“If you want something really important to be done you must not merely satisfy the reason, you must move the heart also.” – Mahatma Gandhi

Contents:
1.) A Crude Side by Side Comparison
2.) Pseudo-Logic: Rationalisation & Sophistry
3.) Women, Logic, Emotion & Intelligence
4.) In Closing
5.) Relevant Reading

1.) A Crude Side by Side Comparison:

Logic as an extrinsic abstract system is objective, whilst emotion as an intrinsic hard-wired system is subjective. Logic is a universal constant that becomes tainted by subjectivity when we utilise it, as in doing so entwines it with the ferocity of our instinctual emotional bias. Neurologically, the neocortex, believed to be responsible for objective logic-based decision-making, cannot reason without being made subject to the influence of the amygdala, which is believed to be responsible for subjective emotional input.

To complicate things further, the amygdala is given priority in the brain to put its point across. Essentially, one feels (and thus has a preconceived opinion) about something both consciously and subconsciously long before they get a chance to think about it rationally. As one tries to process information, their capacity to reason is undermined by the potent subjectivity of their lower brain functions, their feelings. Alas, in all decision-making, no matter how big or small, there is an inner conflict between what makes one feel good (emotion,) what one deems morally correct (a mixture of emotion and logic,) and what is physically verifiable, or otherwise functional (logical).

Emotion, as wonderful and disastrous as it can be, abruptly contaminates the integrity of our capacity to reason. Emotion undermines our very capacity to reason when present in enough spiritual quantity. Emotion has, in relativity to logic, cognitive command presence, for it embodies a most compelling visceral ferocity. The totality of the mind harbours a kind of innate respect for the visceral, which is why when a sufficient quantity of emotion is present within the mind, the mind prioritises it, permitting it to impact the psyche long before logic is allowed to state its case. Even when one manages to quell their inner emotional storm, the emotion is still there beneath the surface, unruly, trying to permeate one’s powers of reason.

One fights to subdue tyrannical emotion with nothing but force of will, as logic alone remains ineffectual in combating emotion. In this respect, meditation is a most excellent tool for ridding the mind of excessive, overwhelming emotion. To meditate is to harness one’s mind into a fine blade, concentrate its consciousness devoid of either logic or emotion, and eviscerate the chaos that contaminates the mind. To meditate is to exercise “will” in order to be free of thought and its associated emotions within a given moment. Through meditation, one thing is learned: to ignore a thought is to attack it, to continuously ignore a persisting thought until it no longer resurfaces is to kill it. We can, with self-awareness, focus, and discipline redirect emotional energy, but we cannot fully wield and possess emotion. Logic does not possess emotion, to believe so is fallacious, for it is emotion that possesses logic. Logic cannot control emotion, but emotion can co-opt logic. Logic is only able to take control when minimal emotion is present.

Emotion is more potent than logic because it is fundamentally chaotic, it is chaotic because we cannot consciously and consensually wield it in quite the same way that we can logic. Emotion is like a screaming child, and as with anything chaotic; it is loud, obnoxious, and blindingly impossible to ignore in absence of stoic meditation. If emotion and logic are to speak conflictingly in unison, emotion will almost always drown out one’s reasoning faculty. When one acts reasonably in the face of deleterious emotion, it is because one’s will of mind has interjected, not because logic has won the psychological tug-of-war. Effectively, a greater quantity and quality of logic is necessary to influence the psyche to the same extent that a lesser quantity of emotion can. It is in this capacity that emotion dominates, it is simply the more potent of the two oft opposing mental faculties.

Reason takes concentration and effort because it is a higher brain function, emotion is effortless and automatic because it is instinctual, a lower brain function. It is only with successful circumstantial emotional alleviation (eg: meditation) that one may, should they choose, allow their logic to speak loudly enough to put its point across to the psyche uninterrupted by the cacophony of emotion; to make calculated rather than reactively brash decisions. In a sense, one could assert emotion is the logic of ego, whilst human logic is proto-scientific, an interpretation of the universe based on powers of observation which yearn devoutly for objective understanding.

Despite emotional contamination vitiating the credibility of one’s logical capacity, logic, unlike emotion, is abstractly objective, and therefore, more reliable. It is the reliability, consistency and systematic nature inherent to logic that compensates for its lack of visceral potency, allowing for predictions that emotion alone would fail to anticipate. Logic may not be as powerful as emotion in matters of compulsion, but it’s reliability allows for a more sophisticated understanding of the world and how to manipulate said world. Where emotional intelligence is better suited to manipulating people, a sophisticated sense of logic is necessary for manipulating objects and devising orderly systems.

2.) Pseudo-Logic: Rationalisation & Sophistry:

Unlike emotion, logic as a system endeavours to hold itself accountable to a set of universal rules and principles. Logic embodies a set of standards and verifiable processes; it values explanations that are plausible and which can be reproduced and demonstrated via consistency, repetition, deduction, evidence etc. Emotion cares for none of these things, for its prime directive as an impulse is merely to exist, as well as breed other emotions. In essence, emotion simply “is.”

At its most manipulative, emotion disguises itself as logic by using the language of logic to justify itself. Within the red pill community, this phenomenon is known as the rationalisation hamster, a juvenile term that I use out of necessitation to be understood rather than a firm choice of expression. As I do not as of yet have any writings pertaining to this phenomenon, I will explain this phenomenon briefly. “The rationalisation hamster” alludes to the idea of faulty rationalisation(s) being accepted as a plausible narrative for questionable, rationally uncertain, or otherwise morally disputed behavioural choices. Of course typically when scrutinised, such logic is found to be pertinently faulty, exposing the sheer credulous idiocy of the individual bastardising it.

Logic is bastardised when it is emancipated from “truth” and “sense” but used as a thematic carcass of itself to make compelling arguments devoid of any factual substance. Effectively, bastardised logic is not logic in the truest sense of the word, but a superficial simulacrum of it, a pretentious emulation.

Rationalisation is quintessentially a narrative styled in the theme of logic that is devoid of any of logic’s inherent substance. It is often used to explain events and ideas in a way which makes the person rationalising seem reasonable, but really serves no function other than to act as a disingenuous albeit palatable explanation. Objectively, rationalisation is not typically an honest attempt to explain the intricacies of a situation via limited powers of observation and introspection, but more so a manifestation of sophistry to protect one’s reputation or ego. Sophistry is commonly employed by the narcissist for such purposes, but used by the great majority from time to time with lesser flagrance and frequency.

Sophistry is something that sounds logical to the ear, passing as plausible or reasonable at a glance, but when subjected to greater powers of scrutiny is found to be irredeemably incorrect due to fallaciousness or farcicality. You will observe the manifestation of rationalisation occur in a few ways. One example is the spontaneous improvisation of reasons for behaviour that the rationaliser thinks the listener will find morally agreeable, but isn’t actually the underlying reason for the original behaviour. Another is when someone arbitrarily exempts something from counting towards a criteria of which they will be judged upon (known as a tactical omission,) in order to nourish faulty perceptions that are thought to be of benefit. An example of this would be an individual not disclosing their criminal record to a potential employer because “that’s in the past now.”

3.) Women, Logic, Emotion & Intelligence:

Most humans lack a basic self-awareness and sense of disciplined mastery over their emotions regardless of whether their personal preference is for logic or emotion. One could argue that man does effectively wield anger to simultaneously bolster his logical convictions, although this is of course only possible when anger remains anger, a suitable amount of reasoning faculty is present, and anger has not turned to rage.

We often view women, in spite of their education, as less intelligent than men because of their preference for emotion. One could be a genius, but if dominated by emotion, would have their sense of reason so inhibited by the dictates of emotion that such genius would be frivolously wasted, imprisoned even. Such is the observation we see with incredibly intelligent women, how can somebody so smart seem so stupid? Well indeed, a woman is still a woman, and no matter how objectively intelligent IQ tests may claim her to be in matters of logic or numerics, she still shares the emotional preferences and lizard brain of women of lesser intelligence. Indeed, her intelligence does, to an extent, make her less womanly, but it does not stop her from being a woman. One could say intelligence spoils women, for too much intelligence can detract from the very essence of what man considers feminine, whilst simultaneously making her a poor imitation of man.

So regardless of objective IQ (a flawed metric that does not measure the totality of intelligence, no less) we perceive “being logical” as synonymous with “being reasonable,” whilst correlating unreasonableness with “being emotional.” Of course, it is a universal truth where such truth is not dogmatically denied that women have a strong preference for emotion, whilst man, for reason. This is not to say that neither are capable of exhibiting either, but rather simply that, given a choice, women prefer to satiate their feelings whilst men prefer to make conscious, cost-benefit driven decisions. Of course, preferences do not equate to outcomes, but they heavily influence them.

If a high IQ woman is to be consistently unreasonable, this creates the perception of stupidity and indeed undermines not just her own credibility, but the metric of IQ itself. If an average IQ man is to be consistently reasonable, this instinctually conveys a sense of intelligence to our perception. Must one be good at numerics to be logical in the complete sense of the word? I suspect not.

We are a species at odds with its own instincts. Many among humanity are happy to continue living on the animalistic instincts that come so easily to us, devoid of any real clarity of thought, and blissfully unaware as such. This is the easy life, the life of existing simply to exist, and to seek no greater purpose, which is primarily, the discovery of knowledge. The pursuit of such beings is not “to understand that which is currently deemed unfathomable,” but simply to attain happiness by fulfilling one’s instinctual needs. Any degree of understanding such a person develops is therefore purely to maximise their own happiness, it is not for the sake of attaining a degree or depth of wisdom. To state this more simply: such a person’s appreciation of happiness is greater than their appreciation of wisdom’s wonders.

The intellectually self-aware amongst humanity, unlike the great majority, prioritise discovery and clarity of thought above happiness as the prime directive driving their behaviour. In essence, intellectuals try to evolve past what they are in the search of understanding, favouring logic to attain this and despising any conflicting instincts that may inhibit this. Futile this may sound, but earnest it is all the same. The rest of humanity favours the maximisation of happiness, and utilises logic alongside the acquisition of skills as a means of acquiring resources to pursue a state of happiness.

The dim prioritise happiness, whereas the intelligent will sacrifice it if it is to lead to a greater depth of understanding. In a sense, one could say the dim are more emotionally selfish and ego driven whilst the intelligent, more sacrificial and curiosity driven. The dim avoid pain and truth in preservation of happiness, denying truth when it is abjectly apparent, inculcating themselves with lies of their own design. Meanwhile, the intelligent endure the pains of truth to the detriment of the psyche simply so they may acquire and intimately comprehend a depth of knowledge that would otherwise be out of reach. Each of us makes a choice in this life between two self-determining edicts: the pursuit of happiness, or the pursuit of knowledge. Of course one can be happy and knowledgeable, but not without first experiencing great pain.

The dim will pay any price for happiness, whilst the intelligent, any price for clarity of knowledge – particularly that which is verboten or mind-expanding. To be intelligent is to exhibit a curiosity of the world around you; to prioritise cultivating your understanding of reality at the expense of your gratification within it.

4.) In Closing:

I have written far more on this topic than what is seen here, but did mention in a previous announcement that I would keep the length of posts down in order to enable a greater frequency of posting. The remaining content, when polished, will be released in a forthcoming sequel article to this one. If you have any recommendations or have spotted any mistakes in the prose, do not hesitate to get in touch.

5.) Relevant Reading:

How Women Argue
Machiavellian Thinking vs. Conventional Logic

“Morality is judgement to distinguish right and wrong, vision to see the truth, courage to act upon it, dedication to that which is good, and integrity to stand by it at any price.” – Ayn Rand

Contents:
1.) Preface
2.) Philosophical, Metaphysical & Anthropological Arguments
3.) Bro-Knighting
4.) Strategy and Fact is Amoral, Human Behaviour Isn’t
5.) Confusion Between Amorality & Delusion
6.) Trust
7.) The Rationalism of Morality
8.) Sex & Civilization
9.) Incentive v. Principle – A Balancing Act
10.) In Closing
11.) Relevant Reading

1.) Preface:

You can opt not to betray a man you respect if you are a man of principles. You can choose not to fuck another man’s girl, whether he’s a close friend, or not; purely on matter of principle. For example, perhaps one of the principles you follow in your life is the golden rule:

“I wouldn’t want a guy fucking my girl, so I won’t fuck another guy’s girl.”

Or

“Do unto others as they do unto you.”

Moral principles aren’t blue pill. Thinking that everyone has the same principles as you, and that most people don’t succumb (or even value) incentive over principle, is.

Modern men who prioritise sex and utilitarianism above principles; men who prioritise incentive over the innate sense of justice that we all possess do not want to hear this though. They don’t want to observe another man’s moral code, one that holds that man to a higher standard of behaviour than he subjects himself to. Because for the ruthless Machiavellian, the most emphatic pragmatist, justice is an obstruction to such an individual’s desires. Unless it’s assuaging his own need for justice, naturally.

Such an individual thinks “Does this guy think he’s better than me? Why is he trying to preach his principles like religion or something? The best way is the way that works, he’s naive for having principles. Period.”

These people, the “amoral bandwagon” as I call them, like to prioritise incentive over justice. These people make for poor friends and business partners. Incentive cares about what you get out of it. Justice cares about “what the right thing to do is.” These people violate justice because there is an incentive to do so. That doesn’t make them evil in the satanic meaning of the word, but it does make them prone to immorality. These people know what they’re doing will hurt others, they just don’t care.

“Doesn’t matter, had sex.”

And then without a hint of irony, the same guy who said “doesn’t matter, had sex,” is going to be vexed when he finds out his baby mother just sucked off a guy behind a dumpster. He wants other people to respect his dignity and not violate him, but he doesn’t give a shit if he violates others.

Humans are an emotional people, emotional people follow principles and have certain codes of behaviour they follow. Having one guiding policy “do whatever, and fuck whoever to get what you need” is destructive. Some people are like that. There were always people like that. Fuck it, whatever. That’s their choice. In some situations, we advise that. But do these people really have a moral pedestal to say “you have principles and therefore you’re an idiot who doesn’t understand red pill theory?” – No. They don’t.

You can understand the game of life that we all play and keep your principles if you want to. Just realise that to live up to your principles, you will forego incentives. If you have a particularly strong sense of justice, you will never live red pill philosophy fully. And you’re not meant to, you take what works for you and discard what doesn’t. This isn’t a movement or a religion, it’s a way of seeing the world for what it is. A way of undressing social pleasantries, peeling back the curtain, and operating from a position of knowledge. A position which grants you social advantages that those not in the know otherwise lack.

To fully live all the aspects of red pill philosophy in your life, you’d have to be incredibly immoral. Immoral to a degree that the vast majority of people are incapable of becoming without severely damaging themselves. Be that their mental health, physical health (drug usage) or both. To be amoral is to be psychopathic, because amorality is neutrality, it is factual, it is devoid of human emotion. Human action and intent is not amoral, only strategy/knowledge itself is. Do you see the disconnect there? If humans are emotional and amorality focuses on the realm devoid of emotion, then amorality is quite simply not a realm you operate in.

The world is not a fair place. Sometimes you may need to be immoral simply to survive, but there’s no need to glorify that. If it’s necessary, and you’re not simply indulging yourself, then so be it. There’s a difference between stealing to eat, and stealing because “well, who’s gonna stop me?” Guys who get the game but choose not to steal other people’s girls, or scam people out of money in manipulative sales pitches aren’t blue pillers. They simply have stronger moral principles than you do. Maybe they can afford to have those principles and live well, and you can’t. Maybe they enjoy being altruistic more than they enjoy being sadistic, and for you, that phenomenon is the reverse. It is what it is.

Red pill philosophy is here to show you how the game works, not to tell you how to live your life. We give advice when asked, sure, but you live the way that suits you best. You own your choices.

The red pill philosophy is amoral in the sense that it says “it is what it is.”:

Hypergamy? It is what it is.
Branch swinging to the next best thing? It is what it is.
Alpha fucks, beta bucks? It is what it is.
Women have innate value whilst men don’t? It is what it is.

You can’t change these things, you can build a culture designed to subvert these things, but they’re not going anywhere. The reason the modern west is falling apart socially is because we don’t subjugate these things like we used to.

Peel back all the bullshit, and you see women, as well as a lot of men who utilise red pill philosophy, are immoral creatures. I don’t intend that to be a value judgement, but without getting into some nuanced philosophical/metaphysical argument and redefining what good and bad are (people always try to whore up my time with this nonsense,) we all know what good and bad is innately. I’m not going to debate you on technicalities to help you justify the virtue of what is otherwise deemed morally reprehensible.

2.) Philosophical, Metaphysical & Anthropological Arguments:

If you violate someone else’s rights because there is incentive for you (stealing, adultery etc) that’s bad. Some philosophical ideas preach otherwise (Nietzsche’s master-slave morality and Social Darwinism comes to mind,) however such ideas are not practicable on a daily basis for the majority of people who live and breathe today. They are interpretations of reality from a metaphysical or scientific perspective. They are so abstractly dense, that you could cogently argue such philosophy is technically correct. However, that which is technically correct and that which is socially conducive are not one and the same. You are not mathematics. Burying yourself in abstraction will not immunize you to human instincts. Arguing from a metaphysical perspective on the nature of morality, as did Nietzsche, is all well and good if you’re a philosopher, but it’s not going to be terribly conducive to your mental well-being unless you are a psychopath. For a psychopath, it is conducive. It helps them rationalise their lack of sympathy should it bother them they lack it.

It doesn’t matter if DNA and atoms are amoral, and that you’re a collection of atoms and DNA that is in an amoral competition. The combination of all those things in tandem gave you a sense of justice. You have a revenge instinct. Your sense of justice and need for revenge are the basis for all of universal morality’s guiding principles. You’re part of a game that is not adequately represented by maths and physics. Those things can’t explain morality in a useful manner, because morality is only part logic, the rest is the intangibility of emotion we experience in the human condition.

If a guy doesn’t want a life of ruthless Machiavellianism and unbridled hedonism, that’s his choice. Just like going your own way, becoming a pick-up artist, or being a patriarch with a family is a choice men can make. None of these things are “right choices” in the universal sense but simply are what he believes to be “right” for him. As long as such a man understands that this won’t stop other people from living their lives differently, and that women are for all intent and purpose, immoral, he’s good. If he takes action to defend himself from people who respond only to incentives and disincentives, and ignore moral principles based upon justice/injustice, then he’s good.

3.) Bro-Knighting:

No matter how moral or immoral someone opts to be, people will always debate things to death in order to “demonstrate their superiority.” Most people who advocate for immoral behaviour don’t even have the conviction to call what they’re advocating for immoral. They know it’s immoral, they know fucking someone’s wife and breaking up that family is immoral. But they rather call it amoral and say “well she was going to ruin that marriage anyway.” “If he was alpha enough she wouldn’t be cheating on him, so he deserves it.” “I have no commitment to that other guy, I don’t even know him, so if his girl wants my dick, I’m going to press that.” If that doesn’t sound like bullshit to you, I don’t know what to say. This guy is complicit, he’s an accessory to a whore’s immorality, but because pussy is on offer, he doesn’t care.

When you try to rationalise that as amoral, “it’s all part of the game,” you care, a lot. You don’t want people to think of you as immoral, so you try to say it’s not good or bad but that it just simply “is.” That family falling apart, or a relationship falling apart isn’t your fault. If you give a girl dick who is in monogamy, that’s always immoral, because you violated another man’s rights.

In agreed monogamy, you have rights over exclusive sexual access, when those rights are breached, immorality has occurred. Now if you have an open relationship going on, and your girl fucks another guy, then you knew the score. You may be upset, but you weren’t betrayed. You were complicit. Complicit like the guy who knew he was fucking a taken girl, but whose horniness overrode any moral principles he may otherwise adhere to. Betrayal is the key act that evokes a need for revenge. When betrayal occurs, so does immorality.

“Bro-knighting” (a ridiculous term if I’ve ever heard one) is an issue of moral contention within the red pill subreddit. It is men of different conventional moral principles (and some without) essentially bickering what the right thing to do is when it comes to fucking a whore who is currently the sexual property of another man. I’m going to tell you now, I don’t think this philosophy can tell you what to do in such a situation. You have to figure that out for yourself. You have to decide whether the sex (the incentive) is worth sacrificing a personal principle for. Of course, if you have no principles and adhere to an immoral lifestyle that you describe as amoral, then you don’t have any principles to sacrifice because you’re beyond caring. This article is probably annoying the hell out of you. Good.

The red pill community can present balanced arguments, we can tell you the benefits of immorality (incentive) vs. the benefits of morality (principle,) and combined with your own pain and experiences you can make a choice on how you choose to live your life. Sometimes you may violate your own principles because you can’t keep your instincts in check, which you will regret afterwards. That’s to be expected, you’re fallible after all.

4.) Strategy and Fact is Amoral, Human Behaviour Isn’t:

Telling you how to fuck someone over, or otherwise unduly influence someone as a “sexual strategy” is amoral. Anything I write that provides you with knowledge, no matter how dubious sounding, is amoral. Because what you do with that knowledge determines its morality. The supply of knowledge is an amoral act, unless one provides said knowledge with a malicious intent. Even then, without adequate timing, the ill-intentioned supply of knowledge (eg: espionage) may not lead to immoral outcomes. Anyhow, I digress and wish to avoid such dense discussions within this piece. For all practical purposes, knowledge in and of itself is amoral. Using knowledge to infringe on someone else’s rights and cause them emotional pain? That is immoral. Every man must decide “do I want strong moral principles that I want to live by, or do I want to behave however I need to behave to get what I want?”

Neither is red or blue pill. It simply “is.” It is not as simple as “people who operate mostly on incentive are red pill, whilst people who operate mostly on principle are blue pill.” All choices and strategies are amoral, it’s the act itself, the intent behind the thinking that goes into the act (if any) and how it affects others which designates something moral, or immoral. People who have chosen immoral lifestyles often want to sell it as amoral. This is bullshit, it’s disingenuous. If you’re going to be immoral, own it, don’t act like folk with moral principles are “blue pillers” because even though they understand how fucked up the game is, they want to adhere to certain guiding moral principles in their life.

5.) Confusion Between Amorality & Delusion:

A lot of people in the red pill community confuse amorality with delusion. They are different things. Amorality is simply stating what works in a scientific and pragmatic manner. Delusion is believing in something that is not true. If you understand the game, but refuse to adapt to it, you are not “blue pill,” you are simply defiant, stubborn. Perhaps even self-righteous.

Some think that fucking a friend’s girlfriend, sister, or whatever is okay. That is fucked up shit. You don’t deserve a wolf pack when you’re pulling moves like that. Trust is a commodity. It is wisest to adhere to certain moral principles, whilst demanding others live up to the same moral principles. This ensures that the bond of trust is not broken, this is the premise almost all human cooperation is dependent upon. People who are constantly out for themselves end up alone, owing to an emphatic lack of trust on all sides. Minimal trust equates to numerous dysfunctional and fleeting relationships, for prosperity does not occur when everything must be circumspectly analysed.

6.) Trust:

Why do men instinctually almost have close to zero trust for women? Because we know they’re immoral creatures. We know they don’t give a fuck about men’s needs and that their needs are in diametric competition with man’s. Women must be regulated. If you’ve read red pill philosophy, you know women will do whatever is necessary to ensure their own well-being. They don’t have a higher mode of thought, they just run off biological programming and do whatever to “get theirs.” They ruin men without a flinch because hypergamy necessitates they replace the old guy with a shinier upgrade. One who earns more money and is fitter. Women aren’t loyal unless you’re powerful. Woman’s love is extremely conditional, because unlike man’s it is parasitic rather than sacrificial.

You can call that amoral if there’s no malice behind it, but regardless, the pain it causes across society is anything but. We used to keep female behaviour in check with man’s sense of justice posing as divinely ordained, imposing this morality on society as a whole. But now men have lost control; female morality runs the show. So plenty of guys are adopting a feminine view of morality to “get ahead.” I learned to think like a Machiavellian because I had to. Not because I wanted to. I write about Machiavellianism to help men who have been where I was. A man with no power is often more contorted than a man with too much. It is important you know how to manoeuvre in the game.

7.) The Rationalism of Morality:

If you think morality is a wholly rational process, it isn’t. Even in the intellectualism of Nietzsche’s master-slave morality, or the Social Darwinism within Ragnar Redbeard’s “Might is Right,” you can detect a certain hatred and contempt for weakness. It is the contempt for weakness that inverses traditional morality as we know it. In fact, in a perverse way, I would say it is something akin to natural female morality. It seems all but apparent that hypergamy is the basis for female morality, that which enriches her being good, and that which doesn’t, bad. Hypergamy ignores other people’s need for justice and is entirely self-serving. Sound familiar? In a way one could say red pill philosophy is the female moral strategy applied to male interests.

Vice becomes virtue, and virtue becomes vice. Women are without honour unless they are taught and shamed into having some. They don’t possess the natural sense of honour that men do. Scarcely do women have strong moral convictions that don’t mirror those of the dominant social group influencing her. In this sense, no matter how plausible the typical woman’s convictions sound, they are sophist in nature, they are not hers. She is simply believing in what needs to be believed in to ensure her survival, be that to keep a high value partner, or to fit in with her social group. In this age of emasculation, however, more and more men are taking on female traits to “adapt” and “win.” As I said once before, Machiavellianism is a female instinct and a male vocation.

Any good behaviour women show is simply out of respect for the power they perceive you to have. Innately, as people, without being controlled, yes, subject to the control of a higher authority, they are feral. They don’t care about your opinion if they think you’re weak, no matter which charming social representative they send to greet you.

8.) Sex & Civilization:

Take a long hard look at the sordid state of affairs we call society today. The dysfunctionalism that runs rampant is the product of female sexuality, unoppressed, run amok. Corrupt the women and the men will follow, because when man loses control over female sexuality on a cultural level, he individually adapts himself to succeed within a feral mating climate.

That is what happens when we say “stop locking up your daughters and confining sex to marriage, let’s have a mass orgy.” Sex pushes people towards immorality to get an orgasm and feel powerful. The bonds of family, and thus civilization, are destroyed; one adulterous orgasm at a time. Sex is not all about release, at its murkiest, it’s about leverage and controlling another. This is a most potent form of power which is inextricably intoxicating to both sexes.

It is for this reason that religion emphasised limiting the supply of sex. It existed as a means to suppress female hypergamous, and male polygynous instincts. That way, men did not get abandoned when a woman found a superior provider. And women did not get abandoned or a diminished share of the resources when a man obtained the opportunity to mate with a woman of superior beauty.

9.) Incentive v. Principle – A Balancing Act:

Neither the immoral or the moral guy are really “right” in what they do. The immoral guy is “right” in the sense he optimises his behaviour to obtain the most incentives. Whilst the guy with strong principles is “right” in the sense that optimises his behaviour to cause the least necessary pain in the world. Necessary is highlighted, because if you have to steal or kill to save your own life, then to ensure your own survival such things become an exceptional necessity. These things aren’t absolutes, you will do moral and immoral things throughout your life. Sometimes you will chase incentive, other times you’ll listen to principle.

The sum of your actions, if available in complete list form would detail whether you gravitate towards your principles, or toward incentives. As much as people like to say “good” and “bad” are arbitrary, people who think this tend typically to be autistic or of high analytical intelligence. They are people who are able to think very abstractly in the philosophical sense. Such knowledge is, for all intents and purposes, completely irrelevant to your everyday social relationships. The other group who agree with this notion are the people who realise they lead immoral lifestyles, but are not comfortable with describing their choice of behaviour as such. Their ego does not permit such labelling, so they try to rationalise that how they live is “amoral, rather than immoral.” Everyone has a disposition toward behaving morally or immorally, don’t be fooled by the nonsense that they don’t. Whoever you meet, do your utmost to discern their leaning, and behave as you deem necessary.

Do I think the guy who leans more towards morality is blue pill or stupid? No. He is a man of principle. Choosing to have principles regardless of reality doesn’t make you blue pill. What makes you blue pill is not understanding the nature of the social paradigm we find ourselves in, and convincing yourself that attitudes and ideas that aren’t efficient, are. To simplify that notion, the blue pill is accepting dogma that does not effectively describe the social paradigm we find ourselves existing in.

If you understand the game and decide you’re going to be an upstanding guy, then as long as you understand what is going on and that other people aren’t necessarily playing the game the way you have chosen to play it, you will be fine. Half the battle is understanding how other people operate. When you know how the most ruthless operate, you don’t need to become them to lead a fruitful life. If you decide “fuck it” and live how you want to live in spite of the nature of the game, you’re not deluded. You understand the game, but simply refuse to become immoral in order to be more successful within it. You value your principles more than financial or sexual success. That is rare, but good for you. In a success driven capitalist culture people will view you as weak for making this choice, but it’s a mature decision most of us must make.

10.) In Closing:

Some of the people who follow this blog to read the more dubious things I write about will think I’m weak for expressing some of the opinions I have here. Respect is lost. Whatever. I don’t care. Screw your respect, I never asked for it, you gave it to me. Allow me to be an example of what I’m talking about. You have to stand up for what you believe in and argue it with as much earnestness and eloquence as you can muster.

The game is fucked up, I know that better than most. And trying to normalise betrayal, deceit and double-crossing as the status quo is indicative of that. It’s cultural regression.

I am blessed in the sense I have enough influence to give my opinions without having them immediately disregarded, because obviously I have “read the sidebar.” If a new guy said what I said, would anybody listen to him? I doubt it, he’d probably get shouted down. But then could he argue his position with the level of finesse that I can? I doubt that, too.

Don’t do everything red pill philosophy tells you to do. Honestly, pick and choose to apply what you read here as well as on the red pill subreddit. Don’t take everything we say as gospel. Yes sexual strategy is amoral in the most abstract, metaphysical and anthropological sense of the word, but don’t let that define your social morality. They are so far-removed from each other, you may as well describe the taste of food with maths; a most disingenuous of grounds to rationalise a position.

As much as dark triad theory helps one acquire incentives for instance, I don’t want to create a cult of sycophant wannabe psychopaths who are trying to medicate their pain and poverty through ruthlessness. I have had strange e-mails from men in the past who seem to think they can morph into Scarface and “wish to learn the dark arts.” You’ve been watching too much Harry Potter son. That’s not how it works. I typically fluctuate between hearty mocking laughter and passing concern when I receive such messages. If you’re one of those people, you need to seriously check yourself. Psychopathy is something you’re born with that is “cultivated” in your childhood. Narcissism and Machiavellianism on the other hand can be learned, so borrow from them should you wish to internalise aspects of the triad.

As with everything, moderation. Anything taken to its utmost extremity is insane. We’ve seen that with what feminism turned into.

11.) Relevant Reading:

Buy “Might is Right or Survival of the Fittest” in the USA
Buy “Might is Right or Survival of the Fittest” in the UK
Buy “Might is Right or Survival of the Fittest” in Canada
Buy “Beyond Good and Evil” in the USA
Buy “Beyond Good and Evil” in the UK
Buy “Beyond Good and Evil” in Canada
Buy “On the Genealogy of Morals” in the USA
Buy “On the Genealogy of Morals” in the UK
Buy “On the Genealogy of Morals” in Canada

“When a woman marries again, it is because she detested her first husband. When a man marries again, it is because he adored his first wife. Women try their luck; men risk theirs.” – Oscar Wilde

Contents:
1.) Introduction
2.) Irreconcilable Love
3.) The Caveat
4.) Woman’s Love Defined
5.) Love & Female Self-Deception
6.) In Closing
7.) Relevant Reading

1.) Introduction:

“Women don’t love, they only care for themselves.” This is a comment from a gentleman I came across recently that made me stop to give pause. After some pondering, I came up with the essay you are about to read. I must conclude that I disagree with the statement that inspired this particular piece of literature. I do suspect that the gentleman who said what he said felt it to be true with every inch of his fiber, but I do not believe the assertion to be right. Nevertheless, I am sympathetic to his sentiment, for although he is wrong, he is not entirely. It is, at least among the old guard of the red pill community, an established truth that women do not love men in the way that man wants to be loved.

2.) Irreconcilable Love:

The problem is contingent on not only the way in which man craves to be loved, but likewise the way in which woman is capable of loving. Man desires a sacrificial love, sacrifice implies loyalty and connection. What men want from love, and what woman’s love amounts to is fundamentally irreconcilable.

In matters of love (and not simply lust,) man is an optimistic egalitarian. He loves as he wishes to be loved. In matters of love, when man is young and oblivious to the ways of women, he is a true adherent to the golden rule. The folly of man’s nature lies in the belief that the loyalty quintessential to woman’s maternal instinct will be available within a romantic context. He believes, rather foolishly, that as his mother loved him, the idealised girlfriend could. He sees how women love their children, and upon making such an observation concludes that women are capable of great love. This is true, they are. But this is a love reserved for child, not man, and realistically it is a love that few men can ever hope to possess. As such, man has an idealisation of woman’s love, not a realisation.

Man desires that which is unattainable to him, unbeknownst that the love he desires is maternal in nature and can never be felt for him by a woman. Nature plays a cruel trick on the psychology of man. It gives him a very pure, high quality love in his childhood. It gives him a template for woman’s love that he comes to expect as standard of all women. He is taught by his mother’s love that unconditional loyalty, noble character, gentleness, sacrifice and trust are intrinsic of the feminine essence. And so as he grows from a boy into a man he comes to the rather logical conclusion that if he is “a good man,” he can expect to be loved by his lover in much the same way. His mother, well-meant but quite incorrectly likewise affirms this notion to him. This is a wicked lie, but a man whose heart is yet to be broken does not realise this. He thinks woman’s love is immutable. He knows not that her love for child is different from that of her love for him.

And so man longs to be loved like a child, not realising such a love is reserved for children. Believing that the love he covets is romantic love, when truly it is maternal love. Such a man of course lacks the experience or nuance of mind to make this distinction. And so the tragedy for this man is learning that women do not love men like they love children. The unconditional loyalty inherent to the maternal bond is all but absent from the mating bond. Most men do not realise this. They love wholesomely right up until they are emotionally blind-sided by a woman in the most violable of ways, forced to re-evaluate their opinion of female nature. This is not a hypothetical so much as it is an eventuality. If lucky, post-breakup they end up on this blog or elsewhere similar.

From there on, man can learn to re-evaluate his notion of woman’s capacity to love. He will come to learn woman’s love for her mate is of vastly reduced moral and psychological quality than that of her love for her child. How he responds to such powerful knowledge will ultimately shape what kind of man he decides to become. Be it a man going his own way, a disillusioned bachelor looking to use women for nothing but sex, or a patriarch who runs his house like a business, aware of the risk, but acting in all his power to mitigate it.

However cruel as it may seem, women are incapable of reciprocating man’s love. They love differently. There is a hierarchy of love that trickles down. Man sacrifices for woman, and woman, for child. Rarely does the river flow upward. As such, if man is to believe that women can love to the same extent as he, then he is doomed to disappointment and misery when she invariably acts within accordance of her nature rather than his idealisation.

3.) The Caveat:

Most of you have been with me up until this point; some of you aren’t. Earlier I made a point of saying that “he believes rather foolishly that as his mother loved him, the idealised girlfriend could.” This has a double-meaning that very few would have the range of experience or nuance of mind to pick up on should I not be pointing it out. Essentially when read, those of you who had a good mother would have, if not now, at least at some point thought “I hope I can find a girl that’s as sweet and caring as mom.” Then, there are those who had narcissistic, detached, unloving mothers. The mothers who always put on a good public face of being nothing other than wonderful, but due to an affliction of personal defect did not share the love intrinsic to the maternal bond with their son.

I am shocked by the sheer number of men I have spoken to who have had mothers that never really loved them (ergo, my mother was very loving,) but I can’t say knowing what I know now that I am surprised. Men who had mothers that never endowed them with the maternal bond find it easier to swallow the red pill and understand female behaviour as adults. It is a recurring observation of mine that men deprived of maternal love are better adapted for dealing with women as mates in adulthood. The man who grew up as a neglected boy never foolishly believed that a girlfriend would love him as his mother would, he believed she would love him exactly as his mother did; with extreme conditionality.

This is to say, the man who never experienced maternal love as the typical man in boyhood did would not come to idealise female love as a man. Rather perversely, the standard of which such a man holds women to romantically is more in line with their true nature. Unlike most men, he was not taught to expect a sacrificial love from women because he never experienced this love to begin with. His mother didn’t love him like a mother, but like a partner, ergo, he was loved for his utility rather than his essence. And so it stands to reason that man’s frame of reference for the quality of woman’s love is based upon how his mother loved him. A man whose mother did not love him like a child when he was a child is therefore, in adulthood, at a perverse advantage. He has no idealisation to shatter, because his expectations of women in relationships are realistic.

4.) Woman’s Love Defined:

The epitome of a woman’s love is infatuation. To define it, this is a lust for your power and an obsession with how your character makes her feel, secondary to your power. It is put crudely: opportunism and emotional self-appeasement alchemised with lust.

Man oft forgets that love does not flow upward in the sacrificial sense. He makes the mistake of thinking that because he can love a woman without lusting for her, that a woman can do the same. She cannot, because her love is not based on sacrifice, it is based on the appreciation of man’s sacrifice met with lust. The more man sacrifices for a woman, the more likely he is to fall in love with his investment. The more a woman sacrifices for man absent of animal lust, the more repulsion she feels for him, interpreting her need for investment as a shortcoming on his part. And so there it is, unspoken in word but detected in sentiment; woman expects man to love her more than she loves him, reinforcing the hierarchy of love. Female sacrifice is predicated on lust and mental entrapment. Male sacrifice is expected, and freely given.

5.) Love & Female Self-Deception:

A woman who does not lust for you cannot love you as you wish to be loved. Lust is the basis for her love, absent of lust you have “like” rather than “love.” Such a woman can do naught but use you and lie to you both that she is in love when she isn’t. If it is convenient for a woman to be in love, she will convince herself she is in love so that she may convince you of it. Women are masters of self-deception, so one must be extremely cautious in assigning any substance to their convictions. Treat such earnest emotional conviction as sophistry.

Women are generally speaking, emotionally neurotic. Women who become too self-aware can end up hating themselves because they cannot overcome their animal elements. They can’t make themselves love you in the way you want them to, even if they tried to. To do so would ravage them with immeasurable misery. So as unfair as you may think it is that your girlfriend can never love you the same way your mother did, it is likewise unfair to expect her to do so if you wish her happiness. I am of the belief that this is why society has collectively lied to itself for generations. The truth threatens the nuclear family, you only have to look at the “men going their own way” movement to see that. Many men would struggle with the idea of family upon discovering the whole host of red pill truths that are to be found. Ignorance is bliss for a great many, as such the knowledge on this blog is as much powerful as it is dangerous.

6.) In Closing:

Women are what they are; your perception of women no matter what that might be is powerless to change their fundamental nature. You can, with the knowledge you have acquired, learn to accept them, or you may, reject them out of unappeasable disappointment predicated on the idea that “woman’s love just isn’t worth it.” We can argue about what is right for society, what is right for your personal situation and all the rest, as many of you like to do, but ultimately this is a personal choice. It is your choice to make, not mine, not anybody else’s. Once you have this information, that choice cannot be taken from you. The answer will be different for every man depending on where he is at in his life’s journey.

Learning red pill truths exerts incredible impetus on a man to mentally mature and decide what he wants out of women, as well as life. What you want will change with age. A 20-year-old is prone to naively think he’s going to be a bachelor forever. An old divorced man may have resigned himself from what he deems folly. A guy that’s been slaying in bars for the past decade might be worn out and want something with more depth. Thus, as men are prone to do, he returns to the question of how women love, and how he can act on his need to love without effectively destroying himself. The men who do not see a way to love without losing who they are, and what they have gained materially, are the men who reject love.

7.) Relevant Reading:

The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer had some great insight on women, which you can sample here.

If anybody knows of a condensed work, as in, a publication which has compiled the entirety of Nietzsche’s views on women, then let me know and I’ll add it here. To my knowledge, Nietzsche’s views on women are sprinkled across numerous works, and as such there is no one single work I could recommend.

Buy “Essays & Aphorisms by Arthur Schopenhauer” in the USA
Buy “Essays & Aphorisms by Arthur Schopenhauer” in the UK
Buy “Essays & Aphorisms by Arthur Schopenhaeur” in Canada
Buy “The Art of Seduction” in the USA
Buy “The Art of Seduction” in the UK
Buy “The Art of Seduction” in Canada

“Do not be too moral. You may cheat yourself out of much life so. Aim above morality. Be not simply good, be good for something.”  – Henry David Thoreau

Contents:
1.) Introduction
2.) Individualism & Social Adaptation
3.) Matters of Intelligence
4.) Reputation Guarding & The Nihilism of Debating Morality
5.) Sadistic Morality & Betrayal
6.) Machiavellianism Is Necessary
7.) My Stance
8.) In Closing
9.) Relevant Reading

1.) Introduction:

Morals are too emotional to be debated and agreed upon via consensus, rather ironically they must be imposed via a platonic noble lie such as religion. This of course is immoral in a number of ways, but nevertheless it is best characterised as deceit with an altruistic intention. It serves a “greater good,” and thus for those who value ethics or altruistic Machiavellianism, it can be reasonably justified.

Of course, religion is like any corporation or government; it can be co-opted and corrupted by those who do not wish to serve the public good by submitting to the purpose of the organisation – but who use their position to fulfil their own purposes in spite of the organisation. We call a betrayal of such systemic significance corruption. Corruption in a civilizational context is effectively the sabotage of societal infrastructure for self-gain; in spite of the fact that society is reliant upon such infrastructure, as indeed is the person exploiting it.

Very few want to be martyrs, and those up to the task would, in my cynicism, only be puppeted by those pretending to serve the public good whilst really serving themselves. Ironically, to do good, one must be very competent in the strategies commonly employed by “evil.” If “evil” has anything going for it, it is that it does not leave anything to chance. Such a thing is so rare with “the good” that a man of strong moral convictions adept in the strategies commonly associated with “evil” is scarcely encountered. Thus it is such that very few believe in the moral Machiavellian, although such a thing is not common and the business of power is inherently dirty, it is my contention that such men exist in small numbers.

Naturally, powerful knowledge carries a certain taint. The more you understand about the realm of cunning, the more likely you are to employ such things, for power is inherently irresistible. You probably sought such knowledge due to powerlessness in the first place, and often the powerless are more neurotic than the powerful, but when the powerful know not when to stop – this is incorrect.

Whether one uses their power for altruistic or sadistic purposes effectively defines whether the Machiavellian in question is moral or immoral in character, but as sadism reinforces narcissism, it is my thought that the latter is more typical. If one has guiding principles they consider superior to their ego, they can be considered a moral Machiavellian. Nevertheless, such people must guard such principles from public view, for these principles are the individual’s Achilles heel and will be exploited by those who do not share them.

2.) Individualism & Social Adaptation:

In terms of ethics, individualism is the root cause of all sadism, which in my view, is the purest form of immorality for it is more predatory than it is pragmatic. In a collectivist society, ignorant women fuck subpar males out of social pressure, this helps civilisation tick over as it incentivises men to produce.

Ignorant men, on the other hand, sacrifice for family and society because they know no better, they are just happy to have mating rights and a life purpose. Everyone sacrifices for the greater good, and the result is modern civilization. Without civilization, you have tribalism. Civilization was built upon the arched back of the nuclear family sweating and toiling, not individualism. Civilization itself is proof of the Aristotelian adage “the total is greater than the sum of its parts.”

In an individualist society, neither party cares for anything but themselves, and so a scarcity of cooperation causes civilization to socially regress until a point that civilization is no more. Whether this process is slow or quick varies. This is what we mean when we refer to “the decline.”

Individualism promotes Machiavellianism which almost inevitably leads to immorality on a macro-scale. The reason the collapse of the family is so bad for society is because it promotes individualism. This leads to Machiavellianism, which can lead to immorality, which leads to exploitation, sadism and sub-clinical psychopathy. Machiavellianism and Narcissism are socially maladaptive qualities. If you had a family that you cared about and who cared for you, any Machiavellian or Narcissistic quality you showed in spite of this compassion would be biological rather than socialised in its nature. A lack of tribe promotes these qualities, as maladaptive qualities aid survival in the absence of cooperation and loyalty.

Effectively, when one does not have people looking out for them, they feel they have to be more ruthless to be successful. Logically, this feeling makes sense. Those with zero or minimal trustworthy social ties have to be more effective individuals, for they have only themselves to rely on.

The adoption of Machiavellianism as a tool and personal philosophy is, therefore, a rational response to an uncertain world that did not supply the individual with a stable and compassionate family. We can bemoan these things, but we cannot help living in the time that we live. We live in this time, so we must adapt to it.

3.) Matters of Intelligence:

Only intelligent men can really discuss the nuance of ethics and thus, whatever their disposition, cognisantly find a balance between altruism and sadism, principle and incentive. Of course if one is innately sadistic, only the discipline of volition can suppress such a thing.

Stupid men are indoctrinated to be moral. When they see the indoctrination for the inauthenticity that it was, they typically go the complete opposite way and endeavour to become sadistic. There is an absence of mediating force and developed reasoning faculty to temper their decisions, rather, they are completely emotional driven. It takes a smarter man to balance the nuances of his own morality within a society that is powerless to impose a collective morality.

The idiots value liberty, but they cannot handle it. They simply want the freedom to follow incentive and be sadistic without being called immoral for it. Being called immoral would lead to ostracisation, ostracisation would limit their effectiveness. This is why the immoral care about being called immoral and rather you refer to them as amoral. To make idiots productive in a paradigm where they have considerable liberty, you must impose morality onto them until altruism is their preference.

4.) Reputation Guarding & The Nihilism of Debating Morality:

Just because one is capable of great depravity, it does not mean one should engage in such depravity. And because we lack a collectively imposed and adhered to morality as of current, people will argue subjectivity, redefine meaning, and otherwise be completely disingenuous about these things. The need to “be correct” is greater than the need to adhere to any system of morality with such people.

The altruistic will sacrifice some element of freedom for the greater good, the sadistic will not unless forced to do so through incentive or a glitch of volition. Hence there is a necessity that the noble lie is imposed, for most are incentive rather than principally driven without it. The noble lie keeps the sadist in check if he believes in it, if he doesn’t, the noble lie will cause such an individual to be ostracised by the majority who adhere to it.

In moral debates it is common to hear vague wishy-washy dissociative rationalisations that “everyone defines their own morals.” But only the people who know they behave sadistically care enough to debate the amoral root of immoral action. It’s as I said in my previous article on morality, just because cosmic mathematics and survival of the fittest are amoral it does not mean the average man does not have a choice between altruism and sadism. This is a unique choice that you, as a human, possess.

Humans have a capacity for altruism in spite of the amoral root of existence. Blaming your sadism on social Darwinism is disingenuously absurd. Know what you are and accept it. If you don’t like it, change it. Arguing about it with those who are indoctrinated differently, or have a different genetic makeup for morality than you is ineffectually asinine. The noble lie is the closest thing to a moral consensus that can be achieved. Likewise, I didn’t write this article to convince anyone of anything, but rather because I find it to be an enjoyable exercise.

5.) Sadistic Morality & Betrayal:

Free of religious/moral impositions people don’t define or create ethical systems, but rather they pick and choose when and how they will apply pre-established ethics and morals. Some people in peace time are innately sadistic, others are innately altruistic. Consider this a spectrum of personality with some overlap depending on context. For example in wartime, we must all be destructive to survive – all have a capacity for destruction. Necessity however does not constitute enjoyment. There is a difference between the man who is destructive when wartime comes, and the man who cannot wait for war to begin.

Soldiers often refer to the battlefield as being the eighth incarnation of hell, but note the eeriness of the man in the battalion who seemed to revel in the chaos. These are the sadists that embrace their true nature in a socially accepted environment.

The assumption of the “amoral” sadist is absurd, it is nought but a projection of one’s own morals (or lack thereof) on to those who are more altruistic in their nature. It is the notion that, unless there is an implicit or explicit threat of force that others will come into your house, pillage it, and rape any vagina you have in your possession. It is the assumption that I, or one such as I, lacks a basic altruism. And that the only thing stopping me from doing things that violate your rights is your power rather than the altruism of my volition. But then the sadist unknowingly projects, he thinks because he would destroy you, that you would destroy him.

But then one must remember the sadist only respects power, like a woman, and thus has no frame of reference for innate altruism. It is because of this that the sadist completely disregards the notion that you would not want to do those things, because they would do those things if they could get away with them. Morally, we are a diverse species, but in a turn of irony, much like the idiotic altruist indoctrinated by the noble lie, the sadist holds everyone to their own moral expectations without considering the nuance of individual differences.

On this tangent, there is an important lesson to be taught. Some people will betray you for lacking power, others will not. Women in matters of romantic relation invariably will for this is how they are wired. Some men shall, but not all. When you meet a person you should try to ascertain whether they’re predisposed to altruism or sadism. Once you know this, you will be able to deduce whether they will betray you because it brings them pleasure, or would do so only if it were a last resort.

Sadists are a bad bet because one cannot rely on a sadist to cooperate due to altruistic volition, but rather, one must constantly outsmart the sadist to receive their cooperation. It is a high cost for cooperation, and many would better spend their time with individuals who are not so expensive to maintain an alliance with. As such it stands to reason that if you are a sadist, you are a bad bet to all who know you. In absence of a capacity to change such an element, you will be forced to work very hard to hide or otherwise suppress such sadism, sex notwithstanding. In fact I recommend to every sadist who comes upon this text that sex is the most productive place to confine this aspect of your nature. Naturally, this is a recommendation, not a command, and ultimately the choice lies with the individual.

6.) Machiavellianism Is Necessary:

No matter your disposition, Machiavellianism is necessary. If you cannot impose an altruistic moral code on everybody, then thoughtless (rather than low risk) altruism is worthless. Note how easy it is to lead any man down a path of incentive, but how one must tell a noble lie to lead him to altruism if it does not come innately. As such, Machiavellianism always comes up trumps. Because no matter what morals people consent to, the power of psychology can be used to override their preferences by limiting their options.

Altruism is trumped by sadism in tactical matters and altruism only works so long as everyone is being altruistic. All it takes is one sadist to ruin everything and start game playing. Then all the altruists find out they were being played, want to learn how to do what the sadist did to play them, and risk becoming sadists themselves. Don’t be an altruistic idiot, ration your altruism, but don’t expect you will find salvation in unfettered sadism either.

To be frivolously ruthless is almost as inept as to be frivolously altruistic. Always cost-benefit, always analyse, always have a contingency and try to be altruistic when you can afford to be. It’s therapeutic and it’s great for your reputation.

7.) My Stance:

The altruistic are too easily exploited, the sadistic, too needlessly destructive in their exploitation. The plausible deniability in writing about such subjects lies in the possibility that such knowledge can be used for altruistic purposes in defence against the sadistic. The fact that the sadistic may use such knowledge more effectively than the altruistic is not my concern.

In a sense, you could say I am a psychological arms dealer. I don’t ask what you do with the arms, so invariably in matters of psychological warfare I will end up arming both sides. Machiavellianism is not only power, but it is complicit with whatever ideological agenda you possess prior to becoming a reader here. I have men who read, women who read, Christians, Muslims, self-confessed psychopaths as well as hopeless moralists in the readership. The desire for power is universal, it is how that power is used and with what intent which varies. I do not expect you all to agree with my views, but likewise I do not expect you to read here if you cannot question your own views.

I put myself first, I enjoy writing and I enjoy Machiavellianism. So for me, this is a particularly profitable marriage. I don’t take responsibility for what my readers do due to my writings. So am I completely moral by the strictest of standards? Well no, of course, I am not. But then an absence of saintliness does not make one predatorily devilish.

8.) In Closing:

I don’t really like to talk about myself. I am a private man. I realise I have talked about myself more than I would typically, but this is with good reason. I make moral arguments now and again, and then I write about the dark triad. People are mesmerised by this seeming contradiction. I suppose most people are more binary in their morality, whereas I am more fluid. I consider myself moral most of the time. Then I meet people who aren’t like me, they do not value altruism and I am good at detecting this. I suspend my altruism for these people. Being moral doesn’t vitiate my reason and make me an idealistic altruist. In fact, I am not sure which annoys me more, the idiot, or the sadist.

Does that make me a sociopath? Maybe, who knows. Perhaps it simply means I don’t wish to be a slave to altruism and know far too much about the darker side of humanity to ever allow myself to be exploited unfavourably. And yet, I do not disdain altruism either. I believe I have balance. I treat the sadistic sadistically, and the altruistic, altruistically. Regardless of how one wishes to interpret such things, and no matter what your judgements may be of me in this regard, the most pressing matter is how you apply such judgements to yourself.

9.) Relevant Reading:

If you missed it, read my rather polarising red pill focussed essay on morality.

To the guys who are “too altruistic,” you should read this, it’s a red pill favourite for reforming nice guys:

Buy “No More Mr Nice Guy” in the USA
Buy “No More Mr Nice Guy” in the UK
Buy “No More Mr Nice Guy” in Canada

To carry on with the philosophical book recommendations I made in the previous morality post, check out Schopenhauer’s take on ethics:

Buy “On The Basis of Morality” in the USA
Buy “On The Basis of Morality” in the UK
Buy “On The Basis of Morality” in Canada

The less savoury and more predatory amongst you will love the following book. I haven’t forgotten you. I recommend this book particularly to you. It won’t change your mind, but rather, it will reinforce what you already believe. It argues from a point of social Darwinism how strength is moral and weakness is immoral. In fact, the guys who are too altruistic would do well to read No More Mr Nice Guy, and then read this afterwards for a steroid top-up:

Buy “Might is Right or Survival of the Fittest” in the USA
Buy “Might is Right or Survival of the Fittest” in the UK
Buy “Might is Right or Survival of the Fittest” in Canada

And of course, the philosophy books recommended in the previous morality article are still as relevant as ever:

Buy “Beyond Good and Evil” in the USA
Buy “Beyond Good and Evil” in the UK
Buy “Beyond Good and Evil” in Canada
Buy “On the Genealogy of Morals” in the USA
Buy “On the Genealogy of Morals” in the UK
Buy “On the Genealogy of Morals” in Canada

“Freedom lies in being bold.” – Robert Frost

Contents:
1.) Introduction – Summarising The Law
2.) Notes On The Law
3.) Relevant Reading

1.) Introduction – Summarising The Law:

Reluctance and indecision make you seem passive whilst boldness makes you seem dominant. Do not be recklessly bold, you may weaken your position. Be calculated in your boldness. If you’re caught by surprise, suppress the sensation of distress, think clearly and react with emphatic precision.

It is better not to move at all than to make your move with reticence. The whole “go hard or go home” colloquialism touches upon this finely. Law 28 highlights the power of audacity and contrasts it with the ineffectuality of reticence. Confidence creates audacity, timidity creates reticence. Audacity is equated with confidence, timidity but an absence of such.

Through a red pill lens this law relates to the concept of “holding frame.” To hold frame is to maintain composure under pressure. To be bold, one must be capable of maintaining audacity whilst under fire.

As alluded to in “The Shit Test Encyclopedia“, the way to defend against attacks upon your composure is to be even more audacious than you were to begin with. Up the ante, do not back down unless necessary, for retreat exposes vulnerabilities and robs your words of conviction. People will follow a man on the strength of his conviction regardless of the validity of his argument. If he can form his conviction as to make it sound superficially reasonable in spite of an absence of such reason, its temerity is greatly amplified. The same cannot be said for how people treat the man who makes a cogent albeit passionless argument. Effectively, conviction trumps reason, and so conviction should form the foundation of your boldness.

There is an exception to the rule, although generally speaking, it applies to few. Timidity can be weaponised when one has so much power that necessity dictates a need to be seen as “more human.” Where appearing less threatening proves useful, timidity finds its scarce value. For example, if you are ruthless or have a reputation for being ruthless that proves disadvantageous, a convincing PR stunt depicting feigned vulnerability may benefit your public image. Too much timidity is never beneficial to anyone; however, in the correct situation and in small amounts – it can serve a purpose.

2.) Notes On The Law:

• Boldness makes you seem more powerful with the spectacle of its grandiosity whilst simultaneously obscuring your weaknesses. It is fundamental in illusion because it keeps people distracted, preventing them from finding your thumbscrew. The predatory are always trying to ascertain what your thumbscrew is through deep analysis; continuous spectacle is thus necessary for bogging down their analytical process with misdirection. The less intelligent they are, the easier this is.

• There is boldness in polarisation. An oft successful way to seem unique and powerful is to undermine the ways of your opponent by nonchalantly disregarding them.

• Following from the previous point, in any scenario where there are two opposing forces, reticence can be the difference between life and death. When you hesitate you give the opposition the confidence to strike, for rightfully or not they assume your uncertainty stems from fear. Confidence feeds bravado, bravado can mask your fears when aptly portrayed.

• Timidity makes you prey, even the weak will become guileful enough to exploit you if they believe you’re a fool. This is a matter of opportunistic disrespect rather than sadistic hate.

• Timidity makes people awkward. Timidity is easily detected if not masked by bravado.

• In contrast, boldness can make others feel more comfortable. This is oft why unconfident men are more well-liked when intoxicated than when sober. Such a man has however briefly, become bolder.

• Boldness can be cultivated by the challenges of struggle. If you are comfortable in your life you will grow timid. Healthy paranoia is realising that comfort can be dangerous in excessive amounts. With healthy paranoia, boldness becomes natural, for one is more alert, attuned to their surroundings.

• Reluctance restricts movement whilst boldness allows room for manoeuvre. Reluctance is oft analysis paralysis, allowing the unending discourse of logic to control your thoughts. Boldness rejects logical perfectionism in favour of goal-orientated motivation. He who is bold knows how to get outside of his head.

• Unannounced boldness keeps the element of surprise on your side. Reluctance gives others a chance to think, allowing them to strategize and weigh up their options.

• Boldness can force the enemy into a state of reactivity.

• Ambush: a pre-emptive swift move allows you to potentially win the game in a single move; you have the upper hand by strategising in advance whilst the competition is not even aware a game is being played. Not until the enemy is feeling the effects of your opening gambit can they strategise.

• The swift energy of boldness does not give spectators the opportunity to doubt or worry, announcements are better made boldly than tempered.

• Boldness is key in seduction, any hesitance creates awareness of your intentions before you can enact them. Boldness literally “sweeps the person off their feet” allowing no such insecurity to form within their mind.

• In seduction, effrontery, temerity and brazenness are key to success. These things are all equivocal to “shameless boldness.” The shameless persistence of pursuing your desire, “knowing what you want and not being afraid to go after it” is incredibly attractive to the opposite sex.

• Boldness gives you presence, it makes you seem more important and special than you inherently are, for all admire the bold. This ties in with law 27 which looks at “playing on people’s need to believe.”

• Drawing on the previous point, law 28 ties in well with law 37 which is to “create compelling spectacles.” Law 37 is directly dependent upon the energy of Law 28 in order to function. Unless, in a twist of irony, you are typically so bold that an act of shyness is a spectacle itself.

• Boldness draws attention, attention creates power. “There’s no such thing as bad publicity” is an idiom which comes to mind, thus boldness links in nicely with law 06, “to court attention at all cost.”

• People who form immunity to shaming tactics have an increased capacity to be bold. Shaming tactics seek to limit and impose restraint on one’s power via stigmatisation. Boldness is impervious to such restraints by being indifferent to them.

• In light of the previous bullet point, the bold are freer in their behaviour.

• The higher the stakes the more distracted and awestruck we become by audacity. This is how theatricalism works.

• Theatricalism on stage as well as social and mass media is boldness on a broader scale. With bigger stakes and larger audiences, such things are a narcissistic hotspot. Boldness feeds the attention funnel; attention creates popularity which brings revenue.

• If someone is suspicious of your boldness, become bolder to alleviate their anxiety. They will assume that further boldness makes you true to your word. The assumption is that if you were not legitimate, rather than exemplify your claims, you would back down in fear of imminent exposure. Do not show fear, master the metaphorical poker face and double down.

• Boldness need not always be constant, it can be calculated and deferred. Those who fear your rise to power will look to thwart you. This idea is somewhat similar to “law 01’s don’t outshine the master“. By remaining neutral and showing neither ambition nor discontent (law 03’s – conceal your intentions) when the variables in your environment are most favourable you may strike unexpectedly and achieve your objective. Refer to the bullet point on ambush.

• Negotiation with opposition creates opportunity for the opposition. “Do not negotiate with terrorists.”

• Compromising allows your opposition to have a foot in the door, boldness does not allow for compromise unless absolutely necessary, rather, it crushes the enemy.

• Boldness instills fears in those who doubt and disdain you, whilst winning the love of those who respect and admire the courage of the bold. It is better to be thought of as crazy than it is weak. It is better to be feared than loved.

• When you are small, powerful, unknown – you must attack someone who is known to bring attention to yourself. The bolder the attack, the more you stand out and are admired. Your attack must be tasteful to the audience, humour is the perfect veil for plausibly denying your true intent.

• Voice unspoken fears that infect the group, the expression of shared sentiment is power only the bold can utilise. This is a risky move, but like all risk, if it pays off the rewards are sublime.

• Timidity is often disguised as a concern for the well-being of others, in reality it is oft simply a concern for one’s own well-being born of fear.

• Boldness is the fuel to illusion, when an illusion begins to fade in power, injecting more boldness into it reinforces the status quo of the illusion.

• The bold are admired because their self-confidence infects others.

• The bold are admired because those who are not bold see the freedom and success in boldness and wish to emulate it. The aesthetically bold are seen as role models.

• When you have the opportunity to set a price in the haggling process, say in a job interview or other type of negotiation, open with an unreasonably high price. This is how one begins to practice boldness should such a thing not come naturally.

• Following from the previous point, by not asking for enough, we project to the world that we do not value ourselves much. Always ask for more than you are worth and you will typically get more than you are worth. This sounds absurd, but try it.

• Boldness does not come naturally to most but can be developed as a habit. Social conditioning may have made you timid, once you aware you are timid you can defeat this negative habit by consciously opposing it. What first takes effort eventually takes none.

• The consequences of timidity are generally far worse than the consequences of boldness. Boldness pays, timidity costs.

• Do not incorporate boldness into all and every action, calculate your boldness, but always incorporate it into your finishing move.

• Boldness is useful but it must be controlled. If you are naturally bold you must be careful not to react without thinking. Boldness must come from within, you must dictate its projection. It cannot be an involuntary reaction to something else. When it is, you’re not in control of your boldness.

• An inability to properly apply boldness causes offence. Realise when boldness is appropriate by understanding the context of your situation. Recklessness will ruin your reputation.

• Timidity can be used as a Venus fly trap gambit by the powerful. Being in power you must feign timidity to make yourself appear less intimidating at times. This is weaponised timidity, not legitimate timidity owing to a lack of power. Do not overuse this gambit, remember what Machiavelli said: “It is better to be feared than loved.“

3.) Relevant Reading:

If you have any additional suggestions for relevant reading, leave a comment.

Buy “The 48 Laws of Power” in the USA
Buy “The 48 Laws of Power” in the UK
Buy “The 48 Laws of Power” in Canada
Buy “The 33 Strategies of War” in the USA
Buy “The 33 Strategies of War” in the UK
Buy “The 33 Strategies of War” in Canada
Buy “The Art of War” in the USA
Buy “The Art of War” in the UK
Buy “The Art of War” in Canada
Buy “The Art of Wordly Wisdom” in the USA
Buy “The Art of Wordly Wisdom” in the UK
Buy “The Art of Wordly Wisdom” in Canada
Buy “The Craft of Power” in the USA
Buy “The Craft of Power” in the UK
Buy “The Craft of Power” in Canada
Buy “The Prince” in the USA
Buy “The Prince” in the UK
Buy “The Prince” in Canada

“But what really matters is not what you believe but the faith and conviction with which you believe…”  – Knut Hamsun

Contents:
1.) Introduction
2.) Dissociative Rationalisation aka Hamstering
3.) Mental Gymnastics
4.) Dissociation, Her Substitute for Psychopathy
5.) Women, Words, Beliefs & Lies
6.) Her Fluidity of Truth
7.) In Closing
8.) Relevant Reading

1.) Introduction:

To understand women with at least some degree of competence, one must firstly understand Machiavellianism. Once they understand Machiavellianism, they must come to understand dissociation. After understanding dissociation, the next logical step is to understand dissociation’s relationship with rationalisation, for rationalisation is reason built upon fantasy. A hoax, but one that can only be identified as such once you have investigated its origin.

Most within the red pill community come to know of rationalisation before dissociation; I suspect many know not what dissociation is in spite of its relation to rationalisation. Without dissociation, the reality removing mechanism on which feminine solipsism is predicated, rationalisation lacks the conviction needed to be convincing. The most compelling of a woman’s performances thus requires dissociation to masquerade as truth. If she did not believe her lies, neither would you.

2.) Dissociative Rationalisation aka Hamstering:

If womankind did not possess an infinite capacity for dissociation, the effectiveness of her manipulations would be greatly vitiated. Such a woman would be unable to leverage her sexuality into attaining commitment once she’d had more than a few partners. Her sexuality would be utilised and disposed of like something to be consumed, as once perceived a whore, she would become her sexuality and deemed to lack essence in absence of it. All too aware of this, dissociation is women’s primary coping mechanism.

If a woman cannot sell herself a false narrative, she cannot manipulate men into holding her in higher regard. Her worthiness of this bothers her not, her only concern is to obtain her ends. Although man is romantic, he does not easily trust or forgive women of dubious history. Such women are objectified in great ubiquity, for no value is seen in a whore outside the physical pleasure her flesh can offer. Some women set out to commodify themselves in this manner, we call them prostitutes.

And yet a prostitute would not be able to engage in the mental gymnastics necessary to forgive herself her promiscuity if she were chained to decision-making in a way that reason absent dissociation necessitates. In order for a woman to opportunistically capitalise on her sexuality, she must be capable of great dissociation. With dissociation, she can avoid consequences for her life choices, enabling her to convince a man she possesses an innocence and chastity she has long lacked.

A woman would get what she deserves, rather than what she wanted or needed if she could not dissociate. Luckily, nature has equipped women with an instinctual proclivity to dissociate. Women have evolved to become humanity’s most competent liars, in spite of themselves, for their own sake. Rather than striving to be better than she is, womankind has become competent in pretending she need not be better because she already is what she isn’t – better.

3.) Mental Gymnastics:

Machiavellianism, dissociation and rationalisation lie at the root and core of female behaviour. Female manipulation is about as natural as much as it is instinctual. It comes easily. Some women are comfortable with this aspect of themselves, others are not. Some may freely admit this to themselves, others may need to see themselves as good; such women seek to maintain a pretence of virtue in order to prop up whatever semblance of sanity they possess. When a woman cannot accept what she is, she lies to herself about who she is until she believes in her lies. A lie told long enough feels like the truth, women know this truth quite intimately.

Of course, there are women who are at peace with their nature and do not care, their rationalisation merely a method of safeguarding reputation – a neurotic means to a rational end. These women are far more dangerous than their in-denial counterparts, for they are cognisant but seek not to mitigate their nature. This is to say that all women are Machiavellian, but some are so with more zeal and aggression. Effectively, some women value altruism in spite of themselves, so upon introspection deceive themselves about themselves with great conviction. Others do not care, so they do not.

All women are similar, but likewise within that similarity, there is difference as there is with men. The difference may not be as emphatically noticeable as it is within the diversity of man, but it is there. If the rather drawn out discussion on morality we’ve been having has taught you anything recently, it’s that although we all value the ideas discussed by the red pill, each of us will act upon this knowledge differently. Women are much the same with their capacity to manipulate and dissociate. Sometimes they indulge in it and weaponise it, other times they deny reality and live a lie as a means to cope. In spite of how they use it, they all use it.

What one must realise is that woman’s capacity to rationalise away anything she doesn’t like is one of the greatest tools she has in amplifying her manipulative prowess. If women couldn’t dissociate and rationalise to the point she can pass a lie detector test, she’d be far less proficient in manipulating man. And a woman who cannot manipulate a man is a vulnerable woman, for she is completely reliant on the volition and altruism of man rather than possessing any for herself. As such, women are not built to live and hunt alone, but to attach themselves to man. Conversely, man does not need women, but rather he covets her for all her ostentatious adornment and lustful appeal. Woman’s need is greater, but owing to the libido of testosterone, man’s is more pressing.

4.) Dissociation, Her Substitute for Psychopathy:

I find female dissociation to be something tantamount to psychopathy in the absence of psychopathy. Women can do great evil by act of self-compulsion, effectively inculcating themselves to believe the abhorred acts they have engaged in are without dishonour. In this aspect, honour is a uniquely male abstraction that women do not hold themselves to. Even if a woman does believe in honour, she may as well not; for she will find a way to pervert the truth and clutch at any justification necessary to make an act of dishonour seem honourable. They hold onto such clutched straws with a delusional sincerity that belies falsehood. And all this occurs to ensure her interests – at any cost.

I see a utilitarian parallel between female nature and psychopathic moral reasoning, in fact, I see many similarities between the two, but one must be careful not to confuse correlation with causation. It is not that women as a group are psychopathic, not at all, but rather, that dissociation allows them to behave as if they were by completely twisting reality.

The histrionic self-delusion inherent of women is an effective substitution for psychopathy if you need to get something done at any cost, but aren’t actually a psychopath. Man has always been baffled by how someone who feels great sympathy for others can seemingly, as if by choice, turn off such sympathy without a shred of guilt. This is a behavioural observation unique to women noted by many men in many places. What they are observing is a woman dissociating in order to withdraw sympathy where she once felt it. Even after reading red pill material man does not completely understand this aspect of women, the moral and logical gymnastics native to womankind continues to baffle man because man is a creature of reason and morals more than he is pragmatism. For women, this is not so.

The greatest irony is that man ponders women with a consciousness bound to reason, endeavouring to find the reason for the unreasonableness of the opposite sex, repeatedly failing. In this pursuit he encounters great futility and frustration, for even if the opposite sex did possess the required self-awareness to explain herself, which she does not, she would not be inclined to explain such a thing, for it would not serve her.

5.) Women, Words, Beliefs & Lies:

I don’t assign any real value to what a woman says when she speaks of morals or loyalty or other such topics. This may sound harsh or undue, but I believe it necessary. Knowing someone can dissociate in order to hold incredibly strong convictions and then likewise do the same to dispose of said convictions when they are no longer useful means that person will never have any credibility or sway with me. Someone who is too fluid in their views and convictions is someone who does not have strong views or convictions. Because even though these things may seem plausible and compelling in the moment, they are too temporary to carry any real depth. In essence, women have mastered the aesthetics of depth – to seem deep without being deep.

I regard such things to be nothing more than pretty aesthetics, an extension of what she does with her physical appearance manifesting in the mental. The female word is much like the female form, covered by makeup, nothing more than mere pretension, a distorted augmentation of who she really is. Much like man wishes to believe the woman he lusts for would be just as pretty without the makeup, he falls victim to this same line of thinking when assessing her mentality. And so as a man it takes me far too much work to ascertain whether her asserted beliefs are things said to please me, to deceive me or to otherwise please or deceive herself. And I know it is always one of these things, and never not one of these things, because if it were not one of these things, she would be not a woman.

As such one should judge a woman how one would judge any character so flexible as to be scrupulous. Ascertain whether what she says benefits her to be seen and heard saying, or whether her beliefs assist her goals in spite of reputational considerations. If it does not aid her goal, and yet she claims it, it is likely a lie.

For example, if she claimed to be unconditionally loyal, ask yourself if she needs to be loyal to get what she wants? No, you say? You say she ensnared a man who cannot maintain her respect to marry her? You find it likely she would get everything in the divorce? Then she claims what she does to safeguard her reputation or because she is otherwise invested in ignorant self-delusion. The delusion that she is incapable of the betrayal that any man of sound mind knows her to be capable of. Such a woman is not self-aware enough as to be in touch with her nature, but rather she is enamoured with the false image she has created for herself to look at. She believes she is the thing she tells herself she is, rather than the thing her behaviour tells us she is.

How does she so convincingly dissociate you ask? Women are good at transference, a term I use to refer to “reverse-projection.” Essentially, she believes a man’s loyalty to her is important, and so through cognitive transference can borrow the devoutness of that belief and appear, at least superficially, to hold herself to the same standard. She will temporarily believe she is loyal due to the conviction of her dissociation, much like you would temporarily believe an ugly woman is pretty whilst possessed by bourbon. Dissociation is intoxicating, and whilst under its influence, her shallow nonsense will sound devout.

Women have an innately powerful capacity to be entirely delusional in a self-serving manner, unhindered by logic and aided by dissociation, women are masterful liars. They are so good at lying to themselves, that lying to you is simply a by-product of their own delusion.

6.) Her Fluidity of Truth:

Women blend truth with convenient lies as to be deliberately confusing in a way that is nothing if not self-serving. The less intelligent amongst them forget what the truth really is, because it’s only ever what they need it to be.

Women are poor at rational abstraction, which means “their truth,” like them, is fickle. The more intelligent women can keep up with their own lies, and on some level know they do not entirely believe what they compel themselves to portray. But in spite of such cognisance, such women still possess a prowess in compartmentalising just enough to maintain the deception necessary to ascertain their goals. Women are greatly goal orientated and will jump through huge cognitive hoops to get what they want. Logic, valued by man as sacrosanct, is a sordid obstruction to the mechanics of the utilitarian female mind. When logic is inconvenient to a woman, dissociation takes its place.

And this way of being that possesses women is so innate it is not even calculated. It is a truly remarkable thing to behold, as to be a man, no such method of mind is inherent. Your beliefs, your sense of identity, it is neither so fluid nor so flexible as to constantly complement and adapt to your moment’s desires. You are not so free in your beliefs because your beliefs are not so fickle, they have merit, structure and a root reasoning for existing outside the immediate utilitarian aim that you seek. Again, I see great similarity between female and psychopathic morality. This is not to say all women are psychopaths because that is an incorrect diagnosis, but rather, although through different mechanisms, they equally possess a ruthless pragmatic morality.

7.) In Closing:

It doesn’t matter how much conviction a woman speaks with, for she can delude herself to believe whatever is necessary with uncanny prowess. She can pervert the truth so much so, that any old nonsense she says can speak with the conviction of truth even if it is an absolute perversion of it. This is woman’s greatest power, other than of course, her sexuality. And it is that element unique to women that makes her as effortlessly Machiavellian as she is. As I have said before, women are nature’s Machiavellians.

8.) Relevant Reading:

Buy “The Manipulated Man” in the USA
Buy “The Manipulated Man” in the UK
Buy “The Manipulated Man” in Canada
Buy “The Rational Male” in the USA
Buy “The Rational Male” in the UK
Buy “The Rational Male” in Canada
Buy “The Rational Male: Preventative Medicine” in the USA
Buy “The Rational Male: Preventative Medicine” in the UK
Buy “The Rational Male: Preventative Medicine” in Canada

Contents:
1.) Introduction
2.) “Why do you bother with TRP?”
3.) “I don’t know what to do after college.”
4.) “How do you write about the dark triad and then write about morality?”
5.) “If you could recommend 10 books for personal growth, what would they be?”
6.) “How do I use ego productively?”
7.) In Closing

1.) Introduction:

Welcome to Illimitable Men’s first monthly mailbag. My hope is that schedule permitting, to make this a regular fixture each month. What is the monthly mailbag? Essentially, I take questions from the community for the entire month. Then when the end of the month comes, I pile over the mail and pick out which questions to answer and publish.

You could call me an essayist as most of the articles written on Illimitable Men are essays. The mailbag is obviously something a little different, it is a direct interaction with the community, and hence, more conversational in nature.

I believe answering questions in a public manner is a good way to help many people at once. Kind of like approaching a situation with a net rather than a line. It’s also a great time-saving device, if someone asks me a question I’ve already answered, I can point them to the relevant mailbag. Effectively, the mailbag is an agony uncle meets FAQ type deal. Some questions will be meta in nature. Okay, with that out-of-the-way, let us proceed.

2.) “Why do you bother with TRP?”

“As a TRP newbie, I’m very grateful for yet surprised by the amount of energy and time you and other TRP veterans are expending to help other people for free. I’m sure you personally have enough knowledge and discipline already to basically do whatever you want to do, so why are you choosing to spend your valuable time on TRP? Is becoming just a tiny bit more knowledgeable yourself worth the time investment, is it charity, is it a hobby, is it a “perfection in all things” philosophy, something else?”

Men are in pain. If I had the knowledge I have now when I was 15 or even 18 my life would have taken a far different direction. A lot of us had to learn the hard way so that you can learn the easy way. I remember what it’s like growing up clueless and without guidance. By forming my blog, I can give the guidance I never had.

When you don’t have a blog, and you care about this stuff, you know, the state of boys and men, the health of masculinity – you’re better off having a blog to communicate your ideas to as many people as possible. Otherwise, you have lots of 1-on-1 conversations over private message, and the impact you have is far more localised. One article that gets 10,000 views has a greater impact on the collective than 200 individual private message consultations.

I think the red pill is a very important space for boys and men, young and old. Male spaces are lacking in real life, almost everywhere you go is dominated by a strong whiff of estrogen. Being stuck in the corporate rat race is no good for a guy, frankly, in my opinion, it’s emasculating. Men aren’t free to be men anymore, men must tone down their nature as not to be ostracised.

Political correctness is more a natural sensibility of the feminine than it is conducive to the masculine. Men tend to prefer communicating directly, that’s when they’re happiest and working at their best. Sanitised language which does not overtly offend is part of the “greet you with a smile whilst stabbing your jugular” ethic quintessential of women.

If you don’t do a sport in the real world, or work on a building site, you probably don’t have a place to shoot the shit. You have to be politically correct and police yourself, joking around or discussing serious topics from an exclusively male viewpoint is scarcely an option.

Not all your friends are going to be red pill, or really care about discussing the things that we as a community enjoy discussing. You may want to have a deep discussion about something, but you have friends who avoid “deep talk” and are chronic fun seekers. They’re not in the mood for politics, or whatever deep thing it is you want to discuss, so where do you go? An internet forum – to meet people who have the same problem as you. The community is special in the way that it provides an outlet for masculine expression (at all levels of depth) in a time and place where such expression is taboo.

Likewise, I take great joy in writing, I love to write. There isn’t really anything else for me to learn from the community, all one can do is master the implementation of the knowledge taught through practice. There comes a point where discussion is redundant but is done for the sake of itself, as well as for helping the guys who weren’t there for all the prior discussions. If we don’t keep the torch lit, it’ll go out. Watch how quickly things dilute and fall into obscurity if all the big names just decided to up and leave – it would be tragic. TRP is a community of many built on the broad backs of the few. Plenty of guys “don’t get it enough” and plenty of guys who do get it “don’t give enough fucks to help anybody out.”

If I wanted to disappear, lift weights and drink an unhealthy amount of whiskey (fuck, I love bourbon) I could do that. But I find writing and helping men out to be a fulfilling task – so I do that. For as long as I find such things fulfilling, I will continue to do them. TRP helped me out when I was in a tough spot, and for that it has my eternal gratitude. However, one should note that TRP isn’t a magical fix-all for your problems.

TRP will give you the tools necessary to help you fix yourself, but TRP can’t force you to get off your ass. Reading TRP isn’t going to magically fix your life for you, it’s going to tell you how to fix your life so you can do the fixing. You could read TRP for eternity, but if that’s all you did, you’d continue to be the loser you were before you found TRP.

3.) “I don’t know what to do after college”

“I graduated college this past spring semester and ever since then I have been worrying about life. I feel like I experienced all there is to experience in terms of women, getting laid, and having fun/partying. In a way, I feel very jaded and feel as if there is nothing for me in the future. Never in my life will I be around an abundance of hot girls, have an easy time making friends, and so much free time on my hands.

Now I feel like I have experienced all that the game has to offer me now. I feel like at this point, I will be pushing myself and fighting for scraps because so many of the hot girls I knew in college are married and have degraded in looks throughout the 4 years I was there. A part of me feels like there is nothing the world can offer me now that will rival my amazing experience in college and I just feel so jaded about it. So many of these days I have felt like just getting married and having kids as soon as I get a stable career going.

What is the best thing for men in my situation to do? Do I just go into monk mode and find other hobbies? Do I go down the marriage route?”

You have not experienced even a quarter of what life has to offer. You have not had kids, travelled the world, bought a house, run your own business or whatever. Sure, not everyone wants to or is going to do all these things, but to deny they are life changing milestones would be foolish. You possess a childish outlook on life where women and partying are the focal point. Unable to see beyond that, you see what comes after that as being inferior. You don’t want the party to end, because you live for the party. If you had a passion, an ambition or vision distinct from “having fun” you’d be more excited about your future, not mourning the past.

Men with focus are strong and stable because working towards one’s ambitions brings confidence and a sense of direction, which in turn brings about success that further fuels your empire. Sure, unwind, have a few drinks, whatever. But realise “fun” is the side dish to life, not the meaning of life.

People who live to have fun are idiots that need to grow up. They don’t realise that once you find your groove – a passion you can hone and monetise – that this is a whole new form of productive fun in and of itself. If you are always unwinding, eg: watching Netflix/hanging with friends/playing Xbox, you are going to be one of life’s losers. These things should be done in moderation to let off steam, but they should not be the canvas of your life.

Read monk mode and reprogram yourself. You should have a focus. That focus should be to build up your empire. You are your empire, you are your own project – you are the project nobody else will give a shit about unless you make yourself worth a fuck. Making your #1 motive “to get hot blonde college chicks” or whatever obsession it is some men have “with the college life” is completely neurotic. You will never be fulfilled in yourself if this is your #1 purpose and wish in life. Ever see that movie Van Wilder? You’ll end up like Van Wilder, a loser in his late 20’s/early 30’s clinging on to the college hype because he was too scared to move on.

You built your self-esteem on your social circles. You are addicted to the social game, probably hyper-extroverted and sit around talking nonsense with other people who are just as directionless as you are. Because naturally, they share the same priority that you do – to be a popular socialite swimming in sexual partners. Now the party is over you don’t know what to do with yourself. The answer is in the previous paragraphs, build your empire. Build you.

You are pondering marriage as a potential remedy, to give your post-college life some sort of purpose; of all the things – marriage?! Marriage is not the answer. You lack an empire mindset and have a party mindset, if you keep that up you are destined to be average – at best. And average is essentially synonymous with loser. Fearing the future is no way to live. Find that passion, hone it, become it, live it, monetise it, and fun will be but a by-product of your success. Don’t chase fun, build success, and fun will be an option rather than this thing you chase just to be content.

And for the love of god, do not get married. Not only does marriage take all your financial and social power and surrender it unilaterally to whatever random vagina you become enamoured with, but you, yourself, are not mature enough for such commitments. You’re still mourning the end of your college experience. Marriage, if it was ever part of the equation, is about a million miles away from “I miss all the fun I had at college.”

Marriage is not a magic fix-all that will give you purpose in life, a committed relationship with a woman will destroy you at your level of maturity. You aren’t ready for that. You need to create your own purpose. That purpose should be your future empire. I think you knew that monk mode is something you need to do – but were just looking for an affirmation. Stop doing this. Act on your own volition.

Make these things regular habits: meditating, lifting, reading, doing your passion (whatever that is) and networking. You should do these things when you’re not working, and your passion, ideally, is something you can eventually leverage into a fulfilling job. If you find yourself with free time, you don’t know how to live properly. Fill the time, pick up a book, hit the gym, do anything but be stagnant. Maintain momentum, being inert is the worst; it’s a first class ticket to misery, and that’s exactly what most people are – miserable.

4.) “How do you write about the dark triad and then write about morality?”

“You’ve written extensively on the importance of Machiavellianism and the Dark Triad concept for RP people. Articles about its nature, how it works and how we can and should try to incorporate aspects of it in our daily lives.

But at the same you have also written quite a lot about morality and immorality, which seems to be mutually exclusive with DT & Machiavellianism.

How do you manage this dichotomy? Is the DT & M aspect purely theoretical and the moral aspect your personal conviction? Do you draw a line based on some moral principles?”

I think it is important to note that one does not necessarily need to be a psychopath in order to superficially emulate, have an interest in, or understand psychopathy. After all, psychopathy is a fascinating topic. And psychopaths tend to be people who like reading about psychopathy, rather than writing about it.

Both the dark triad and the discussions on morality (1) (2) are theoretical aspects independent of each other that one can choose to live by should they wish. I present the reader with both extremes without coming out and saying “this one is better than the other.” As saying that is entirely subjective. Likewise, what is best for one is not necessarily the best for another. Most people fail to understand this because they do not approach life with the holistic/abstract outlook that I do, but rather, their reasoning is built upon the limits of their personal experience – it is solipsistic logic.

The psychopath, in his eternal solipsism, thinks it’s foolish and pathetic to be anything but what he is, cunning, ruthless, apathetic. He sees all sentimental kindness as weak if not a glib calculation, because he has no frame of reference for what baseless altruism is. Others agree on the value of ruthlessness, but do not value it in the absolutist state that psychopaths do (this is universal in those with an intact amygdala.) This is where morality enters the stage. I don’t take a stance either way, although I will write things that make you think I have a stance, because you will interpret the text as a subjective projection of my own thoughts and feelings, rather than an abstract piece of art I have written to disseminate a framework.

You can be all out for yourself and burn everything around you regardless of everything. Or you can be out for yourself but help society when it does not hurt you to be altruistic. Effectively, I don’t tell anyone what they should or should not be.

Two mutually exclusive things can be true, and one can acknowledge these truths without necessarily subscribing to both or either truth. When I talk about how morality affects civilization, I do believe a lack of altruism will hinder civilization. Stating that does not make me an idealistic altruistic idiot, rather, it is a simple maxim that civilization is built on altruism and crumbles without it.

You can be a psychopath and logic yourself to this conclusion even though you do not sentimentally care, eg: “if everybody was like me, we probably wouldn’t have running water and electricity as there’d be constant war and nobody easy to manipulate.” It’s akin to a world full of wolves without any sheep to feed on. The wolf, as superior as he feels, is dependent on the very sheep he loathes. It doesn’t matter where you are in the food chain, if the ecosystem collapses, you starve.

When I talk about how I think psychopaths operate, and what benefits/handicaps that comes with, I believe in that too. But this isn’t a diary blog, I don’t invite you into my life. I am not a character, I am not selling you feelings or bravado. This is the blog of an essayist and thinker who writes to communicate a view purely for its instructional value. There is, in my opinion, value in discussing the dark triad. And likewise, in my view, there is value in discussing how morality shapes civilization. If I did not believe either thing to be of value, I would not waste my time exploring them. In that sense, neither topic is mutually exclusive in the sense that discussing one topic means the other cannot be discussed.

I could discuss the benefits of sadism in one essay, and the benefits of altruism in another without personally adhering to either text. It is an exercise in abstract reasoning. You need not be something or personally subscribe to something to write about it.

As you will see if you read this blog for any sufficient amount of time; I’m more about knowledge and thought process, not gimmicks and manipulating my audience into feeling good so I can cash in on their positive feelings. This blog is substantive, not superficial.

This is the kind of blog where the reader takes the writings and decides for themselves what they want to do with the knowledge. Who the reader is greatly affects how or if the knowledge is utilised. Readers have a tendency to think you write specifically for them and their views, especially the narcissists. But this is not so. I do not write to cater to a specific view. I write to make men think with a depth of reasoning they may otherwise find difficult to access in order to help them properly understand something. I am teaching things I believe to be helpful, not leading men down a path complicit with my personal politics.

I have no real interest in proselytising any specific kind of morality (or lack thereof) to anybody. The only real kind of ideology that has managed to seep into the blog is anti-feminism. This site is about putting men first and helping men put themselves first by cultivating their masculinity. In light of that, anti-feminism is a rational aspect of the blog, not a preordained political agenda.

5.) “If you could recommend 10 books for personal growth, what would they be?”

This is a very simple question with a not so simple answer. Naturally, any answer I give is going to be biased. My personal top 10 would probably be the 48 Laws of Power followed by 9 philosophy books. But that is more a reflection of who I am and how my mind works than it is something beneficial to the majority. As such, this list isn’t so much a personal top 10 as it is “ten books I think can help the boys and men of TRP.” So with that clarified, in no particular order, my recommendations are as follows:

1. The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene

Psychology, strategy and Machiavellianism. Discusses strategic gambits on an interpersonal level by presenting psychological insights illustrated through historical anecdotes.

2. Meditations by Marcus Aurelius

Diary written by an introspective and inquisitive long-dead Roman emperor with a strong grip on Stoic philosophy. The most authoritative text in this niche to survive from antiquity. Helpful as a spiritual guide to dealing with, and perceiving life.

3. The Art of Worldly Wisdom by Baltasar Gracian

Book of incredibly insightful social observations from the keen mind of a middle age Spanish philosopher. The proverbs are spectacular and still relevant. It’s a great little book, very affordable, and as each proverb is self-contained and takes up only half or a single page, the book is easily picked up and put down. A great complement to the 48 Laws of Power, The 48 Laws of Power is rumoured to have been loosely based upon this text.

4. Antifragile: Things that Gain from Disorder by Nassim Nicholas Taleb

This book is great for encouraging fearlessness and a love of struggle. Effectively the book is based on the philosophy and idea of antifragility, that by subjecting yourself to stress, you can become incredibly powerful.

5. How To Win Friends & Influence People by Dale Carnegie

This book teaches you how to become someone who is liked, it answers the question: “how do I charm people to make myself popular?” Many, many men could benefit from this book, in a sense it is teaching social skills. Be careful to balance the methods given in this book with the Machiavellian tenets outlined in The 48 Laws of Power. Do not be frivolously charming, your charms should serve you rather than enslave you into the nice guy role. When you charm to appease rather than to control, your charm loses its power as it becomes your crutch. Where charm is necessary, use charm. Charm, like ego, should be seen as a tool – not a way of being.

6. Mastery by Robert Greene

This is “the book of monk mode.” Robert Greene discusses what it takes to master something and looks at various masters and how they became masters in their respective fields. The gist of the book is: put 10,000 hours into something, identify a master in the field you’re working in and attempt to have him mentor you. This book is about applying yourself to an art to reap success.

7. The Rational Male by Rollo Tomassi

The only book out there which has compiled the ideas under the TRP umbrella and explained them in-depth. This is “the red pill in book form.” Think a guy needs help, want him to take the red pill, but don’t want to risk your reputation? Buy him a copy of The Rational Male. If he hates it and doesn’t see the value in it, at least you tried. You have the plausible deniability of saying you were misled by the Amazon reviews. You don’t have that when you show a guy the TRP message board. Rollo’s book is the perfect way to introduce someone to the red pill without risking a friendship.

8. Starting Strength by Mark Rippetoe

“I don’t know how to lift! How do I lift? Even if I join a gym and pay for a personal trainer, how do I know I can trust them to give me good advice?”

You can’t, and your personal trainer will probably be a don’t give a fuck steroid injecting salesman, not someone who has your interest at heart. Don’t waste your money on a personal trainer, buy this book instead. Read it inside out, take yourself down to a gym, practice your form with the bar and begin weightlifting. It will take you courage to start working out, but this book will tell you everything you need to know to get you there. Alternatively, if you have the space and money, you can set up the necessary equipment in your home. Mark Rippetoe is a master in his field. With this book, you are in good hands.

9. The Way of Men by Jack Donovan

This book talks about how to be good with other men, what it takes to really “be a man.” This book is about the nature of man and what makes an effective man. Any male young or old interested in the cultivation of his masculinity should, as such, find this to be a compelling read.

10. No More Mr Nice Guy by Robert Glover

I was never a chronic nice guy, so did not need a book to teach me how to “stop being too nice.” However, I repeatedly hear glowing reviews about this book from former nice guys. If you are someone who is “too nice” this book will probably change your life and make you less of a doormat. If “being too kind” is not something that’s ever plagued you, give this one a miss. This is the book for spineless guys looking to reclaim their spine. If you are a pussy with too much pride to be honest with yourself about yourself, buy this anyway.

6.) “How do I use ego productively?”

“Hi IM, I’ve read a lot of Manosphere over the past year or so, and I’ve noticed that you speak on perhaps a deeper, more complicated level about things. A real dissection of the concepts. So in that regard, what is your thoughts on ego, validation and how to use them to your advantage with respect to the red pill, and life in general? It’s something I’ve recently been grappling with after watching a lot of Alan Watts.”

Ah, the topic of narcissism, an important yet nuanced and diverse topic. This answer isn’t going to be a wholesome thesis on the topic, but will tackle your question specifically.

Narcissistic ego is the sword easily fell on. It has a lot of power because it is a dissociative coping mechanism. For example, say a kid is bullied at school. One day he begins to dissociate “I am the shit, I am the shit, I am the shit” and he just inculcates himself with this fake it until you make it mantra: “I am the shit, I am the shit, I am the shit.” The kid is, in a crude manner, brainwashing himself by asserting his desire as truth via repetition. Why? Because he was getting bullied and couldn’t handle his life, he dissociated to cope with the mental pain. He deluded himself into a new identity.

Eventually, said kid dissociates to the point he believes he is a bad ass for no reason other than he willed himself to believe it. He starts acting bad ass, the bullies challenge him for standing up for himself and he destroys them mentally. Where did that power come from? Dissociation. What did he have to sacrifice to get that power? Sanity, logic, reality. He believed in a lie until his brain accepted that lie and manifested it in reality. With that manifestation in reality, his lie is no longer a lie – he became what he needed to become. He stood up to the bullies. What started as a lie became truth, the kid effectively willed his lie into existence through the process of dissociation.

That is the power of ego, the ability to overcome what you otherwise couldn’t overcome. By believing in yourself you gain immense power over your surroundings. You can hold frame. The problem lies not with believing in one’s self – the problem lies with how one comes to believe in themselves, the methodology. If it is rational for a person to believe in themselves, it will be proven through cause and effect, eg: self-improvement. If it is dissociative, it is confidence built on a lie, propped up by the validation of others who help will the narrative into existence. These are the co-dependent enablers and the hero pedestalising sycophants.

The problem with ego is how living a lie blinds your senses and, rather ironically, makes you vulnerable in a new way. Egotistical people are very bad at taking criticism, very sensitive to any perceived slight (easily offended, although they may act unfazed to save face) and are generally speaking: hyper-sensitive.

In all its perverse irony, through the grandiosity of the narcissist there is an intolerance to even the slightest negative remark directed at them. Like bullets being dodged via slow motion in the matrix, they will not allow anything to stick. The narcissist refuses to acknowledge or accept anything they do not like regardless of its merit, they will simply dissociate to a preferred version of events. That is narcissism, that is when a person has become their ego.

And often the egotist will try to compensate for their inability to handle criticism by doubling down on the critic, by insulting the critic, by bringing in a sycophant to back them up (validate them.) They will do anything to hold onto ego because they identify themselves as their ego. They see no distinction between themselves and elitism/grandiosity/confidence. Their ego is their power, and without it, they have nothing. Because of this they cling to the ego like the world’s been flooded and their ego is the last parcel of land.

Exude bravado in the company of narcissists or people who you want to impress (women, recruiters, etc.) Demonstrate superficial egotism without really taking it to heart. Watch how an egotist behaves, learn to emulate their behaviour but do not believe in the glib nonsense, merely become good at mimicking its affectation. Say it with conviction to convince those around you, but assign no depth to the words you speak. Speak in this manner to communicate status and control perception, but do not mistake your lies for truth. They are just words, words designed to deceive – and this deception is necessary for you to achieve your goals. This deception must fool others, but you must remain grounded and be careful not to inadvertently fool yourself. If you fool yourself and become your ego, you will ruin yourself.

Realise ego is a tool that can be used for your benefit independent of the rest of the mind. This can be difficult to master, as the validation that comes from acting like an egotist is a honey pot, it is addictive. And so it will tempt you into taking on the alter ego as your de facto personal identity. This is bad because quieting logic to live off validation means that if you are to lose validation, you will lose your foundation for being. You will lose your sense of self. You will have a huge gaping vulnerability, a constant need to be acknowledged, appreciated and respected. Behind the bravado, this makes you weak. You will become compelled to seek power simply to feel like you exist, being eternally dissatisfied by an insatiable ego.

When the honey pot goes sour, you will start losing control and acting crazy to try to get that indomitable godlike feeling back. You behave like a druggie chasing a high he can never get back.

By using ego as a tool, but not becoming it, you retain reason. This means you are stronger than the clinically narcissistic, because when your ego is attacked you can perceive the attacks on your ego for what they are and thus separate yourself from the ego. This is necessary for being formless. Ego will transform you from nothing to something, but it is logic that will save you from imploding on yourself when the ego reaches critical mass. Where logic limited your capacity to succeed in the example with the bully, (you can’t be logical and dissociate) in this scenario, it saves you.

By rationally deconstructing the attack on your ego, you immediately see yourself as distinct from your ego. Why? Because your ego is solipsistic and cannot rationally deconstruct an attack upon itself as an observer. It can only react to a threat personally and within the moment. It cannot “take a step back,” so to speak.

By using reason to analyse rather than reacting with ego, you separate your mind from your ego. And then you will see clearly. You will see the attack as a strike against your reputation, a strategic move which can be countered. Not an intense emotional tussle which taxes your senses and makes you dependent on winning just to “feel normal.” When one who is reasonable strategises, they are in control, a player. One who reacts with their feelings is being played, reactions can be anticipated and encouraged, effectively pawning the individual via their ego.

The manipulation of ego is what makes the otherwise powerful, manipulable. An ego is like a great big castle wall that isn’t really there, if you touch it, you’ll go straight through it. You expected something solid to be there, like a reason or something substantive, but there was nothing. The whole thing was a bluff. Smoke and mirrors make for some compelling illusions.

Ego is good for quick reaction and performance in the moment, but it is poor at planning. Ego benefits improvisation and performance, it’s a good short-term tool, but it is poor for strategising. I recommend learning to code switch into an egotistical frame of mind, but not being bound to that frame. Ego should be wielded like a tool, picked up and put down. Enjoyed for it uses, but sparingly as necessary.

7.) In Closing:

I had many messages and e-mails, obviously only a handful made the cut. If I featured every message here, we’d be at well over 20,000 words and that would be far too long. Seeing as this is the first mailbag, I’d appreciate any feedback in the comments. Thanks for reading, I hope you enjoyed it, and I look forward to answering July’s end of the month mailbag.

“Knowledge is indivisible. When people grow wise in one direction, they are sure to make it easier for themselves to grow wise in other directions as well. On the other hand, when they split up knowledge, concentrate on their own field, and scorn and ignore other fields, they grow less wise — even in their own field.” – Isaac Asimov

Contents:
1.) Introduction
2.) The Maxims
3.) In Closing
4.) Relevant Reading

1.) Introduction:

The maxims that comprise the bulk of this article are designed to educate men on the nature of women, as well as the nature of themselves in relation to women. Being a loose collection of maxims, the article is easy-to-read by merit of its broken down format. I’ve likewise adopted brevity here in the hope that the most prominent points will stick more easily.

The maxims listed are inclusive, but not exhaustive. As such, these maxims do not compromise the totality of wisdom available on this topic. There is far more. With time, I may add additional maxims or pen a follow-up article.

2.) The Maxims:

IM MAXIM #1: “The tougher the men around her, the softer she is. The softer the men around her, the tougher she is. The toughest woman is the fatherless woman, for the fatherless woman seeks a surrogate by whoring herself.” [See here for more.]

IM MAXIM #2: “A woman never wants you to need her, only to want her. The moment your want becomes need – she no longer wants you.”

IM MAXIM #3: “Women’s love is admiration built upon respect. Women are drawn to men of experience and power. Man’s love is respect built upon desire. Men are drawn to women of innocence and vulnerability. When a woman no longer admires, and a man no longer sacrifices, love is lost. It is a delicate balance, for respect is lost when either fails in their capacity. Man sacrifices, woman admires, that is love.” [See here for more.]

IM MAXIM #4: “Women love children how men love women.” [See here for more.]

IM MAXIM #5: “The feminine wants a guardian and the masculine wants to guard. The problem is, neither can happen without trust. The sexes have never trusted each other much, but courtesy of feminism, they have never trusted each other less.”

IM MAXIM #6: “There is an immutable animosity between the sexes that serves as the conduit for all distrust. This animosity flows from the inability of the sexes to reconcile their fundamentally opposed sexual strategies. For a man’s optimal sexual strategy to thrive, the woman’s must suffer. For a woman’s optimal sexual strategy to thrive, the man’s must suffer. Each sex is determined not to suffer, and so both inflict suffering on the other in a perverse determination not to suffer themselves. This is the battle of the sexes. This is reproductive war.”

IM MAXIM #7: “The sexes desire to trust one another, but they wish to actualise their sexual imperatives far more. As such, trust is predicated on the degree of one’s control far more than it is any sense of blind loyalty.”

IM MAXIM #8: “Women are followers, not leaders. They follow trends, status and power, not a sense of innate loyalty.”

IM MAXIM #9: “The average man is ignorant and misled. His mental construct of women is far greater than anything the typical woman aspires to. This is not his fault, his biology deceives him, society lies and so the deck of deception is stacked. Nevertheless, the reality remains.”

IM MAXIM #10: “You conflate her beauty with good character. These things are distinct, but mesmerised by beauty, you think they are identical.”

IM MAXIM #11: “You have been lied to about the nature of women all your life, disregard what you think you knew because it is probably wrong. Ignore the top-down preaching that society espouses. Reconstruct your understanding from the bottom-up.”

IM MAXIM #12: “Cultures have always had a preferred sex. In some eras, men are celebrated; in others, it is women. There is no equality in prosperous cultures, only a cooperation where one sex recognises the superiority of the other. To realise which culture you live in, ask yourself who it is more acceptable to criticise. The sex it is least acceptable to criticise is that culture’s preferred sex.”

IM MAXIM #13: “Women aren’t loyal to you, they’re loyal to your power.”

IM MAXIM #14: “Conventional loyalty implies honour. Honour is a male abstraction. Female loyalty is entirely predicated on the perception that you are powerful, we will call this hypergamous loyalty. Man can be loyal in the female sense (hypergamously) or he can be loyal in the truest sense of the word – sacrificially. In matters of men, women are capable only of the prior. The latter is reserved for her children.”

IM MAXIM #15: “Sacrificial loyalty is not predicated on the potency of one’s power, hypergamous loyalty is fixated on it.”

IM MAXIM #16: “Female loyalty is not loyalty in the truest sense of the word, for it is far too conditional to be considered such a thing. The conventional understanding of loyalty demands a bond beyond an enamour with power.”

IM MAXIM #17: “Hypergamous loyalty is an instrument of pragmatism, sacrificial loyalty is typically not. Therefore in contrast to sacrificial loyalty, hypergamous loyalty is something akin to “half-loyalty.”

IM MAXIM #18: “It is precisely how women love which vitiates their capacity for loyalty to that of bastardised half-loyalty. A loyalty dictated by hypergamy rather than honour. A Machiavellian self-serving loyalty, yes. A noble one, most definitely not.”

IM MAXIM #19: “All past sacrifice is null and void if your continued association does not provide her with a tangible benefit. To simplify: if you cannot help her now, she does not care if you helped her before.” [See Briffault’s Law] Refer to Maxims #16-18.

IM MAXIM #20: “Your mother is the only woman who will love you for you, rather than your power. Corollary: if your mother was a heartless narcissist, you have never known and shall never know of woman’s least conditional love.”

IM MAXIM #21: “If you compare a potential love interest to your mother, your love interest will disappoint you. Corollary: unless your mother was a narcissist, in which case you will get exactly what you expect.”

IM MAXIM #22: “Women don’t care about your struggles, only your successes.”

IM MAXIM #23: “Women want the final product, but successful men value a woman who was there for the journey. The problem is, women detest risk. And so they have the propensity to hold back ambitious men with their petulant insecurities. Should he become too powerful, she fears she will lose her monopoly of him. She sabotages him to secure him, for the crab bucket mentality is intrinsic to women.” Refer to Maxim #22.

IM MAXIM #24: “If a woman is with a submissive man trying to become dominant, she will utterly oppose him. She has accepted he is submissive and so she revels in the power her control gives her. If he becomes dominant, she loses the power and resources her monopoly granted her. And she will never forget his old ways. She will never really believe he is a worthy leader.”

IM MAXIM #25: “The optimised female sexual strategy compartmentalises the roles of men. We call this female sexual plurality. Women have a dual nature to control and be controlled, for their fluidity permits great perversity. With the dominant, she can satiate her masochism. With the submissive, she can satiate her sadism. In this way she indulges her lust for power with the submissive man, and her lust to feel feminine with the dominant.”

IM MAXIM #26: “If she is with a submissive man, she prioritises her happiness. If she is with a dominant man, she prioritises his. With the dominant man, making him happy makes her happy. The submissive man’s happiness has no such effect, so she deems it irrelevant.”

IM MAXIM #27: “Women will not go backwards in commitment, men will not go backwards sexually. Corollary: unless the man or woman in question has no better options, in which case they will, with misery.”

IM MAXIM #28: “Women bargain for control over man’s commitment, men bargain for control over woman’s body.”

IM MAXIM #29: “Work on the presumption that the women you date are promiscuous. Your inclination will be to assume her innocence. You are wiser to assume her guilt.”

IM MAXIM #30:” It is not so much a question of if she is a whore, but rather, a question of if she is not.” Refer to Maxim #29.

IM MAXIM #31: “Prudence necessitates one requires evidence of womanly innocence rather than assuming the existence of such. The assumption that innocence is an intrinsic feminine quality is an almost universal tragedy that has cost many men a great deal.”

IM MAXIM #32: “A woman’s truth is whatever she needs it to be. If the abstract truth does not serve her psyche, a dissociative one will be manufactured in its place.” [See here for more.]

IM MAXIM #33: “Feminism didn’t make women something that they weren’t, patriarchy and religion did. Man’s governance made women better, not just for the sake of men, but likewise, for themselves. Feminism is female self-governance. Such self-governance has revealed the nature of women to lack a non-superficial civility. By removing the societal shaming mechanisms that nurture women to be noble, feminism has exposed the feral nature of women. Everything that is negative about the female disposition is thus doubly so under the fist of feminism.”

IM MAXIM #34: “Men must become powerful to be loved; women and children need only exist.”

IM MAXIM #35: “Men remember being boys. Man has a lucid perspective in comparing the diminished affection of his adulthood to the greater bounty of his childhood. Women do not experience such a significant loss of affection. As such, man is forced to realise he will never again be loved so profusely, for the boy gets his fill, but man loves the most to be loved the least. The profundity of maternal love is longed for, but forever gone. A girlfriend cannot provide that, and is loathe to do so should a weak man demand it. This is perhaps the bitterest of all the pills.”

IM MAXIM #36: “Marriage is for women and the lined pockets of divorce lawyers, not husbands.”

IM MAXIM #37: “Marriage is security for women at the expense of man’s freedom. Traditionally man was given certain powers to compensate him for the increased burden and loss of freedom. He no longer is.”

IM MAXIM #38: “Marriage is the only legal contract in existence that permits a person to violate contractual terms and then subsequently penalise the party who upheld said terms.”

IM MAXIM #39: “Woman, much unlike man, does not see marriage as a legal contract or responsibility. She sees it as security, and the celebration itself, the actualisation of a solipsistic fantasy.”

IM MAXIM #40: “Some believe marriage is necessary to properly raise children. In a bygone era, it was. Times have changed. Feminist legal politics have changed what was once an asset into a liability.”

IM MAXIM #41: “Divorce destroys children. You can’t ruin your kids with divorce if you never get married to begin with.”

IM MAXIM #42: “Women want to get married because, in the majority of circumstances, they have everything to gain and nothing to lose. For you, this is the opposite. Ultra high net worth women are perhaps the exception, that should reveal all it needs to.”

IM MAXIM #43: “Security and commitment is the female end-game. Marriage provides this. Marriage fulfils the feminine imperative by providing a woman her highest desire. The equivalent end-game for the male imperative is a harem of beautiful women.

IM MAXIM #44: “If you’re (ever) in an elite social class that necessitates political marriage, keep the bulk of your assets secure in a trust fund. This is your security. What isn’t technically yours cannot be taken from you.”

IM MAXIM #45: “Women are Machiavellian as water is wet.”  [See here for more.]

IM MAXIM #46: “Women weaponise sex, for it is their trump card, and often, their only card.”

IM MAXIM #47: “It is inextricably womanlike to control the attractive man with sex. When libido wins, she fucks for pleasure. When a lust for power wins, sex is rationed like a drug and used to condition male behaviour.”

IM MAXIM #48: “When a woman manipulates a man she does not find attractive, she does so through feigned frigidity and sex appeal rather than through sexual act.”

IM MAXIM #49: “It is in a woman’s interest to give deliberately mixed signals. There is great power in even a potential for sex. As such, it is in woman’s interest to have men believe they have a chance. For as long as he believes this, she can exercise power over him.”

IM MAXIM #50: “If you try to debate with someone whose mind prefers emotion to reason, you will engage in a grand exercise of futility that exhausts the patience. As such, do not argue with women. It is pointless. You cannot argue with feelings, you can only manipulate them.” [See here for more.]

3.) In Closing:

Some things may seem obvious, others, not so. The seeming obviousness of something is an incredibly subjective phenomenon, and is based primarily on your experience (or lack thereof.) As such, some things may click, others may not. I only ask that if something is not immediately obvious, that you re-read the maxim a couple of times to better consider it’s meaning. If you still don’t understand a point, feel free to ask in the comments.

UPDATE: An article with a further 50 maxims has been published. You can check it out here.

4.) Relevant Reading:

Buy “The Art of Seduction” in the USA
Buy “The Art of Seduction” in the UK
Buy “The Art of Seduction” in Canada
Buy “The Art of Wordly Wisdom” in the USA
Buy “The Art of Wordly Wisdom” in the UK
Buy “The Art of Wordly Wisdom” in Canada
Buy “The Manipulated Man” in the USA
Buy “The Manipulated Man” in the UK
Buy “The Manipulated Man” in Canada
Buy “The Rational Male” in the USA
Buy “The Rational Male” in the UK
Buy “The Rational Male” in Canada
Buy “The Rational Male: Preventative Medicine” in the USA
Buy “The Rational Male: Preventative Medicine” in the UK
Buy “The Rational Male: Preventative Medicine” in Canada

“The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.” – Isaac Asimov

Contents:
1.) Introduction
2.) The Maxims
3.) In Closing
4.) Relevant Reading

1.) Introduction:

Much was covered in the article preceding this, Fifty Shades of Red. However, I remember thinking when writing the piece that there was much more to say. In light of that, as well as the resoundingly positive response the previous article received, I thought it only apt to pen a follow-up.

2.) The Maxims:

IM MAXIM #51 – “Women are mercenary. They do whatever it takes to win. They will switch sides or outright lie to secure the man they deem their best option. That’s what you are to a woman. An option.” Refer to Maxim #45.

IM MAXIM #52 – “Society claims a woman shown your deepest fears will appreciate “your true essence.” This is a myth, a grandiose lie. The average man naively expects a woman to treasure his vulnerability in much the way he does hers. She cannot. Presented with such a burden, a woman will plan her exit. Your vulnerability will not be tolerated. Such a man’s error is conflating his innate attraction to female vulnerability with a reciprocal attitude. There is no reciprocal attraction. Pre-sexual revolution, men knew this acutely.”

IM MAXIM #53 – “Superficial vulnerability from a position of power is attractive to women, this is what it means to “open up.” Substantive vulnerability, eg: being insecure, is not.” Refer to Maxim #52.

IM MAXIM #54 – “You think sharing your weakness demonstrates trust and love. You believe you can bond over your pain. You believe wrongly. All she sees is the repulsiveness of your weakness. She does not respect your weakness, your pain, or how difficult it was for you to share your pain with her. Women do not care. They can admire your persistence in the face of such, but not your need to express it.” Refer to Maxim #52 and #53.

IM MAXIM #55 – “Money is makeup for men. Money on a man looks like makeup on a woman.”

IM MAXIM #56 – “Money is more important than women. Chase money, not women. You are more likely to get women chasing money than you are to get money chasing women. Without money or godlike genetics, you’re playing on hard mode. Money makes everything better, the quality of woman you can get is the epitome of such, not the exception.” Refer to #Maxim 55

IM MAXIM #57 – “Men control an interaction by being non-reactive. Women control an interaction by being hyper-emotional.”

IM MAXIM #58 – “Women feed off excess emotion, men tire from it, with the exception of anger indulgence. Woman’s emotional nature thus makes her highly histrionic. Corollary: men with cluster B personality disorders are histrionic and thrive on emotion. In this way, they are similar to women. You will see many similarities between women and dark triad men (particularly narcissists) if you look closely enough.”

IM MAXIM #59 – “Women thrive on drama, it allows them to weaponise emotion and push an agenda. Starve them of emotion, and they have nothing to fight with. A woman starved of emotion will become desperate to sustain her psychological onslaught. As such, she will attempt to pry it from the dead, exaggerating observations and manufacturing issues in order to sustain the indignance necessary to maintain her psychological assault.” Refer to Maxim #57.

IM MAXIM #60 – “Women are psychologically violent.”  Refer to Maxim #45, #57, #58 and #59.

IM MAXIM #61 –  “Effeminate men and masculine women are undesirable. We are programmed to help women and respect men, not the reverse. Women get social power from being pitied, men get respect (and thus social power) from being powerful. The reverse is not true.”

IM MAXIM #62 – “Women are the biggest potential threat to your long-term happiness. In the words of Nietzsche: “she is the most dangerous plaything.” Always be guarded. Many of history’s greatest men fought in wars, beat poverty and built vast commercial empires. What is the one thing that unites the undoing of such glorious men? Women.”

IM MAXIM #63 – “Always protect the core of your essence, should you choose to let her in, never let her in completely. See yourself as a castle, let her into the castle, but do not give her the key to the heaviest door. She will notice the door is closed. She will ask you what’s behind the door and if “you can let her in?” Ignore her protests and manipulations. Never open that door. Not a woman alive other than perhaps your mother is worth opening this door for. If you believe love entails “sharing everything,” you don’t understand love.” [See here for more.] Refer to Maxim #50, #51 and #62.

IM MAXIM #64 – “Women lead double lives. She will project a strong outward good girl facade whilst engaging in acts of depravity in secret. We know whoring reduces a woman’s value. They know this too. But rather than simply not whore, they would prefer to deceive.”

IM MAXIM #65 – “The more sexual partners she’s had, the more mentally damaged she is. Women who have slept with lots of men dehumanise and objectify men through sex. Such women are poor relationship prospects. Aware this damages their value, they consciously obfuscate their past.” Refer to Maxim #64 and #67

IM MAXIM #66 – “If you really want to know a woman’s notch count (number of partners), feign non-judgement. Indicate you have slept with hundreds of women. From comfort, follows truth.”

IM MAXIM #67 – “The majority of women would rather improve their capacity to deceive than change anything non-superficial about themselves.”

IM MAXIM #68 – “Women’s interest in the field of academic psychology is nothing more than a manifestation of her innate Machiavellian disposition seeking to enhance its efficacy.” Refer to Maxim #45, #64 and #67.

IM MAXIM #69 – “Women hold men to a higher standard of morality than they hold themselves. As such, they are prone to adopting the moral high ground in an attempt to “appear clean” whilst manipulating another. Never supplicate.” Refer to Maxim #64.

IM MAXIM #70 – “A woman’s mistakes never count, a man’s are never forgotten.” Refer to Maxim #32 and #60.

IM MAXIM #71 – “A man raised fatherless, or to a weak father, has a high chance of becoming effeminate. A woman raised fatherless, or to a weak father, has a high chance of becoming masculine. Poorly raised children make for dysfunctional adults. Such individuals can undergo self-improvement and reprogram themselves over a period of time, but such things are rare and far from optimal. If you are a parent: do right by your kids. Men, be manlier, less lenient. Women: you are not more important than your family. You are nothing without them. Betray your children and their father at your peril.”

IM MAXIM #72 – “If you’re not where you want to be in life, do not have serious relationships with women. Her perception of you will remain rooted in the former version of yourself and her needs/issues will hinder your progress. Whilst you’re trying to build your business and body, she will whine, spread negative energy, and burden you with her problems. Her negativity will infect you, hindering your growth. If you’re not where you want to be aspirationally, you have no need for a serious relationship.”

IM MAXIM #73 – “Rarely are women an asset, they are a responsibility and thus a liability. Women are a black hole for money, time and all other valuable resources you possess. This is why your time/commitment has value. Do not squander it, do not let it be appropriated. Be selective in your associations.”

IM MAXIM #74 – “Women are entitled. Assume all are, because even if some aren’t, most are. It’s not a question of “is she entitled?” but rather a question of “is she not?” Scarcely does a woman show appreciation for the labour of man. Is there a problem your woman wants you to fix? It’s not a request, it’s a demand. In her eyes, its is your obligation rather than your choice to help her. You don’t get respect, credit or appreciation for helping entitled women because their narcissistic natures find them inherently deserving. A woman can be conditioned out of this behaviour, but if she isn’t, will default to it.”

IM MAXIM #75 – “Women scarcely appreciate, and commonly expect.” Refer to Maxim #74

IM MAXIM #76 – “Women are solipsistic, not abstractive. They do not care about things that do not affect them. If you want a woman to care about something, you have to show her how it affects her on a personal level. Otherwise, she will be disinterested and indifferent.”

IM MAXIM #77 – “Solipsism means women do not perceive the world as an abstract entity, but merely as a stimulus that they experience. As such, their view of reality does not perceive independent of themselves, but strictly in relation to themselves.”

IM MAXIM #78 – “Women are highly susceptible to groupthink and herd consensus. Women do not like to stick out, they strive to be “seen as normal.” This is likewise true to a degree with men. With women, however, the effect is far more profound.”

IM MAXIM #79 – “The majority of women define themselves by their beauty, and so never become anything greater than their bodies. Women without beauty who define themselves by their intellect are often jealous of women who have beauty because they resent having to work harder to achieve similar or lesser social success.”

IM MAXIM #80 – “If you are not in the top 20% of men, you do not exist. Whenever women talk about how men have it easier, they refer to the top 20% of men. Women are so privileged they do not even stop to notice the struggles of the great swath of men beneath them. These men are “the invisibles,” by merit of hypergamy they do not exist, not even as a blip on her radar. Should such a man become a blip, he is a creep to be shunned, shamed and shooed.”

IM MAXIM #81 – “Never enter relationships you can’t leave. If you catch yourself forming dependence, it’s time to leave.”

IM MAXIM #82 – “Women are fickle, do not depend on them. More generally speaking, you should depend on people for specific functions, but segregate such functions. Therefore, if one domino falls, the rest are unaffected. This allows you to be outcome independent and replace people who stop performing a role. Epitomise this attitude in your interactions with women for a noticeable boost in game.”

IM MAXIM #83 – Reputation is everything to women. It is more important to her than any moral concern, rule or abstract principle. Refer to Maxim #45 and #51. [See here for more.]

IM MAXIM #84 – “Women detest criticism and judgement in any form. Even when intended constructively, they will misperceive an attack upon their reputation. Women can’t handle criticism. They ask for the truth out of ego and self-importance, but they cannot handle it. Hence why people tend to use baby talk with women and sugar-coat things rather than “telling it like it is.” Refer to Maxim #83

IM MAXIM #85 – “Ignore what she says, watch what she does. Women lie with incredible frequency. Combine this with solipsism devoid of self-awareness, and you do not have someone whose words bear any relation to reality. Corollary: don’t mention the red pill to women, just practice it. They will hate the ideas, but love the effects.”

IM MAXIM #86 – “Women are obsessed with claiming they/their gender has a mastery over qualities that they scarcely possess. Eg: logic, maturity, thoughtfulness, introspective self-awareness etc.”

IM MAXIM #87 – “Women are perpetual adolescents. Women mistake confidence and preferences with maturity, but such things are neither. Assertiveness is not maturity. Maturity is measured by the level of responsibility one can assume, as well as the capacity to sufficiently cope with the pressure that said responsibility entails. Women perform poorly on both metrics in comparison to their male counterparts.”

IM MAXIM #88 – “A woman scarcely matures past 18. She simply becomes pickier and more entitled with age, mistaking self-aggrandisement for enlightenment, although such is the contrary. Likewise, women infinitely obsess over the maturity of individuals, using it as a point of contention to manipulate people. And so it is with profound deadpan irony that women shit test men on their maturity, deeming male behaviour they disagree with as boylike. Women mature faster than men, but they do not mature for as long as men. As such, they mature less.” Refer to Maxim #87

IM MAXIM #89 – “The feminine is, by its nature, attention seeking, histrionic, whiny, tearful, prone to delusion and weak at introspection. Traits we would typically associate with children. It is therefore not unfair to say that women do not mature as much as men, but rather, unfair to say that they do.” Refer to Maxim #87 and 88.

IM MAXIM #90 – “Women play games. Women say they do not play games and hate those that do. This is part of their game.” Refer to Maxim #45

IM MAXIM #91 – “A woman’s lower brain will eventually trump her higher brain, assuming it does not do so instantly. The underlying mechanisms which govern female behaviour are universal, rather than unique. Furthermore, such mechanisms trump higher reason in matters of female decision-making. This is what we mean by “AWALT.” People who mistake “AWALT” as an assertion that the more superficial aspects of women are identical have missed the point.”

IM MAXIM #92 – ” A man’s manhood is deduced from the likeability of his actions, a woman’s womanhood is simply assumed by merit of her age. In a reversal of how women deem male behaviour they disapprove of to be boylike, women will distinguish between girls and women to dismiss negative criticism about women. For example, your typical woman would rationalise the wisdom here doesn’t describe her because these maxims are true of girls, not women. And naturally, a woman idiotic enough to engage in such a rationalisation will always see herself as the woman, never the girl.” Refer to Maxim #87 and 88.

IM MAXIM #93 – “If a woman is attainable, but you believe she is out of your league, she is. Self-fulfilling prophecy.“

IM MAXIM #94 – “Depth to men lies in logical complexity and philosophy. Depth to women is the process of interpreting and examining the meaning of her emotions.”

IM MAXIM #95 – “The more beautiful a woman is, the more men will accept or even enable the most contrived nonsense from her. You would do better not to accept it at all.”

IM MAXIM #96 – “A man who commits easily and gives attention freely is the male equivalent of a slut to a woman. He will be used, but by nature of his availability, and the ease of which his emotional intimacy is available, never desired. This one-sided dynamic is that which constitutes the fabled friend zone.”

IM MAXIM #97 – “Women need and crave masculinity in their lives. If you are in a relationship, but not sufficiently masculine, your woman will cheat on you. It’s not so much a matter of ‘if’ as it is a matter of ‘when.’ As such, a relationship’s success is your primary responsibility, not hers.” Refer to Maxim #72.

IM MAXIM #98 – “If you’re not a man who is comfortably masculine, women will emotionally abuse you until you finally learn to be masculine. Their nature, although unintended, perversely serves in much the manner that tough love does. How she hurts you will give you the impetus necessary to become a better man. It is women who drive men to the red pill.”

IM MAXIM #99 – “Men are inherently distrustful of women because their logical inconsistency vitiates their credibility. Women are inherently distrustful of men because they fear his physical desire absent of a willingness to commit.”

IM MAXIM #100 – “The low-value man can do nothing right, the high-value man can do nothing wrong. The higher your social market value, the less the rules apply.”

3.) In Closing:

So that’s part 2 finished, and a 100 maxims penned. What are your favourite maxims? Do you think one can be improved? Spotted a mistake? Share your thoughts in the comments.

4.) Relevant Reading:

Buy “The Art of Seduction” in the USA
Buy “The Art of Seduction” in the UK
Buy “The Art of Seduction” in Canada
Buy “The Art of Wordly Wisdom” in the USA
Buy “The Art of Wordly Wisdom” in the UK
Buy “The Art of Wordly Wisdom” in Canada
Buy “The Manipulated Man” in the USA
Buy “The Manipulated Man” in the UK
Buy “The Manipulated Man” in Canada
Buy “The Rational Male” in the USA
Buy “The Rational Male” in the UK
Buy “The Rational Male” in Canada
Buy “The Rational Male: Preventative Medicine” in the USA
Buy “The Rational Male: Preventative Medicine” in the UK
Buy “The Rational Male: Preventative Medicine” in Canada

“Any woman who is sure of her own wits, is a match, at any time, for a man who is not sure of his own temper.” – Wilkie Collins

Contents:
1.) Introduction
2.) Male Ignorance
3.) Insecurity: A Basis for Feminine Indignance
4.) Cause & Effect vs Solipsistic Blame Attribution
5.) The Invalidity of Female Emotion & It’s Frustrative Affectation
6.) Emotional Endurance
7.) In Closing

1.) Introduction:

You do not argue with women when you wish for them to comprehend, comply or agree. You cannot argue against woman’s feelings, only manipulate them. Argument necessitates reason, but reason is ineffectual in conflict with women. In non-political matters, where a man will yield to superior logic, a woman will not. And so man must manipulate woman’s emotions in a way that makes her cooperative, or he should not engage her at all.

If a woman is so entitled or indignant that you find yourself unable to escape her compulsion to argue, you would be wise to engage her as a Machiavellian rather than a logician. Man must remember that when lured into argument with a woman, he is at battle. The dispute at hand is Machiavellian, not rational. A game, not a civilised debate. The man who believes the argument is about mutual cooperation via the discovery of truth rather than the assuagement of the involved woman’s emotional state, operates on a doomed axiom. A man’s desire to problem solve is fundamentally incompatible with a woman’s desire for catharsis.

2.) Male Ignorance:

Men are quite wrongfully taught they should placate women’s emotions, or engage in mind-numbingly futile attempts to reason with them. To do either is to forfeit power before conflict even begins. Such strategies are losing propositions. Man should neither placate nor reason with a distressed woman. But rather, he should be charming enough to keep conflict superficial. When argument cannot be avoided, he need be Machiavellian enough to belittle her. He should not under any uncertain circumstance argue back-and-forth with any degree of seriousness, for arguing against a woman’s emotional state is as foolish as it is masochistic.

If conflict is unavoidable and reason impenetrable, all that is left is to assert dominance. This is man’s only recourse when a woman is trying to dominate him psychologically. Once her emotions have settled, it is wise to explain your reasoning and expectations as a way of guiding the woman, should you care for her. But only outside the confines of argument, never in the heat of it. Naturally, if the woman in question is insignificant, such paternal patience is unnecessary. Aftercare is discretionary.

3.) Insecurity: A Basis for Feminine Indignance:

When an argument begins, a woman’s emotions ensure her uncooperativeness. When a woman stands on the precipice of dissatisfaction, her imperviousness to reason makes the mere concept of argument inane. The key to cooperation therefore lies in keeping her emotional state positive. Just as one would not build a dam for water in a volcano, they would be wise not to attempt reasoning with a distressed woman.

And yet a woman’s feelings are quick to sour. Even the tamest critiques and concerns can result in ill feeling, largely by merit of woman’s inability to handle such things. And so the trap of arguing with a woman is always there, should a man express himself without filtering himself. Often a man knows not how such benign comments result in such grave offence. But such unsophisticated sensitivity is intrinsic to femininity.

One would not be mistaken for thinking I am describing the insecure, rather than women per se, but then it would be disingenuous to assert that the vast majority of women are anything but insecure. So are these things traits of women, or traits of the insecure? I would say both. But then I would also assert that women are intrinsically insecure, and that many arguments take place because a woman is demanding her insecurity be assuaged in spite of the overwhelming importance of the issue at hand. Men who exhibit similar behaviours are likewise womanlike in their mental frailty.

4.) Cause & Effect vs Solipsistic Blame Attribution:

When you argue against a woman’s feelings, you enter her frame by tacitly accepting the validity of her emotion’s premise. Acknowledgement is all it takes to give the irrationality of her emotion credence, and therefore such acknowledgement should be avoided.

Much to our mutual annoyance, a woman’s feelings are typically anything but valid. You see, to a woman, whatever she feels – in spite of why she feels it – is valid. Women care not for “the why” behind their feelings, but simply the fact that they are feeling. As such, the presence of a feeling is proof enough of its validity to a woman, in a sort of infinite solipsistic loop she intuits “the feeling exists, therefore, it is valid.”

If she feels a negative feeling, regardless of the reasonableness of your position, she will blame you for it. In this manner she disregards the importance of cause and effect, because such things are irrelevant to her emotion’s solipsism. As cause and effect take place outside of the female mind, it is irrelevant to her. Solipsism cares not for abstraction.

Now while one could posit that blame qualifies as an investigation into the “why” of how she feels what she does, it really isn’t. Because the blame given is entirely arbitrary by merit of its solipsistic nature. Owing to a lack of abstraction, it is simple blame attribution and affirmation for the self-perpetuation of her emotional state. It is not investigative in the cogent sense of the word.

If she were truly interested in “the why,” she feels what she does, she would look beyond blame, analyse her actions for wrong-doing and come to a reasoned judgement on if her feelings were a reasonable or unreasonable response. If she found them to be unreasonable, she would disregard them and show interest in solving the initial issue. She would do this, rather than allow her feelings to take precedence over the issue which triggered them. Of course, this is not how women work. It is the feeling born of the issue that takes priority, not the issue itself. A minority of women can do this retroactively, but I have known not a woman who can do this in the moment. Dare I say, none can.

5.) The Invalidity of Female Emotion & It’s Frustrative Affectation:

Say a female colleague is making grave errors in her work and you give her suggestions on how to improve her technique. All too commonly, if suggestions were not given with great euphemism and diplomacy, you would cause offence. As such, you can see how easily the premise for a woman’s feelings is flawed. Because it is not difficult to offend a woman, and neither does she need a logical reason to be offended, feeling bad is offence enough. And intolerant to stress as women are, it is a laborious inadvertence that occurs with great frequency.

And so it is the woman’s nature to constantly misdirect the man away from his criticisms and concerns, and rather, to vilify him for daring to infringe on the sanctity of her emotional well-being. Where man will endeavour to make his original point, stick to the point, have the point recognised and come to an arrangement over his concern; the woman cares only about how his point made her feel, not the point itself. Man doubles down on his reasoning, provoking more negative feeling in the woman; who in turn doubles down on the importance of her emotional state.

And so the woman will neither address the point, nor give the point much thought, much to the complete torture of the well-intentioned man. Naturally, this leads to endless frustration and only serves to further alienate the two parties. Women are quick to offend, quick to anger, and slow to reason even in the absence of hostility. Indeed, it is such traits that are often the cause of hostility. Whilst man wants to pursue what he believes to be a problem that needs addressing, the only problem worthy of addressal in a woman’s mind is the maintenance of a positive emotional state. Whilst the man continues to attempt fixing the original issue, the woman becomes more annoyed her emotions are being ignored.

And so at such a crossroads, male and female nature is at odds. Man wants to pursue what he believes to be “the truth,” or “correct.” Whilst a woman wishes to maintain her emotional well-being at any cost. It is for these reasons we refer to women as “the most responsible teenager in the house.” They cannot cope with stress in the way that men can, and so they can neither reason nor argue as well as men can. Remember, one need not be the superior logician to win an argument, as the prowess in which women argue with stands testament, you merely need be the more psychologically dominant.

An upset woman will dominate the frame of an interaction by maintaining your mutual focus on an indignant investigation of her feelings; particularly, the source of her feelings. And of course, in argument, it is you who is the undisputed stimulus for her negative feelings. In this frame of mind, absolutely nothing matters to a woman other than her need to understand her feelings and receive validation of their legitimacy. I am repeating this point with great frequency, but it is important it is internalised: your point is irrelevant to her if it elicits emotional discomfort.

6.) Emotional Endurance:

A woman does not care if she is “in the wrong,” has disobeyed or betrayed, for a creature who does not excel at logic is neither cogent nor appreciative of such a thing when upset. Even at the best of times, women struggle to balance reason with emotion. That’s when they’re trying. In argument, they’re not even trying. She will not give in, solipsism sees to it that women are stubborn.

Arguments nourish women, they feed her emotionally. Bar the histrionic man, argument absolutely exhausts men. Not only that, but being the party far more privy to the realm of reason, it is likelier you will give in than it is she. Her indignance will out-endure not only your reason, but likewise, your desire to even advocate for yourself.

If you get angry, your anger will be used to immediately invalidate your disagreement whilst simultaneously validating the credibility of her histrionics. Your anger will be turned against you, you will be painted as the oppressor, and her, the victimised. You will be made to feel guilty for your anger. And then following from this premise, your anger will be used to retroactively scapegoat you for her unacceptable decorum.

The narrative put forth will be that it’s your fault she’s upset, even if it isn’t. Even if you know with your full faculty of reason that such a thing is ridiculous; women do not care.

7.) In Closing:

It is not in your interest to work against her emotions, but rather, you should work in tandem with them. Leverage her emotions, change them so that they are conducive to rather than defiant of your goals. Know how to make her feel good, and her agreement will be yours. Argue against her emotions, and no matter how grand and well articulated your point, she will never agree. Equity and reasonableness are of minor relevance to a woman’s emotional self-satisfaction. Women do not sacrifice their emotional well-being to do what is morally or reasonably right, but rather, they sacrifice what is morally or reasonably right as to fulfil their emotional needs. 

By manipulating her feelings to something more beneficial to yourself, you can change her frame, or even pull her into yours. This is why when receptive, amused mastery is excellent. Arguing a woman’s emotions with reason, as is man’s predilection, is a losing proposition. For her emotions are far too visceral to be swayed by the passionlessness of reason, the heart cares not what the head thinks, and a truer thing could not be said for women.

“Civilization is like a thin layer of ice upon a deep ocean of chaos and darkness.” – Werner Herzog

Contents:
1.) Introduction
2.) Individuals, Families & Civilization
3.) Freedom & Human Instinct
4.) Promiscuity Threatens Civilization
5.) Religion Subjugates Promiscuity
6.) In Closing
7.) Relevant Reading

1.) Introduction:

As is typical, I was browsing the red pill forum when a gentleman’s question caught my eye:

Monogamy isn’t the norm in the animal kingdom, by far. So why do we so hungrily desire this form of relationship?

The questioner is, as is quite common, falling victim to the appeal to nature fallacy. The fallacy is the assumption that because something is natural, it is optimum. In this case: “promiscuity comes naturally to humans, therefore, promiscuity is a good thing.” Of course, such thinking is not only fallacious but solipsistic.

It appears a given that the average mind conflates naturality to be synonymous with “good.” Such thinking is used to great effect in marketing to give the word “natural” a positive connotation. Objectively the word is neither negative nor positive, merely neutral. Therefore the ubiquity of the assumption that “natural” can be equated with “good” is nothing more than a culturally programmed memetic infused into the collective consciousness. We typically associate the word “nature” and its derivative forms with health, enchanting trees and lush green lawns. But such an association is an inaccurate synonymity for “good,” as cancer, manure and vomit are as equally natural – if not quite so appealing.

To briefly demonstrate the irrationality of such an idea, consider you use a computerised device to read this. Computers are incredibly useful, but they are anything but natural. So why do we use computers if they’re unnatural creations that aren’t the norm in the animal kingdom? Well of course because computers, like all technology, confer benefits upon human lifestyle we would not otherwise reap. The unnaturalness of computers is considered, on the whole, to be a net positive, not negative. As such, computers have become a bedrock of civilization. They do not need to be natural to enhance our quality of life. They merely need be the most efficient in performing the duties assigned to them. In this regard, monogamy and computers have a lot in common.

2.) Individuals, Families & Civilization:

The institution of family does for social dynamics what computers do for electronics. Both inventions revolutionise and dominate their respective spheres. Property rights, law, marriage – all these things were invented to stabilise civilization by exerting environmental pressure on human instincts. Without such things, we revert to a base tribalism: violence and petty territorial barbarianism.

Although one may not see it, for an idea, social grouping or principle is less tangible than a computer, the family unit is a prerequisite for the functioning of more complex social order. One cannot have committees, courts, institutions, panels, religions or even nations without first establishing family.

As the individual bonds with the family, the family bonds with the civilization it inhabits. But individuals deprived the bonds of family by outcome of immutable social factors are often at odds with civilization. Such individuals give up on community, opting for a more parasitic survival strategy. They are the shameless narcissists, the angry barbarians and each and every shade of dysfunction there between. Scarcely do such people care for civilization. And how can we expect them to care for something as grand and abstract as civilization when such individuals were never fully subject to the bonds of family? How does one come to love something as grand as nation when they had not even the love of kin?

Far from statesmen interested in the public good, vagabonds and the estranged are typically apathetic to the plight of civilization. Make no mistake in thinking it is only the estranged who behave in such a manner, indeed, entire families have pillaged civilizations in pursuit of internal interests. However, I think this more an affectation of excessive power rather than a quirk of family. As such, this contention is a generalisation rather than an absolutism.

Familial estrangement manufactures apathy. This is how promiscuity and divorce undermine social progress, and in turn, civilizational progress. The effects of such action cause pain, which in turn, promotes excessive individualism and a disdain for collectivism. And so the cosmic recurrence that is a need for balance is tipped too far in one direction. That is, an obsession with the self (individualism, narcissism) and a disregard for the whole (collectivism, abstraction.)

Naturally, this is bad for family. And what is bad for family is in turn bad for civilization. Each family represents a building block in the construction of civilization. Families (in the traditional sense of the word) contribute more value to society than lone individuals. Generally speaking, they have better mental health, a higher sense of civic duty, are more productive, and pay more taxes than broken homes or one person households. And this seems only rational. Family is bound by blood, civilization forms around the desires and needs of such bonds. People work harder and produce more when they care for and are cared for by others.

Familial social pressure urges individuals to excel, to make the family proud, not to disappoint. Of course, there are always exceptions. There are highly motivated self starters devoid of family married to nothing but narcissism and money, but such individuals are the exception rather than the rule. In general, the prevailing notion is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, that families achieve more as units than they would if their members were autonomously estranged. This doesn’t mean that family life is suited to all; it simply “is.”

3.) Freedom & Human Instinct:

Rebels have always been attractive, as truth be told it is the not-so-secret desire of human nature to defy social order and do whatever, whenever. To have one’s cake, and eat it – to relish in the destructive aspects of human instinct without suffering consequentially at the hands of civilization. Civilization does not punish the individual out of sadism, but rather, it punishes destructive behaviour because that behaviour threatens the social order necessary to sustain civilization. Now of course, I realise in my statement of this that we endure a contemporary exception to this maxim. That is, the normalisation of adultery via the feminist spearheaded collapse of the traditional family, but I digress.

It is human nature to be infatuated with freedom in spite of considerations pertaining to the stability of such. And so, the minority who manage to stylishly defy society and get away with it are near universally idolised by the masses who are less free. Rock stars, rappers and social butterflies looking to make a name for themselves all encapsulate such attitudes.

In truth, if all enjoyed the near absolute freedom of the few, social order would break down. Civilization would be but a shadow of its former self. And then those left would quickly call for order and more conservative social mores. Indeed, boom and bust, rise and decline, the attitudes and social mores of a civilization’s people appears quite cyclical. It appears that with prosperity, comes the rise of the feminine. Like children with access to the cookie jar, this leads to excessive freedom, which in turn leads to destruction and general apathy. Then when collapse comes, the masculine takes over – leading to order, conservatism, creation and empathy.

Civilization is a process of domestication, without it, we are more beastlike than man. For humans evolved far longer in a pre-civilizational state than in a civilizational one. One need only look at cases of feral children to see how without civil domestication a human becomes a beast. Your ability to indulge your curiosity and intellect to exponential heights, to grow, to expand your mind and to travel vast distances – these things are possible only by the discoveries and sustenance of civilization. As such, to enjoy the furnishings of higher civilization, we are required to, for better or worse, forgo some of our more primitive aspects. Unfettered hedonism is just one of these aspects, although it is popular to think this is a piece of the proverbial cake that can be eaten and enjoyed without consequence.

4.) Promiscuity Threatens Civilization:

I would hazard a guess in asserting that promiscuity costs our civilization dearly. Indeed, in the pursuit of orgasmic pleasure, we have a higher national debt (welfare,) a burgeoning divorce industry, lost boys and girls growing up fatherless, increased mental illness, higher rates of crime etc. I could go on, but I think the point has been sufficiently made. This is more a statement of reality than it is a judgement on the behaviour of those who contribute to the decline. It is what it is and so what will be, will be.

And even in spite of moral considerations, it is most apparent that promiscuity diminishes the quality of a civilization by merit of its societal consequences. Should promiscuity not undermine family it would be all well and good. And so it appears that families cannot insulate themselves with an open-door sexual policy, just as nations cannot insulate themselves with an open-door immigration policy. Civilizations that do no protect their culture lose their culture. In truth, a family is a micro-civilization. It has its own rules, customs, politics and opinions distinct from the larger culture. A strong family, much like a strong nation, is therefore selective rather than liberal in who it allows into its domain.

And this is the incredible thing about the social engineers who compose much the intelligentsia of western civilization. They ignore the history of human social development in favour of pursuing ever-evolving obscurities dreamt up in the solitary detachedness of the ivory tower.

A man’s innate power is in his bodily strength and logic, a woman’s, in her bodily beauty and cunning. The social engineers ignore such immutable human intricacies in their egalitarian idealism. The social contract is the set of social rules that makes civilization possible, social engineers create and perpetuate ideologies which alter the terms of said contract, damaging civilization by swapping what works with what is desired to work. Swapping what is functional if imperfect, with what is dysfunctional and even less perfect. Then, quite satirically, it labels this regression progress.

5.) Religion Subjugates Promiscuity:

Almost every religious institution to ever dominate the hearts and minds of a society has preached quite mightily the importance of monogamy. Religion as untrue as it appears, is therefore not only a pre-science way of explaining reality, but likewise a civilizational mechanism for social order. It is the imposition of order on creatures capable of order, but lacking the self-discipline to exercise such order without theological arguments permeating the hive mind. Human instinct is not without fault, and thus by merit of its destructive aspects will undo civilization if left unchecked. Religion inherently acknowledges the flawed nature of the human character and so brainwashes humanity in an effort to reconcile human flaw with human ingenuity.

Civilization is a construction that balances on the fragile precipice between human instinct and human imagination. Civilizational progress is therefore contingent on the balance of conflict between our instinct to seek what we momentarily desire, and the loftier pursuits of what our minds envisage. The trade-off’s one must make in the pursuit of either is a warring battlefield, one that permeates the root and core of all that we do. Civilization demands imagination, whilst instinct, the mediocrity of self-gratification. Without the subjugation and noblest oppression of the prior, the freedom-seeking of the latter has a propensity to win. And with that victory, civilization falls.

6.) In Closing:

From time to time I like to diverge from the chatter of Machiavellianism and evolutionary psychological explanations of female behaviour to explore the grander picture. Indeed, the state of civilization aka “the decline” is of great interest to me. These pieces tend not to be popular because they imply judgement, self-sacrifice and collectivism. Excessive selfishness and apathy is the spirit of the time. And yet in spite of that, I think such pieces necessary for stimulating a more nuanced worldview. As such, I hope the article compelled you to think, which for better or worse, is characteristically the intent of this blog. In addition, I kindly ask the reader to note their opinion in the enclosed poll. Criticism is as ever, welcomed in the comments.

7.) Relevant Reading:

Buy “Guns, Germs and Steel” in the USA
Buy “Guns, Germs and Steel” in the UK
Buy “Guns, Germs and Steel” in Canada
Buy “Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive” in the USA
Buy “Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive” in the UK
Buy “Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive” in Canada

“A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably.” – Ludwig Wittgenstein

Contents:
1.) Introduction
2.) The Pause In Priority
3.) Communication, Abstraction & Solipsism
4.) Struggle
5.) In Closing
6.) Relevant Reading

1.) Introduction:

Women conflate histrionics with characteristic depth, because to women, depth is defined by interweaving hues of diverse emotional experience and how they relate to one another rather than an abstract understanding of external stimuli. Conversely, man defines depth by struggle, knowledge and a capacity for the abstract thought necessary for critical thinking.

The masculine does not view the incessant cataloguing and processing of one’s emotional history to be particularly interesting or deep. However, this propensity is an intrinsic fundamental of the solipsistic rationalisation process native to women. It is this process by which women build their self-perception. Naturally, the flaw of this process is the dominance of the catalogued emotional narrative and an absence of introspection in regard to it.

The distinction between introspection and solipsism lies in that introspection assumes the external world is the root, attempting to understand where the individual fits in relation to said world. Solipsism assumes the individual is the root, and attempts to understand how the external world fits in with relation to the self. “What I think” becomes “I think that made me feel because…” And so whilst a woman considers it enlightenment to explore every nuance of her emotional palette, men view such fixation as nothing more than infantile self-absorption.

Antithetically, what man views as immature behaviour, woman perceives as mature. To a woman there is nothing more interesting and mature than “understanding herself.” Whilst man desires to understand the world, a woman desires to understand herself. When a woman declares “she needs to find herself,” other than riding a train of exotic men to accomplish the task, what she means to communicate is “I’m leaving to seek nuanced emotional experiences I haven’t felt before.” Eliciting the further unspoken implication “…and I don’t think you can provide those experiences.”

By nature of solipsism, women deem the abstract obtuse and the solipsistic reasonable, whilst man, the contrary; the solipsistic obtuse and the abstract, reasonable. Within the sexual differences into what constitutes human depth, we merely scratch the surface in elucidating how distinct the psychological perceptions of men and women are.

2.) The Pause In Priority:

Free a woman of material dependence, and any polite sensibility or sense of self-constraint flees in an unending pursuit of new emotional luxury. When surviving is no longer an issue, the pursuit of rich and nuanced emotional experiences come to the forefront of a woman’s wants.

Really, a woman’s need for resources is nothing more than an unwelcome interruption of her primary psychological drive, emotional self-discovery. And so the gratitude of a desperate woman provides the perfect guise for solipsistic selfishness, it will make her seem like a good woman; one who cares for others more than herself. But the mere act of provisioning shifts her priorities, for she must no longer behave deferentially to have her material needs met.

For the pursuit of intense emotion is only paused by the urgency of material needs, it is never vanquished. No wonder then that a woman’s directive is to first seek out a man who can provide, only to later seek a man who can induce emotional intensity should the prior be incapable, or no longer capable of providing it. The boring sycophantic domesticated male is a necessity of bated breath for the woman without wealth, but truly it is the detached, ever alluring, but never quite attainable alpha she truly longs for.

Romance and sex, as distinct as they are, are the culminating opiates of emotional experience, fear and power but the aphrodisiac to wetten the feminine emotional appetite. Therefore in the pursual of unending solipsistic self-discovery, it seems only natural that women would be most permanently drawn to such things, for their ability to provide the most compelling fantastical emotion is unchallenged. It is female nature to learn about herself via the emotional roller coaster, so what better way is there for a woman to research herself other than to pursue romance?

The fixation with romance is not solely part of her biological imperative to produce offspring, but likewise a window into the feminine soul, the need to indulge her most visceral emotivity. And this inclination refuses to cease even when a woman has reproduced countless times. This suggests its presence within the feminine is not a clear-cut evolutionary psychological benefit we can glibly deduce to be a simple manifestation of the feminine biological need to seek out optimum genetic material. Because if it were, a craving for romance, the opiate of solipsism, would diminish if not vanish in women who have birthed multiple children. Instead, we note its persevering intrinsicality.

A 60-year-old woman with 5 children is no less solipsistic and longing for romance than a 20-year-old with zero. She may be less optimistic of the endeavour, but nevertheless it is something she shall crave should she lack it. And I think it not that romance is a solipsistic determiner for commitment and provisioning; as the most sought romance is always that which is unabashedly obsessed with the woman, never any children she has. Likewise for good measure, such romance is forbidden, often sexually depraved and absent the mundanity of everyday life. Female solipsism goes much beyond a woman’s role as a mother, and if too pervasive, can actually undermine her capacity in that role.

3.) Communication, Abstraction & Solipsism:

Much unlike man, who searches for understanding in the external world, a woman’s quest for understanding lies within the emotion of the internal word. Women are not so interested in the quirks and qualities of the abstract world in so much as they are ever perplexed by their emotions.

Where a man’s curiosity lies in how the external world functions and how he can best manipulate it, a woman’s curiosity lies in how her internal world functions and how she can best utilise the external world to manipulate her well-being. Essentially, men are knowledge focussed whilst women are self-knowledge focussed. Men are curious of the abstract, women are curious of the fluidity and sentiment of the self. Man defines himself in relation to what his observations conclude, woman defines herself in relation to how her observations make her feel.

Women are near constantly preoccupied with their emotions in response to external stimuli. This inhibits external analysis, focussing it internally. Women will communicate how they felt from memory, eliciting further feelings, leading to word-by-word disseminations of how she believes her feelings define her – as she feels them. And so there is this continuous cycle of feelings eliciting further feelings, which a woman then needs to factor in to her overall view of herself. Only with a conclusion rationalised to be emotively acceptable does she find relief. Such a conclusion is rarely ever THE truth, but rather, HER rationalised, chosen truth. A truth that reconciles negative with positive emotion to bring about an internal balance that is completely unconcerned with the abstraction that is objectivity.

As such, the solipsism of women appears to be not just a limitation, but an addiction. An addiction man finds psychologically arduous should he find himself in the not so pretty situation of playing therapist to the ever dissatisfied self-discovering woman. When a woman talks about her feelings, she is defining them as they are brought to the surface and expressed. Women need to talk about how they feel, because although their focus is internal, their process is external. As such, they address external problems from the position of their emotions without even so much as a hint of desire to remove said emotional filter. This is the core of what we mean by “women are solipsistic.”

Sanity to man lies in understanding the world, a woman’s sanity lies in understanding herself. A woman who cannot understand herself is fraught with distress, compelled only to seek further self-understanding. Man experiences a similar distress in an inability to understand the world rather than himself, in this we note the similarity yet complete distinctiveness of the sexes. Much unlike the self however, surroundings can be replaced. The self can be influenced, but it is immutable. As such, a woman cannot escape herself, for she is always herself. The craziest woman is therefore the woman who has no outlet to process her emotions, for her relative sanity is entirely dependent on the process of emoting.

So despite women being stuck in their heads (or should I say hearts?) they speak loquaciously. To process her emotion there is talking, lots of talking. So why does a man stuck in his head tend to focus outwardly and process his observations inwardly, whilst a woman focusses inwardly but processes her observations outwardly, namely, with voluble chatter?

It is a most quirky irony that in a quest to constantly comprehend herself, a woman will speak constantly. It is by merit of solipsism and this constant need for emotional self-discovery that every woman considers herself an expert on herself, and as such, is inclined to talk at great length about herself. In terms of attraction, there is nothing more that a woman loves than for a newly acquainted man to tell her something she considers true about herself. A man who seems to know a woman on the emotional level without that woman having to express herself exudes his own enchanting intrigue. By being able to communicate with a woman on this level, man creates his presence within her solipsistic world. “He just, like, totally gets me!”

This is oft mistaken for narcissism, but should she lack narcissism, such a quality still persists. For not only is self-obsession a product of narcissism, but likewise a product of solipsism. Therefore being that solipsism is intrinsic to women, self-obsession is an unavoidable by-product. Indeed, a woman’s most profound hobby is that of her self-interest, chiefly, the catalogued history of emotions she has experienced, how they shape who she is and which ones are desirable enough to be pursued for re-creation.

To summarise this section:

The emotional world is solipsistic, for it is singularly distinct from individual to individual, like a series of unconnected universes that simultaneously exist. The abstract world on the other hand is a shared constant, external, one we all operate and cohabit within. To women, there is no distinction between the emotional and the abstract, for she believes the emotional is abstract. Her instinct is that her inner-world is an abstract world she must constantly process and seek to understand via external communication. To men, the inner world is a solipsistic world. Both men and women have an inner emotional world, but men have less interest in processing the nuances of this world and live their lives mentally more in the abstract world.

4.) Struggle:

Few women play the male game, that is, that depth is a product of hardship, study and self-awareness. To women, self-awareness amounts to nothing more than solipsistic indulgence; this is to experience strong emotion and to then process that emotion via further emoting. The reason which women constantly communicate and address their emotion, is because they seek to understand past emotion. And then by understanding past emotion, they experience the sensation of discovery. To experience emotion and process emotion is what a woman considers growth.

Histrionic solipsism is a female simulacrum for depth. Where genuine struggle is not achieved, it will be manufactured. The modern woman believes experiencing a wide range of emotion is what makes her deep and worldly. Women have a propensity for histrionics, because it is through drama and subsequent emotional reflection that a woman evaluates herself as a person. The female mind is characterised by its solipsistic nature, therefore it stands to reason that women intuit their self-awareness rather than deduct it.

5.) In Closing:

The emotional narrative on which a woman’s solipsism is predicated is so disjointed in nature, so very non-sequitur to all but her, that an element of the purpose in a woman’s communication of her feelings appears to be a need for her narrative to be externally corroborated. If we assume this principle is true, it further elucidates women’s need to be understood no matter how unintelligible her line of reasoning.

6.) Relevant Reading:

On site:

Exploring Logic & Emotion (Part 1)
Solipsism, Emotion & Arguments

Books:

Buy “The Rational Male” in the USA
Buy “The Rational Male” in the UK
Buy “The Rational Male” in Canada
Buy “The Rational Male: Preventative Medicine” in the USA
Buy “The Rational Male: Preventative Medicine” in the UK
Buy “The Rational Male: Preventative Medicine” in Canada

“Women are considered deep – why? Because one can never discover any bottom to them. Women are not even shallow.” – Friedrich Nietzsche

Contents:
1.) The Disappointment
2.) The Hypergamy of Academia at a Glance
3.) Vapidity, Depth & “Female Intelligence”
4.) In Closing

1.) The Disappointment:

Education neither imbues a woman with reason nor surgically eviscerates her vapidity. The educated woman is just as vapid as the uneducated, for vapidity is symptomatic of solipsism. Women’s reputation for petty gossip is the most accurate cultural memetic highlighting the vapidity of the feminine.

And yet it is oft thought that an educated woman is an intellectual woman, and that by merit of such intellect, such women are not vapid. Of course, this notion falls flat on its face when we discover that education does not give the unreasonable, reason, or the unintellectual, intellect. At its best, education makes philosophers out of thinkers and artists out of drawers. The philosopher may draw, but he will never be an artist. The artist may think, but he will never be a philosopher. And so we must resign ourselves to a most immutable conclusion: education cultivates latent talent, it does not imbue absent talent.

If personal experience teaches anything, it is that although men expect educated women to be less vapid than uneducated ones, such expectation yields little but disappointment. Only in the most fortuitous of circumstances will such an expectation be fulfilled. I’ve known many a man to frequent the company of erudite women, some even more learned than he. And yet, a common complaint pervades – “these women are well-educated, yet somehow they lack self-awareness and appear dense.” Her level of education deceptively led the man to expect greater intellect, yet in spite of her education, she disappointed the expectation.

And so to an intellectual man, the educated woman is a most curious creature. She is educated, yet comparatively dim. Who would naturally associate education with knowledge bereft of self-awareness? Or erudition devoid reason and intellectual curiosity? Aren’t these very things the root of all knowledge? Indeed they are. And yet, knowledge can be passed on without such things. The fundamental hallmarks of intellectualism are necessary only for innovation, not repetition. A fast learner is not necessarily a good thinker, one need only look at the Chinese to see emulation rather than innovation; women, Chinese or not, are much the same.

Man’s folly lies in his conflation of education with intellectualism. Intelligent men infer that education can only be obtained if one is rational, analytical, and above all, intellectually curious. As such, men wrongfully assume educated woman possess these qualities, for they think it impossible to succeed educationally without them.

Of course, this line of reasoning is false. Even the humblest of experience will quickly reveal that the majority of educated women are nothing more than adequate rote learners. Well versed in the memorisation of how complex processes work, but quite unable to reason independently of what they were taught. And so it appears dedication and memory supersede intellect in matters of educational attainment, for if they didn’t, we wouldn’t have the number of highly educated women that we do.

If education demanded independent thought, there would be a degree shortage, and the number of women graduating? It would plummet. There’s a reason women make great accountants; accountants memorise processes to balance assets and liabilities, there is marginal innovation at best.

2.) The Hypergamy of Academia at a Glance:

For all the reasons stipulated prior, men who expect educated women to be more interesting and rational will find naught but disappointment. It matters not how much you educate a woman, her lack of logical rigour and vapid obsession with the petty will remain. Pettiness being a symptom of solipsism, it is wise to consider it one of the immutable pillars of AWALT.

When a woman’s hypergamy speaks, it sounds like this: “why should I have to lower my standards – for anyone?” Women seek education as an act of hypergamic status seeking far more frequently than they do as a result of intellectual enamour. By obtaining qualifications, a woman’s already high expectations become ever higher. She, quite wrongfully, believes her education is an attractive quality because she finds status attractive in men, and therefore believes her education increases the quality of man she should be able to attract. This feminine faux pas occurs en masse, ignorant of the reality that as a woman’s academic prestige rises, the fewer the number of eligible bachelors.

IM MAXIM 101:

Education and status acquisition increase male dating options, but decrease females’. The reason for this is women are hypergamous and men are hypogamous. If you are hypergamous, you’re only attracted to people better than you. If you reach the top-level as a woman, only the men at the apex will do. If you reach the top-level as a man, you have all the women beneath you to choose from. As a function of both hypergamy and sexual economics at the macro level; as women’s collective hypergamic need increases, the pool of subsequent men capable of satisfying this need decreases.

And so in an age where men of intellectual dispositions avoid university and even the most inanely vapid women mass enrol, the quirks of hypergamy begin to surface.

If a woman can’t find a suitable mate at university, she will still graduate. Only undergraduate men will no longer seem quite so attractive. Why? Well because she’s an undergraduate too. Undergraduate men could only satisfy her hypergamy when she perceived them as superior. Now she doesn’t, only men with higher calibre white-collar degrees (eg: doctors, lawyers etc) will do. And should such a woman obtain a master’s degree and fail to meet a suitable partner? The process repeats with even higher stakes until such a woman effectively prices herself out of the market, condemned to decrying men as intimidated by her financial independence rather than repulsed by it.

Repulsion you say, why would a real man™ be repulsed? Well the more educated a woman, the greater her standards and entitlement, and thus in turn, the lesser her attractiveness. Higher status makes people behave more narcissistically, narcissism is a suit well-worn on a man, but one ill-fitting for a woman. Female narcissism is unattractive to men. Men seek polarity and femininity in long-term relationships. And so women seeking a misguided sense of equality through education only harm their chances at attracting top-tier men. A woman who thinks she is the equal of men she only dates due to their greater education or status is thus an unattractive idiot.

This is the inevitable stupidity that occurs when a woman takes a “different but equal” approach to men rather than a perspective more in line with reality. When a woman reaches the heights of professional status, such heights no longer seem all that attractive. The balcony looks more impressive when she sees it from the street than it does when she’s standing on it. If she can’t look up to him, he can’t (with some benevolence) look down on her. Without that dynamic, there is no attraction, and so, no love.

Summarising this chapter:

Better educated women means more dissatisfied women. By employing a male strategy and seeking prestige rather than cultivating femininity, women quite literally price themselves out of the market. Why would a sane, successful man wish to endure the insufferableness of a self-important female academic? When society’s women become more educated than it’s men, the male aversion to hypergamy-fuelled narcissism is heightened in unison with the feminine reluctance to date down. The result? Spinsters and a lot of animosity.

3.) Vapidity, Depth & Understanding Female Intelligence:

More than anything, I believe if there were something that could destroy female vapidity it would be education. Education gives women the most potential to develop an intellectual curiosity into the mechanisms behind life’s curtain. And yet such qualities are so incredibly rare amongst women it leaves me questioning what exactly education does to women.

Vapidity is likewise a product of sloppy or poorly thought out notions (normally rattling off however one feels, making superfluous observations etc) rather than original thought or scepticism stemming from curiosity and enquiry. Vapidity being an effect of solipsism, this makes sense. Education does not override solipsism.

Education instils women with knowledge to create a simulacrum of intellect, but this knowledge seems all but divorced of any innate intellectual curiosity. And it is such basic women who deem themselves the intellectual superiors of men who possess no higher education, although many such men possess the innate intellectual curiosity that such women lack. An incredible perversity if there ever was one; stupid educated women and intelligent uneducated men, how about that?

There are more women than men in higher education nowadays, and yet I would argue with an emphatic conviction that your average uneducated man is more cognisant and intellectually curious than his better educated female counterparts. It is simple: woman’s innate fixation with the social, a herd mentality and a need to be liked/accepted is what drives vapidity, and no amount of education seems to eradicate it. Ergo, if a woman is not vapid, it is probably more an affectation of her natural biological makeup (eg: she’s an autist) rather than a product of formal education. There are simply too many degree holding women who are incredibly vapid to dispel this notion.

And yet, despite the educational achievements of today’s women, said success seems to have had minimal effect on female hobbies and interests. Education hasn’t made women interesting. Education hasn’t given women hobbies distinct from the uneducated. Education hasn’t disconnected women from the social hive mind and given them any real intellectual autonomy. Education doesn’t seem to expand the female mind, but rather, it just fills it. And that is sad, because in an era where “everything is a social construct,” if anything could manage that, it’d be education.

It seems counterintuitive that the average woman with a law or biology degree would even give two remote fucks about Kim Kardashian or whittle on with infantile fascination about shoes, whilst having close to zero passion for more important and intellectually stimulating topics such as philosophy or politics, but there you go. Much about women is counterintuitive at a glance, counterintuitivity runs through their veins. If it didn’t, there would really be no need for the red pill.

There will always be a woman who will pipe up and say she hates Kim Kardashian and loves Nietzsche, and I’m sure such a woman exists, but she is atypical rather than typical. To not realise she is an outlier, and to make such a solipsistic assertion as a counter-argument in attempting to disprove my sentiment, there is great short-sightedness if not disingenuity. We are after all talking about the predilections of women at large, not the impassioned snowflake who’s read all of Nietzsche and prefers to meaningfully debate abstract topics with men rather than gossip with women. I suspect the female readers of Illimitable Men lean more toward the latter, but perhaps not. I can only speculate.

Women tend not to be intellectual people at their cores, but rather they possess the necessary IQ to go through the motions, to rote learn and pass tests – and many do exactly this in order to access men with higher earning potential (as outlined in section 2.) Thus a woman can look great on paper, but remain entirely dull as an effect of absent intellectual curiosity. The core nature of women would appear to persist in spite of any educational programming. Simply put, in matters of the mind – education does not make women more like men; it imbues neither additional reason nor curiosity, only knowledge.

You would be surprised just how many women are “educated” and yet lack an intellectual bone or original thought in their entire body. They are expert learners, clearly focused, disciplined and”smart” in so much they can grasp ideas and processes, but they manage to achieve all this without any semblance of intellectual curiosity or original thought; a fascinating phenomenon. I liken it to the transmission of knowledge into a non-aware robot, intelligent, synoptic, but by its very nature devoid of self-awareness. It expertly follows instructions, repeats what it is taught and emulates what it is shown. But if you stop giving it knowledge, it stops looking for knowledge; it never becomes anything more than it is. It never learns to think for itself and do so with any degree of accuracy or credibility.

It is with a certain earnestness that I believe men would be ecstatic if education made women more interesting or innately curious – it’s not that I want these assertions to be true – but rather that, my experience and observation suggests that it “just is.” It is easy to read literature such as this and fall under the impression that the intent is to simply talk women down. In earnest, my only intention is to decipher how women so smart can seem so stupid – and then explain this disconnect to men. The sentiment is one of realism rather than pessimism, although I do understand how often both appear to be one and the same.

4.) In Closing:

The majority of women are vapid, vapidity being a symptom of solipsism and thus a core sentiment of AWALT. This is something men have to learn to accept. Wishing they weren’t is futile, for it changes not the reality. Women are unwise to try to convince us otherwise, for we have both eyes and ears.

Rather matter-of-factly, the vast majority of women are passionless, vapid and devoid of any real hobby or interest beyond socialising, shopping or television. Yet many men in the face of this knowledge will still persevere in their compulsion to enjoy women in spite of themselves, and will thus realign their expectations to compensate for this reality.

Where more social driven men find women’s impulsive self-absorbed quirks cute and exhilarating, the intellectual man is bored, despondent and underwhelmed. As much as women, even educated women, find intellectual men who have not immersed themselves in the study of game to be dull, such men find the banality and phatic social-driven conversation of women to be equally boring. This is due to different value systems. Women tend to value social drama and trends, whereas intelligent men (the demographic of which I write for) prefer depth, abstraction and complexity.

The rational man is, sex notwithstanding, bored with women as an effect of the great intellectual chasm between his depth and her lack thereof. The educated woman is rarely an intellectual in the truest sense; a woman of both reason and curiosity. And so men are wise to seek intellectual stimulation and social connection from male company, for it is there they will find greater wealth.

An educated woman as such confers no additional benefits to a man by merit of her education alone. If anything, her education fortifies her narcissism at the expense of her personality. Not quite what the intellectual man looking for “an intellectual equal” expects, truth be told he’d have better luck discovering Santa’s grotto. Or realising that an intellectual connection is not what women excel at, sex is.

If you enjoy this blog, please consider sponsoring it. Additionally if you spot any mistakes, do let me know. Just bear in mind I use British-English spellings.

“Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony.” ― Mahatma Gandhi

If somebody had told me what I’m about to tell you when I was a teenager, my life could have gone down a completely different path. Recently I received a message where I felt it necessary to reveal some of my life’s struggles in order to help nail home some serious points. My response became lengthy in an effort to address the question, and resultantly, this article was born.

Question: “how do I become happy?”

Happiness is how you feel about yourself. Usually people are unhappy because they are mad at themselves (lack of discipline) or because they aren’t succeeding as much (or as quickly) as they believe they should.

I’ve been depressed on and off numerous times in my life and the root of said misery derived from two core character flaws:

– A lack of self-discipline:

Self-discipline never came easily to me because my attention span sucked and I didn’t have a strict upbringing. By being allowed to do what the hell I wanted as a kid, I formed into an adult with an ingrained lack of self-discipline. My training (or lack of it) meant I’d almost always default to the path of least resistance.

Of course parents who don’t provide an orderly upbringing suck, but blaming their inadequate parenting for your faults doesn’t achieve anything actionable. As an adult, you have to take responsibility for disciplining yourself.

Why is discipline so important?

Self-discipline is essential if you want to be somebody worth a fuck. If you lack it, this should be the very first thing you work on. Nothing else can fall into place without it.

There are a million and one bullshit seminars and books out there looking to make money out of your insecurities by promising to make you confident. 99.9% are nonsense. As P.T Barnum said “there’s a sucker born every minute.” (the relevant law of power can be found here.)

The truth: only you can make you confident.

Disciplined people are confident people (not necessarily egotistical) because they’re proud of what they do. When you know you’re putting the work in, a by-product of your efforts will be pride. Pride translates into self-confidence, confidence translates into charm, and it’s an upward spiral from there on. But everything starts with discipline – everything. Discipline is the root of success as much as 3 is the root of 9. If you are not someone blessed with a natural irrational confidence, this is how you get confident.

– Being overly analytical:

I’m naturally prone to analysis paralysis because I have an analytical nature. Once you achieve a reasonable amount of self-discipline, you can catch yourself in the act of procrastination and force yourself to act.

Other than procrastinating, the other problem with being overly analytical is it allows you to see all the negatives in the world (there are many, everywhere, daily) and the sheer volume can will bog you down if you’re not careful.

If you are intellectual, your analytical faculty will apply a negative filter to life because you are prone to cynicism, over-thinking, and in turn, inaction. These traits are a hotbed for depression, and depression destroys productivity. I think I just described every intelligent underachiever that ever lived – knowing so much, yet doing so little.

I had to find my own way in life like most dudes who didn’t have a firm hand to guide them in their youth. I was devoid organisation, impulsive. I’d cram my studies in near the deadline instead of starting 3 weeks in advance and going at a comfortable pace. I’d bum around with “friends” (other directionless “average people” looking to fill their time) instead of taking up meaningful hobbies: a sport, instrument, foreign language or martial art. This is a mistake I will never let my own kids make.

I had to waste a lot of time to figure out it was precious, because when you’re a directionless loser you don’t value yourself nor your time. You’re always trying to find new ways to squander it on meaningless crap because you have no goals. And if you have goals, you lack the drive that comes from discipline to stick with the regime needed to make them reality.

I was one of those guys who dreamt big, but held myself back. And through repetitive complacency, a most irrational fear took root. Inaction would breed fear until I had lost all momentum. And without momentum, you’re at risk of depression. In the words of Einstein:

“Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance, you must keep moving.”

I’ve always known what I’ve had to do, come to think of it nobody has actually ever told me I’m stupid, but intelligence isn’t enough. Intelligence doesn’t make you immune to character flaws, it doesn’t guarantee work ethic (discipline does) and it threatens happiness (stimulus overload.) An idiot who attacks life reaps more of its rewards than an idle intellect spectating from the sidelines.

My laziness made me unhappy; I had become my comfort zone’s prisoner.

Upon introspection, I eventually came to realise everything I’ve just said. The analytical ability came in useful for something, it allowed me to psychoanalyse myself and determine cause and effect. My weakness became a strength, alongside what I learned from TRP, it allowed me to make the mindset shift necessary to reprogram myself.

I was unhappy because I knew I wasn’t living up to my potential. The source of my unhappiness stemmed from the anger and discontent I harboured for being less than my best. The chasm between who I was and who I thought I should be was vast. But for a long time I wasn’t cognisant enough to realise that this was the source of all my woes, including brief bouts of depression.

It’s great that you’ve found the red pill, but if you’re stuck in your head and you lack discipline, you’ll never go beyond reading. And when your life doesn’t improve, if you’re not self-aware of why it hasn’t, you’ll blame TRP for your lack of success rather than take responsibility for your own (lack of) success.

TRP will not fix your life, it is just a tool. How you use it will determine if you manage to refashion your life into something you can be proud of. How does the saying go? “A good workman never blames his tools.” TRP is only a tool. Knowing isn’t enough, you must do. And where you fail, you must take responsibility for your failures. If TRP isn’t working for you because you haven’t changed your approach to life, that’s your fault, nobody else’s.

To get ripped, you actually have to lift. To earn more money, you actually have to work your butt off. To get girls, you actually have to approach (or put pictures of yourself ripped on Tinder.) But you get my point. Knowledge is pointless without application, if you have to repeat one phrase from the entire article to yourself, it should be this. If you are too scared to do new things, you’re a prisoner of your comfort zone like I was. And if the timid body language I spot in my day-to-day is indicative of anything, I think a lot of you are in this situation. You’re just silently ashamed of it.

So how did I find happiness? I accepted myself in spite of myself. And this is how people who realise they’ve fucked up find happiness. The problem with unhappiness is it destroys your productivity and sociability. Miserable people are nihilists that don’t see a point in doing anything. They don’t attract people who could improve their lives because their negative energy acts as a repellent.

If you are depressed, you don’t sleep well and you don’t have the energy to do anything. You don’t want to socialise and you bomb social interactions because your energy level is in the gutter; the whole world feels like a chore. And when the world feels like a chore, you can’t build the life you want to have for yourself.

I found this first step crucial to overcoming unhappiness. Let me say it again:

I accepted myself in spite of myself. I stopped beating myself up for being a loser and started praising myself for doing what I could to build myself.

Even if I don’t have the level of success/stature the ridiculously high standards of my ambition demand of me, I accept what I have and who I am as long as I do my best. Because your best is all you’ve got, to demand more than that is to dangle yourself a carrot that is constantly snatched away.

I enjoy the journey of becoming slightly less shit everyday, I enjoy the grind, the struggle, the hustle. You have to in order to get anywhere. And if my best isn’t enough, so be it. I will try something else. I’m fine with being imperfect.

I accept failure as an inevitable part of life, it’s better to fail because you’re not good enough than fail because you’re scared you won’t be good enough. Anything is better than giving up. To quote Winston Churchill:

“Never give in–never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”

Ambition is useless if it serves to depress you for not achieving it. Ambition (goals) need incentive (to avoid being a loser.) Most people think that the goal will bring happiness. And it does when you first achieve it. But that doesn’t last. Lasting happiness lies in self-acceptance, all other forms of happiness are fleeting.

A clever thing I did was turn my fear against itself. The fear that used to imprison me is now the same thing that drives me. I never got rid of my fear, I just inverted it. Rather than let my fear of leaving my comfort zone destroy my potential, I used my fear of being a loser to motivate myself and start taking action where I was once avoidant. I’m far more scared to be a loser than enter conflict or experience an awkward social situation. Making fear work for me, works for me.

Most people are unhappy for one of two reasons (possibly both):

– They’re slobs squandering their best resource, their time. If you slob it up for a month you may be happy because you enjoy the moment’s pleasures. But when a year passes, then two, and you catch even a moment to look back and compare yourself now with who you were then – and you’re not better than that guy – you’re the same guy or worse yet, you’re inferior to him, that shit is going to hit you like a ton of bricks. You are going to be miserable because you’ve let yourself down.

– Their ambitions far exceed their stature and their lack of status causes them to put so much pressure on themselves that they can’t even breathe and just enjoy the simple things. The sun on their face, the air on their nose etc.

I was afflicted by both. You may be afflicted by either. If you are afflicted by neither, yet you’re still unhappy, you’re either surrounded by toxic people or lonely.

If you’re unhappy but you’re not a loser:

If you are successful yet still unhappy, there’s a good chance you’re an overachiever who feels like nothing is ever enough. Your ambitions are undoing you. Your dissatisfaction means you’re always in a hurry, instead of enjoying the grind.

The problem with that is once you get “there,” it won’t be enough. Because you haven’t learned to be happy, you’ve only learned to be successful. If you can have money, independence, a decent body, high IQ/skills and a good job yet still are miserable – it’s because you haven’t learned to accept yourself. Success isn’t the problem, you have plenty of it, a lack of self-acceptance is at fault.

One has to accept their efforts, that they’re doing what they can. That doesn’t mean get lazy. You’re “only” human, not every minute of every day is going to be 100% productive. You are not perfect, just because you are successful, you’re not perfect. If you hold yourself to impossible inhuman standards, you will always hate yourself (whether you realise that or not) and as such you will be unhappy at your core. Forgive yourself for your weaknesses and work to overcome them rather than hating yourself for having them.

If you’re successful and comfortable with yourself, yet still unhappy, you’re probably lonely or surrounded by terrible people.

Look for good friends, they make life less shitty. Everything is better with good company, loneliness can be just as debilitating as laziness. If you are prone to loneliness, I’d caution against going full monk mode, it will only make you worse. Take 2 days off a week to socialise and recharge.

Most guys waste their life looking for the right woman, but whilst good friends can last a lifetime, women rarely do. True friends look out for your interests, women look out for their own. True friends are really rare, most people are only interested in what they can get from you/use you for. A true friend is a family member who doesn’t share your blood, they are loyal, they care about your progress and you’re there for one another when times are tough. Do they care about your problems? No? Not a friend. Everybody else is an acquaintance regardless of what they call themselves.

Relevant Reading:

– The Charisma Myth

– Monk Mode

– Books For Men

SIDE NOTE: I keep getting asked to list the books on my “Books For Men” page in order of importance. I can’t do that because the order of importance depends on the person in questions weaknesses.

You need to be able to identify your weak points and prioritise improving them first. For example, should you be exceptionally scrawny or fat, you should buy Starting Strength. If problems at work are getting you down, The 48 Laws of Power is what you want. If you are a timid guy who doesn’t know how to assert himself, you’ll want No More Mr. Nice Guy.

“Cunning is the art of concealing our own defects, and discovering other people’s weaknesses.” – William Hazlitt

Contents:
1.) Preface
2.) Breakdown of the Three Core Traits
2a.) Machiavellianism
2b.) Narcissism & Psychopathy
3.) A Spectrum, Not An Absolutism
4.) The Difference Between Machiavellianism & The Other 2/3’s of The Triad
5.) How Do You Become Machiavellian?
6.) How Do You Become Narcissistic?
7.) In Closing

1.) Preface:

The dark triad is often incorrectly perceived to be one specific personality type, this is wrong. The dark triad is the culmination of three distinct intersecting personality traits present in one individual. As such, ‘dark triad’ is a blanket term alluding to a comorbidity of psychological traits typically associated with empathy and attachment disorders, not a trait in and of itself.

I expect this to sound somewhat pedantic or obscure to the uninitiated, but nevertheless, to dispel any ignorant confusion surrounding “what the dark triad is,” I feel this distinction important to emphasise.

If you have taken the test on the war and power page, you will have a crude understanding of what the dark triad entails. If you are already confused as early into the article as you are, I urge you to read the initial overview as well as the dark triad Q & A, each describes the dark triad at the simplest level I am able to communicate.

2.) Breakdown of the Three Core Traits:

Machiavellianism is the puppeteer’s hand pulling the strings. Sometimes perceived but often not, it is the cunning which directs and sets the agenda. Narcissism is a heart of self-obsession and vanity which manifests as an aggressive concoction of indomitable boldness and unyielding confidence at its most extreme. Psychopathy is the enigmatic silence, the absence of inhibition, an effortless fearlessness mired in a nihilistic and amoral calm.

2a.) Machiavellianism:

Machiavellianism is perception, misdirection, strategic insight, cunning and concealment. Machiavellianism like all strategy is amoral, it can be used altruistically or predatorily. The boundaries of Machiavellianism are determined by the moral code of the practitioner, Machiavellianism itself knows no boundaries, prioritising efficiency with a penchant for concealment.

At its crudest, Machiavellianism is calculated thinking applied to social strategy as a means of survival, at it’s most beautiful, it is the beating heart of a studious enquiry into the art of power.

One who cannot master a Machiavellian competency will never gain power, and should power find them, it will be tasted only so briefly as to escape the bestowed. The unwily man who inherits power intuits he is quick prey, outclassed by those covetous of the trappings of a position he knows not how to defend. Vulnerable to predation, paranoid of it, unable to stop it, the unworthy man loses his power to the more competently cunning; be that a rival, or as is more typical, a beautiful woman.

Individuals only possess a position they are strategically competent enough to defend, therefore it stands to reason that regardless of the aestheticism of one’s morality, individuals in positions of great power are highly Machiavellian. Power draws attack from all directions, as such where one was not sufficiently Machiavellian, power would escape them. Power respects the ruthless and despises the clumsy, it clings to the cunning and evades the obtuse.

Machiavellianism is socially maladaptive, this means it can be learned subconsciously as an effect of psychological conflict, consciously via voracious erudition, or both.

The people who read this blog will be at differing levels of competency, some will possess relatively little natural cunning and hope to teach themselves, others will possess a natural cunning they seek to better understand.

The main benefit for the incompetent is obvious, obtain competence. The main benefit for naturals lies in developing a conscious understanding of their ability. By putting words to something that is otherwise just unconscious behaviour, deeper self-understanding can be achieved leading to a greater degree of mastery. As an aside, I have it on good authority that the cunning harbour an habitual liking for the study of power.

2b.) Narcissism & Psychopathy:

Narcissism is ego, a projection of confidence, self-importance and grandiosity. Histrionic theatricism is optional, not necessarily present, but oft prevalent. The positives of grandiose narcissism consist of relentless ambition, entitlement, high motivation, strong mental resilience and an unwavering sense of conviction. Grandiose narcissists demand the very best that life has to offer, they are quality rather than quantity focused and embody the compulsion of a perfectionist.

Everybody is narcissistic to a degree, some more than others, but not everybody is a narcissist. Even among the highly narcissistic there is separation between the mere egotistical, and those without empathy as an effect of a neurologically ingrained superiority complex. The latter is more a narcissistic shade of psychopath, or a ‘narcopath’, the prior simply has an over-inflated sense of self-importance.

The distinction between the strong personification of narcissistic qualities, and the pathological psychopathy which is an implicit by-product of narcissistic personality disorder warrants recognition. The narcopath has an attachment disorder, the narcissist is simply an unruly ego.

A powerful ego is not equivalent to an empathy/attachment disorder, although it would be identified as narcissism which is deemed an empathy/attachment disorder. On the other hand, the narcissistic shade of psychopathy comes with all the ego inherent to the empathy capable narcissist, and as such people are easily confused by the overlap between narcopathy and narcissism.

Narcopathy is narcissism enmeshed with psychopathy, narcissism alone is bereft the detachment of psychopathy despite being typically associated with it by layman and clinician alike. Within nuance is distinction, not all narcissists are narcopaths, but most make no distinction between a narcopath and a narcissist and hence conflate them as being one and the same.

To clarify my point clearly: narcopathy is an egotistical form of psychopathy, narcissism is just a very strong ego. A narcissist is an unruly ego, whilst the narcopath, an egotistical psychopath who seeks narcissistic supply via social domination.

Psychopathy absent narcissism and egotism is what distinguishes a psychopath from a narcopath. Imagine an autist capable of neurotypical social mimicry who understands other’s emotions, but is unable to feel pity or form personal attachment. That’s a psychopath. There is much overlap between narcopathy and psychopathy, so it is difficult to talk about one without alluding to the other.

Psychopathy and narcopathy are both empathy deficient, that is, incapable of feeling empathy for another. In their moral moments they can rationalise empathy, but they do not feel it as a visceral impulse. In my piece the psychopathic paradigm, I cemented this distinction by labelling sympathy as “emotional empathy” and empathy as “logical empathy.” The autism researcher Professor Simon Baron-Cohen prefers the terms “affective empathy” and “cognitive empathy” respectively.

Whether an individual becomes a narcopath or a psychopath due to upbringing depends on the coping mechanism intuitively adopted by the child to handle their mental distress.

Where a male child is met with unprecedented rejection and neglect, especially by the mother, they become a narcopath. A female child will become a borderline, which is effectively narcopathy with vulnerable rather than grandiose narcissism. Pathological narcissism forms as a replacement for the praise and affirmation absent in an individual’s developmental years.

Effectively a child develops narcissism when it is spoiled too much, and narcissistic or borderline personality disorder when unloved/rejected by its parents.

Where a child is abused or harmed physically, should they not kill themselves owing to the inability of their brain’s empathy circuits to short, said circuits will short and they will become a psychopath. Where narcopathy is a mixture of nature and nurture, psychopathy can be nature, ‘nurture’ or both.

There are accounts of psychopathy in individuals who suffered no ill upbringing whatsoever, such instances lend credence to a nature hypothesis for psychopathy, that some individuals are effectively pre-determined to be psychopaths from birth rather than ‘cultivated’ into becoming so.

3.) A Spectrum, Not An Absolutism:

Perceive the dark triad as a spectrum, everybody possesses Machiavellian, narcissistic and psychopathic qualities in varying ratios, but mere presence of trait does not make an individual a personification of the qualities they scantily possess. If this were the case everybody would be dark triad, in reality, few are.

A degree of narcissism is indicative of healthy confidence, a degree of Machiavellianism is necessary to navigate a transactional world and a degree of psychopathy is necessary to confront fear-inducing stimuli. It is only when one of the traits becomes prominent enough to be deemed ‘clinical’ that the individual can be accurately identified by the label. It is when an individual possesses all three traits in high amounts they are considered dark triad.

4.) The Difference Between Machiavellianism & The Other 2/3’s of The Triad:

Most can ascertain 2/3 of the traits, Machiavellianism and narcissism. Narcopathy is developmental, whilst psychopathy can be either genetic or developmental. If you are an adult it is improbable you will acquire either narcopathy or psychopathy as your brain is less plastic. I’ve been told psychopathy can be cultivated through meditation, but this remains an unsubstantiated theoretical contention I have not seen in practice and thus cannot endorse.

If you score highly in psychopathy and narcissism, you will in all likelihood possess an empathy disorder of some sort, you would not feel sincere pity for others, you would not care you lack this sense of pity and you would not form attachments to anybody. If you scored highly in narcissism, you will think you are special or somehow different from everybody else whether this is necessarily true or otherwise. Essentially, the presence of both or either these traits in a large concentration confers automatic competence.

The same cannot be said of Machiavellianism. You can score highly in Machiavellianism by merit of possessing a strategic mind, but if you are analytic without particularly strong narcissism or psychopathy, you will end up being no more than a logician. This means in spite of a high Machiavellian score, you are not very socially Machiavellian. To be competently socially Machiavellian, relatively low anxiety and a high degree of acting ability are necessary.

As such, to be analytical and possess a desire to be devious is all one needs to score highly in Machiavellianism on the dark triad test. A high Machiavellian score does not confer instant competence in the way the presence of the other two traits does. Machiavellianism is typically an affectation of psychopathy and narcissism, but can exist single-handedly as a predilection for analysis and strategy.

Machiavellianism is at its most rudimentary the refinement of cunning, a vocation anybody can learn. In the contemporary age of ever creeping moral decay, the amorality of Machiavellianism becomes ever alluring. Be you a powerless individual seeking to survive in an increasingly cold world; a powerful individual looking to safeguard their assets, or a social predator looking to appease their sadistic urges. Machiavellianism is highly adaptable based on the individual’s needs for it is an art form, and thus like all art, fluid in application.

5.) How Do You Become Machiavellian?:

Analyse behaviour and body language, it will aid you in tuning into the subtleties of subtext. People watching is the primary activity for building on this ability. Sit somewhere, say a public bench or an outdoor area of a coffee shop and predict people’s relationships, emotional states and inclinations from observance. The more you do this, the better you’ll get and the more accurate your predictions will become. The book linked at the beginning of this paragraph will give you a head start, but cultivating intuition from repeated observance will take practice.

Likewise one must become proficient at interpreting subtext. Subtext is unspoken communication, the underlying theme of an interaction. The subtext is what lies between the lines of communication, being able to interpret it demands an ability to pluck out what is meant from what is said even when intent and disposition are deliberately obfuscated.

Subtext often uses reference to metaphor, entendre or innuendo to communicate opinion or intent without explicitly stating it. By doing this, opinions can be expressed without being weaponised against the holder. Should the response to an opinion communicated in this manner be deemed undesirable, the plausible deniability of its ambiguity can be invoked as a shield.

One should also learn to act, to behave as if you are happy when unhappy or calm when angry. An acting class where improvisation is practised and method taught can assist in this. Acting consists much of being able to summon an emotion and mental image in your mind’s eye that isn’t reflective of how you feel, yet depicts with a certain unspoken truthfulness that what is portrayed is a reflection of what is felt.

Vocational skills aside Machiavellianism is theory intense, and so any aspiring Machiavellian should read books on military strategy, leadership, power, statecraft, rhetoric, propaganda and on rare occasion, philosophy. These texts are Machiavellian at their core, but will of course not be marketed as such. As I’ve yet to form an official reading list of relevant texts, I will list a brief yet non-exhaustive compendium here:

– The 48 Laws of Power
– The Prince
– The Art of War
– The Art of Worldly Wisdom
– The 33 Strategies of War
– The Craft of Power

What you will find with texts on power is they outline strategies, distil certain aspects of power and give historic examples of implementation. There is not a contemporary step-by-step guide on how one can apply element of powers or specific military strategies to daily life.

These are books that require intelligence and imagination, they describe power but they do not methodically instruct one on how to obtain it. The books thereby require somebody with a refined sense of logic to take a principle from a historic context and make it fit their personal situation. If you are unable to do that, you will be unable to utilise power despite developing an understanding of it, application demands imagination.

The immutable implication of power is that it is not to be wielded by the unworthy. If you’re not creative enough to know how to make the theory fit, you won’t be sharp enough to fend off future threats to your power base. Books can only communicate how to defend power via theory, they cannot through act of clairvoyance predict what will befall you and instruct you specifically on how to defend yourself.

When it comes to power, initiative and intelligence are rewarded if not outright necessary. Therefore instruction manuals designed for idiots make little sense, for whatever power an idiot is permitted per the advice of another man will surely be lost when the idiot’s mental dullness sees that same power pissed away.

Going by the feedback I’ve seen online surrounding The 48 Laws of Power, it seems many are incapable of applying the theory to their everyday lives and so there is a demand for “a precise and contemporary manual on the application of power.” If you ever want to be a force to be reckoned with, persevering until you can adapt the theories you read to your own circumstances is essential, not optional.

I can depict power in a more relatable context, but I cannot write a “how to” guide. If you are stupid enough to need one, you are not cut out for power. That is not an insult in so much as it is a statement of truth. I have considered writing such articles for my Patreon subscribers, although it would be quite some time away as I’m inundated with projects. In regard to this idea, I welcome your speculation in the comments.

6.) How Do You Become Narcissistic?:

People who are elite in some manner become narcissistic due to success, this creates self-belief, feeding into success, fuelling further confidence in a self-perpetuating cycle. Narcissism is based on a consistent supply of affirmation, success, and one’s acceptance and belief of their success.

Positive feedback loops form from success as well as other’s respect and desire for you. Narcissism is in effect, a natural by-product of high value. The value can be given (highly attractive, great genetics) or earned (worked hard, became the champion) narcissism doesn’t care how you became successful, simply that you are.

People who are successful receive a constant stream of compliments and have to put effort into being humble. Otherwise, narcissistic supply overwhelms the ego and the individual becomes incapable of thinking or behaving outside a solipsistic frame of reference. If you are good at a sport, a video game, or anything where others perceive you as superior, you have a line of narcissistic supply.

Attractive women are an example of narcissism brought about desire rather than ability. Many beautiful women are narcissists because they are universally desired, being drunk on the power of beauty is an effortless and intoxicating form of narcissism. In this way, one could see cosmetic surgery and makeup as a way of maintaining not only social influence, but narcissistic supply.

If you lack confidence you must set up infrastructure to provide yourself with regular ego boosts; there are many ways to do this. A self-sustaining one would be the gym, you see gains, you get high off your gains, you work harder and then you see more gains. This is a positive feedback loop, it’s why men who get into the habit of working out become more narcissistic.

Where such a man previously may have had no line of narcissistic supply, he is now in possession of one. With men who were really insecure about their weight, working out in particular kills two birds with one stone as a negative feedback loop is being destroyed whilst a positive one is erected in its place. For example, a fat man who works out is a lot more confident than a fat man who doesn’t.

This form of ego acquisition is self-affirming, not external nor automated. If you were to stop working out, you would lose your narcissistic supply. For a man who derives his sense of narcissism from his physique, the need to work out is as much a craving for endorphins and testosterone as it is a need to maintain self-worth.

Lifting starts as purely self-affirming and for many remains exactly that, but should weightlifting make an ugly man handsome, your fitness efforts will likewise garner external validation in the same way feminine beauty does.

Any online platform where you are the centre of attention provides narcissistic supply. For instance whether I want it to be or not, this very blog acts in said capacity because people compliment my work, thank me for my efforts and tell me how much I’ve changed their lives etc.

Women use social networks as a funnel for narcissistic supply, this is somewhat common knowledge in the sphere but bears mention. People who manage a social media account actively maintain a line of narcissistic supply, as such becoming popular on social media is another way to increase narcissism.

Above I describe rational ways in which narcissism is attained. Alternatively there is the delusional repetitive method, although I heavily suspect the readership here’s far too grounded in reality to successfully apply such a method.

The method is as such: dissociate from reality and live a lie. Tell yourself what you want to believe until you brainwash yourself into believing what you’re telling yourself.

This is the basis on which narcopaths develop narcissistic personality disorder as children, the only difference being they had the highly plastic and suggestible minds of children when dissociating, and you are in all likelihood an adult man far too logical to effectively dupe himself. In light of this, “fake it until you make it” is unlikely to work for you.

7.) In Closing:

Theory learning from books is necessary should you wish to not only understand, but diversify your ability to project power. It should likewise go without saying that the vocational application of what you learn is necessary, a lack of practice makes for crude awareness and pitiful competence.

Wherever reputation matters and money flows, there is politics. Analyse the politics at not only your place of work, but likewise your place of play. Understand socialising is a game of chess, not an organic randomness in which you are passive and acted upon. Some games have higher stakes than others, but the principles remain the same – this is a game.

“All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.” – Douglas Adams

Contents:
1.) Introduction
2.) Leave Her Better Than You Found Her…?
3.) The Predatory Minority
4.) Take What Works, Discard What Doesn’t
5.) In Closing
6.) Relevant Reading

1.) Introduction:

The red pill is not infallible, rather it is a male-centric analysis into the nature of men and women. It ignores moral considerations because morality impinges on the capacity to discover truth, but disrespect for virtuousness in pursuit of truth does not mean an unvirtuous life is being advised. It is not ruled out, but neither is it advised. It is up to you, a reader of red pill philosophy, to make that choice; the philosophy cannot make that choice for you.

Moral arguments cannot be dismissed as much as they can be rebutted, anybody can say “X is wrong” but what they really mean is “X doesn’t work for me.” I am incredibly capable of listening to entire counterarguments, I will even agree with many of an argument’s pointed critique of my views, but ultimately nine times out of ten I will still retain my stance in spite of an enhanced understanding of the opposing viewpoint. Arguments (proper debates, not Machiavellian point scoring) are a great way to learn from others, so if you enjoy listening to logic as well as learning, they’re a wholly pleasurable activity in and of themselves.

Great minds often pick holes in one another’s views, come to understand one another better, but do not change their position. To shift position, a view has to be demonstrated to be fundamentally incorrect. One’s preferences for particular kinds of conduct do not disprove a line of reasoning, they merely ignore them in favour of something intuited to be more preferable, often, that means self-serving. However, and this is important to emphasise: one man’s best move can be another man’s worst. The reason for this? Not all men have equal capabilities, and therefore, equal options conferring mutually beneficial outcomes.

This is exactly why the red pill is more a philosophy (or praxeology) than it is a movement or religion. Movements and religions confer little liberty in regard to individualist morality coexisting within their framework, they command and state in a rather absolutist manner. This provides security and well-being to the less intellectually endowed seeking comfort within reality; it allows them to feel as if they “have figured everything out” and thereby live functionally in a manner conducive to clean mental health. But naturally, to the more intellectually curious, this falls short.

This blog consists of my opinions, the matter-of-fact articulation doesn’t make any of it irrefutably infallible perfect fact.

In all things the truth lies somewhere in the middle, unless we are talking mathematics there is no “all” and there is no “never”, merely there are varying degrees of probability which measure the likelihood of a specific outcome. Generally, when we use the word “never” we mean “almost never” and by “always” we mean “almost always”, it is a by-product of ego that we often omit such clarification as we believe the fact it is ‘almost always’ or ‘almost never’ should be self-apparent. Of course, to the less knowledgeable among us, this is typically not the case.

2.) Leave Her Better Than You Found Her…?:

The manospherian adage “leave her better than you found her” is not something I would expect a guy who had to endure a horrible, detached mother in childhood to listen to or respect. He will always, in his own way, be raging against women as a result of the impact his rather callous monstrosity of a mother had upon him.

His experiences leave him unable to take utility from the adage, he may scoff or be outright offended by the notion and declare it nonsensical; this is an outcome of the experience which shapes his individual morality. He’ll hear this adage and think “that’s so blue pill, if I want to face fuck barely legal girls in abandoned barns, I will.” But just because raging against women works well for him, and to accept this adage would fundamentally undermine his effectiveness, it does not mean it would work well and bolster the effectiveness of all men.

Men raised in a climate of hate will be more comfortable with hate, just as men raised in a climate of care will be more comfortable with care. Adult conduct is no more than a social adaptation to childhood experience, varying experiences means varying views.

Men who are otherwise less psychologically violent raised by kinder mothers are not going to agree with the gentleman that had a terrible childhood; in reference to the adage they’ll think “that sounds good, no point making enemies unless absolutely necessary, if I leave on a positive that relationship could yield further fruit down the line.”

If I had led my whole life preying on people to great effect, and I read an article quite cogently articulating how this is undesirable, even if I agreed rationally this was wrong, emotionally I would not. Morality requires the heart to be moved in order to change. I would intellectually agree with the argument whilst simultaneously exempting myself from its conclusion. Hypocritical? Surely, but that’s what people are; they do what works for them in spite of what their intellect compels them to recognise as right.

If you have found a way to live that works for you, you can agree on principle with someone else’s views even when said views undermine how you choose to live your life. The logic can be wonderful, you can enjoy their thought process, but ultimately it is not going to change one bit how you live because how you live is what you’re comfortable with.

And this is what people who become contorted do to survive, they consciously choose predation because predation was deemed their only chance to survive. People are a reflection of their life experiences more than they’ll ever be a reflection of what they read on a blog. Of course there’s a difference between a man who does what has to be done regardless of whether he enjoys or even agrees with it, and a man who enthusiastically enjoys active predation. I believe I stated something to this effect in a previous piece, although the precise quote and essay eludes me. Nevertheless, this much is clear: what’s good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander.

3.) The Predatory Minority:

Natural dark triads are intraspecies apex predators by presence of attachment disorder and a proclivity for violence, be that physical or mental. Such individuals are a minority specifically because society would cease to function should they be a majority. Therefore it is folly to teach the ways of predators to everybody, and furthermore expect them all to transform into predators.

I specifically write about the dark triad because I believe it’s important knowledge, it is not a recommendation nor an endorsement. At no point do I give instruction, I elucidate with insight and no more. I believe in your right to knowledge no matter how seemingly distasteful or verboten it is in character, but ultimately what you do with that knowledge is your choice.

A society full of predators does not last long, in any flourishing ecosystem there are always fewer predators than there is prey. The number of prey available directly affects the number of predators which can be sustained, the less prey there is, the less predators there are. Not everybody can be dark triad, but everybody can glean great knowledge and therefore increased personal power from studying it.

Predators always look down on prey, but predators are reliant on prey for their survival. In this way there is a perverse co-dependency in spite of the in-group/out-group psychology which philosophically polarises the morality of predators with the morality of prey. The morality of predators is “exploit wherever possible whilst preventing reprisal”, the morality of prey is “do unto others as they do unto you”.

4.) Take What Works, Discard What Doesn’t:

For every person mindlessly hanging onto every word I write, there is another who rejects much, yet still appreciates the line of reasoning and way of articulation in which the words are presented. Audiences are diverse, in fact one of the men kind enough to financially support my writing informed me he disagrees with much I say – yet appreciates it enough to fund it. You have answer seekers who want you to think for them, and then you have people who simply enjoy exposing themselves to a cogent chain of thought. The disagreeable conclusion matters less when one enjoys the process in which it is reached.

I share this appreciation, for example I disagree with much popular Youtuber Stefan Molyneux says, specifically in reference to his views on virtue, women, and the use of corporal punishment, but nevertheless I still very much enjoy his reasoning process, and therefore respect him as a thinker in spite of our differences in opinion.

When it comes to the red pill or anything for that matter, you should take what works and discard what doesn’t. Realise that whenever you read something, even if its backed by scientific data that specifically supports the argument, the data used to support an argument has almost always been hand-picked with that argument in mind. Scientific studies are no more infallible than the agenda of the funding source (the study’s reason for existing) as well as how results are interpreted and applied. Science is easily corrupted or obfuscated, any funding for specific desire of outcome, or any social politics which infect academia easily undermine the neutrality, and therefore applicability of the results.

Not all opinions are equal, some are closer to truth than others, some are better thought and better articulated than others, but opinions are no more than opinions. This blog is a collection of opinions. I was once asked “how I can be so sure about what I say when not everything I say can surely be fact?”. This blog is the sum of my opinions; I am sure of what I say because I find no superior alternative, I accept my conclusions are not perfect truth in so much as they are superior albeit flawed renditions of it.

It is your duty to yourself to adopt opinions you believe and discover will benefit you, whilst respectfully disagreeing with those that are no help and outright discarding those that would hinder you. The quest for truth and the quest for happiness are mutually exclusive, rightfully as the bible asserts “for with much wisdom comes much sorrow”, and therefore if happiness is your goal, bias towards a way of being which promotes self-happiness becomes unavoidable.

Remember, you only left wonderland because wonderland failed to keep you happy. Had it kept you happy, you’d still be there. Not because you couldn’t escape if you put your mind to it, but because when a dream is enjoyable, one wishes not to open their eyes.

5.) In Closing:

Amongst the discussion had by red pill readers and writers, somewhere in the middle of it all is a perfect truth in reference to the nature of women. However this truth, even if we could grasp it, is so nuanced, intangible and inconceivably complex that it defies measurement and summation. One should not search for perfect truth, because there is no such thing present within the limits of human understanding. As such, one would do well to understand that the red pill is not a perfect truth in so much as it is a sufficient one.

Realise people are shaped by the sum of their life experiences, and this in turn dictates their personal morality. It is due to the experiences of many thousands of men that the red pill has been able to uncover the threads of truth pertaining to the relationship between men and women. Truly, no one man could ever hope to develop such an advanced understanding by himself. Your application of this knowledge is a choice only you can make, use what works, discard what doesn’t, and come to your own conclusions. Toe-a-line or toe no line, the red pill doesn’t care.

6.) Relevant Reading:

The spiritual predecessor to the article pre-dating this one can be found here – I wholly recommend it.

Buy “Might is Right or Survival of the Fittest” in the USA
Buy “Might is Right or Survival of the Fittest” in the UK
Buy “Might is Right or Survival of the Fittest” in Canada
Buy “Beyond Good and Evil” in the USA
Buy “Beyond Good and Evil” in the UK
Buy “Beyond Good and Evil” in Canada
Buy “On the Genealogy of Morals” in the USA
Buy “On the Genealogy of Morals” in the UK
Buy “On the Genealogy of Morals” in Canada

“We often confuse what we wish for with what is.” – Neil Gaiman

Contents:
1.) Introduction
2.) Degrees of AWALT
3.) Defying One Element of AWALT Doesn’t Make A NAWALT
4.) Why AWALT Denial Is Pandemic
5.) Bitterness & Accepting AWALT
6.) In Closing
7.) Relevant Reading

1.) Introduction:

What is AWALT? Superficially, it’s an acronym that stands for “all women are like that.” Psychologically, it’s a heuristic for evaluating female mating behaviours. How is a heuristic defined? Well according to “the free dictionary” it’s:

“a usually speculative formulation serving as a guide in the investigation or solution of a problem”

This is exactly what AWALT is, a speculative formation serving as a guide in the investigation of female behaviour. The pseudo-intellectual takes immediate issue with the word “all”, and in their grand pedanticism, immediately ceases investigating the utility of the heuristic.

AWALT does not claim that “all women are the same”, this is patently false, and is as such an absurd claim to make. Rather, AWALT presupposes that women are collectively governed by a set of underlying principles which drives their behaviour. It then alludes to the principles, as well as the behaviours which result from said principles whenever they become relevant in discussion.

For example, hypergamy, solipsism, Machiavellianism and immaturity are principles which make up the AWALT umbrella. Behaviours resulting from those principles would be branch swinging, blame shifting and emotional impulsiveness, among others.

This does not mean all women act on these behavioural drivers in the same way, or that said behaviours manifest to the same degree or frequency. The degree to which, and the frequency of which AWALT traits manifest certainly differs from woman to woman, but that is all that differs, the degree and frequency of behaviour, not the type of behaviour.

So while women may be different in personality or hobby, they are still women, and therefore in matters of mating, prone to specific behaviours. For example, one woman may branch swing often, another may branch swing rarely, but both will at some point, branch swing. This is just something women do. AWALT identifies this and accepts this. AWALT broken down to the most basic level is simple acknowledgement of aspects relating to female nature, no more, no less.

When a red pill man says “women branch swing, AWALT” what does he mean? He means women don’t leave relationships until they have a new one lined up. Just because one woman has had ten relationships in the past two years, and another has had two relationships in the past ten years, the difference in frequency of behaviour does not alter the underlying nature which causes the behaviour to manifest. A woman is a woman whether she is very hypergamous, or a little hypergamous, consciously Machiavellian, or subconsciously Machiavellian.

People who believe NAWALT (not all women are like that) reject the notion there is any such thing as “female nature”, and that such a nature dictates women’s mating behaviour. They would for example, point to a woman who has been in a relationship for the past five years and say “see, she doesn’t branch swing, NAWALT!”

Not only is she the exception that proves the rule, but were she to look for another relationship, she would in all likelihood cease to be the exception. If she didn’t branch swing on that one occasion, she may on another. If she never branch swings, she merely becomes the exception in regard to one aspect of AWALT. A woman consistently refuting one aspect of AWALT does not refute it in all aspects, she only refutes the aspect of the heuristic she does not represent.

A woman who refutes all aspects of AWALT is known as a unicorn, mythologically named, because such things do not exist. Just as mythology is fiction, so is the woman who refutes all aspects of AWALT. Outlier women and self-aware women who work to mitigate their nature will behaviourally refute some aspects of AWALT, but most women will refute none.

2.) Degrees of AWALT:

Humanity is diverse, so inevitably there’s going to be an exception in some form or another which disproves a certain aspect of the AWALT contention. And yet despite human diversity, there is incredible similarity among women. So much so that, we can qualitatively outline the “operating system of female behaviour” and to differing degrees, find conformity to the arguments made by AWALT.

Sure not all women are gold diggers who will only date millionaires, but many won’t date a man of equal or lesser net worth. Sure some women date poorer men, but such a man is likely to be highly popular or attractive. However you cut it, AWALT will contend women are hypergamous. Will hypergamy always manifest in one exact manner? No, of course not, it is not that “women are all the same” it’s more a case of “women all have the same instincts and are therefore predisposed to specific kinds of behaviour.”

Hypergamy can manifest as a desire for resources, superior genes, social status – any of these things. People tend to get caught up on the material when thinking of hypergamy, but to really distil it down to its fulcrum, hypergamy means “a woman will only date someone she believes to be superior to her”.

So the fact a woman dates a man poorer than her does not mean she isn’t hypergamous, he has something else going on either physically, socially or psychologically that makes her believe he is superior, if this wasn’t the case, she wouldn’t be with him. However you cut it, non-hypergamous women do not exist – hence AWALT.

3.) Defying One Element of AWALT Doesn’t Make A NAWALT:

In section 1 I used the example of branch swinging to show how defying one aspect of AWALT does not mean a woman is a NAWALT. In this section I will elucidate that point further as it is this point in particular which allows some people to rationalise NAWALT as a truism.

You may know a woman who often takes responsibility for her actions, but AWALT claims women are notorious blame shifters. That specific woman thus defies AWALT in this one aspect. This does not mean she doesn’t branch swing, isn’t hypergamous, or doesn’t friend zone men so she can enjoy boyfriend level commitment without actually dating. This one woman who defies this one aspect of AWALT does not disprove AWALT, she is merely the exception to one aspect of it.

Whilst different women may defy different aspects of AWALT, no woman defies all aspects of it. This woman is known by the mythical term ‘unicorn’ precisely because she doesn’t exist. A unicorn is effectively the idealised woman who has none of the negative qualities we identify women as having. A “good woman”, such as one of those over at red pill women tries to suppress the aspects of her nature inherent to AWALT, the fact she need to suppress these aspects at all demonstrates the point – all women are like that. If they weren’t, there would be nothing for aware women to actively work to suppress.

No veteran in the online men’s community believes in NAWALT, a NAWALT (meaning not all women are like that) implies there is a woman out there who behaves in none of the ways central to which AWALT claims. That is the unicorn, and the unicorn is a lie – an idealised mythological remnant of blue pill programming. The idea that a woman who is not hypergamous, Machiavellian, immature, solipsistic and all the rest exists out there. Think of the NAWALT unicorn as El Dorado, you’ve heard all about it, a buddy of yours may have even been on an expedition to go and find it, but neither you nor anybody you know has ever found it.

AWALT doesn’t mean women can’t learn to be better partners given the right instruction, it means if they don’t receive and happily abide by such instruction, they will showcase the very worst aspects of AWALT (extreme hypergamy, immaturity, disloyalty etc). A woman in her natural, unsculpted state is prone to the very worst of AWALT, because women of substance are made not born.

4.) Why AWALT Denial Is Pandemic:

Women have negative aspects to their nature, but most men don’t want to believe in these negative aspects. Omnipresent blue pill programming exacerbates the instinct to ignore female wrong-doing by socialising men to pedestalise women. Men have a hard-wired cognitive bias to overlook, or even deny the negative aspects of female nature. Nature is afraid if men see women for what they truly are, that they will fail to reproduce.

If you knew a man who was solipsistic, blame shifting and immature, you’d hate him, cuss him out, mock him and probably cease association with him. But women get a free pass for exhibiting these traits, on some innate level it is known these rather deplorable traits are part of the feminine package, and as such, are tolerated when exhibited by women.

No matter how terrible women can be, men want to enjoy them in spite of themselves, they’re driven to, for men are the true romantics. Men may not love as easily as women, but when they do, they do so more deeply. It is out of this desire to be happy with a woman that men will deny AWALT, or exempt a particular woman from it. This is why psychologically, love is a particularly risky proposition for man, for he is prone to lose his sanity in order to drink from the poisoned chalice of fantasy.

5.) Bitterness & Accepting AWALT:

A subset of high value men who don’t commit beyond sex, have a very rosy-perception of women because they’ve got their game down enough not to face too much difficulty getting laid.

These men enjoy the best of what women have to offer without being subject to any of the bullshit attached to it; this gives them a positively skewed bias. They go around thinking “hey women are great, I love fucking and flirting with ’em, those dudes saying AWALT on TRP are just bitter!”

Perhaps some men are bitter, but bitter rarely means wrong, if anything, bitterness is the unwelcome by-product of a hard learned lesson, it is neither unwarranted nor devoid of wisdom. This is not to encourage bitterness, but rather to give credit where credit is due.

This is why many hate the AWALT heuristic in spite knowing in their heart of hearts it’s true. Instinct obscures truth when it comes to the study of women, men are overridden by idealism, lust and paternalism and feel if they accept the nature of women then they have to hate women and won’t be able to enjoy them. Therefore a man is prone to retain the myth of the idealised women rather than accept AWALT, because he wrongly believes acceptance of AWALT is tantamount to an inability to enjoy women.

This is not true at all, sometimes one has to accept reality is not what they want it to be, that women are not angelic as so many men were wrongly taught, but that in fact women are far more flawed than even they. It’s about a recalibration of expectations to complement reality, rather than continuing to worship the unicorn myth that society has so deeply ingrained.

In spite of this realisation, you have to make a commitment to your happiness and make the best out of the flawed creatures that are women. If you can’t or won’t do that, you’re going to go your own way and prove nature right: you need illusions to see women as investable. This is not meant to shame your life choice if you are MGTOW, it is merely a statement of fact in relation to it.

The inability to grasp and accept AWALT, instead choosing to reject AWALT, indicates the person in question has to deceive themselves about the nature of women in order to be able to enjoy them. Such a person is not at the stage where they can enjoy women whilst accepting how immensely flawed their nature is. It is my contention that salvation lies in accepting and working in accordance with AWALT, rather than denying it. I do not believe the majority of men will be happy going their own way, but for those that can make it work for them, great.

6.) In Closing:

I know this knowledge can prove painful and that’s why many men struggle with this, but your struggle doesn’t alter her nature. You can sit on Reddit until you pass out debating pedantic little points in regard to AWALT, but AWALT will remain a truism that persists and women in your life will hurt and disappoint you until you concede to reason – all women are like that.

7.) Relevant Reading:

Buy “The Rational Male” in the USA
Buy “The Rational Male” in the UK
Buy “The Rational Male” in Canada
Buy “The Rational Male: Preventive Medicine” in the USA
Buy “The Rational Male: Preventive Medicine” in the UK
Buy “The Rational Male: Preventive Medicine” in Canada

“If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.” – Niccolo Machiavelli

Contents:
1.) Introduction
2.) The Maxims
3.) Relevant Reading / In Closing

1.) Introduction:

Rather than my usual dense and lengthy prose, I treat you to the insights of a Machiavellian. Originally written as reminders for myself rather than as an essay for the consumption of my readers, they can be likened to the Machiavellian’s equivalent of Marcus Aurelius’ meditations. Enjoy.

2.) The Maxims:

1. – Any and all weaknesses can be used against you, and in conflict, will be. As such, weaponise your weaknesses by making them known; hide them in plain sight. Wear your weaknesses like armour, flaunt them, and you deprive your opponents the use of ammunition that would otherwise discredit you.

2. – If weakness is speculated, deny it. If weakness is known, spin it. If it is directly observed, dismiss it. Should it look profitable, leverage it for status in the victimhood hierarchy.

3. – Justification can only exist in respectful exchanges. When you are disliked, justifications are deemed excuses, your guilt, pre-determined.

4. – Do not defend against your attackers, attack them; justification is a Machiavellian fallacy. Do not justify, stipulate. [More Here]

5. – People are like stocks, acquire assets, avoid/drop liabilities and ignore market rumours; acquire insider information wherever possible.

6. – The only difference between the toxic and the unlucky is the unlucky bring you down inadvertently, avoid both.

7. – Attacks reveal intent, defence reveals priority. You don’t defend the unimportant. You don’t attack allies unless it’s a decoy, this simple concept can be extrapolated to any situation.

8. – The battle of the sexes is the only war where crushing the opposition isn’t victory. No, a man must avoid checkmate and stalemate, he must continuously put his woman in check. This and only this is victory for both sides.

9. – Everything is war in a different set of clothing. Love, business, politics, wherever there are competing interests there is a battlefield, and wherever there is a battlefield, there is war.

10. – When things fall apart, be ready for total war.

11. – Don’t insult the king in the throne room. If you must insult him, do so only amongst those you are confident share a mutual disdain. Lèse-majesté is dangerous, in this context a king is anyone you rely on socially, politically, economically etc.

12. – Lust of all kinds begets deceit, desire is good until it isn’t.

13. – Machiavellianism is the art of wielding power, how it’s wielded is determined by the wielder’s morality or lack thereof. Don’t blame the strategy, blame the soul of its employer. [Read more here.]

14. – Machiavellianism does not determine one’s morals, one’s morals determine the use of Machiavellianism. He who believes he is too moral for Machiavellianism is no more moral than he is an idiot.

15. – When people don’t like you, their questions are attacks. Sometimes these attacks are disguised as concerns, other times they are blatant. Whenever you’re asked a question, judge the legitimacy of the question. Insincere questions must be met with insincere answers, if any answer at all.

16. – Do not trust those who overwhelm you with questions. They may simply be very curious, but it is more likely they are searching for dents in your armour. The line between curiosity and interrogation is thin, and people do not wear uniforms.

17. – Doubling down on your position or ignoring the challenge usually trumps an apology.

18. – Ignore your ignorer. To ignore your ignorer is to enter a war of most silent attrition. Who will speak first when silence is golden? Whoever speaks first loses. Whoever speaks first admits they need the other more, no matter what plausible deniability they may retroactively invoke to disguise the fact.

19. – Ignoring is a non-response response; no response is a neutral response. Lots of neutral responses hint at a negative underlying sentiment, for people who like you struggle to ignore you.

20. – Where bullying fails, charm succeeds and where charm fails, bullying succeeds. One should substitute in hard power when soft power fails and vice versa.

21. – People are enticed by the allure of circumvention, operating outside the rules carries its own thrill. People feel good when they get away with things.

22. – The trick to dealing with psychopaths lies in possessing a full awareness of the conditionality of the transaction, for they are scant in sentiment.

23. – Not knowing what a psychopath wants from you is equivalent to operating within a perpetually detonating flashbang. If you cannot discern what they want, cease dealings.

24. – Being charming is the result of happiness or success, not of virtue. It is amusing that people oft fail to make this distinction, they conflate charm with virtue. As a matter of prudence, the more charming, the more dangerous.

25. – Whether you realise it or not, the powerful are always testing, always evaluating. They yield milligrams of respect only to those who consistently pass their evaluations; a fluke of success will not earn you their respect, it’ll get you a glance.

26. – Real victims suffer in silence, posers pretending to be victims do so to gain money and status. Be wary of “loud victims” they are almost always playacting.

27. – People don’t want to be betrayed, but most will betray if it suits them to; the standard of morality people demand of others is higher than that which they demand of themselves. The coldest psychopath will demand the deepest altruism and the most devout loyalty, beware cultishness then.

28. – Interpretation is always perverted to suit the agenda of the interpreter, whoever controls the flow of interpretation dominates.

29. – Trust the average woman as much as you trust your government, occasionally there’s a good candidate, most aren’t worth your vote.

30. – Strong personalities hate the weak and distrust the strong. A man who considers himself a king rarely wants to share the room with another.

31. – Never hesitate to work on your verbal dexterity, vocabulary and comprehension. Debate lots with people who don’t matter. Strong articulation is a form of soft power.

32. – There’s a lot of freedom in stupidity, playing dumb is oft profitable.

33. – Too much perception can niggle a person’s paranoia, perceptiveness is threatening to those aware of their ill-nature. In suspicious company, appear less perceptive.

34. – Appraise a rule by its worth. Do not defy a rule for the sake of defiance. Some rules protect the ruled, others protect rulers – distinguish.

35. – We’re all players in a game. You’re a player or a piece on the board, you move or you’re moved. You play the game, or the game plays you.

36. – You can’t not play the game. You don’t beat the game by denying the game; death’s the only escape from the game. Until then, play well to live well.

37. – Beware the encroacher, an individual characterised by ubiquitous and uninvited insertion of their person into your social affairs. Out of a need to be noticed in the desire for social elevation, whilst his status is inferior he will extend his hand with a smile. Once he moves past you, he will forget you, his intentions for you are not sincere, you are merely a piece in his ascent to success.

38. – The encroacher targets your popularity in an attempt to siphon it through association.

39. – The encroacher gives themselves away by either A: absence of pleasantry B: lacing their pleasantry with subtle and sporadic undermining. Do not be an encroacher, the quickest way to garner the favour of the powerful is to befriend them, not to irritate them with persistent public exhibitions of your self-ordained superiority.

40. – Charm trumps more aggressive manipulations when dealing with the perceptive. The perceptive like being charmed, their awareness of the seduction does not negate its effect.

41. – Always appeal to incentive, never to mercy.

42. – Too much perception is threatening, even intimidating, people distrust you when they realise you are as perceptive as you are, even if you mean them no ill will. When people know you have the potential to destroy them, like nuclear material, they quarantine you.

43. – Legitimate concern is rare, more often than not displayed concern is a means to an end, a foot in the door to seize the moral high ground.

44. – Anything you say can be twisted to make you look bad, and it will be, because that’s power. It’s how hearts and minds are won, politicians and the mass media do it for a living – neither is starving.

45. – If you have a firm grip on Machiavellianism, it will be difficult for women to exploit you. On the flip, they’ll be harder to love too.

46. – Narcissism is antifragile in the sense it makes no distinction between love & hate, only attention and inattention.

47. – The secretiveness of privacy drives people mad, even if there is nothing to hide, the reluctance to reveal creates suspicion. To ensure the safety of a secret, the existence of the secret must be kept secret. As soon as somebody becomes aware of a secret they know not the nature of, they will be compelled to unearth it at any cost, thus threatening the secret.

48. – The difference between an interview and an interrogation is merely a matter of perception, all interviews are a collection of shit tests.

49. – When you are being interrogated and don’t realise it, the topic will rapidly change in order to determine what you’re most uncomfortable with. This topic will then be focused on, I call this vulnerability reconnaissance.

50. – You nearly always learn more about somebody in an informal setting than you would a formal one. Paranoia and thus mental defences are greater in formal settings, to truly get to know somebody you must mingle informally. Of course, as much as this opens them up, it opens you up too.

51. – Advice that wasn’t asked for is rarely appreciated, let alone followed. Don’t give advice that isn’t asked for, don’t advise everybody who asks for your insight, only advise those you think worthy. An “I don’t know” will keep things civil without forcing you to waste time.

52. – When you advise people you reveal more about yourself than you perhaps realise, after all, your advice reflects the core of who you are, it reveals the why and how rather than merely the what. What’s are easy to change, why’s and how’s aren’t, they’re more identifying.

53. – If you want someone to implement your ideas, it’s better to make them think your idea is theirs. Plant the seed, give them credit for your thinking, and they’ll believe their repetition of your idea makes it their creation.

54. – The quickest way to gain people’s trust is to help them.

55. – Liking animals and being religious creates an appearance of uprightness.

56. – People don’t dislike being tricked, they hate realising they were tricked. Tell lies that cannot or will not be investigated, compulsive lying is the purview of the histrionic fool.

57. – Beauty oft conceals bad intentions.

58. – Be magnanimous to friends, civil to strangers and ruthless to foes; furthermore, know who’s who.

3.) Relevant Reading / In Closing:

If you enjoyed these maxims, I wholeheartedly recommend The Art of Worldly Wisdom, it’s full of rich yet succinct Machiavellianism wisdom. Easy to ingest and quick to read, I cannot recommend it enough. Rochefoucauld’s Maxims is likewise worth a look, although it focuses far more on human nature as a generality than it does Machiavellianism. Of course, as any budding Machiavellian knows, an intimate familiarity with human nature is all but necessary for the employment of effective strategy.

If you seek Machiavellian guidance, my dark triad subreddit opens up next month. Access will be quite limited, reserved to people I’ve come to know over the years, as well as particular patrons. I will give more information pertaining to this in my January announcement.

“The feminist movement taught women to see themselves as victims of an oppressive patriarchy….Self-imposed victimhood is not a recipe for happiness.” – Phyllis Schlafly

Contents:
1.) Introduction
2.) Gender Equality is a Myth
2a.) Women’s Advice Damages Men
2b.) Women’s Need for Male Superiority
2c.) Infantile Narcissism as the Basis for Feminism
2d.) Equality, Superiority, Feminism – A Summary
2e.) The Masculine Burden of Performance
3.) Feminism is a Siege on Masculinity
4.) Women Are the Second Sex Because They’re Needier
5.) In Closing
6.) Relevant Reading

1.) Introduction: 

Recently I received a message from a feminist asking me some basic questions about the red pill. I figured the amount of explaining required to articulate a quality response would necessitate the writing of an essay. Here’s the thing though, I don’t write individualised essays; it’s a poor allocation of a finite and unearnable resource: one’s time.

Not only that, but I believe it would be a shame if only one fellow got to enjoy such a rich and detailed response. As such, if I find myself penning a lengthy response to someone, there’s a good chance I’ll just make it into an article. After all, if one person is asking these questions, others probably share similar curiosities.

Anybody curious about the red pill, or struggling to grasp it due to an inability to reconcile it with feminist or egalitarian beliefs should start here; this one’s for you. I should warn you, this is one of my more lengthier posts, so you may want to go and grab a cup of coffee before you get right into the thick of things.

2.) Gender Equality is a Myth:

Question: “To you, what is the central tenet of the red pill position?”

The core of the philosophy is built on the idea that gender equality is a myth. Men are required by women to be superior in order to be attractive, women don’t find equality sexy, even if they claim the contrary.

Women don’t make it easy for men, most are not fully cognisant of what they want and will not tell lost boys how to be men, even if they themselves have some sort of idea of what “being a man” entails. Let’s assume a magical woman exists who knows everything about being a man and is fit to educate men in the ways of manhood (humour me); the act of this woman teaching the clueless man how to be masculine would be the very thing that makes him undesirable, assuming there was some kind of physical attraction to begin with.

A man can be attracted to a woman whose femininity he is cultivating, but the reverse is not so. A woman doesn’t want to cultivate a man’s masculinity, she wants to find a man who’s already generously endowed with it. Sure, women will try to rehabilitate bad boys due to their primal attraction to psychopathy, but a “bad boy” has masculinity even if it’s of the negative type; domesticating the desirable and building up the undesirable are entirely disparate phenomena. Women will more than gladly engage in the former, but scarcely if ever the latter.

2a.) Women’s Advice Damages Men:

Women’s advice to men is not fit for purpose, even when they mean well, their inextricable solipsism leaves them unable to give actionable advice that will yield lasting and tangible benefit. A woman’s solipsism dictates her inability to understand how she becomes attracted, to her, attraction is “mysteriously magical”, and as such, a form of incomprehensible magnetism that a man either has or hasn’t.

One of the reasons many women have a simultaneous disgust and intrigue for the red pill, is because among other reasons, it teaches unattractive men how to be attractive. And the mere idea that attraction is teachable implies it is mundane and mechanical, rather than mysterious and magical as a woman’s fantasy prone emotions would drive her to believe.

Rather than tell clueless men they need to be dominant, put her in her place and act like more of a jerk, women will oft opt for the non-confrontational bullshit approach: “be kind and understanding, listen to her problems, and she’ll realise what a great guy you are!” In fact rather than help a man, a woman will often use misinformation as a filtering mechanism to benefit her own sexual strategy.

Women will tell men to be kind, sweet, supplicating and deferential, and if he’s idiotic enough to take the advice, she’ll reject him precisely because he did what she said. Many men have had their hearts crushed in youth because they were clueless, listened to the thoroughly unhelpful girl interpretation of what constitutes an attractive male, and ended up with nothing but rejection dressed in the clothing of compliments.

For example:

“You’re so nice, you’re like a brother to me – I don’t want to ruin that!”

As well as condescending platitudes such as

“You’re a real catch, I know there’s a really great woman out there for you, you’ll find her some day I just know it!”

Completely disregarding the fact that, this man doesn’t want “the great women out there”, but in fact desires the woman telling him to fuckoff romantically in the kindest yet least helpful way possible.

Whoever thought such flattering words could harbour such condemning frustration? Who among man knew rejection could sound so god damn complimenting? These are the very phrases a man never wishes to hear from a woman, rejection is something men can process and learn from, but rejection disguised as encouragement simply fucks up a young and impressionable man’s mind.

A lot of red pill men were raised by feminist women, followed feminist advice, and found nothing but misery. As soon as they discarded the notion of gender equality as an operative social model, focused on themselves and became more behaviourally dominant, their relationships with women both sexually and platonically begun improving dramatically.

2b.) Women’s Need for Male Superiority:

The feminine need for men to be better than them is the reason nice guys finish last and “those jerks” get all the women, nice guys behave in a manner which communicates submission and inferiority, whilst jerks behave in a manner that communicates dominance and superiority. Social dominance is important to women, in fact it is probably the most significant attraction cue in a woman’s determination of whether a man is desirable or not, although thanks to feminism, you’ll scarcely hear a woman (or even man) tell you that in this day and age.

Women are attracted to men they perceive to be superior, equals and inferiors are invisible to women. The equals and inferiors are “the creeps” if they’re ugly, and brother zoned as a marriage backup for when she hits 29 if they’re attractive. The red pill refers to the female desire for male superiority as hypergamy, hypergamy is the fulcrum on which female attraction operates: is the man more dominant than her? If yes, he’s attractive, if not, he isn’t.

This handy flow chart pretty much summarises female attraction in a nutshell:

2c.) Infantile Narcissism as the Basis for Feminism:

The reason women oft say “I believe men and women are equal” and actually believe their own nonsense is because of the fragile feminine ego. Many women are uncomfortable with the idea that they are the second sex. The childish insecurity quintessential of the feminine is exploited by feminism, encouraging women to compete with rather than complement the masculine.

The fruits of this very successful, yet deleterious propaganda has created successive generations of women who are not entirely cognisant of, and undervalue the importance inherent to their “inferior position” – the species dependence on their nurturing of the young. This is a woman’s calling as much as a man’s is to protect and provide, and yet feminists, like spoiled children who think they deserve better, reject their biological destiny in a quest to feel like they’re the primary sex.

Men are the primary sex because they build civilization, women are the second sex because they have added and continue to add very little to civilization. But still, even in the secondary position, there is a great deal of importance in women’s role. Nurturing the species is no small feat, and women being taught to disdain rather than embrace this role are doing not just themselves, but the species an indomitable disservice.

Only the most lesbianic feminist could see motherhood, domestic life and complementary subservience to a benevolent patriarch as “oppressive”. Quite the contrary, permitting women to deploy their sexual strategies so that they may reproduce in security is anything but oppressive.

2d.) Equality, Superiority, Feminism – A Summary:

When a woman says “men and women are equal” it’s only ever in regard to something in which men are objectively superior, never in an aspect in which women are regarded superior. Wherever a woman is regarded as inferior, culture will be blamed rather than biology. For example, women are inferior to men at mathematics – feminism will blame “lad culture” and the prevalence of “old white men in the sciences” rather than admit women have less logical and systematising brains than men.

Women have inferior musculature to men (less muscle mass) and again, the feminist approach will always idiotically take a 100% nurture position, attributing blame entirely to socialisation. Feminists ignore the differences in the male and female brain in matters of mathematical and scientific ability, and likewise do the same in athletic matters, ignoring the anabolic nature of testosterone, a hormone men have ten times more of than women.

Now if you asked a woman who believes in gender equality which sex is better with children, almost all will say “women are better”. So when women are actually inferior, you get this equality nonsense (because feminine infantile narcissism feels unimportant when admitting inferiority), but where women excel, you get female superiority (feminine infantile narcissism likes feeling important). Essentially, feminists reframe male supremacy as equality, whilst allowing and even encouraging female supremacy to flourish under the same guise.

This is why anybody worth their salt quite rightly identifies contemporary third wave feminism as a misguided female supremacy movement, rather than one of egalitarianism. But, just for the record and to clarify the point here, even if third wave feminism were egalitarianism like first wave feminism was, red pill philosophy would still disagree with it. The red pill believes in traditional gender roles, of which egalitarianism infringes upon.

Women need men to be superior to them to be attracted to them, but out of ego do not wish to admit inferiority. This is why you have this strange compartmentalisation where women only pursue men of superior genes, wealth and status to them, but then claim equality in all aspects in which they are inferior. If women truly believed in gender equality as an absolute, they would be attracted to men who are objectively inferior to them. As they don’t, we can deduce that women (even feminists) don’t really believe in gender equality, but merely use it as a tool of no real defined shape, which in all its fluidity, is utilised for no purpose other than to provide women with short-term benefit.

2e.) The Masculine Burden of Performance:

Of course the necessitation of male superiority in order to elicit female attraction has far wider implications than simply displeasing the feminine ego. It means men have a far greater burden of performance, that men are innately insufficient, and that it is their contemporary capacity to perform which determines their sufficiency. This is why you will hear “he’s not a real man” but never “she’s not a real woman”; manhood is precarious, earned each day, womanhood is a certainty, conferred by menstruation.

Women do not have the burden of performance that men do, women are valuable by merit of their existence, whereas men are valuable only when they can perform or produce, eg: amass wealth or behave dominantly. As soon as a man can no longer do these things (particularly the latter), he is no longer considered a man.

This is why many men who lost their jobs in the 2008 economic depression found their wives divorcing them, some killing themselves after the fact as a gentle nod to Darwin; whilst their unremarkable middle of the bell curve ex-wives survived by simply remarrying. Because men must invest more, men find it harder to move on, because women are provided for and invested into, they don’t. A woman will almost always take the one thing she invests most into with her, the children; a man loses everything he invested into.

This is the masculine burden of performance, and it is this constant unending need for men to perform which makes masculinity precarious. Just because a man is considered a man today, it does not mean he will be tomorrow. A man who stops behaving dominantly is not considered a “real man” by either his fellow men or women; manhood is contingent on ability, whereas womanhood is contingent on fertility and motherhood.

A woman can behave however she likes, earn as much or as little as she likes, and she will not lose her gender identity to her inability to perform, women have freedom that men do not, the freedom to fail. So yes, women may be the second sex, but that position of diminished responsibility confers a privilege men will never know. Of course, a childish narcissist could never know that.

3.) Feminism is a Siege on Masculinity:

Question: “Are men, contrary to popular opinion, worse off in today’s society than women?”

I think feminism made the entire institution of family (and thus boys as well as girls) worse off than they were pre-feminism. However, I think boys are effected far more markedly than girls are by father absence, because boys need their fathers around in order to emulate them and actualise their masculinity. Deprive a boy his paternal connection, and you do catastrophic damage to his psyche.

Boys and men need sufficient exposure to the masculine existential viewpoint, but the contemporary feminist dominated society we have in the west does its best to prevent men from accessing their own genders viewpoint; how it accomplishes this is by constantly interjecting the feminine viewpoint into everything as to silence the male voice. And this “feminine viewpoint” feminism espouses isn’t even a healthy form of femininity, it’s a toxic, lesbianic man hating one. It teaches girls assertiveness, and boys self-flagellation (the very thing they eschew for women).

This is harmful to both sexes, for it encourages androgyny and confusion, it induces femininity wherever masculinity is needed, and masculinity wherever femininity is needed. Feminism is about the destruction of gender identities. Rather than accept the biological elements of binary masculinity and femininity, feminism reduces them to mere social constructs and then does irreparable psychological harm by confusing men and women alike.

Although feminism misleads both sexes, it only attacks and vilifies one of them, men. Although feminism misleads both sexes, it only deprives one of them their same-sex parent, boys. So while I wouldn’t perhaps characterise the plight of the modern man as “being worse off in relation to women”, I would say the modern man has far less support than the modern woman does. I’d then use this argument to further contend that the reason the red pill is as popular as it is, is precisely because there are no alternatives.

Feminism declares war upon the hairy, sweating and arched back which holds up humanity, declares it evil, and self-righteously prods it until it falls, leaving nothing but chaos in its wake. Feminism is toxic gynocentrism which reframes the male existential viewpoint as the point of all evil, so it cares not for men, nor masculinity, feminism has very little interest in the masculine outside of exploiting and undermining it, for masculinity is the feminist enemy on which war has been declared.

4.) Women Are the Second Sex Because They’re Needier:

Question: “Do you consider yourself sexist or think of yourself as hating women?”

Yes to sexist (because I recognise the differences between men and women) but no to hating them as a result of that. I don’t respect women simply for being women, they have to earn my respect with good character. Cultivating a pleasing appearance earns lust, not respect. Most women don’t realise this, because beauty is power and feminism encourages narcissism, modern women believe they’re entitled to respect merely by merit of being female, doubly so if they’re attractive – this is not so.

Feminism teaches that women are entitled to respect regardless of character, this leads to a lot of reprehensible women believing they are intrinsically entitled to something they haven’t earned. Again, this can be explained by childish narcissism.

Imagine a movement which defined parents as oppressive of their children, and that children deserve the right to make their own decisions without their parents denying them “independence” and “autonomy”. Sounds crazy, right? Well this is how I see feminism.

Women need men a lot more than vice versa, it is in women’s interest to have men take care of them. If women could take care of themselves, they wouldn’t rely on the federal threat of force to redistribute the tax dollars of productive working age men to unemployed single mothers, furthermore they wouldn’t need an ideology to legally enforce such a process.

If women were equal or even superior to men, they wouldn’t need an ideology to state the obvious, everybody would intuit that women were superior and would therefore not need institutional inculcation to ingrain the notion. The reason we keep hearing men and women are equal is precisely because they’re not, it is customary of infantile narcissism to cope with a reality it doesn’t like by profusely denying it, denying it to the point that the lie becomes the new reality – that women are in fact equal to men.

In fact, much of modern women’s strides in the economy come from the death of femininity, supplanted by women’s adoption of masculine behaviours. Truth be told, even when women emulate male dominance as commanded by their feminist overlords, they’re still unable to compete with men economically without a political lobby artificially holding them up. And they’re not meant to compete with men, they’re meant to complement them – that’s the entire point, feminism is unnecessarily divisive.

Free markets are meritocratic, there is no affirmative action or benevolent sexism. Even if we disregard economic concerns and focus purely on the psychological, few women are truly happy if single. The vast majority of women need to be in a relationship with a man they respect to feel satisfied and successful. Likewise, most women do not want a relationship with a man that makes significantly less than them, so desire for a man who does is going to be minimal.

However you cut it, whichever angle you wish to poke and prod, however you wish to analyse the relationship between men and women by desperately trying to force the feminist puzzle piece to fit, women are the indisputable second sex. And when they’re artificially put into a position of power, dominance and leadership, rarely is such a woman content.

A resounding difference between men and women is that, although humans in general are power hungry, only men fully enjoy the fruits of power. Men cope with power better, and are happier for having it. Give a woman the highest position available, and you create a miserable woman, a woman who has shrunk her dating pool of eligible bachelors to almost zero, who grows disdain daily for the burdens that encumber her.

Women are happier when they’re following because it’s less stressful, and there’s less accountability involved. Feminism makes them think they need to beat men at everything to be successful women, when the reality couldn’t be further from the truth.

Men have never, and will never need women to take care of them, the reverse is untrue. Men took care of women for tens of thousands of years, this is the unwritten social contract, men provide and protect, women nurture – this is a natural balance that works just fine.

Then a political movement comes along and says “hey, you know those guys paying the bills, putting the food on the table and going to war to protect you from men who would rape you? Yeah those men are evil, they’re oppressing you.” – it is diabolical to me that given the opportunity to free themselves of any responsibility, even the pitiful responsibility of running a house, women threw the baby out with the bathwater. They exchanged service to men personally invested in them for service to men with no personal investment in them (corporations and big government).

Why the hell would you want to go and work the arduous jobs men work when you can stay at home, raise your children you adore, and not have to worry about deadlines and work politics? Feminism lies, it acts as if women were strictly prohibited from working before its inception with dramatic imagery of women locked up in kitchens. Women had jobs before feminism, it just wasn’t common because most had the luxury of not needing to work. Modern women don’t have that luxury, all courtesy of feminism.

Work is not a privilege, it’s a responsibility, and so it humours me that women were duped into perceiving additional responsibility as additional privilege, simply because it was wrapped up in a banner of independence which played into their narcissistic status anxiety.

5.) In Closing:

As an addendum and before I forget, if you’re a young man looking for some mentoring, /u/tizenkotoko (the gentleman who made that pretty flow chart for me) is a father looking to take a young red piller under his wing. Get in touch with him if this sounds like something you’d be interested in, and before you ask, no, sorry, I’m not open to mentoring at this time.

Any questions or insights? Leave a comment!

6.) Relevant Reading:

The Empress Is Naked
The Manipulated Man
The Rational Male
The Rational Male: Preventive Medicine
The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men
The Way of Men

I’ve been blogging (almost constantly, but not quite) since November 2013, and in the entirety of that time, I’ve never been as excited about what I’m doing with Illimitable Men as I am now. So what’s changed since I first begun?

My writing isn’t as bad as it used to be, the secret to good writing (well at least what I believe to be the strength of my writing in particular), is logical and clearly explained thinking articulated with explanative yet concise prose. This means I don’t spend as much time editing as I used to, and I find it easier (and thus quicker) to produce a higher standard of quality. As the saying goes, practices makes perfect, if anything is testament to that, it’s this blog.

I had important things to say when I began blogging back in 2013, if I didn’t, I would not have begun blogging to begin with. However, the difference between now and then is that I find saying what I want to say with the clarity I want to say it with far more effortless. I don’t really get brain fog when writing anymore, it all flows clearly for me, but when I begun, it wasn’t like that, it was a real slog at times. I’ve missed workouts and been up to the early hours before perfecting posts – such is the extent of my dedication.

What used to take me 10 hours I can now create in roughly half that, and with greater polish. I know my grammar’s not perfect, but I don’t care, I know it’s good enough to go into print as the complaints I used to get have all but dried up.

In fact, editing my old work is why my book is taking so long to come out, I could release it in a couple of weeks with the original grammar if I wanted a fast buck, but, quality, integrity and credibility of the Illimitable Men name is more important to me than a financial event that’ll yield a couple thousand, possibly tens of thousands of dollars. Yes I like money, but not at the expense of the quality I hope you’ve come to associate with this publication.

It probably took me a solid year and a half to “perfect” my writing. As I’m sure you’re all aware, the internet is full of grammar nazis, and it is by embracing their ruthless scrutiny I’ve managed to enhance my grammar considerably. I am the bastard student of the internet’s grammar nazis, and for that dear internet, I thank you profusely.

I’m starting to make more than negligible amounts of money, I don’t want to reveal exactly how much (it isn’t really your business), although if you are nosy and care enough my Patreon income is easily calculated as it is public. Simply multiply the average given at the top of my profile page by the number of articles produced in any one month and you have a rough figure of what I made from Patreon that month. Of course, that’s not my only revenue stream, but it gives you a low-end estimate of what I’m making at the moment.

I didn’t start this blog to make money, but, I’m not going to bust ass for years on end producing the calibre of content that I do if there’s nothing in it. I blog for three reasons:

1. I really enjoy writing, philosophising and articulating my thoughts
2. I want to make money
3. I want to connect with interesting and influential people

I’m not going to bullshit you with the whole “hey I just love writing so much and I’m so rich anyway that money doesn’t matter to me” as so many on the internet do in a righteous affront to your intelligence, because that’d be lying and I’m candid enough to treat my readers with the respect they deserve. Wanting to make money isn’t a dirty sin I feel I need to hide.

The entrepreneur in me believes not monetising would be a crime even if I were inordinately rich. There is nothing noble about demanding no payment for your work, in fact, there’s an argument to be made it is evil as it perpetuates the notion others less well off should likewise not demand money for their work simply because a richer person in their field can afford to work for free.

If people see it is okay for a blogger at my modest yet far from beginner level to make money from their blog (although bear in mind I wrote for over a year before monetising), then smaller bloggers won’t feel guilty for wanting to make a buck from their hard work either. In this way, I hope to set a precedent – it’s perfectly fine to monetise your work so long as you don’t sacrifice its quality. Of course, if you suck, don’t expect anybody to hand you their precious dollars.

Don’t believe any blogger who says they don’t care if they make any money from their blog or not, especially if they work really hard at it. Some people get into blogging precisely to make money or meet powerful people, others don’t, but once they see they’re getting 14,000 views in a day (which is what I managed a few days back when I released  ‘Instruction For A Polite Feminist’) then very few people out there wouldn’t look to monetise that sort of audience. If you don’t monetise, you’re either inordinately rich and thus can’t be bothered, or you’re an idiot.

I have purposely avoided the implementation of video or banner advertisements on Illimitable Men, although I get advertisers e-mailing me from time to time offering to help make my website significantly uglier and more annoying for an amount that probably barely scratches $1,000 a month. No thanks, making money without annoying my readers is precisely why I use Patreon.

Money is not evil, and neither is earning from one’s efforts, you wouldn’t work for free so I don’t know why anybody would expect me to. To be honest, I think people who believe the world owes them something and that everything they want should be free are lazy losers who are simply unwilling to work harder to get what they want. Scarcity mindset is being frugal, abundance is growing your earning and social power, which is how I use this blog to provide me value whilst simultaneously providing value to my readers. I work hard, so I expect rewards, it’s that simple, however I digress.

I’m making contacts, I’m connecting with some very interesting/valuable people I’d probably never have met had it not been for this blog, so for that I’m extremely grateful. I don’t want to go into too much detail about that as I respect the privacy of the gentlemen who message me, but alas, this metric bears inclusion in my enthusiasm for my continued work. I intend to meet with a handful of my readers later in the year.

If you’re thinking of starting a blog, I recommend you do so for the reasons I have, and if networking in particular is important to you, put quality over quantity should you wish to attract the attention of people worth knowing. Anyhow, I’ve expended far more words than expected merely outlining why I’m so enthused by my work here, so onto the meat of the post – my plans for the blog this year!

The Illimitable Men Book – When’s It Coming?

In the passage above I briefly mentioned my as yet unreleased upcoming book, I know you’ve been waiting awhile, but you’ll thank me when on launch day you receive a text that is well formatted, readable and low on if not absent of mistakes. My sense of perfectionism will ensure you get a quality product, and I hope because of that, my text will contain the professionalism necessary to be enthusiastically purchased and gifted.

My timeline at present is the March/April window, I really don’t want to leave it any later than that. My main focus right now is on setting up my private dark triad forum and continuing to produce new content. If you wish to buy the book on release (99% sure I’ll retail for $14.99 – £9.99), register your interest here and you’ll be e-mailed a week before the book comes out notifying you of its impending release.

When my book comes out, my top 5 patrons (assuming they are fine with giving me their mailing addresses) will be sent a signed copy of my book and a hand written thank you note as a token of my gratitude for their support. I have no plans to sign books for anybody else in the near future, that’s a little something I want to reserve for my biggest supporters. I will Patreon message my top 5 supporters nearer to the release of the book, letting them know they’re eligible for a free signed copy as a token of my gratitude.

I am going to commission somebody to create a book cover for me (as I lack the skills necessary to create my own), however I have a one-off proposition for anybody up to the task. if you create a book cover I want to use, I will give you lifetime access to the dark triad board. Why do you care about that, what does lifetime access to the dark triad board actually mean and why would you want that? More on that in the next section. If nobody is up to the task, that’s fine, I have an Eastern European gentleman who’ll do it for $15, but the offer’s there should any of you be up to the task.

The Dark Triad Forum

I’m going to dedicate a lot of space to this section because the details I’ve released thus far have been scant, and I want to answer some of the questions publicly that keep popping up in my inbox. I mentioned in the Machiavellian Maxims post that I’d detail more about the nature of the dark triad forum later on, well here it is.

What will the dark triad forum discuss, and what are the benefits of being a member?

– Zero morality environment, we are strategy rather than morality based. If it’s effective to the user, it’s valid. I will kick people out who undermine strategy with moral arguments.

– The community and I will help your strategise your predicament, be that work politics, a rival, a business partner or whatever. You will have a small group of highly intelligent men to convene with.

– We will discuss and encourage texts conducive to enhancing one’s understanding of narcissism, psychopathy and strategy, among others.

– I/we will share and discuss scientific studies relevant to psychopathy and the dark triad.

– Topics will include: political strategy/statecraft (eg: The Prince), propaganda, advertising & PR, psychopathy, narcissism, rhetoric/sophistry and military strategy among others.

– I will write exclusive articles for the community from time to time, most will be blueprints or strategies for maneuvering within organisations, similar to RibbonFarm’s stuff but more specific, basically, blueprints for more aggressive uses of Machiavellianism. I will at some point probably pen pieces on how to use The 48 Laws of Power in the workplace too.

– Tightly regulated/exclusive, good degree of privacy. As the community is private and the barrier to entry is moderately high, troublesome users are easily banned, and search engine bots won’t be able to feed our conversations into search engines.

This is all I’m willing to reveal about the nature of the community to anybody who isn’t a part of it.

You said that $5 patrons get access to the board, but can I get access after a single donation?

Short answer, no. The community is a token of thanks to my patrons, not donators. If you become a patron for a month and then retract, you lose access when you retract your support. 2 major reasons for working things like this:

1 – I want to reward the people who fund my literature with something that brings them additional value, if I give it to donators then that shits on the guys who have already supported my writing for 6+ months. I know many of my patrons don’t support my writing solely for access to the dark triad forum, but I still want them to have something that is just for them.

2 – It ensures the community stays high value because only people serious enough about the subject matter are going to bother investing money to be part of it. Most people won’t be willing to pay to be part of a community, but a minority will, and I’m banking on that to keep forum growth steady, yet humble and thus exclusive. If I got too much interest I’d have to rethink how I funnelled in new members, maybe up the price or give current members a limited number of invites or something.

Minimum access at present is $5 per article for a minimum of 3 articles a month, that’s $15 per month or £10 in my money. It’s a bit costlier than Netflix, just far more useful. The $5 package on my Patreon is limited to 50 slots, when those 50 slots fill up it will double to the $10 package, meaning $30 or £20 a month. If a slot frees up (eg: someone stops pledging support) someone quick enough and lucky enough would be able to get in on the $5 50 slots package.

I’m not really willing to bust ass or put in the effort for $5 some dude sent me a year ago, that’s not really incentive. I know to some of you this will sound expensive, and for those of you who think that – you’re not my target audience.

I will release a Machiavellian/dark triad book eventually (not any time soon), so if you don’t have that kind of disposable income then don’t worry, save your money and get the book later on. Don’t feel like you’re left out, because I’m still going to be writing plenty here (including on the dark triad) and that doesn’t cost you a dime. If you’re tight for cash, please keep it, I don’t want your money.

I intend to open the dark triad forum later in the month (at the latest early next month) so you have until the end of this month to become a patron if you wish to have access to the community from the day it opens. You can become a patron by clicking here, or using the orange button in the top right corner of each page.

Podcasting:

Does IllimitableMan sound like a whiny teenage neckbeard whose balls haven’t dropped? I’m sure at some point in your reading this has been something you’ve pondered, for you know me only in the voice you read with, not the one I actually speak with.

I’ve been requested numerous times to start a podcast, or at least go on other peoples as people want to get a read on what my personality’s like and hear what I sound like. I’m down for this, however my connection where I live now isn’t great. Once I’ve moved house and acquired a connection that doesn’t lead to random words being omitted from the Skype call (this is what happened when we experimented with a pilot podcast a few months back), you will get to hear me.

What will the podcast be about? In all honesty, we’re probably just going to chat a whole bunch of shit. Relationship advice, ridiculing the lunacy of feminists, talking about self-improvement and work ethic, that kind of thing. When will this come out? Probably later in the year. My immediate priority is the dark triad forum, then getting the book out, so this will come after that. We’re looking June-July time at the earliest, probably later, not really a priority, but want you to know it’s in the eventual pipeline.

A Shout-out To Ed Latimore

Seeing as this is a meta post and it’s not often I make posts directly addressing my readers like this, I want to conclude this post with a shout out to up and coming self-improvement blogger, heavyweight boxer and physicist Ed Latimore of http://edlatimore.com/.

Ed is a great guy, and were it not for this blog, he is one of the great men I would not have had the pleasure of connecting with. If you like candid no-nonsense introspection and life advice from a guy on top of his shit, check Ed out, he doesn’t just talk the talk but he walks the walk too. Ed is definitely one to watch, and I’m nothing but happy to send him some additional readers.

To conclude:

As you can see, 2016’s a busy year, I’m juggling all the aforementioned alongside the penning of new articles. Thank you all for your readership, and here’s to a great 2016.

– Illimitable Man