What Cults Tell Us About Dating Women and Feminism

The leader of the infamous NXIVM cult, Keith Raniere, was recently arrested in Mexico, accused of running a sex ring of female acolytes.  He kept a rotation of 15-20 women he actively engaged in sex with.  Each acolyte had Raniere’s initials branded on them near their pubic area.

It’s a fascinating story about an organization that started off providing “professional development seminars” to businesses, and somehow became a cult centered around Raniere, known to followers as “Vanguard”.

For our purposes here though, what is really interesting is the behavior of the women involved.  For instance, after his arrest in Mexico, several women who were living with Raniere at the compound chased the police car in a vehicle.  Or another example: the branding sessions were actually run by other women within the cult itself … i.e. Raniere didn’t hold anyone down and forcibly brand them.  Moreover, some of the women involved were Hollywood celebrities like Allison Mack of Smallville fame, who was curiously enough even one of the women in Mexico chasing down the police car (as you can see in this video, and yes I just linked TMZ).

The point of all that is to show how women behave in cults.  How easily persuaded they are by feelings and “flights of fancy” even to the point of engaging in illogical things.  Sure this can happen to men as well, but the ubiquity of these stories involving women is observational data telling us something about the nature of women and their psychological processes.  Hell, women have even begun deluging the Parkland High School mass shooter  in Florida, Nicholas Cruz, with love letters and suggestive photos.  Cruz killed 17 people during his rampage last month.  The same thing (known as hybristophilia) has happened to Ted Bundy, the Boston Marathon bomber, and many other high-profile male criminals.

This all ties back to the War Brides theory that Rollo has expounded on The Rational Male.  Women appear to be hard-wired to submit to the “conqueror”.  Hard-wired to be attracted to men who exhibit narcissistic traits and/or psychopathic tendencies.  Men who have the potential for violence.

Certainly there may be exceptions to this, but the phenomenon is widespread.  Mainstream science refers to it using the term Stockholm Syndrome, which of course recasts the phenomenon as a form of “victimization”.  But whether it is a form of victimization or simply an effective evolutionary survival strategy is a matter of subjective opinion.

Either way, this all tells us something very important about the nature of women, dating them, and even Feminism itself.


All of this really connects back to the myths that are propagated in the modern-day West about how men and women are the “same”, and the negative implications of that for dating and the sexual marketplace.

Even Science is grudgingly coming back to terms with what has always been conventional wisdom: that men and women are different, and what they want in a mating partner is different.  Surprise surprise, science now says that men like slender women and women like rich men.

But there is a deeper lesson here amongst the cult-like behavior for dating and the modern man: Females like to submit to powerful men.  They want to be led.

This is a foundational principle amongst men who “game” women, whether that be Red Pill adherents or old school pickup artist types or just your average player on the street.  Principles like Frame and Amused Mastery are merely extensions of that central idea.

But it also tells us something important about the nature of Feminism as a political force, and its herd-like and cult-like attributes, and how easily it has molded into something it never intended to be.  Something very different from what it started as.

That same need to be led, the engagement in feelings over facts, suggests that it was always bound to go too far.  That, much like an individual man dating an individual woman, it needed to be led.  That it needed men to eventually set boundaries and tell it “No”.

From a classical liberal perspective, you can see the fundamental danger here.  The current dominant Cultural Narrative suggests that men and women are the same, that women don’t need to be led, that men shouldn’t set boundaries … and yet unleashes a female led movement upon the masses in such an environment where no reasonable constraints from men will be present.  It is a recipe for disaster.

It is telling, no doubt, that we see most of the pushback against Feminism from other women.  Women are unhappier than they have ever been in the last century, and continue only to become more so.  Perhaps in the absence of male boundaries, the only impetus for restraint is overwhelming negative consequences.

But of course the easiest solution may be simply to teach Men how to be Men again.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

Freedom is a Thing Derived from Boundaries

I recently made this comment on the Red Pill sub over at Reddit: Just Walk Away … the main gist being that the ability to walk away without a word from something or someone is the ultimate demarcator of a man.

Because freedom is a thing derived from boundaries.

I have written about this before in previous posts.  Any rational man has to ask tough questions about the reality of the “issues” that confront him.  A man needs hard edges, unwithering frame in the face of all storms.  To know where to draw the line.  For if we won’t defend the principles we claim to espouse, to live by, and instead let others redefine them till they bear little to no resemblance to the originals, then we forsake our own boundaries.  This is true in relationships, as it is in life in general.

You are only truly free when you are free to walk away. 

Without men who know how to say “No”, there are no principles. And without principles there is no Liberalism.  And without Liberalism there is no free society.  Freedom is a thing that derives from boundaries.

Women, ones you are dating or otherwise, will often push and push and push.  Some may say to argue back.  Others to fight.  But the firmest way to establish boundaries is to simply walk away.  It is the loudest way to say: Fuck you, childish creature, without actually saying it.


Feminism and its like are just a society-wide macrocosm of the same thing.  Too many people getting angry and riled up about it.  When really what you should be doing is giving it no attention.  Because like a fire, feminism needs attention and outrage to persist.

Feminism – and all its failings – dies when men just walk away.

The reconstruction of marriage 2.0, the no-fault divorces, child support issues, artificially created pay standards, diversity quotas, complaints about “pink taxes”, male shaming, diagnosing every boy with ADHD, lading them all with Adderall, Title IX, campus witch hunts, MeToo witch hunts, etc. etc. etc.

It all ends NOT when men get angry. NOT when they organize into men’s rights activist groups. NOT when men march and lobby like clucking hens.  It ends when men say no, and walk away.

Boundaries.  When we re-establish healthy boundaries.  At an individual level in male-female relationships, but also at a societal level of male-female gender dynamics.

Because unhealthy boundaries are not a sign of “progress”, but rather a sign of dysfunction.  Either at the relationship or societal level.  And currently we live in a world where men’s boundaries have largely been eroded.

 

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

Would Modern Progressives Hate Socrates and Galileo If They Were Alive Today?

Interesting thought experiment: If Galileo or Socrates were alive today, would they be despised by Progressives?

Galileo and Socrates – two men who were known iconoclasts, who bucked the dominant Cultural Narrative of their time.  Who challenged the virtue of widely held beliefs.  Galileo questioned the very construction of our universe.  Socrates went so far as to question whether democracy was universally good in all situations.  Not the most politically correct of views, especially at the time.

Can you imagine the Social Justice Warriors heads exploding nowadays if someone questioned the virtue of ideals like universal suffrage and equality?

SJWs and Progressives don’t like it when anyone questions things which they believe that “obviously” must be true.  Think it’s safe to say that people like Galileo and Socrates, Voltaire and others, would have drawn the ire of such groups if they lived in modern times.  Indeed, many of history’s most revered thinkers were iconoclasts … they stood alone, willing to challenge commonly held beliefs in the pursuit of truth, without need for rallies or hashtags or angry mobs.


The funny thing about the Mob is that it never realizes it is the mob.  And that is exactly what Feminists and Progressives and SJWs are: our modern version of the mob.  Those angry and irate souls who feel so aggrieved, coming together to rile each other up, hunting down those that disagree, and seeking to persecute them for not “falling in line.”

A trip through history reveals that there has typically been some sort of mob at any given time, usually simmering beneath the surface then rearing its ugly head once a certain critical mass has been reached.  And they always exhibit those characteristics listed in the last sentence of the preceding paragraph.

The Reign of Terror during the French Revolution.  The Spanish Inquisition.  Antifa.  The Athenian mob that brought down Socrates.  The modern Progressive/Feminist/SJW movement.

All just variants of the same phenomena.

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

Unintended Consequences – The Puritans of MeToo

It is strange how the things we do often have unintended consequences.  Or as one of my favorite sayings goes: Most of today’s problems are the result of yesterday’s solutions.

So it is beyond fascinating how the tearing down of traditional religion in the West, and the “liberation” and sexual empowerment of people has led to a new kind of belief system … and how that system is just as fundamentalist as the one it replaced.

Unintended consequences.

Sexual empowerment of people, long a promise of the 1960’s and 2nd Wave Feminism, has led to a lockdown and censuring of people’s sexual behavior in the current era.  Everything – literally everything at this point – is potentially sexual harassment or even assault. Either at the time, or even just in hindsight.

Which begs the question, if the definition of a word is literally anything, then what does the word even mean anymore?  Does it have utility as a word?

Unintended consequences.

Curiously, Shaun White is simultaneously being praised and accused of past indiscretion at the Olympics.  I read some of the text message transcripts.  Cringeworthy sure.  But all of it reads like a young beta male who is not very good with women trying to pursue a woman.  Perhaps a bit aggressively.

But I will just go ahead and throw this out there: I’ve rarely had success with women as a man in a sex and relationships sense without being aggressive.  Sure, women will sometimes take on that role.  But most of the time it falls to the man to be aggressive.  Women may give off signals, even pursue you, but only to a point (and the ones who go beyond that point often are damaged or have mental issues).  Men at some point must take the initiative and make things happen.

To do otherwise, to repress male sexual aggression, is to revert back to the lifestyle of Puritans.  To a world of sexual repression.  We can’t have it both ways.

Unintended consequences.

Other people have written about the puritanical aspect of MeToo, and they are correct.  A large number of European actresses even signed a public letter denouncing it for similar reasons.

Yet sometimes the very freedoms that come from our classical liberalism heritage in the West lead to entire groups of people spitting on those same freedoms.  Spitting on the very notion of free speech and free thought, as the protestors at Evergreen State College taught us last year … or to quote one of the protestors: “Fuck your free speech!”

Unintended consequences.

Maybe we should ship those protestors off to North Korea to live for a year, to see how they like living in a society without free speech or free thought?


Here in Illinois, the state is basically run by one man in an autocratic fashion. That is because – given the state’s political leanings – it is effectively one-party rule.  The state leans hard toward the American left, aka the Democratic party, to the point they have supermajorities in both legislative houses.

The man’s name is Mike Madigan.  He is the head of the Democratic Party in the state of Illinois as well as the speaker of the house.  He is the longest serving legislative leader in the history of the United States.

If anyone dissents, he shuts them down, removes them from any positions of power (e.g. committee appointments), and chooses a hand-picked opponent to challenge them in the next election.  Using his pull and resources, the hand-picked opponent almost invariably wins.  Property taxes are the highest in the nation, because Madigan, like many of his democratic colleagues, are property tax lawyers.  Illinois is ironically in one of the worst financial situations of any state in the nation.

This from a man who was elected by those who claim to value freedom and fairness, who worry about those who would exploit the weak to benefit the powerful.

Unintended consequences.

Interestingly, one of his top aides was recently caught up in the whole MeToo hysteria.

What’s ironic is that this may be the only way to finally dethrone Madigan and attempt to reform Illinois politics.  All based on a movement started by Feminists and their progressive allies to call out sexual aggressors.  And in the end, it may finally wind up removing a Democratic bastion in a solidly blue state who seemed, to this point, invincible.

Unintended consequences.

If this case teaches us anything, it is that unintended consequences sometimes swing both ways.  Progressives, Feminists, and women in general should be careful what they wish for.  A puritanical society where men no longer pursue women may not lead to the life outcomes they truly want. And it may have more far-reaching implications than they realize.

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

Empiricism Deficit – Feminism and the Myth of the “Peaceful” Native

We are all innately assholes.  All innately selfish.  All innately bigots.  Myths otherwise are simply a way of coping with those inconvenient facts.

All humans have the propensity to replace one set of myths for another.  An innate need to create a narrative of our lives, a narrative of the world.  To understand.  Stories we tell ourselves to create meaning out of a world that often times seems senseless, or even ruthless.

The funny thing about myths, though, is we often don’t realize they are there.  They are beliefs we hold, unquestioned, without being aware we believe them.   This is particularly true for the Cultural Narratives into which we were born.

This lies at the root of why many Classical Liberals – Locke, Hume, Voltaire, etc. – fiercely argued for empiricism.  One cannot trust one’s own senses, one’s own narrative.  Simply casting aside one narrative for another does not solve the issue.  The ability to deceive ourselves is as great, if not greater, than of those around us.

In contrast, a critical problem with modern Progressivism and Feminism is their Empiricism Deficit.


An example of this is the modern myth of the “peaceful” native … the notion that Native Americans and Africans and others before the coming of white Europeans were living a mostly peaceful and idyllic life, with perhaps a minor spat here or there.

Now anyone can point to obvious counter-examples like the Aztecs and their blood sacrifices.  But a careful study of history is rife with examples.  Basically any place humans lived, as long as there was high enough population density, they would fight and kill each other over resources and sexual access (and for the most part more resources meant greater sexual access).

Everything in this world is about sex … except sex, sex is about power – Oscar Wilde

Let me repeat that: humans fight and kill each other so they can have more sex and raise more babies.  It is simply a corollary to evolution.  If one accepts that humans desire to reproduce (which is obviously true, there are 7 billion of on the planet now), then sexual access becomes a serious necessity.

In South America, the Shuar Indians are famous for their “shrunken heads”.  Once a year, prior to the coming of the Spanish they would engage in raids on other households, where they would kill all the men, spear old women to death, and cart off the younger women as war brides.  They’d also collect all the heads of the killed men and shrink them.

Nothing made them do this, other than their desire for sexual access.  The Shuar built up a polygynous society, monopolizing resources and their opportunity to reproduce.  As well as maximizing opportunities for their children to do the same.

In short, the Shuar people, simply did to others what Europeans would later do to them.


The examples extend beyond the Americas.  For instance, African countries are still dealing with the issue that most of the slaves that were sold to European slave traders were originally captured and sold by other African tribes.  In fact, Africans had a long history of enslaving each other long before the Europeans showed up.  The slaves were usually men, women, and children from rival tribes.

And, not surprisingly, the tribes that did most of enslaving now form the elite class in modern African countries like Benin and Ghana.  Why?  Because killing and enslaving others, while monopolizing sexual access and resources for your offspring, is an effective method to guarantee success of your genetic lineage.

Much like the myths about gender fluidity, or how the sexes are the same, or how all women like nice guys, the Myth of the “Peaceful” Native ignores the biological realities of human nature.  Of reproduction.  Of Evolution.  It is an anti-scientific position of the Left.  A progressive rewriting of history based on what we wish to be true, rather than actual reality.

In short, it is an abandonment of Empiricism.

And to abandon empiricism – to place feels before reals – is to abandon the principles of classical Liberalism.  If one could define feminism in a nutshell, such abandonment would be it … how one feels about something – e.g. did I feel sexually harassed – dictates whether it is true.

Yet in a world where anything can be true, “truth” becomes a weapon.  Myths about innocent “peaceful” natives and evil white men are merely one example.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

The Overton Window and Modern Human Tribalism

Since the dawn of Man, humans have organized themselves into groups based on genetic similarity.  These groups cohere around shared customs – language, dress, food, and most critically (for our purposes here) beliefs.  We call these groups tribes.

In the modern world, a lot of these trappings of traditional tribal formation – language, dress, etc. – have become homogenized by mass culture in most of the West.  Top 40 radio, movies, fast food restaurants. All in the name of the almighty dollar, we have corporatized and standardized those things, making them more efficient, more scalable.  With one exception (at least so far) … that of belief.

Thus the one manifestation of tribal cohesion that still persists is that of shared belief. A way to distinguish between us and them.  Our in-group vs. the outgroupWho the “enemy” is.  Who we can exclude. Who we can hate.  Beliefs, and the virtue signaling that goes along with them, are a way to signal tribal identity.

We call this modern version of shared belief the Overton Window.

As per the technical definition, the Overton Window represents the range of acceptable topics for public discourse at any given time, stretching from “popular” to “reprehensible”.  Critically, this window shifts over time, so that ideas that were once perhaps acceptable become reviled or even censored, and vice versa. There are things that can and cannot be said out loud …

Even the mere act of suggesting something – such as the fact that there might be differences between women and men – can get you fired from your job as president of Harvard.  Or, once upon a time, arguing that the Earth revolves around the Sun could get you similarly ostracized.

These bounds of public discourse bear a very real impact on the behavior of individuals within a society.  A simple example is the notion of a woman being a housewife.  Something that was once socially valued (being a good mother, raising children, etc.) is now scorned as oppressive, or a “poor life choice” in contrast to materialistic pursuits of career/money.  Whereas previous generations would have seen the pursuit of worldly desires over one’s own family as gross selfishness.

History of America is rife with such examples.  From racial relations to gender dynamics to religion and everything in between.  Hell, there was a time in the United States when Irish people were openly discriminated against. Or if you go back to ancient Rome and Greece, pedophilia was perfectly legal and considered socially acceptable.  It is funny to realize that there was a time when Christians were considered rebels and outlaws, and yet another period where they were the dominant cultural narrative of European society.

The point is that what is and is not considered socially acceptable or “politically correct” shifts over time.  And those boundaries limit public discourse, and individual choices.  Moreover, they delineate those who stay within the bounds from those who do not, essentially two tribes.  This is the Overton Window in action.

It would seem that there is a primal need in humans for such tribal affiliation, even in modern times.  The Overton Window is simply how modern humans form tribes in the modern world, in this era of mass culture.


Given the above, there is a fundamental question one must ask: Is the Overton Window compatible with the principles of Classical Liberalism?

If the Overton Window, and the tribal mechanics that go along with it, limit the free exchange of ideas – and moreover the choices individuals can make within those bounds – is it compatible with the Doctrine of Individualism? With the notion of rational self-interest?  With the vibrant discourse that is the lifeblood of a free society?

Given the examples in the first section, I would argue it is not compatible.

I was just reading an excellent article last week discussing Jordan Peterson and his televised interview with Cathy Newman, and how their conversation was representative of the way white left-wing intellectuals have essentially become the “new bourgeoisie” over the last half century with the rise of Cultural Marxism.  How their values – equality, tolerance, diversity – are now thought of as universally acceptable values, as the one-and-only “good” values that one might have.  And that no one can even question that.

Political Tribalism at its worst.

It is a very clear example of the Overton Window in action, and its effects.  To shut down public discourse, limit individual choices, and stifle diversity of thought. It is in direct contrast to classical liberalism.

The question of course then becomes what we should do about the Overton Window?  Given its roots in the primal human need for tribal affiliation we’re not going to get rid of it.  I would suggest a couple things.  One is simply that any liberal society that wishes to remain so should be cognizant of the Overton Window, and the dangers inherent in it. Public awareness goes a long way.  Secondly, I would argue that cognizance of the Overton Window as a force shaping public discourse should become a core component of journalistic ethics, and the principle explicitly taught to journalism students.  Too many journalists seem oblivious to the concept, or the unconscious bias it can introduce to their reporting.  And yet journalists serve a critical role in a liberal society … we should hold them to a higher standard.  The same could be argued for tech companies like Google and Facebook, and the filter bubbles they inadvertently produce.

In the end, we may have come a good distance as humans, but in some ways we are not so different from our ancestors.  We may always long to be part of a tribe.

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