Category Archives: Men

Male chain of command

I figured out how to deal with women before I figured out how to deal with men. For me, women have always had a special glow, something enticing. Turns out women, for me at least, are easier to deal with — it is instinctive for a woman to want to belong to a male’s in-group, if the fundamental requirement of the male demanding the need for the woman to belong to his in-group is met. This goes for all women, whether you have sex with them or not.

(so, theoretically, if a woman ever accuses you of raping her, the correct response would be to treat her with the fury of a thousand suns, while a single tear rolls down your cheek.)

With men it is different. It looks similar, but it’s totally different. Both shit-test, but if a woman shit-tests you, it is to figure out if you are strong enough for her to want to belong to your in-group. If a man shit-tests you, it is to figure out if you are weak enough for him to take your status. One tacitly invites conquerors, the other tacitly seeks to conquer.

Women belong to any in-group that conquers them, men form their own in-group.

Leftism is turning on the in-group by breaking down borders between in-group and out-group. Hence leftist fathers sacrificing their sons to the out-group; the ultimate in-group betrayal.

The Dark Enlightenment has broken free from the enlightenment by re-establishing in-group and out-group borders: you say you are with me? Prove it. And then prove it again. And again. Only in the act of cooperating with me do I know you are on my side.

The consequent question has been: how wide do we re-establish our in-group? Human eyes have big whites around their irises for communication, so it is obvious that we are at our strongest in a group. But which group?

The lie of white nationalism is that all the white men in all the nations share a special unspoken bond. This is nonsense, as observed in the leftist white father sacrificing his sons to the out-group. Similarly, I have heard enough war stories from my granddad to know that even close friends may betray one another when life or death is on the line. White men have a long history of stabbing each other in the back.

So we aim for a better means of cooperation. We consider religion — after all, religious movements are required for large scale cooperation, as nazism descended from lutheranism and as progressivism descended from puritanism, although neither of these are the religions we are looking for. Christianity did pull it off for a long time, so perhaps Christianity is the religion we’re looking for, but obviously, has its issues.

The thing about religion is that personnel is policy. You may have the most beautiful scripture in the world telling you how to do good, but if the preacher interprets it to do evil, it don’t mean squat. So it is not a matter of writing the scripture and calling it a day, it is a matter of tinkering and adjusting and tinkering, depending on your personnel.

The conclusion for optimal political cooperation is that we need a king, or an emperor, or a CEO, or a dictator. Whatever you want to call it. Put a white hetero male at the top. Well does not have to white, hetero, or male, it is just extremely likely that the person who by capability rises to the top will be white hetero male. Apex predators tend to do that. Like Trump.

In its simplest form, all our religion needs to say is that it is just for the apex predator to sit upon his throne. Essentially we’re saying: ‘look at this group of gorillas. Look at the alpha silverback. It is good that he is the alpha silverback. It is natural that he is the alpha silverback.’ Our intent with this is not some power-fantasy in which imagine ourselves as the alpha silverback, our intent is that if the chain of authority leads to a formalized leader, the chain of authority works, entirely in line with natural law. By giving the leader the power to say ‘no’ and to follow through on the act of saying ‘no’, we grant respect, honor and cooperation to the leader and his subjects. The system becomes human, as opposed to the mindless bureaucracy that inevitably accompanies a dying democracy.

Every functional group has a leader. That is simply the way things work.

So we are monarchs after all. Of course, we realize the system is imperfect: Trump will surely be a wise king, but what about his son, his grandson, his grand-grandson? There is no guarantee for quality through the generations. That is why it is the Dark Enlightenment: it recognizes that humans are imperfect and thus all attempts to bring in the next world into this are misguided at best, blatant lies at worst.

So we see that while men are not buddies 4 life, they aren’t islands either, and they in fact instinctively respect the chain of command. It is just that the need for the chain of command has to be demanded by its leader, has to meet an actual need.

On a Sky King twitter thread someone broke down how friendships between white males work. He said something in the lines of: white men share an unspoken understanding that they go through life alone, that each bears his own responsibilities. I thought that was very nicely said. I think that adds to the thing I felt missing from Aristotle’s description of friendship but couldn’t quite put my finger on: implicit in any good friendship is the knowledge that, while you share a laugh today, you may never know what tomorrow holds, and hopefully it is more laughs, but it might just as well be something entirely different. That’s just how life works.

Advertisements

Beta male blindness

For a while I wondered why males tend to be so blind to female bad behavior. I think I understand now.

It is not that males are blind to female bad behavior per se, more that in order to cooperate with other men, they acquiesce to those in power, and if those in power tell them that noticing female bad behavior is low-status, lo and behold, men stop noticing female bad behavior. This ability to adapt to value incentives is what enables males to cooperate with other males.

This is why there is no such thing as a pure alpha male. Every man has moments of weakness, even if some hide it very well. Alpha and beta are states of mind you enter and leave, depending on the context of the situation.

I said that males are not blind to female bad behavior per se, but it still seems like they are blind to a lot of female bad behavior, regardless of what anyone tells them. So what is this reason, besides the religion of equalism?

The reason is that the cold truth is quite nasty, namely that women by nature are primarily attracted to horrible, Horrible men. Such men are relatively rare, for horrible men tend to be ostracized by good men working in groups, tend to be ostracized also by other horrible men, but nonetheless women flock to them like moths to a light.

Good men, who are liked by the majority of other good men, liked even by a minority of horrible men, make up much larger part of the male gene pool. Women will fuck Good men, but, and this is the cold truth that is just really counterproductive for Good men to know, women will never escape getting more hots for mister Horrible than for mister Good.

Now, in a world where women get married off young and are prevented from having affairs with horrible men, and good men are stimulated to act as patriarchs, this cold truth does not matter so much, because women are blissfully unaware of their own fatal attractions, and will defer to the family patriarch, which is win-win for Good men.

But in a world where women are free to explore their fatal attractions, mr Good finds his wife spitting on him, divorcing him and cheating on him with mr Horrible. This greatly angers and confuses mr Good, because he genuinely wants to do good, yet finds himself punished for it.

It is a matter of faith and genes: the Good man believes himself better than the Bad man and believes he should be rewarded for his good behavior. Otherwise, why be a Good man? Simultaneously he can’t stop himself from being a good man; that is just who he is.

Being a Good man, from a male perspective, leads to civilization, prosperity, and peace. However, from a female perspective, she does not really care that he is Good. In fact she finds it slightly boring. It is the power, domination and control she wants. She does not care that her husband is Good, she cares about the deep love she feels for the power that Good men are rewarded with.

If no power, no attraction. The good man in response becomes confused and depressed, but of course, being unable to change who he is, whenever someone points out that women are attracted to horrible men he balks at the mere suggestion: why would you say such horrible things! I know that there is Good in this world and I refuse to be evil! So bad it is for some Good men that the day they come to terms with the Horribleness of the world is the day they take their life.

So, the solution is to not explain the cold hard truth to people who do not want to hear it, while also not denying the cold hard truth to people who want to hear it. The coup-complete solution is for horrible men to take power (in their horribly mysterious ways), for them to reward good men with pussy and make it high status for men to notice female bad behavior.

Manosphere sour grapes

I have read many of Roosh’s books and enjoyed all of them. I still read his blog, with pleasure.

But I am fed up with the sour grapes I see time and time again in Roosh and the associated manosphere.

It seems that whenever a manosphere guy describes the world, all he sees is blue-haired shrieking feminists and bitches with tattoos who, at best, are good for a singular nut. I don’t buy it. Which is to say, I totally buy that there are many, many unattractive self-mutilating women out there, but I know it is even more true that men make their own destiny and that women submit to men making their own destiny.

Personally I have gone through a lot of girls before I found one I love. In my search I encountered many women of the kind manosphere guys complain about, but in the end I needed to find only 1 good girl, and I found her, have been together with her for a couple of years now.

Am I so singularly amazing that I have found the last good girl left in the world, or is the manosphere selling me sour grapes?

It seems to me that for men, unlike for women, complaining does not fix anything. Don’t get me wrong, I empathize with the complaints, but I empathize with action more. Seems to me the right course of action is to find a good girl, start a family and teach your children to laugh at old fat lonely spinsters driving by in mobility scooters.

(Although the laughing part is probably overdoing it, because everyone knows, including childless feminists, that the last laugh inevitably goes to he who lives his life well, which is why unhappy people tend to resent happy people.)

Now, perhaps settling and having kids ain’t your thing, and although it seems to me to be programmed in our genes to settle and have kids, who am I to judge? But then, please sleep in the bed you’ve made for yourself. Stop bitching about women, stop bitching about Western society suiciding. We’re working on it.

Men

So I stumbled upon this MPC thread on Jim’s blog. I was curious to see how the supposedly cool red pill men view Jim. Seems they don’t like him.

I liked the reference to the Dork Enlightenment. I laughed at the accusation that Jim abuses the comma like it’s an underage girl. But overall the thread exudes male insecurity.

The main accusation seems to be that Jim is a sex-craven pervert. Jim’s writings indeed include gems like ‘if it goes up, it goes in‘ and ‘if ten year old girls were not restrained, most of them would be banging thirty and forty year old men‘. So lets talk about that.

A very consistent trait of men is that they do not like to discuss their weaknesses. Displays of weakness lower status. Most of men’s weaknesses are with sex and women: when sexuality is concerned we are but simple beasts, crude and weird in a myriad of ways. Yet sex and women make up a major part of our lives. So what do we do when the topics come up? We bullshit. It is as simple as that.

Men lie about their sexual conquests, lie about their competence with women, lie about the size of their (e-)penis, lie when they put on their white knight armour and rail to the defence of supposedly chaste women.

Jim, quite simply, is honest. You may accuse him of abusing the comma and abusing hyperbole, but that’s about it (I’ve never seen 10 year old girls banging older men, but I do observe teenage girls obsessing over sexy men).

We’ll end by using the below girl as a Schelling point.

2oFgjYg

Supposedly, no one at MPC would give her the time of day. Yet my experience with men of all stripes and sizes tells me they bang girls like her all the freaking time. Are you telling me that the internet forum guys at MPC are so cool that they only bang 9s and higher? And they call us the dorks? I mean, come on.