Women & The Death of Femininity

Hardened men make for attractive men, for toughness is a trait that men and women alike covet in their fellow-man, almost everybody respects a tough man (even when they dislike him) whilst hardened women make for some utterly repulsive beings that do not inspire the same kind of response in their peers, for you see it is the endurance of prolonged pain that is in its very nature a process of masculinisation.

Those who undergo pain become tougher and with toughness comes a certain masculine component, the more damaged and pain afflicted a person becomes, the more they harden and the tougher they become, this hardening is a natural response to ineptitude and disappointment, it is the catalyst for self-improvement where one’s survival is contingent on such improvement and thus forth the harder a person becomes, the more masculine the sum of their spirit becomes. This would even go so far to explain why in the psychological sense women have a propensity to value the ruggedness that experience brings in men, whilst men rather prefer the inexperience of women, for such a woman is free of the contamination of bitterness and cynicism that experience would wrought upon her, effectively spoiling the inherent fragility of her femininity.

In essence the more worn and experienced a woman becomes, the less feminine she becomes, whilst a more battle-scarred and experienced man becomes more masculine in the process. It is thus I must make an observation: it does indeed appear that men become more masculine with time and sufficient hardship, whilst antithetically, women, less feminine. It is in my estimation that men do not just prefer younger women for their more nubile bodies, but additionally, for their more feminine disposition. This perhaps also goes some way in explaining the feminine obsession with maturity, for a mature woman is one of less desirability than an immature one, whilst an immature man is of markedly less desirability than a mature one. What’s good for one is not good for the other and thus it is the nature of gender and by extension, biology itself to impose double standards upon the sexes.

This leads to my next point of estimation, I do believe that the fundamental reason the societies of the world have always tried so hard to protect and provide for their women in a manner of care that is all but absent in nature to their respective men is due to something of a matter of instinct which seeks to preserve the spiritual femininity of women, with an inherent understanding that the failure to protect women from the world and its evil would lead to the masculinisation of their disposition and thus rather tragically, the irrevocable loss of their femininity, for not enough new girls can be born and protected sufficiently from their older counterparts to replace the entire female demographic with women of femininity. It would seem that societies on some fundamental level have realised, perhaps not always in a way that they are conscious and eloquent enough to articulate, that femininity in and of itself carries a certain intrinsic value that is necessary for the sustenance and self-preservation of a society, and it is this value that is to be protected and sustained. These societies realised that subjecting women to the same kind of pressures that men are subject to would cause them to lose their femininity along the way, and such women would better benefit society by retaining their femininity rather than sacrificing it out of necessity in the emulation of man. For if society should forfeit femininity, demanding women fend for and coarsen themselves with the ugliness of survival, the very society reliant upon those who would maintain it would feel the tremors of emancipation as the feminine spirit is forcefully eviscerated from the societal psyche, leaving nothing but a collection of beings who strive to be manlike in its wake.

Without the counterbalance of gentle and demure femininity to complement the assertiveness of traditional masculinity, any affected society would foster detached apathy through competition within its citizenry rather than inclusive empathy through community.

Femininity is not just a gift to women, free of the shackles of responsibility that define manhood and the accompanying economic struggle that brings, but likewise a gift to men also, who would confide in and find emotional solace within the spirit of their lovers femininity, expressing momentary vulnerability to the softest of souls in a way that only a man in agape with a woman would dare. A woman who feels safe enough and looked after enough is feminine in the most natural and charming way, momentarily carefree as she “lets her guard down”, she is a happy woman, a sweet woman, a kind woman and perhaps most importantly to our humble species, an attractive woman. Rarely do women get to experience this type of innocence anymore as the forces of feminism masculinise them into perverse hybrids, women composed of the worst that femininity and all her flaws has to offer whilst likewise borrowing the very worst that masculinity has to offer, educated to never let their guard down “in the face of oppression”, be this evangel preached directly through activism or indirectly via the harshness of the workplace and the economic machine that it serves, today’s women face emancipation from femininity, like their fellow-men do from masculinity, sold a narrative that their inherent disposition is incompatible with the gender identity that the prevailing ideology would demand of and subscribe to them.

Just how can the feminine continue to exist within the modern world when it is psychologically beaten out of women on a day-to-day basis? How can women be kind, caring and sensitive when they must work in the world of business, a masculinising albeit sociopathic world of margins, deadlines, quotas, targets, bottom lines and politics? You see the workplace itself undermines the cultivation of femininity, the hardened woman is but a feeble caricature of the ideal man, should she be stripped of her femininity via the hallways of heartbreak, the glass table of the boardroom or perhaps an amalgamation of both, such a woman is a walking emanation of all the ugliest that masculinity has to offer and with none of its perks, for she learns the ugliest of masculinity along a pilgrimage for personal conquest rather than learn it in whole in the way that only a boy who seeks to become a man can. She does not learn the nuances of masculinity, its duty, its honour, it’s burden or it’s inherently biological need to protect and provide and thus forth and so such a woman imposes herself ruthlessly and demandingly, without thought nor care for those she imprints her apathy on, belittling the men she hates along the way with vapid deep-seated hatred, corrupting fellow women in her wake, imploring that they too sacrifice their femininity under the guise of “motherly advice” in the promotion that her younger counterparts become like that which she has become, a caricature of a man, a woman who emulates the worst of masculinity without embodying any of its finer or more nobler traits.

Such a woman is a parasite, wondering what value she can take from those around her rather than what value she can add, she is psychologically unlovable to the desires of man and yet some remnant of femininity remains, she craves to be loved despite the impossibility such a task proves to be. It’s hard to love a monster and men do not love monsters like women do, they loathe them, even fear them and in the most extreme of circumstances, they kill them. You see masculinisation affects women differently than it does men, within men it fosters growth and actualisation, within women it fosters contempt, dissonance and discontent, corrupting the very souls of who they are, stripping them of any desirability beyond the flesh, which too, will eventually fade with age.

Is there anything less feminine in the world than a ball-busting cynical parasite devoid of the charms and femininity that men the world over have come to admire and cherish in women for eons and eons? No, no there is not, and it is the crucifixion of femininity being perpetuated as an affront to masculinity within modern ideology, feminism containing the largest amount of estrogenic blood on its hands, that is unilaterally killing feminine spirituality in favour that we sacrifice it on the altar of corporatism in an effort to “equalise” the feminine with the masculine. What this really means it to condemn the true and natural feminine spirit as weak, to redefine it with masculine ideals, reinforce those ideals and then imprint those ideals onto society’s men and women until they believe this perverse form of femininity is “true femininity”, calling for the worship of this one brand of ideologically sanctioned femininity which remains to be nothing more than a corrupt bastardisation of the femininity that comes naturally to women who are free of Anglo social engineering efforts. What feminism has failed to realise is that although it has benefited many women superficially, it has done so at the cost of that which makes them truly women, that which makes them valuable to men beyond their bodies, the overlooked spiritual sense, the beauty that can be derived from their natural femininity. You see feminism spoils femininity in the name of equality, then the imbeciles who cause the damage are so incredibly ignorant (or incredibly intelligent, I cannot but tell the difference) as they seem to be at such a loss to understand just why men and women, but markedly women, are unhappier than they’ve ever been before.

I do think perhaps one of the most abhorrent things in the modern female psyche is that of scorn. Scorn is something I consider to be a truly fascinating state of being, you see scorn is a particular feminine flavour of revenge, it is effectively revenge on steroids with a feminine twist. Scorn is where the death of femininity within the soul of a woman rebirths itself vengefully in a manner of heightened sociopathy, such a woman bears the physical hallmarks of the feminine form, but to her very soul is ravaged by the most detestable, despicable and deplorable facets of both the masculine and the feminine. A scornful woman who derives her current state of being from the defining moment which initiated the destruction of her spirit’s femininity is a woman that is emulating the traits of man, straying from the path of womanhood and crossing into the realm of manhood, albeit such a woman will never truly be a man for she will lack the logic of a man, the appearance of man as well as the burden and societal expectation of a man, and so thus at best her bitterness leads to this type of quasi woman, a caricature of a man, embodying but the worst traits of both the masculine and the feminine, leaving us with what can only be described as a hollow, hybrid monstrosity that is neither man nor woman in the truest sense of the word irregardless of its physical anatomy.

You see unlike men who can become better, stronger and more attractive men by growing through their pain and thus amplifying their inherent masculine energy, women do not become better women with pain, they become more manlike, and thus they are stripped of that which makes them attractive to men to begin with. See what is good for man, at least in this instance, is not good for woman. When women become “hardened” it, rather poetically, and quite ironically in its majesty, strips them of the very thing that makes them attractive beyond the realm of the physical to men in the first place, it emancipates them from their femininity, and to ensure a man truly loves a woman, and simply doesn’t just view such a woman as a disposable fuck puppet at best or a blathering idiot at worst, she must capture his interest psychologically and emotionally, not just physically, because many women can capture the eye of a man, but only a woman of some real feminine energy and depth can capture the heart and thus devotion of a man. You see femininity, like masculinity, must be cultivated, although rather unlike masculinity it mustn’t be taught through pain, but through love.

Puppy love is the exception, it is the one love that can be educational to men, puppy love is the inevitable experiment in which naivety prevails, boys become men, and they learn first-hand through the misery of heartbreak and the cacophonous confusion of the indecisive female mind that the unilateral worship and adoration of the feminine form, the willingness to be captivated in the beauty of the feminine form be it from the sound of her voice, to the touch of the skin, or the smell of her sweat, is nothing but a futile and suicide-inducing endeavour. Men learn for themselves in their quest for masculinity that they must not worship women, but rather that, they must lead them. Women do not go on a quest for femininity, they are born with it, and oft sacrifice it short-sightedly for power within the depths of delusion that makes up modern groupthink, only to realise in old age once their beauty has faded that they traded in their greatest non-tangible asset long ago.

The Collapse & The Evolution of Awareness

What would happen if the red pill ever became a mainstream intellectual framework? In my estimation society would either a: collapse or b: a sizeable number of redpillers would evolve into neoreactionaries as they begin to analyse the entire system and implement change at the political and legal levels. Essentially the state of affairs would devolve into all-out ideological warfare with sex-positive feminism, the prevailing hegemonic ideology in the west as it stands. Modern day contemporary feminism is but a shadowy figure of doublespeak and doublethink which stands defiant and omnipotent in what is a post-religious collection of societies, succeeding the role of religion as both moral and social arbitrator, espousing it’s radicalist rhetoric through various imperative and declarative assertions in a hysterically hyperbolic manner such as: “thou shalt not rape!” , “thou may judge man, not woman” , “keeping a home is slavery!”, “you can have it all!” (if you’re a woman) among other such asinine and societally dysfunctional beliefs. 

Feminism as the dominant societal ideology in the hearts and minds of the citizenry is much like the religion of past society, to openly disagree with feminist beliefs and to a wider extent, politically correct egalitarian belief systems is the west’s modern day equivalent of blasphemy, because if you’re not with them the dichotomous nature of their indoctrination leads them to believe you must be against them, inevitably leading to career blacklisting, libellous defamation/vilification and the harshest of social exclusion from the proverbial herd. This is why anonymity permeates the redpill community, nobody is willing to lose their livelihood and ability to subsist due to the opinions they keep being held in the wrong era, whilst I’m on the topic here’s a relevant law of power you should observe. In the modern west to be perceived as feminist friendly is not an ideological choice that the citizenry are free to make, but rather a requirement of anyone wishing to progress or at least sustain themselves in the corporatism of modern capitalism, especially should they happen to be male. Failure to tow this line will have such a man’s repute eviscerated via the public declaration he is a hateful misogynist (allowing him to be placed in the position of oppressor and thus justifiably punished whilst ironically it is he who is actually being oppressed), much like the church would previously denounce their blasphemers as heretics, accusing their detractors of all kinds of crazy shit “this motherfucker casts magic, a child of satan!” the day’s modern feminists are mutually always in the market for a good witch hunt. It’s the same shaming mechanism and same ideological hegemony but with a different ideology, funny how that works.

The de facto hegemony of radicalised feminism alongside the decline of religion is one of the main proponents (although not the sole proponent) owing to the increase in amorality/immorality and the decline of a moral and honour-bound culture. Increasing apathy, isolation, anxiety, desensitization, depression, distrust and ultimately sociopathy among other dysfunctional and detrimental human behaviours are all symptoms of the feminist induced collapse of the traditional family unit complemented by an increasingly impersonal and globalising world. In essence, feminism alongside other social engineering efforts such as multiculturalism as well as wage deflation through mechanisation and its outsourcing via globalisation has transformed western societies from homogeneously high-trust to low-trust multicultural socially unintegrated melting pots. The decline of the Anglo-American and European social and moral fabric is not sustainable, and neither is the red pill’s way of “playing the system” as “the system” will eventually change/evolve/devolve or crash entirely. This is not a criticism of TRP as much as it is a reality of it, as a civilization we are in a constant state of flux, by the time you have your own grandkids (assuming you choose to continue your genetic line) the things you learnt on the red pill would need to be calibrated for the environment that your grandkids will find themselves in should you choose to pass on red pill knowledge to them. The most basic and rudimentary maxims will hold, but the methodology of their application will more than likely, not. For example Arthur Schopenhauer’s 19th century German philosophy on women, as well as concepts such as hypergamy and female sexual plurality will remain largely static, however how such things are exemplified and interpreted will depend upon the political climate (the level of power and relevance that feminism will hold in that timeframe as a social ideology), as well as the effects of technological leaps influencing how people interact and socialise with one another. 

For example, an alpha grandpa would have no concept of tinder (no computers/internet existed) and as feminism was weaker/less radicalised marriage to him wasn’t automatically deemed a high-risk, low-reward investment. TRP is ultimately a pragmatic and contemporary philosophy, if “the system” (the dominant ideology, social policy and politics of society were to change) then TRP will either cease to be (out of obsolescence) or change with the system proving itself as an intellectual framework that is adaptive rather than maladaptive, having its history archived on the internet in relation to the-then contemporary issues of the time. Being a philosophy born on the internet, it will leave a fully transparent data trail that will allow all who dig through the depths of the internet to see in its entirety how the philosophy has evolved and progressed in line with its adherents understandings and deductions, deductions that will eventually culminate in taking red pill insights in their present day form to their natural conclusions, accounting for any significant shift in the political and ideological makeup of society along the way. This effectively leaves the red pill wide open to scrutiny, and should it ever stray down an incoherent path it will be possible to see where it went wrong or what effectively corrupted the philosophy and allow for correction where deemed fit.

The seduction movement better known as PUA evolved independently of the Men’s Rights movement and it was the consolidation of both of these areas of thought that gave birth to TRP through the increase in self-awareness that their entanglement entails, essentially the “consolidation” was a process of connecting all the dots between PUA and men’s rights with the supplementation of self-improvement thrown in for good measure, amounting to a perspective that looked to be a superior improvement upon its predecessors. In a way, one could say it was an industrial revolution of ideological gender philosophy within the masculine vein of neoreaction, bringing many separate ideas together under one umbrella and interpreting them with an anti-feminist, pro-male, amoral slant to give pragmatically useful and rational understanding to a multitude of social issues that the common man faces in the face of a contemporary paradigm where such a man would not have any other effective alternative avenue for recourse. Prior to this consolidation and concentration of consciousness, PUAs had “woken up” (to a limited extent) by learning that society was fucked up in ways that were previously inconceivable to them, and perhaps hilariously (or quite worryingly) the reason they “woke up” was because they couldn’t get laid. With an almost even gender ratio the men that began to form the demography of the seduction movement began the movement thinking “getting laid shouldn’t be this difficult”, “how can I make getting laid a lifestyle or something easily performed?” many of them having followed the poor advice mainstream society gives on relationships “happy wife, happy life” “get a good education, get a career, be nice, provide, have kids” and yadda yadda yadda to no avail.

Despite the prevailing social condition that a society of feminine primacy had endorsed, men who took to the seduction movement did so because initially they had begun to feel not only awkward and out-of-place in their everyday interactions, but socially and even morally wronged, women seemed intangible, confusing, as well as socially and legally superior to them despite the so-called egalitarian social standing that each gender supposedly enjoys (courtesy of the bullshit that is the mainstream academic elite’s progressive narrative.) It was thus that men of various ages, nations and races began to simultaneously feel disenchanted and out-of-place with their existence, finding themselves both socially and sexually unfulfilled across the globe in societies that valued feminine primacy, in locales where feminism is a state endorsed ideology, men in significant numbers were struggling to find romantic happiness because their needs and wants were vilified, ignored and largely unconsidered by their cultures. Having a harder time than their female counterparts whilst being unable to place their finger on exactly what was wrong with themselves and the culture they lived in, they began to irk that something was off, they just didn’t know what that something was. Ultimately it was the consolidation of knowledge gained about women through the trial and error of pickup artistry (the relearning of knowledge that feminism had suppressed about women through political correctness) and the growing visibility of feminine primacy via the increasingly obnoxious voice of radical feminism not to mention the light shone on male legal subjugation by the men’s rights movement that culminated in the eventual birth of the red pill.

The next step after fully internalising and understanding TRP is to become a neoreactionary, that is, to understand the culture you live in and why it is how it is in a more complete form, not simply master the understanding of intersocial behaviours people in your culture exhibit within a sociosexual dynamic, but to effectively dispel all the idealistic politically correct lies that compose the crux of “the progressive narrative.” Unlike TRP/PUA which are overwhelmingly male dominated (with RPW and fPUA being minor, if somewhat far less notable offshoots), neoreaction is far less gender exclusive as it is a reaction to the state of contemporary western civilization as a whole and not simply the gender dynamics of society which albeit central, are not wholesome of the entire paradigm we find ourselves living in. Neoreaction spans many different areas of academic ideology pertaining to modern civilization of which it criticises are the cause of its decline. It runs across race lines, economic lines, political lines, religious lines, as well as gender lines.

As I said prior TRP is the masculine vein of neoreaction along a gender line, whilst the institutionalisation of feminism was the female reaction fifty years prior. The neo-neo reaction to TRP has quite ironically been the vocalisation for more radical feminism, with the radfems exposing the ugliness of their disposition by trying to silence TRP by declaring it (and petitioning the US government to declare it) a hate movement, whilst also trying to use TRP as something they can use to validate their sexist, bigoted and misandrist beliefs rather than acknowledge feminism and it’s radicalisation had begun long before TRP was even an anxiously horny glint in the eye of the first PUA. In essence, feminism tries to paint TRP as the boogeyman to try and give itself legitimacy as a competing victim narrative in a civilization where it is not only becoming increasingly obsolete, but one where the ruling “progressive narrative” ensures that the bigger the perceived victimhood is of a particular group in society, the more power, privilege and politically correct social capital they are given to abuse to the detriment of the collective whole.

Unfortunately, not everyone will make the complete journey along the road of PUA to TRP to neoreaction (most progress in this order through their journey of continuing and increasing awareness) as the further you go along, the steeper the intellectual incline becomes. That is to say the further you go along the path of rational and intellectual enlightenment and self-discovery, the more brain power you need to comprehend just what the hell is going on among the complex intricacies of the diverse modern social fabric. Due to its breadth and vast area of focus neoreaction is infinitely more complex and arguably far less pragmatically applicable than the red pill is and for that reason alone, alongside the intellectual bell curve required to try and comprehend its arguments, it will find itself being far less popular than the red pill, the red pill in a way serving as a sort of gateway into neoreaction once the most intellectual redpillers feel they fully understand TRP and seek more in-depth and profound understanding in areas outside the sphere of gender dynamics. Neoreaction is not a direct evolution of the red pill, but more of a complement in overall awareness to it, that is to say, neoreaction will not override TRP in relevance in the way that TRP has overridden PUA, but it will complement TRP by exposing the delusional nature of various mainstream narratives and systems of prevailing academic thought much in the way that TRP exposes the fallaciousness of modern sociosexual dynamics from the masculine perspective.

Metaphorically speaking if PUA were a country, TRP is a continent and neoreaction would be the entire planet. If you do not want to do anything but get laid, PUA is enough, if you want to explore your neighbours and build a better-rounded successful life you’re going to want TRP, if you want to traverse the world, and add an in-depth understanding of the various prevailing economic, political, religious and other miscellaneous associated narratives and agendas of our time then you’re going to want to add neoreaction to your arsenal of understanding. Ultimately it is TRP that will give you the power to act and behave and instigate change physically whilst neoreaction will further amplify your understanding of the world, in essence, neoreaction in the metaphorical sense is a “second red pill”, not everyone needs it, not everybody wants it (letting go of all one’s ignorance is incredibly toilsome and has a tendency to induce existential nihilism) whilst if you simply don’t care about your genetic line or the state of civilization but desire to merely live a good life whilst you have your time on this Earth then TRP should be more than enough for you. Neoreaction isn’t for everyone, not everyone is an intellectual or budding revolutionary and that’s fine, but for those that are, there are definitely dots to be connected between TRP and neoreaction and I invite all the more veteran redpillers “looking to find further understanding” to add /r/darkenlightenment to their list of subscribed subreddits.

For all related thoughts use the comments box as usual, for unrelated thoughts, advice and questions contact me via the “about/contact page.” I do try to reply to all my messages although it is not always possible for me to do so considering the length of reply and effort required that some enquires warrant.

Single Mothers and Bitch Fathers: The Suffering of “The Lost Boys”

This is not a self-improvement piece and neither is it endearing or particularly positive in substance, it is a harsh discernment of an unspoken social issue, the plight of today’s young men growing up in an ever feminising world, neglected, lonely, wrestling with their own delinquency to achieve agency over their faculty so that they may, out of an innate biological desire to be happy, become the epitome of that which is masculine. Typically I post theories and explore concepts that are useful and applicable to men whom seek the fruits of power and success irregardless of their social stature, however this post, a first for Illimitable Men, will take something of a different approach in its dissemination of everything wonderfully red and pharmaceutical in nature.

“Lost boys” is a term I use to describe the growing demographic of boys, young men and adult men, who by nature of the circumstance that is their upbringing actively struggle to thrive and achieve the masculine ideal. “Lost boys” typically lacked a definitive masculine presence growing up and so were raised by either a single mother, or very weak father that always yielded to the tyranny of their mother’s neuroticism. This has to many extents, irreparably damaged such men at a very fundamental level. The lost boys are an invisible minority, largely ignored and neglected by greater society because society doesn’t care about pain that isn’t visibly affecting women, even if somewhat ironically, it’s the same kind of pain that stops a boy from becoming a man and leads to the all indignant post-wall screeching of “where did all the good men go?!” What we have in the developed world is an unhealthy fixation with the neurosis of modern feminist dogma rather than a rational concern for the mental health of our young boys.

The lost boys have no voice and they dare not speak, for they do not expect anyone to care about their hardships or what they have to say. Speaking, for the little that its worth anyway, would thus be quite pointless. You are a boy, boys must be strong!” the bigots parrot in retort to a males exclamation of his struggles. The concepts of emotional sympathy and an extension of aid to boys and men suffering adversity are all but absent, their hardships are often met by a sociopathic nonchalant attitude at best and utterly contemptuous disgust for their weakness at worst. The lost boys understand indifference quite intimately, whilst comprehending little in matters of love, for they have never really been loved properly; at least not in a way that does not serve to only weaken them further, be that the maternal love of a coddling naive mother who knows not what constitutes masculinity, or the heartbreak caused by puppy love. Whether it’s clear to them or not, what they need is the strong unwavering hand of paternal love. It’s the delinquency caused by an absence of such love which cements a perverse condition of loneliness into these boys growing up, something is fundamentally missing, these boys are broken, they can’t seem to make their lives work, they struggle to find themselves, they know they’re the problem, but they don’t understand what to do about it.

Symptomatic of this piss poor parenting style that is the single mother “family unit” or the nuclear family with a beta father and female head of house, is a silent, solitary pain sweeping across the youth of mankind. The ever-increasing isolation of young men today is a social affliction endemic across developed societies, particularly in the Anglosphere. The isolation, feminisation, neglect and underachievement of young boys and men is a pronounced trend which has pierced the depths of child rearing ever since feminism toppled the institution of the nuclear family and caused broken homes to become the malign commonality that they are today. Then they have the cheek to inquire why girls outperform boys in higher education now as it stares them right in the fucking face, you deprived boys of their fathers, so they’re fucking up. When the nuclear family was the norm and women were neither quite so naive nor incentivised by a welfare system to raise a child alone, a young man’s likelihood of having a fruitful bond with his father was far more pronounced than it is today. The reason for this was because before feminism came to dictate the social narrative, having children out-of-wedlock was not a norm considered to be either acceptable nor desirable.

Comparatively today, the sons of single mothers are at the highest risk factors for social anxiety and behavioural disorders whilst possessing something of an inability to bond with the one parent they do have, in the way that they need to be able to do so to fundamentally grow as men, simply because, women cannot teach that which they do not possess: masculinity and the experience of living as male. Such sons are effectively inhibited by their mothers, burdened by the swinging pendulum of her emotionalism without having a father to handle her instability in their place (Hetherington, 1980; Cath, et al., 1989, Ross, 1984). This immutably puts a lot of extra pressure on the lost boys, growing up these boys require a father to perform this most imperative of functions, but with a father who is absent they are utterly deprived of such a luxury, and thus, must shoulder the full force of intense female emotionalism in all their innocence from a tender and impressionable age.

If even a fraction of the lost boys would be lucky enough to find http://reddit.com/r/theredpill and take on a self-improvement mindset, they would be immediately awash with regret from all the wasted time and lack of opportunity they experienced in their formative years. All those years wasted on being unsuccessful with women, excessively playing video games, having weak personal character and generally being too emotionally crippled to have meaningful friendships is a fuckfest of delinquency which rapes the shit out of a guy’s chances in life. Nobody talks about how boys are failing, nobody at all. However, despite the sordid indifference and neglect of society’s inclination to address such a fundamental social ill, it’s not as fringe and uncommon as perhaps some of society’s more privileged would like to imagine, “imagine” being the operative word there.

Why is society so apathetic to the plight of the lost boys? Well to aid these boys would be to politically undermine the hegemony of feminist thought and thus it is not part of the political or social imperative to address the insipid delinquency that permeates the demographic of men born to broken homes.

Chances at socialisation for the lost boys outside of the home were predominantly schooling and the workplace. Typically these institutions yielded little to no social reward for them, that is to say, because the lost boys were not high value individuals or taught proper social skills by their families, nobody ever really wanted to know them. Who cares about poor guys who aren’t good-looking, have no money and have no status to speak of? Nobody, and yet, this aptly describes the majority of men born into poverty with no sizeable family to provide them with the nurturing which is essential to flourish and actualise.

How do men in this situation typically go about getting some form of attention to try to break away from the shackles of their own personal hells? Most do not find TRP. Some become bold with a “I’ve got nothing to lose motherfucker” kind of mindset, they turn dark triad. They may sell drugs or get involved in gangs, they do anything that gives them money, respect, status and sex, things that in their circumstances they would be incapable of acquiring without breaking the law. Why? Because they were born where they were born to who they were born.

What about the lost boys who are too timid to take the dark triad route? They end up incubating their sadness within a cocoon of porn, video games and internet surfing in an attempt to effectively numb themselves from the dispassion of a painful and uninspiring existence. Such a lifestyle becomes a fixture for the suffering escapist, and thus the lack of everyday social interaction creates an irrational fear of socialising to a point that even leaving the house can become a big deal. Likewise, talking to people in shops and even stepping outside of the house can make them incredibly self-conscious. The lost boys have become so socialised by neglect that hermitism has become their modus operandi, they tend to suffer from acute social anxiety, which is just one of many ills that the degeneracy of their upbringing plagues them with. Quite the dichotomy it is, to fear loneliness whilst simultaneously fearing social interaction, this but a mere glimpse of  the personal hell a feminised lost boy must endure.

Escapism is a form of self-preservation for people who don’t know how to or simply aren’t brave enough to engage in self-improvement. When you have nothing, when you have nobody, stepping into the gym and lifting some weights around strangers is a big fucking deal, it takes a lot of courage, the lost boys are so neglected that their anxiety can become quite debilitating, they will actively stop themselves from pursuing self-improvement because they are irrationally fearful, thus perpetuating the cycle further and becoming their own biggest obstacles. Mentally imprisoned. Trapped.

The standards for masculinity are set so high by the feminine imperative, and the infrastructure to ascertain it for many men is all but absently null (ironically, due to the feminine imperative), it is thus no wonder that so many boys and men are incubating themselves from a dreary existence with porn, games and internet, giving up on the game of life and screaming fuck it all with their lack of active participation. If you’re isolated and the struggle is getting you down, one may as well make the confines of their psychological prison as comfortable as possible. It’s not that I advocate this lifestyle in any way, quite the contrary, but simply that I can understand perfectly well why it is as common as it is, to be succinct: its mental anaesthesia.

Relative to loneliness is preselection, preselection is something of an insane yet logical phenomenon, but inversely, so is the absence of it. A lack of preselection can form the basis of a lost boys ostracisation with both the same and opposite sex. Most people are close-minded and judgemental, they won’t even try to look past the superficialities to see if there’s anything likeable about you, if you’re not a high-flyer, a great deal of people are not even interested in sharing oxygen with you.“Everyone wants to be with a winner, if that’s not you and you’re a collective heap of problems stemming from the promiscuity of your mothers ovary then fuck you because nobody cares.” This is the subtextual message that society communicates to the lost boys. Friends are like money, they’re difficult to get when you don’t have a lot, but once you’re comfortably established getting more becomes effortlessly easy. Abundance is key.

In stark humility it is my advice that any “lost boy” who has managed to stumble upon this articles takes up as many hobbies as he can possibly afford and fills his timetable with them, obviously this should include joining a gym, I know if you’re feeling particularly low that is quite a scary thing to consider, but there are other activities can be enjoyed also, debating clubs, dance, martial arts, languages, instruments and essentially whatever it is that allows you to socialise and have some fun whilst gaining a skill that adds to your value. One step at a time is crucial; no epic journey is completed in a day. More information on making this kind of change in your life can be found here.

The lost boys are a huge reason the manosphere even exists. If these boys didn’t need male advice and father figures in a world where such is becoming increasingly rare, they wouldn’t look to the internet to find it and set up communities specifically based on this premise. A lot of it is guised under sexual strategy, but the problems run far deeper than that for many, sexual strategy is merely the veneer to the depths which the manosphere extends.

If you can relate, leave a comment and get it off your chest, nobody will confuse your pain for weakness here, likewise if you enjoyed my prose and haven’t already, do subscribe.

Become Machiavellian – How To Apply The 48 Laws of Power

The focus of this piece is the application of Machiavellian ideas, mainly those contained within “The 48 Laws of Power”, a great number of people have communicated to me how greatly confounding they find Robert Greene’s bestselling book despite the fact that the book is an undisputed masterpiece. There is a something of a disconnect between the reader’s interest and the reader’s desires, that is to say, the typical reader lacks the ability to apply the book successfully to their own lives. If one is to derive maximum benefit from the book and see some tangible improvements to their life, the book and its tenets are not enough in and of themselves to bring about the same results which are enjoyed by competent Machiavellians. There are talents which need to be developed by the reader that are irrespective of the book, that is to say, the book does not teach the importance of qualities which allow for the successful execution of Machiavellian devices. These are qualities which are entirely necessary, not supplementary, so should one wish to successfully implement the laws into the fabric of their social interactions and attain Machiavellian competency in the process then they will need to master said qualities. As such I have gone to great trouble to detail these qualities further into the article.

There is a lot of profound information to be found within the depths of The 48 Laws of Power, but it is something of a cookbook without an ascribed methodology. Robert Greene gives you part of the recipe for power, but it is an incomplete recipe, he gives the ingredients, the laws themselves, he’s not teaching you to become Machiavellian, but rather how Machiavellianism works. He doesn’t give examples and say to you “in contemporary and relatable situation X, you could apply the law in such and such a way” he doesn’t teach you how to apply laws based on a scenario the common man or woman will find themselves in, instead what he does is list the ingredients for power and gives historical examples of how each law was applied by a notable figure. This alone is enough to open up the readers eyes to the realm of power in a way that the majority of people would not have been able to comprehend with such comprehensive lucidity had it not been for Mr Greene’s writings. However, understanding does not directly translate into a transferrable skill and it is for this reason alone that I’ve written a few exemplified essays on the 48 laws of power. Due to their incredible popularity, I will probably compile all the finished essays into a book later on down the track, but I am somewhat busy so do not expect the project to reach completion anytime soon. On something of a tangent, should it so please you to read such a thing, do not hesitate to leave a comment or send a message detailing your elation of said proposal; the more demand there is from my readers, the more I shall prioritise the endeavour.

Tangent aside, one may have grasped from the previous paragraph that the book doesn’t take a position. It doesn’t say “right, now we’re going to manipulate people, here is how you could manipulate a person with law X at work, here is how you can manipulate a girl to having sex with you by using law Y and etc.” Greene himself said “I’d rather the book be used for defence against natural psychopaths rather than be used to hurt people” as well as “psychopaths don’t need this book, most of this stuff is innate for them” (to paraphrase him.) This is the reason the book does not give you a step-by-step contemporary how-to on the utilisation of the laws in everyday interactions but instead demonstrates Machiavellianism from a third person perspective within a storytelling format. The book encourages passive theoretical analysis of Machiavellianism rather than proactive analysis, which is effectively, the implementation of Machiavellianism on a day to day basis. By opting for theoretical and passive analysis it teaches you to understand Machiavellianism as a series of abstract unapplied concepts within a historical framework rather than attempt to intellectualise and communicate what is inherently a learnable vocation. I believe the choice for the book to take this tempered position rather than teach examples of contemporary Machiavellian exploitation as well as the absence of detailing fundamental Machiavellian vocational skillsets is evident manifestation of Greene’s desire that the book act as a psychological shield rather than a sword for weaponizing the mind.

Now in paragraph 1 talents which are fundamental to the weaponization of Machiavellianism were mentioned, so to begin:

Firstly, you need to possess an analytical mind, a mind that thinks more than it is feels, it is imperative that your modus operandi utilises logic rather than emotion if you are to apply the laws of power effectively. Emotive reasoning encourages fallibility, transparency (which is anti-Machiavellian) and the exposure of one’s weaknesses, women in particular find this talent incredibly difficult to master as it in essence goes against the very basis of their natures. Emotional reasoning leads to incorrect deductions and poor judgement. Emotive reasoning is inward (solipsistic) whilst logical reasoning is outward (abstract), in order to analyse one must be looking outward and comprehending the outward with as little confusion from the inward as possible, if this is achieved one can deduce with great precision.

Secondly, your mind must be mentally fit rather than lethargic, you must develop the muscle of your wit, that is to say you should understand people’s words and actions on multiple levels, entendre, innuendo, puns, they are the language of subtext, if you cannot pierce the realm of subtext, you cannot hope to be a successful Machiavellian. If you cannot understand the subtleties of a person’s character, you cannot hope to ever truly know and connect with them as the nature of their being in its entirety is beyond the limits of your mind’s understanding. Subtext is a realm of communication all of its own, if you are blind to it, it will become your Achilles’s heel and your obliviousness will reduce your overall effectiveness.

Thirdly, and this is something of an extension of the last point, articulacy, the silver tongue, you need the competency to verbally riposte with mental dexterity. This skill is incredibly important, mostly as a means of defence as to aid with deflection and pressure reversal, however, it may also be used as a tool of interrogation should that be one’s proclivity. It is an especially useful skill when one is caught off-guard by an ambush, that is to say, a psychological test is posed to you abruptly in full-view of an audience where there is surmounting social pressure for you to respond with an air of effortlessness or otherwise incur a social penalty. A successful Machiavellian knows how to defend themselves from Machiavellian devices as well as attack with them and thus needs to be quick off the draw.

Fourthly, you must develop emotional intelligence (this is where women make up for their weakness in point 1), this doesn’t mean that you should analyse with emotion but rather that you must be capable of communicating with it, understand the relationship between emotions by learning how they invoke and relate to neighbouring emotions. Likewise to be capable of this you should have an intricate grasp of the characteristics and depth of each emotion. You need to understand the nature of each emotion itself so that this can be leveraged to influence people into predictable outcomes. Portraying the correct emotional appearance for the context at hand as well as understanding how other people’s emotions form the basis of their disposition is another fundamental facet of emotional intelligence. By understanding emotion you can effectively fill another person’s emotional void by making yourself the source of the emotion they lust for (law 11 – keep people dependant on you.) Understanding someone’s emotional makeup is the most effective way of influencing them as it allows you to be a supplier of what they mentally crave. With enough knowledge of a particular character anyone can be a source of emotional sustenance for another regardless of the amount of physical resources they possess, this ability to be an emotional object of desire can allow for great social mobility and thus it’s importance is not to be underestimated. Likewise, emotional intelligence combined with an understanding of a person’s interpersonal relationships can be used to identify a person’s emotional weak spots and leverage those for gain should you choose to engage in a more aggressive approach.

Fifthly, you must develop the ability to cold read, that is to say, detect, comprehend and understand subtle non-verbal cues such as vocal tonality, posture/body language, eye/facial movements, choice of clothing/accessorization as well as accent and lingual register (e.g.: posh speak, Ebonics etc.) This allows you to deduce someone’s state in real-time; quickly deduce the type of character they are presenting to you, as well as process feedback about how they currently feel about you. Knowing how people truly feel about you regardless of what they say as well as having the ability to make accurate generalisations about a person without having to psychologically probe them for the information is an invaluable skill. Cold-reading is undoubtedly a prerequisite on any budding Machiavellian’s list of talents as it contributes to the previously mentioned importance of critical analysis, the need for a mind that can reach outward rather than one that is predisposed to imprison itself inwardly.

Sixthly is superficial charm, Machiavellianism requires constant in-field analysis and ample socialisation, every interaction you have should have meaning to it, in your conversations you should be summing a person up and collecting information on each of those you interact with so that you may come to understand the true nature of the people you deal with. Likewise in the process of doing so you may also happen upon valuable information which has the potential to grant you personal power over said people (e.g.: secrets, admissions in confidence etc.) It is so incredibly common nowadays that the average man or woman seeks to greet you with an inauthentic version of themselves, their fabled social representative, it is this form of learned defence mechanism people employ that you must overcome in order to become properly acquainted. It is thusly important that Machiavellianism is veiled with charm and/or humour, charm is the anaesthesia of suspicion, it allows you to probe deeply into the psyche of others without causing pain or suspicion, just as in the physical realm chemical sedatives allow doctors to operate on a person in much the same way. If people do not feel they can trust you, if you lack the ability to make people feel comfortable with a charming disposition, no matter how superficial that charm is, then the interrogative nature of a Machiavellian will arouse ill-feeling that can result in ostracisation. For best results one should always apply charm, charm is necessary for comfort.

These six components are that which make up the vocational toolbox required to facilitate a person’s successful application of the 48 Laws of Power, reading the book and having none or perhaps only one or two of the qualities I just listed will not turn you into a competent Machiavellian as you will lack the vocational competency to effectively execute the laws of power. The book in and of itself is not enough to create a Machiavellian, but merely acts to enable the oblivious everyday man or woman to recognise when they’re dealing with a Machiavellian. If you wish to become a successful Machiavellian you must achieve competency in the skills previously listed for if you do not you will be deficient in ability, crippling your effectiveness.

Not all of Robert Greene’s laws of power apply to each and every situation that you’re in, there are laws within the book which starkly contradict each other and this is often the cause of confusion for newbie Machiavellians in training and younger readers alike. Greene likes to inverse laws by flipping them on their head and showing how a reversal of the law can be just as effective as or even more effective than the law itself if the situation at hand permits. It is up to your analytical mind to deduce whether or not the law should be applied as it is presented or if the nuances of the situation at hand would benefit you more by instead reversing the law. It is always up to you as an individual to understand the situation that you find yourself in (your status and your reputation/how you are perceived) as well as comprehend the people that make up said social landscape (their statuses, their usefulness, their opinions of each other, their motives, their desires etc.), the book is giving you ingredients that you can use to attain power, it is not hand-holding you, generally the easier your life has been thus far, the harder you will find it to employ the books teachings effectively and likewise, the less motivated you will be to undergo such a process.

Through thorough analysis of the social environment you intend to manipulate to your advantage, you can build up a picture of what’s going on behind the scenes and selectively utilise laws which complement that which the situation calls for. Essentially, one must tailor each law to the target of their interest, bearing in mind the scenario and the implications/consequences that applying the law will have. For example, law 34 (act royal in your own fashion) and law 1 (don’t outshine the master) are contradictory laws, you could not apply both laws to the same person at the same time, to act royal is to inevitably outshine, trying to be both things would send out mixed signals and you’d arouse suspicion with the antithetical perverse dichotomy of your presentation. Using law 34 on another Machiavellian or on someone with more power than yourself is going to put them on guard and inspire them to defensively analyse you as a means of self-preservation, whilst using the same law on people of low Machiavellian intelligence and/or those who are lower in the social food chain than yourself will inspire respect and even admiration for such a show of sophisticated grace. Using law 1 on a superior or person with high Machiavellian intelligence will lower their guard, whilst using that same law on someone of low Machiavellian intelligence or a social inferior will cause them to write you off as being even more lowly than they.

To simplify this: the strong want to believe you are weak, so fulfil their beliefs (which is something of a narrower less theatrical version of law 27) a good Machiavellian does not allow the strong to perceive them as competition until it is too late for the competition to do anything about their emergence. The strong desire you to be weak because they wish to retain their dominance, they are players, and competition means a threat to their power. The weak on the other hand want you to be strong because they are fearful, but their fear is not based on a desire to sustain their power (as unlike the strong, they have little power) but rather because they seek direction, guidance and comfort. The weak want a pillar of strength they can attach themselves to, in a way this is a form of emotional parasitism where such a relationship is unwelcome by the stronger party, however this is effectively what law 34 exploits when applied to the weak or those of otherwise lower status than yourself. Caveat 1: if you are a high status person, you can get blag using law 34 on other high status people as long as you have achieved their personal respect beforehand. Caveat 2: this law is attractive as a means of seduction, if your agenda is to seduce above all else, utilise this law regardless of social difference between you and your object of affection.

As such, the simplification is an example of how each law needs to be applied with Machiavellian lucidity and a psychological coherence of the people in your surroundings in order for maximum effectiveness to be achieved. Essentially, the misapplication of the laws of power will result in social turmoil rather than success. If you misapply the laws clumsily they will not have the intended effect, at the very worst they will ruin your reputation. To conclude, in your quest to refine the vocational skillsets required for Machiavellian proficiency you should practice on those who you care little for, so when you inevitably mess up and ruin the relationship between the two of you there is no lasting value lost to your life. Don’t cut your nose off to spite your face.

If you have not read The 48 Laws of Power as of previous but are now interested to do so after having read this article, you can show your gratitude by purchasing the book from any of the links below:

Buy The 48 Laws of Power (USA)
Buy The 48 Laws of Power (UK)

The Power Game

What should you care about? Nearly everybody gives a fuck about at least what one other person thinks, this is normal and natural behaviour, however what many of us realise is that in the game of power it is the person who bluffs best, he who seems like he gives the least fucks and is the least affected by others who is the person that often comes out on top. In essence from a Machiavellian viewpoint this is because such a person is forcing others to play the cards they are dealing, they are forcing others to be reactionary rather than independent and thus in essence set the rules of engagement.

A bluff is essentially holding a bullshit frame to get what you want, if you can maintain the bluff with congruence then it will pay off. The power of a bluff is in the boldness of its misdirection, it is for this reason that half of the game of power is based upon deterrent alone, the other half of the equation is having the ability to make good on the implication that the deterrent puts forth, typically by use of meaningful force e.g.: physical/emotional violence or economic manipulation.

My height is a good example of a bluff, I’m 6’2; hardly anybody has ever started a fight with me throughout my adult life. Could I beat a 5’5 dude who trains in Brazilian Jiu-jitsu? No, of course not, but then who is more likely to even need those skills to begin with? He is. Most people are too fearful to even escalate with me because of my appearance and stature alone. Having height and some muscle mass like anything is a bluff and bluffs pay off, on a biological level it communicates to another man’s instincts that “this guy is a threat” and then as such, said man is fighting his own involuntary fear response whilst trying to make a decision in whether he should engage in combat or not. This is a feeling a small man can simply not invoke on the primal level in other people, it doesn’t mean he can’t be badass, it just means that he does not have the physical bluff working for him. The power of a dominant stature is a passive avenue of power which is closed to a man of small stature, instead he needs to use other avenues of power to accomplish his desires, e.g.: money and wit.

On the deterrent side in the game of power, aside bluffs, there are other passive tools available to one’s disposal such as selective validation (operant conditioning) which can be utilised to encourage the behaviours you like whilst discouraging behaviours that you don’t in those around you. Half the game is effectively passive in nature, both mentally and physically, these things manifest in both how you present yourself and likewise, how you behave in the company of others. The other half of the game is your raw power, being able to back your outward behaviour, appearance and the illusion they cohesively manifest with tangible skill, wealth, social capital and substantive elements that are capable of enacting change through sheer substance of will. Knowledge in and of itself is useless in the game of power, which do not be mistaken, comprises the very game of life itself by nature of its connection to survival. If you cannot apply knowledge to achieve power then that knowledge is relatively meaningless for all social purpose.

If you should give a fuck about anything, if you’re not sure what should be important to you, the bottom line of your agenda should be to increase your power and to connect with others who can help you increase your power, spending much of your mental faculty on people who cannot help you is a manifestation of low self-esteem, as a person who seeks growth it’s a total and utter waste of time when it comes to self-betterment to be investing your time and attention on those who can offer you nothing. Caring about the useless and those of low value, those who cannot bring you anything you need either superficially, intellectually or spiritually and who may in fact put you at risk of degrading your own faculty; surreptitiously communicates to your self-esteem and the perception of others that you yourself are low value, powerless, merely by method of association. 

People judge you not just by the company you keep, but by how opinion affects you, and lowly opinion should bounce off you like you’re reinforced bulletproof glass. This doesn’t mean you must be horrible to the downtrodden, but do not be seen to be associated with them. Unless you’re so powerful you can use the weak to amplify the perception of your benevolence eg: engaging in decadent acts of philanthropy, then you have no place being seen with the weak. As an addendum it is important to add that investing stock in the opinions of the powerless and those without a potential for power is an idiotic endeavour that yields no return.

An important distinction to be made here in regards to the “I don’t give a fuck attitude” is that you should never give a single fuck about anybody unimportant/powerless/not useful to you, but acting like that with people who can help you is the quickest way to sever the tie of any relationship you have with them, often before that tie has even begun to form. Be careful who you choose to upset.

Not disappointing yourself in an endeavour is an act of self-validation, do not forget that self-esteem can validate itself when you do something good and are impressed with yourself for being able to fulfill your own objectives, a lack of self-discipline comprises the core of low self-esteem. The repetitive nature of personal failure owing to low self-discipline creates a negative mental feedback loop, that feedback loop then reinforces to the individual that they are useless because they can’t achieve anything for themselves, in all its emotive sense of helplessness this creates momentary low self-esteem. The dichotomy of low self-discipline is inevitably personal failure will recur and when that temporary feeling revisits again and again it is eventually learnt and becomes an internalised personality trait.

If you keep failing at things because you cannot discipline yourself to do them or get good at them then you’re going to feel like a failure. Decide what you’re going to do. Do shit and then do it as well as you can. When you can do shit well, it will give you power, you will then begin to like yourself and gain some well-justified confidence to feed your ego. Confidence is the fuel of power, there is no power without confidence for they are brothers. You can be confident without power (a bluff) but you cannot be powerful without confidence. Confidence within the communicative realm of subtext implies power, it creates the assumption in the mind of others that the confident person is powerful regardless of whether this is true in nature or not.

Sometimes the best move you can pull out of your ass in a situation is to simply do nothing, ignore it, be aloof. You should ignore unimportant and irrelevant opinions that look to sabotage you, these types merely want a piece of your power, to drag you down to their level of power or lower. They are saboteurs and thus one should always look down on such characters, the jealous inferiors that try to cause you trouble. It is not necessary to completely destroy them, but refuse to validate them, by validating detractors you give credibility to their bullshit; you lend your power to their comments and give their comments a platform to ride on. When people like this appear in your life it can be an indication that you’re doing well, when others feel threatened by you it means that you’re gaining power, you gain power by doing things that are effective in and of themselves or by directly robbing power from others so that in relation to you they are not as effective as they were.

Indeed if you are neither powerful nor the target of someone’s personal investment, then nobody would give a fuck about you or even summon the energy to criticise your methods. They’d leave you to it. Hate is a reactionary emotion which spawns from other emotions, predominantly from fear, fear of the unknown, fear of a loss of personal power and perhaps the biggest fear of all, fear of a bad investment choice. This is my belief as to why so many parents fear their children being failures, some opt to lie to themselves that their kids are not losers even when it is quite evident that they in fact are, what they ultimately fear is having put all this time and effort into their legacy only for their child to squander that effort by yielding them nothing in return, no power, nothing for them to be vicariously proud of, no return on investment, zilch. This I believe to be the fear of every parent and by extension, grandparent, the fear that their own lives were a waste of time as they do not have a legacy strong enough to carry on their desires.

Everybody cares about power, that’s all it’s about, that’s the bottom line; don’t believe otherwise unless you opt to be taken for a fool. Power comes before everything else, don’t be fooled by romantics and the esoteric gooeyness of emotions that elicit idealism and compassion, sure, these emotions all play a role regardless of power and in relation to power, but power itself is the bottom line for everything. Sink or swim. Succeed or fail. There are no alternatives to this, you strive and thrive or you bail and fail.

When people who oppose you invest a lot of energy into hatefully disagreeing with you, in all it’s ironic perversity it’s the closest thing to a compliment that such a person can give you. By giving something energy, even negative energy, they help it to grow and gain recognition and in the flamboyancy of their hatred they inadvertently garner you more supporters, for acknowledgement is the fuel of social status. Gods got their power from acknowledgement, don’t underestimate the power of acknowledgement and the components that form it, recognition and validation, for it is central to everything, reputation means so very much in the game of power.

To those who think Machiavellianism is irrelevant, you are idiots, useful idiots at the very best but idiots nonetheless. By not playing the game you lose the game via forfeiture, you cannot play the game by refusing to play the game, instead you will become the instrument of someone else’s will, naively believing you possess some sort of consent that you can give as if there’s some magical ‘opt out button’ that you can use to remove yourself from the bullshit which is the power game. There is no consent, you do not control other people’s intentions by declaring that you refuse to play the inescapable game of life, by refusing to play against your adversaries you leave yourself unarmed to their agendas and in your defencelessness, you become a target. Machiavellianism and the dark triad at large are of relevance to each and every human soul on the planet whether you wish to utilise it to become a tyrant or merely in order to defend yourselves from those who would otherwise seek to exploit you.

We’re all born into the perverse game that is civilization, a construct which has transformed in its ever-changing face for millennia, and the rules of power have all but barely changed, if anything over time, they have become further refined and intricate in the extravagance of their complexity, but established avenues of power never seize to lose their utility. Some people are players; most people are followers of varying power, at the bottom are the human drones and excessive unintended human ‘capital’ which emerged quite abruptly into the world from the ovary of horny women with baby rabies. Decide what you want your role to be regardless of how the cards are stacked for you in your own personal journey. You’re either a player or you’re not, and if you’re not playing, you are a loser. You don’t get power by not playing, and should by happenstance some power fall into your lap, typically by act of inheritance, in the absence of an ability to play the game you will not have the ability to maintain the power bequeathed to you, others will parasitize you until there is nothing left.

The less powerful you are, the more you’ll give a fuck about people’s opinions in general, the reason for this being because a great deal of people have the ability to influence your life in ways which could potentially threaten you, the more power you get, the less people there are in the hierarchy whom are better than you that can control your life to the extent that it will elicit personal fear. In antithesis, there will be more people who will become dependent upon you for their livelihoods, their mental state, the instrumental nature of your expertise or whatever it is that is the source of your power.

It’s lonely at the top and it’s depressing at the bottom. If someone cannot offer me anything of value, be it intellectual stimulation or resources then I don’t care what their opinion is, I’ll often laugh at people who act like I should give a damn about what they have to say when they have demonstrated no power or quality of sufficient reason for why I should listen to them. On the topic of reason, reason is power, reasonable people will follow the logical, reasonable people worship logic, you can gain power by being reasonable or at least appearing to be reasonable with the right people, whilst with others you must influence them ostentatiously with the emotion of delusion and the cunning of fallacy. If a person is not proficient in something that can help you in any way big or small, then you shouldn’t give a damn about them or anything they have to say.

Women are born into the game of power having a monopoly on the sex cartel, it’s a double-edged sword, it gives them immense power in the fleetingness of their youth but it also becomes their field of limitation, leaving them often powerless when their looks fade and creating a sense of urgency within womankind that mankind simply does not experience, the very sense that their power is ever depreciating. Power is the reason women fight so fiercely for their youth, going to extreme lengths in an effort to maintain the appearance of youth and beauty, their obsession with vanity being derived from their love of power, a unilateral reliance upon the halo effect.

Men controlled the sex cartel throughout history with violence and the monopolisation of resources, now in the modern 21st century in the developed world it is the feminists and their female beneficiaries that control the sex cartel with politics, institutionalised gender theory, propaganda and unjust legality. As men you need to take care of your sexual needs by getting the best terms possible for yourself in the market, without being born into wealth or good genetics which lend either great intelligence or aesthetic attraction the cards are stacked against you. Regardless of your position, there is always a trade-off and you must position yourself to get the best deal possible. You cannot get something for nothing, there isn’t anything worth having that comes for nothing, especially sexual relations, even if it appears to do so, sex has been fully weaponized.

Obsessing over sex is almost as stupid as trying to make yourself believe it’s irrelevant. Sex is intrinsically a large realm of power, others would argue from an anthropological viewpoint it is the entire reason for the concept of power. Regardless of interpretation ignoring sex is essentially ignoring an incredibly large area of the power game and thus for all those interested in power, amassing power or avoiding powerlessness, it is an incredibly short-sighted move. 

In conclusion: the problem is not to care about things, the problem is caring about things that don’t matter and/or not caring about things that do matter. eg: “I don’t care about Machiavellianism” and then caring too much about irrelevant shit that doesn’t really hold any real importance in and of itself such as the opinions of the dumb, or what women impulsively vocalise rather than communicate through behaviour.