twenty years ago (see below). Which is of course fascinating on the surface since Hilary is actually a white woman.  But more importantly, it tells us something of the totalitarianism-based approach that underlies modern Progressivism and the identity politics that goes with it.

In short, Totalitarianism is defined as a political entity or group that attempts to completely control both the behavior AND thought of the society it inhabits.  It is an attempt to shape and control the dominant Cultural NarrativeThe problem is that once a society has been desensitized to using thought to punish/shame/exclude others, that subtle shifts in the narrative can eventually turn it on its own creators.  The real danger of such cultural narratives is that when one “single story” comes to dominate the discussion, then it warps our sense of right and wrong.  Political decisions and policy choices then become more about engaging in acts of social display, i.e. virtue signaling, than fact-based political discussions.  It becomes a race, a competition, to prove who is the most ideologically “pure”.

In fact, given the nature of societal mobs, it is almost a certainty this will happen at some point.  Like unleashing a dragon.

This is what we mean by the Orwellian Curse.  Indeed, Orwell’s book 1984 is not really a book about fascism or authoritarianism per se … it is a book about Totalitarianism. About political groups controlling and manipulating thought, and the dominant Cultural Narrative.

And so in many ways, one can argue that the Democrats and their progressive wing have really been the victim of their own success over the thirty or forty years in the United States.  From civil rights to gay rights to feminism to gender fluidity to white guilt, they have radically reshaped the cultural narrative in the U.S.  To the point that even suggesting that “diversity” or “equality” may not always be a good thing, that there may be downsides, is enough for shocked public outrage and humiliation.

In more recent years, this has meant many former allies of the Democrats, including the white working class (who still make up nearly 70% of the U.S. population) and many men, have become casualties of the Orwellian Curse.  The problem is that if they advocate for their own children, or god forbid themselves, they are seen as “ideologically impure”.  Try being an anti-feminist Democrat and let me know how that goes …

Social media lies at the root of a lot of this Orwellian Curse phenomenon in the modern West.  I would argue, in hindsight, that social media like Facebook are actually perfect tool to cause the over-fermentation of totalitarian social movements.  And that it in many ways contributes to the place Democrats in the United States find themselves now.  Let me explain.

It is easy to contend that social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter lead to greater polarization and extremism in politics.  Friends share things with like-minded friends (that is why you’re friends in the first place, right?), and automated algorithms further mold and shape what you see based on what you react positively too.  A positive feedback loop that simply reinforces your prior beliefs and prejudices.  Or, in a nutshell, a Filter Bubble.  Facebook belatedly seemed to realize that after the 2016 presidential election, though only because foreign entities were able to manipulate the news feeds and narrative for their own purposes.

But the bigger problem is how social media normalizes radical positions and virtue signaling.  In fact, one could argue that social media is basically all about virtue signaling.  Unless all my friends are really living perfect lives??  Traveling the world and always taking that perfect candid photo??  But probably not.

Social media is in effect a market economy for virtue signaling, where the currency is dopamine hits people get from likes and shares and retweets.

The problem thus is clear, social media mixed with politics simply exacerbates the race for ideological “purity” and accelerates the Orwellian Curse.  Hell, there was an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune by Mary Schmich last week contending that Father’s Day is “outdated” because all her gay and transgender friends on Facebook think so, and all her straight friends rushed into agree so as to look like the most “progressive” of the Progressives (le sigh).  Covert Bigotry at its finest.  So if you are wondering how it seems like all the sudden in the last decade or so the Democrats have become increasingly anti-white and anti-male, well there you go.

Interestingly, if you go back to the first Clinton (Bill, her husband) who was president in the 1990’s, you will see that just twenty years ago Democrats virtually split Republicans on both the White vote as well as the male vote.  Food for thought.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Women Lie – When Common Sense becomes Counterintuitive

Over at The Red Pill (TRP) sub on Reddit, we have a saying: TRP is the radical notion that women are just people.

And just like all people, they have flaws.  Sometimes women cheat, steal …. even lie.  The saying is ironic, in that the notion isn’t really all that radical.  It is only “radical” within the current climate.  Women lie.  Shocking, I know.

It begs the question: Should MeToo really be called “MeTooMaybe”?  Because the fundamental problem with the whole MeToo movement is that it glosses over the fact that women sometimes lie.  And by insisting that we automatically believe any female accuser, it is really asking us to pretend that women are perfect angels.  To ignore the fact that women are people, and that people are not perfect.  It is the Women are Wonderful Effect to the nth degree.

And doing so, ironically, dehumanizes women.  It assigns them a sense of hypoagency. In short, it is how we often treat children – they could never be evil nor held accountable, only misguided or mistaken.  The notion of hypoagency is a core component of modern feminism.  The corollary to that being that women are NOT responsible for their own actions.  But, most problematically, there are real victims in the world, and allowing these false accusations to profligate is a slap in the face to them.  Not to mention that we are teaching our children that there are no consequences for lying.  That irrational beliefs drawn from such misconceptions can be the basis for rational decision making.

None of the above is in any way consistent with Classical Liberalism.

Any man who has a decent amount of experience dating women knows they lie, that they are no more trustworthy than a man.  Any notion otherwise is laughable at best to an experienced man.  Makes one wonder if the whole MeToo movement has been advanced purely by women along with their male compatriots who don’t get laid very much.  Strange bedfellows.

One of the other principles of TRP is that women operate based more on their feelings, i.e. Feels over Reals.  How women feel at the moment often trumps the actual facts, even to the point of re-writing history if necessary.  This is known as the Lightswitch Effect.

Any many who has ever argued with a woman over something, or been suddenly accused by a girlfriend or wife of doing something they never did, knows this phenomenon very well.

What is really disturbing is how common the “women don’t lie” trope is in the media.  As I’ve written about here before, individualism is rooted on individuals having good information to make decisions.  That is the lifeblood of a liberal society.

The recent Sylvester Stallone accusations are a glaring example of this.  There are multiple witnesses in that case contradicting her story, including the woman’s boyfriend.  She only filed a police report after media outlets refused to pay to publish her story.  I mean, how much more blatant can you get?

Stallone is just one of many prominent instances of women lying about sexual assault in the last few years.  From the Duke lacrosse case to Emma Sulkowicz to the Jackie Coakley University of Virginia Rolling Stone debacle, the world seems full of these “MeTooMaybe” stories.  Sure you too lady … maybe.

There are of plenty of other Celebrity stories too.  The accusations against Morgan Freeman were probably the most ridiculous (there is actually videotape footage completely contradicting some of the core accusations).  The list of falsely accused goes on: Aziz Ansari, Tom Brokaw, James Franco, Ryan Seacrest, and many more.  At best, the facts of those cases were exaggerated or distorted – at worst they were outright lies.  Not to mention the recent accusations against the top Democrat in Illinois Mike Madigan’s aide … if that counts as “sexual harassment” then I’ve been sexually harassed dozens of times in my life by women.  We should just shut it all down Puritan-style and stop men and women from interacting in any way … after all, the puritans of MeToo is an apt representation.

This what we get when society forgets that women do, in fact, lie.  When common sense becomes counterintuitive.  When we forget that the Lightswitch Effect is a very real thing.  A gynocentric society where feelings dominate truth, and where rationalism falls by the wayside.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

A Feminist’s Tale – How to Disempower Your Opponent

In martial arts, there are two basic principles one must master: 1) how to attack, and 2) how to prevent your opponent from counter-attacking.  Many people usually simplify this to attack and defense.  But the reality, which most martial arts figured out long ago, is that one of the most effective forms of “defense” is actually preventing your opponent from counter-attacking you in the first place.

This may take the form of disabling your opponent.  For example, a common boxing tactic is punching the opponent’s body, which weakens their ability to counter-punch, reduces their coordination, and produces tiredness, shaky legs, and shortness of breath (not to be confused with a liver shot which can knock an opponent out, but is relatively uncommon with trained fighters).  Numerous other examples of the same tactic can be found in Aikido, Krav Maga, Brazilian Ju-jitsu, and the like.

The whole point is to render your opponent defenseless.  Only then can you unleash your full arsenal without fear of reprisal.  Total domination.

It is not surprising then that we find this same two-principle approach – attacking and preventing your opponent from counter-attacking – in modern Feminism.  If you look at phenomena like the MeToo movement, the entire idea is to create a paradigm where men cannot defend themselves, even from accusations.  No Fault divorces and the Family Court system are essentially the same thing.

A world where women are always victims, and men always perpetrators, means that any accusation by a woman cannot be countered by the man.  He is guilty by default.  He cannot “counter punch”.

All of this is the result of the gradual erosion over the last fifty years of men’s ability to have healthy boundaries in their dealings with women, both interpersonally and professionally and legally and relationship-wise.  No surprise then that many are starting to see modern Feminism as a female supremacy movement.

The Chicago Tribune ran an article last week about a national survey showing teenagers in the United States are losing interest in STEM.  At least that was the headline.  On closer inspection, the article actually says that percentage of boys interested in STEM dropped from 36% to 24%, while the percentage of girls interested in STEM remained unchanged at 11%.  Yet the article goes on to lament the fact that girl’s interest didn’t increase, rather than focusing on the 35% drop in boys’ interest.

Clearly programs to increase female participation in STEM appear to be making those fields less palatable to young boys, without creating any improvement in female participation.  But nowhere in the article is that problem discussed.  Feminizing STEM careers is only serving to undermine young men in the modern West.

All of this is a very clear example of the Feminist agenda: how to disempower someone.  All the while young men and boys in the modern West suffer increasingly worse outcomes, without any recourse …. and our society suffers for it as well.  It is a strange notion – that “empowerment” can be rooted in disempowerment of others.  Tearing others down, rather than raising yourself up.

The real irony, of course, is that classical liberalism is rooted in empowering individuals to pursue their own endeavors, rather than the collective endeavors of any one group.  Feminists must have not got the memo.

I will give one final example of this sort of power play, on a more interpersonal level, which I originally posted as a comment in response to a question over at RedPillGirl’s blog.  This comes from one of the girls I’m dating right now. She’s about 30, thin, tight body, youthful looking, what most men would consider attractive. She’s half-asian so that helps.

She does this thing where she uses some problem in her life (usually a contrived problem at that) to try and elicit sympathy from me, and if I don’t cave to that expectation she calls me “mean”. It’s classic female shit-testing. And I’m sure it’s worked on most guys she’s come across here in the modern West. She does it repeatedly, trying to get the man to cave a little more each time. Of course, I never do.

Her whole purpose, from an evolutionary standpoint, is to manipulate the man into giving her things, at first emotionally but over time resource-wise. This is part of her method of accomplishing that – emotional manipulation.

Now that would all be fine, especially if we still lived in a world where men could openly wield “hard power” to keep her in line. But we don’t, so my only options as a man are to either walk away from her demands, or to counter her with psychological maneuvers of my own, i.e. fight fire with fire. This is the gist of Red Pill theory and TRP.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments