The Feminist Thought Police

The Feminist Thought Police
Asking “why do people hate the red pill?” is like asking “why do feminists hate anti-feminists?” it is simple, we are viewed as “the opposing team.” By reading red pill content you become aware of the masculine’s unfiltered societal viewpoint. By agreeing with it, you accept a system of thought which undermines the gynocentric status quo of feminine primacy. Thus it is so that through mere act of association with the manosphere, devoutly feminist society deems you sinfully tainted.

The church of feminism will tolerate no blasphemous dissent, for anything that disagrees with feminism is by its own interpretation, misogynistic. By asserting the masculine viewpoint as primary, or even, a valid counterpoint to the feminist viewpoint, you are immediately identified as a misogynist. This means the rabid social justice horde that currently passes for “society” is out to hang your head on a pike merely for having a different set of beliefs. Expressions of thought incongruent with the feminist narrative are so socially unacceptable in the current time that they are deemed invalid merely by merit of being non-feminist, let alone anti-feminist. It is the job of both feminists and their enablers to prevent unfiltered masculine ideas on gender from “polluting” the mainstream consciousness. The societal hive mind therefore rationalises away anti-feminist argument as “backwardly patriarchal,” meaning: irrelevant, bigoted and outdated. You will then hear, at some point among the verbal cacophony that will invariably occur that “people like you are the reason feminism exists.” The reality is, the reason men even seek out the manosphere and its wealth of knowledge to begin with is because of the gross negative impact that feminism has had on them as well as those around them.

Despite the damage feminism has wrought across the developed civilizations of Earth; many an individual has become personally invested in the ideology due to psychiatric problems. You see feminism like any cult-based ideology creates codependency within an individual. Remove the ideology, and you destroy the individual. The most radicalised segments of feminism are perverse relationships between an ideology that commands blind obedience and a mentally unwell individual who needs a platform to grant their hysterical ramblings legitimacy. However, not all believers of the feminist religion are so staunch, dedicated or ideologically self-aware. There are many who would not even self-identify as feminist that buy into many of the ideology’s premises.

The institutional embodiment of feminism throughout society’s key social infrastructure (education, the workplace, the media, etc) is to blame for the surreptitious invasion of the societal value system. Those of you with a bachelor’s degree or higher in particular have been absolutely drowned in feminist propaganda. The more educated people are, the further from reality they tend to be. This is not because they are stupid or spectacularly unintelligent in any way, but merely the result of having spent many years in an institution which unabashedly peddles feminist rhetoric. Effectively, most of the population whether they consciously realise it or not agrees with the idea that the genders are equal. To feminists, all people are equal but some people are more equal than others. It is with the veneer of equality, that they in somewhat hypocritical fashion, implement laws and social practice where we artificially elevate women by giving them special treatment; a privilege that we do not likewise extend to men.

So what’s the reasoning for this unjust disparity in “why some people are more equal than others” you may wonder? To be concise: the idea in play is much similar to that of the concept of white guilt. Except we’re dealing with gender, not race, so it’s not exclusively reserved for whites, but instead men as one large collective bloc. When it comes to feminism, the race card does not trump the gender card. The way institutions are biased towards women today stems from the popular idea that men owe women due to the supposed barbarism of men in the time before feminism. In essence, it’s the fabrication of history to give the construction of “male guilt” an air of legitimacy. It is by avenue of said guilt that women get an easy ride in today’s society, and this social inequality is justified as a kind of reparation owed to women collectively due to the conduct of our forefathers. This is how feminist society justifies its benevolent sexism. That and of course, maintaining the pretence that one of the most privileged class of human beings to ever live is constantly victimised, oppressed and in need of assistance. To surmise, feminism in its current form is about maintaining double standards stemming from tradition that benefited women; whilst antithetically remaining intent on the destruction of double standards from our civilizational past which benefited men. It is ultimately the restriction of male freedoms, expression and sexuality in order to make way for unrestricted freedom, expression and sexuality for women.

Instead of helping men and women understand each other better in spite of our differences, feminism encourages and thrives off facilitating decadence. It uses newspeak such as “liberation” to define the decadence it encourages when said “liberty” is really nothing more than a farcical spin on “anarchy.” To these people, the feminine viewpoint must be hegemonic and they don’t care how many young men, girls with “daddy issues” and grown men that this feminine primacy adversely effects. As far as they are concerned, the masculine viewpoint is backward, barbaric, misogynistic and unworthy of listening to. They are oafs, bigoted and close-minded, and they often have a personal vested interest in maintaining the feminist false narrative. Some through product of having invested so much personal time into the ideology, others due to prevailing business interests. Unfortunately the generations feminism has infected are irreversibly so. Once someone has been indoctrinated by an ideology, it’s very hard for all but the most intelligent of the pack to regain mental lucidity.

If you know your history, feminism reared its head long ago serving as an omen of decline in Roman civilization just before the fall.  And so it is apparent that there appears to be a cycle in which a civilization becomes so prosperous it can afford to entertain notions such as feminism. Only in all its grand irony it is those same notions that contribute significantly to the snowballing downfall of said civilization. One way in which this is characterised is by the lowering of the birth rate. Another is the lack of incentive afforded the average man to contribute to the tax base due to a lack of sexual opportunity, as well as a legal and social disincentive to start a family in youth. In its stead, what you get is a return to primitive sexual behaviours, a return to harems. Many men fail to secure regular sexual access and by extension of that, a chance to ensure their genetic lineage. Whilst concurrently, swathes of women flock to compete over and share the phallus of society’s highest value men, overlooking their social equals.

In healthy civilizations sexuality is policed for the betterment of the nation-state and female hypergamy is subdued rather than rampant. People date and pair off within their league, starting a family with a person of correlating sexual worth. As an effect of such quelled hypergamy, you get the monogamous nuclear family unit that was traditionally enjoyed in Christian Europe and North America. In healthy societies, women prioritise the needs of the family before their own immediate needs. They live in and come from intact family units. In decadent societies such as the contemporary west, men and women prioritise their desires above the needs of the family. Often this is because they have not come from or are not members of intact family units.

Feminism is very much concerned with controlling and policing speech. It’s become a very Orwellian ideology since its inception as a simple civil rights movement. The fact that we (the manosphere) circumvent their monopoly on gender relations is an affront to their personal beliefs. You see it is our discussion of gender differences outside the tyrannical feminist enforced paradigm that threatens its narrative by bringing its validity under scrutiny. Scrutiny is not something feminism fares well under. Feminism requires blind faith, like many ideologies, and is intolerant of being alerted of its own hypocrisy and dysfunctionalism. Also to be clear, when I say “we circumvent their monopoly on gender relations” allow me to be emphatic in saying this is achieved through indirect methods. We do this by claiming our masculinity and autonomy through hyper-independence. For you see through independence it is difficult to be controlled and so by extension directly subject to feminist oversight. We are not a movement, we are a personal philosophy. We do not “fight for change” through political activism or a coup d’etat, we don’t try to “change society to fit our needs” but instead we introspect and make improvements to ourselves so that we may thrive in spite of society’s support (or lack thereof.)

Feminism, like many a social ideology, is narcissistic and irrationally arrogant. It doesn’t even consider it may possibly be wrong, or flawed. It will not allow itself to be undermined at any cost regardless of any negative outcomes that occur as a result. Of course like many ideologies which started with an intellectually noble seeming ideal, but later morphed into faith-based cults; if you don’t toe the feminist line you will be ostracised from society. People will say horrendous things about you because they don’t like you or what you stand for. They don’t like you because you are “one of them” and not “one of us.” You are not a person to them. You are an “other.” And as history has taught us, if you are considered “an other” (witch burnings) then you are not welcome in society.

If you tried to build a church in Saudi Arabia they’d probably chop your head off. Well being a red pill individual in a feminist country is that equivalent. Witch hunting and doxxing abound, reasons for which I never answer questions about my age or what I do for a job. For your own sake, adherents of this philosophy should not post any of their personal information online. Without the internet a platform such as this probably wouldn’t even be possible and feminism would have absolute domination rather than a majority. Whilst the internet has been great effective at spreading feminism, especially to poorer countries, it has also served as a medium for fighting against it. The internet, my friends, is truly beautiful, and we should all be thankful that we got to live through its prominence first hand and see just what it can do for us as a species. The internet is the best source of free information, and likewise serves as the ultimate platform for freedom of expression; this entire blog is testament to that.

It is because of the internet you have the chance to read things which don’t fall within the realm of “political correctness” but things which are also outside that closed stringently moderated bubble of opinion. Political correctness to me is just a code word for “views, opinions, language usage and beliefs which fall within a spectrum of pre-determined institutional acceptability.” The recent changes to the language, including calling normal people “cis” is some perverse ominous shit with Orwellian undertones. Like the fictional language of newspeak it is what happens when ideology attempts to directly alter the language in order to make it complicit with its narrative. In light of this, one should endeavour to read 1984 as well as another of Orwell’s texts, Animal Farm. If you read either text pre-red pill, read them again for additional insight and perspective.

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” – George Orwell

The Art of Fishing

When you get a woman you learn one thing very quickly. They’re like fish out of water. They never know what the fuck they want so they just stare at you with a wide fixated eye, flapping all over the deck until you make a decision. They claim to like one thing about men but then react positively to the polar opposite of said claim. This propensity to counterintuitively undermine their words with their actions is a spectacle that has left many a man stood, jaw ajar, thinking “What the fuck?!” for millenniaYou see, it is the fish who contradict themselves for all to notice, with the underlying assumption that you will forgive and overlook their bullshit. Almost as if, when it’s convenient for them, it’s tacitly known in the subliminal that you shouldn’t take a single word seriously. “You should just get it!” Let’s give you a classic example of this in the form of the pervasive bullshit peddling that has been espoused by womankind since time immemorial.

“I like nice guys” the petite prominently plump-assed perky-titted 20-year-old says, but her behaviour and track record on the other hand, indicate otherwise. In fact Ms. Perkytits only fucks nice guys once in a blue moon. Some of them wonder if the pity handjob they gave to their male best friend in the twelfth grade counts. Of course, it doesn’t, and if she wasn’t full of mercury, she’d realise this. Predominantly, she’s a fish of the tuna variety, seen on the discovery channel to be enjoying a diet of asshole wherever she can get it. Why do you think she’s full of mercury? Did she spin you that environmental trope about the ocean being contaminated where she swims and little old her’s just “looking for the right ship to come along?” No, she’s contaminated by all the ships she’s jumped on, and if it is something wrong with the water, then why the fuck does she keep swimming there? What is it that causes this cognitive dissonance in her, the differential leap between her beliefs and actions? This is something the male mind has bewilderingly pondered throughout the passage of time in his dealings with women. You think it now. Your father thought it. Your father’s father thought it. “Well, y’know man, bitches just be cray, ya kno wuh I’m sayin?”

Does she have a lack of introspective self-awareness? Is it some strange gender-ingrained compulsion to hide her sexual strategy accommodated by the all too hilarious, yet nefarious rationalisation hamster? Probably both. Who really knows. Do fish have hamsters for brains? Apparently they do, which would explain the selective memory. What I know is this: A woman, especially a young attractive one, is like a fish. A tasty tuna. A fish who, if it could talk, would say “I hate fisherman who use nets (assholes), I much prefer the responsible pole and line fishermen! (nice guys)” There’s one thing she doesn’t realise though because she’s never tried to catch fish herself. All the fisherman with a pole and line are up against fishermen that swoop up schools of fish in great big nets, and because of that they’re lucky if they ever catch anything (the Pareto principle aka 80/20 rule.) In spite of this, the fish insists that regardless of trying to obtain an effective outcome, pole and line fishing is the way forward for a wayward fisherman! Why? because “nets may work on some fish, but not all fish!”,“real fisherman don’t use nets!” and my personal favourite “speaking as a fish, I don’t like fisherman with nets. They have no respect for fish!”

One day, out on the raft with nothing but his right hand, a lot of fish swimming by, and a solitary pole and line that hasn’t caught a bite since Charlie Sheen was on “Two and A Half Men,” the unsuccessful fisherman begins to angrily complain aloud about his lack of success. He starts wondering if there’s something wrong with the fish, or if he just needs to get better at fishing. Of course the fish become very startled when they hear the angry fishermen, they’re worried he may fuck up the ocean by dumping actual mercury into it. So they pretend to give a fuck, feigning concern for the fisherman’s upset, when really they just want to make sure he doesn’t become a maritime Elliot Rodger. Apprehensive and a little indignant, a fish jumps out of the water and onto the solitary fisherman’s raft. He thinks fortune has smiled graciously upon him, but he quickly realises his hope is in vain as it becomes apparent that in the absence of anything short of a hook in the gullet, said fish doesn’t intend to make herself at home. She’s just going to give an unhelpful holier-than-thou speech full of platitudes and empty asinine bigotry before she fucks off back into the ocean to meet the tangly embrace of another man’s net.

What was the speech the fish gave you ponder? “Don’t worry, gentle fisherman. If you use a pole and line enough you will eventually catch that one fish that you always wanted! You don’t need to try out lots of different fish or even catch many to be a good fisherman, a real fisherman is happy when he finally happens upon that one special fish!” Then ironically, she gives him a stare, bats her eyelids as if she’s a catch, but au contraire, she’s not his catch. “I’m sure the right fish will come along one day!” she exclaims condescendingly. So what is a naive pole and line fisherman to do? He, like many fishermen before him, disadvantaged by the absence of any veteran fisherman to show him the ropes, keeps retardedly fishing with his pole and line until eventually catching a fish that was rejected by one of the net-using fishermen. Of course, a fish caught by a net fisherman has to be kicked off said fisherman’s ship. It doesn’t swim away of its own accord. In fact it’ll often protest to said fisherman “you’ll regret putting me back in the ocean, you’ll never find a fish as great as I am!” A pole and line fisherman wonders why a fisherman either net or pole would even dream of throwing a fish off his ship, but that’s because Mr. Pole & Line is always thirsty hungry, never full.

Something the fish won’t tell you is that no fish has ever in the history of fishing been caught by a net fisherman only to volunteer a transfer over to the ship raft of the fisherman with a pole and line. All the guys who fish with poles (nice guys) are in a constant state of scarcity because they only get a single fish a year decade, if even that. So when a rejected fish flaps her way onto his deck, he is grateful for the scraps that have been divinely bestowed upon him (oh peace be upon Dagon, God of fish.) The guys who fish with nets (assholes) are in a state of abundance because they’ve got wet fish coming out the ass. They wake up in fish wondering what the stench is only to realise their ship has turned into something of a fish colony (a harem.) Then it strikes them they’re in a fishy kind of daze. In fact sometimes they wonder if some of their fish are beginning to rot and ponder chucking some back in the sea to catch a fresh batch. Their ship is so well-built, and their methods, so well-developed, that their ship is the envy of the ocean. In fact, some fishermen have so many fish they don’t even need to cast their nets any more. Ocean fish smell the other fish on his ship (pre-selection) and jealous of his big beautiful ship they all jump on uninvited desperate to please the fisherman.

So why do fish say they prefers poles when realistically as a fisherman, nets are the way to go? One of the main reasons she says this shit is because all her friends and family (“polite society”) adhere to the tenets of Greenpeace (feminism.) They believe in deep-sea conservation, and swimming willingly into the embrace of nets is in no way conducive to the facilitation of sustainable fishing. It is because of this her reputation depends on voicing a preference for pole (haha), rather than nets. She could never admit to Greenpeace that secretly, the thought of getting swooped up by a big bad environmentally unfriendly net gets her gills giddy. Her whole involvement in Greenpeace is nothing but a duplicitous sham, but she’s regurgitated the party line for so long, she can’t see past it.

No fish is bigger than the boat. If a fish ever gets too big for your boat (physically, or psychologically) then you know what to do. Throw it back in the water, because there are plenty more fish in the sea. Stay frosty.

Understanding The Dark Triad – Q&A (Part 1)

I initially wanted to answer all your questions in one article. However, I received so many questions worthy of a detailed response that it appears I will need to split the Q&A up into 2, 3 perhaps even 4 parts in order to do your questions the justice they deserve. If you don’t see your question answered, it will likely, (assuming it made the cut) follow in one of the subsequent parts.

If you haven’t read them already, utilising psychopathy and utilising machiavellianism are required reading before you begin reading through this piece, so if you haven’t read those articles, go and read them. Both articles outline fundamental background knowledge on the nature of the dark triad archetype. Without the background knowledge one would acquire from a reading of these predecessor articles, a full capacity to appreciate the questions asked and answers given in this one cannot be assured. That aside, let us begin.

“Are there any videos (movies, documentaries or anything of the sort) that you would recommend to give a more clear-cut example of Dark Triad behaviour?”

To my knowledge, few good documentaries exist on “dark triad behaviour.” I saw an English-made documentary called “Psychopath Night” which was, somewhat enjoyable, but unfortunately tamed in its tone by a rather poor choice to do a “movie countdown” of their favourite blockbuster psychopaths. This superfluous addition to the documentary gave it a less serious feel and more of a “cheap entertainment” feel. Interestingly in spite of that there is some input from Professor Kevin Dutton of Oxford University, author of “Wisdom of the Psychopaths.” I haven’t read his book so unfortunately I cannot give my opinion on it quite yet, but if I do get my hands on it, be assured I’ll do a book review or something similar.

As for media examples, there are countless, and I’m not a media junkie so there will be plenty of examples I have missed (and feel free to give your own in the comments), but off the top off my head, Leonardo Di Caprio’s character “Jordan Belfort” in “The Wolf of Wall Street“, “Marlo” from “The Wire,” and “Omar” from “The Wire” are good examples. In general, “The Wire” is an exceedingly good television series to watch if you want to be exposed to a plethora of dark triad characters. It even has a dark triad woman in it called Snoop, but as she’s a butch lesbian in the real world she has a masculine demeanour and isn’t a very good example of the typical dark triad woman. The typical dark triad woman is more akin to what I outlined in Lucifer’s Daughter. Snoop, simply put, is a certain flavour of dark triad woman. A dark triad woman with a masculine gender identity. In “The Originals” the character “Klaus Mikaelson” is a full-blown psychopath of incredible charisma. By what would appear to someone who is unacquainted with the dark triad to be some kind of “ironic perversion,” the comments section in the video linked for Klaus is full of women uncontrollably swooning over his psychopathy. Click on “Klaus Mikaelson” above and scroll down to the comments, some are quite eye-opening. Specifically those about “how sexy his threats are.” Finally, who of course could forget Hannibal Lecter in “Silence of the Lambs,” the archetypal stereotypically cliché cold psychopath. Dark triad characters comes in many brands and colours. Whether they are criminal, corporate, violent, cold or charismatic, they are usually very intelligent people, and the media is rife with different variations upon the same theme to accommodate this.

“Have you considered the macro societal result for when becoming a dark triad psychopath becomes the norm for getting pussy? Are you a traditionalist after meditating on the matters?”

The “macro societal result” has been in play for a very long time, gaining momentum since the institutionalisation of feminism. Perhaps not under the umbrella of men “embracing and internalising the dark triad” but in the semantic context of “men trying to be crueller, and more assholish” as a response to “independent women.”

Why do men have this desire to become bigger and bigger assholes, perhaps even psychopathic one might ask? Why do people come to Illimitable Men predominantly to read about the dark triad? It is my contention that the desire behind this motive is a matter of ensuring sexual prosperity via deviancy. Men want to “become assholes” in order to seem more attractive to women, as well as protect themselves from predatory women who may have exploited them in the past. Men have, as a collective consciousness, been making a shift towards crueller, less empathetic behaviour due to the social conditioning that women effectively perpetuate for quite some time. Simply put, men are predominantly influenced by their libido, and will go to extreme lengths to ensure they ascertain regular sexual access. Effectively, embracing the dark triad seems like the answer to many a man’s problems. Sex being the primary, although not sole motive for such a decision-making process.

It is due to women punishing “good” men and rewarding “evil” men that “good” men want to become “evil.” When there is a disincentive to be moral, people will be immoral, and men are no exception. This of course is neither desirable nor sustainable from a macro-societal perspective. Society and civilization by extension are built on the backs of hard-working, noble, honourable men who show selflessness and respect to men and women alike. The type of man most would characterise as “good.” Unfortunately in the age of feminism where women have de facto social power, and a man of a gentler disposition has no social or legal backing to aid him in suppressing the disloyal hypergamous promiscuity of female sexuality, the traditional man is going extinct in favour of the modern, calculating playboy. Women bemoan the fall of chivalry with their words, whilst behaviourally rewarding those (sexually) who do not adhere to it by the truck ton. To men, what women say is irrelevant, but how quickly, enthusiastically and often a woman will open her legs (for him) isn’t. For the aspiring playboy or bachelor, woman’s words are worth little, but their actions are everything. What works, works. When you ignore morality for the sake of self-interest, the dark triad is incredibly alluring.

Men of gentle demeanour are punished for their kindness in a way that contorts them intrinsically at the most basic of levels. It’s the common woman’s inability to differentiate kindness from weakness which perpetuates man’s move towards a darker disposition. This is what we’re seeing in scientific terms, highly focused sexual selection. As women have a propensity to reward men who demonstrate dark triad traits enthusiastic sexual access, natural selection is pushing men to become more “assholish” or “evil” as a result. Woman’s primitive attraction triggers, free of the sexual controls imposed by traditionalist Christian social norms and values are the major catalyst for the collapse of contemporary western civilization. A significant contributing factor to the collapse being the ensuing destruction of the nuclear family which modern women’s sexual and marital choices result in. I surmise a return to traditionalist practices are what’s best for the health and prosperity of western civilization. Contemporarily for a man however, the traditionalist male social role is incompatible with feminist society and as such, men are better served by the red pill philosophy and by extension of that, embracing the dark triad as a valid sexual strategy.

“Do you believe it is entirely possible to learn being Dark Triad?”

I believe it is possible, although highly unlikely that many men reading this material will “learn to be fully dark triad” unless he is already predisposed to such behaviour. However, with some study, trial, and error, a man can make significant progress, coming to possess 2 out of the 3 dark triad qualities, those being narcissism and machiavellianism. Psychopathy is simply not an obtainable state of being for the average male. Anything short of an extremely traumatic life event (abuse, witnessing heinous acts of brutality after doing a tour in the military, being locked up in a nefarious prison and etc) will for better or worse, not result in the acquisition of psychopathy. “Learnt psychopathy” is a coping mechanism, rather than a genetic accident which befalls those born with such neurology. That being said, the ingestion of high purity cocaine can temporarily induce dark triad traits to a clinical extent within the average male. Cocaine in a way, acts as a chemical facilitator for psychopathy by inducing fearlessness through the removal of anxiety, alongside a simultaneous state of exuberant narcissistic confidence. It is fearlessness and the absence of empathy (sympathy) which best characterises the core of psychopathy. Alcohol, to a markedly lesser extent, serves the same purpose, hence it’s reputation as being a form of “social lubricant.”

“If yes, how would that be done. If no, how would you at least come closer?”

Anything short of what I described in my answer to the previous question, with mere cocaine consumption being the least fucked up life changing event listed, will not result in the acquisition of psychopathy. Even then, cocaine works temporarily by inebriating you, it doesn’t rewire your brain permanently to make you psychopathic. So how does one become closer? I mention the practice of stoicism alongside a cultivation of the ability to cold-read in “utilising psychopathy.” That aside narcissism and machiavellianism are fully obtainable traits of the triad as they are considered “socialised maladaptive traits.” Machiavellianism is the strategic and manipulative nature of the dark triad male, the “moves” and tactics he utilises in his social strategy to ensure dominance and success. Likewise, machiavellianism is used by average people to a more diminished capacity than is prevalent in the dark triad individual. The most contemporarily relevant, astute and well-compiled book on the subject matter is undoubtedly, The 48 Laws of Power. The book is without a shadow of a doubt, the most necessary read for the budding Machiavellian and is well-deserving of its best-seller status. Learn the strategies from within the 48 Laws of Power and toy with their execution in your life to develop a grasp for how to vocationally utilise the strategies taught in the book. Getting the theory down and understanding it in your head is primary, but becomes fundamentally useless if you lack the ability to execute. Knowing what skills are required and how to execute the strategies listed in the book is what will allow you to see immediate gains within your life.

Machiavellianism is not just an academic field of study, but likewise, a vocational art. To the budding machiavellian, the theory comes before the vocation. To the natural, the theory confirms and augments the vocation. Mastering or at least refining your execution will allow you to acquire a more intimate and refined understanding of machiavellianism by giving you a frame of reference to relate to the strategies within the book. Like anything, theory and learning are only half the equation, they must be tried and tested by action and experience. There is only so much theory and “how to” you can read on here. You must go out into the world and practice the methods for yourself. Understanding something and being able to do something are two very different things. The manosphere and I cannot do that for you. Supplementarily, but with less importance than the The 48 Laws of Power, The 33 Strategies of War, also by author Robert Greene, is a necessary read.

Narcissism manifests in different ways despite how it is cultivated (as a maladaptive social trait caused by parental neglect), the effect of becoming drunk on power/success, the effect of being told all your life that you are great in some capacity and believing it, or merely the will to repeatedly tell yourself that you are somehow special or superior to others. Narcissism, really, is a cycle. It begins as one huge bluff, that overtime, becomes so externally validated that it is actually “believed into existence.” What began as a lie in the form of a bluff takes on a life of its own, believed in and likewise validated by the minds of others. You could for example argue religion is not real, but to those who devoutly believe in it, it is very real. To an extent, whatever is believed in, regardless of its actual legitimacy, becomes real by having life breathed into it. Belief can disregard rationality and legitimacy to make the unreal, real. This is why “fake it ’till you make it” works. If you believe long enough that you are something you are not and communicate this falsehood to others, they too will begin to believe you are something you are not. Then, validated by other’s opinions you begin to further believe you are the identity formed from a set of expectations that other’s hold for you. In turn you live out a self-fulfilling prophecy because external sources reinforce an idea of “you” that is pleasurable for you to adhere to. EG: you’re not “a player” but you convince women you’re “a player” and subsequently they keep calling you “a player” as a result. Eventually you believe you are a player due to the repetitive inculcation of their opinions, causing you to identify internally as “a player.” As a result you take on the characteristics of “a player”, actually becoming “a player” and thus the self-fulfilling prophecy is complete.

If you wish to become narcissistic, delude yourself into high self-appraisal and/or get good at something and harvest all the compliments and dick sucking that comes your way whilst ignoring all the negative feedback you get. Repeat things that aren’t true about yourself to others until they hold specific beliefs about you and then you can use those people as external validators who will regurgitate your idealised self-belief back at you. Cut people out of your life who make you feel shitty whilst introducing and keeping people around who make you feel good about yourself.

The final point on narcissism is the importance of time. Busy people are more narcissistic than those who aren’t busy. Busy people feel more important and thus by extension value any spare time they have more than those who perceive themselves to have an abundance of time. Busy people see you as taking the little bit of time they have left for themselves and so place a higher value on their time. Bored people see you as doing them a favour by filling in their personal void and thus welcome the consumption of their time. Formulaically speaking, an abundance of time equals a scarcity of narcissism whilst a scarcity of time equals an abundance of narcissism. Time available and sense of self-importance are directly proportional independent of belief systems. Basically the budding narcissist tries to keep busy, creating scarcity socially by limiting their availability whilst collecting people to feed the ego. This feeds the “narcissistic supply” and subsequently the cycle is maintained by carefully managing social networks. The narcissist cannot allow himself to be too open-minded to views which will harm his self-perception, and so in the management of his social networks he avoids jobs, behaviours and people who will cause him to, in his own eyes, demean himself. This is verbalised as a refusal to do things or associate with those who he recognises as “beneath him” (a threat to his ego.)

Concluding Part 1 – Closing Thoughts:

I have purposely skimmed over the topic of narcissism and not gone into too much depth on my explanation of it as I am saving the bulk of my thoughts on narcissism for the yet to be released “utilising narcissism” article. As you can surely understand, I don’t want to reveal too much about my thoughts on narcissism ahead of writing a dedicated piece on the topic. Don’t get too caught up on that, as part 2 of this Q&A is up next.

The Three R’s: Romanticisation, Realisation & Responsibility

The red pill community and more generally speaking the manosphere have something of a love-hate relationship with women. I don’t love women as a collective, but seeing them for what they are to the bare bones I have learnt to accept them. In the rare instances they occur I can appreciate the minority of well-raised women that’ll contribute positively to my life. I can see how men are idealistic romantics that need/crave a woman in their life to “have a kind of connection they can’t have with another man,” but by the by, women are nothing to be lauded or worshipped. Western women in general are just shitty people. Red pill men have all the reason in the world to hate women when it’s made painfully clear how they operate and how much bullshit they manage to get away with. As unpopular as that notion is, it is far from unjustified. Being hateful however is merely cathartic, not constructive. Long-term catharsis is a sign that you are stuck in the bitter phase in your understanding of women, rather than progressing onward to accepting their limitations whilst simultaneously self-actualising.

Being continuously angry will not help you improve yourself. For the sake of your own mental health, you have to look past the flaws of modern women by being extremely selective with which ones you’ll reward with relational commitment. Ultimately, you must employ RP strategies to hold frame and maintain dominance with women who do manage to make the grade. It is in this way that you can learn to enjoy their positive attributes whilst mitigating their negatives, and if necessary subsequently drop them like hot shit when they cross the line. Which of course many, if not almost all, will at some point.

Imposing your boundaries is imperative. If you catch a woman young enough and she is merely uncultivated, as in lacking depth and desirable non-sexual traits – rather than the alternative, which is the complete and utter corruption of the psyche caused by the fucked-up feminist culture we live in – then you may just have a shot to make such a woman into what you want her to be. How is this accomplished? By training her to be someone that’s likeable rather than just fuckable, otherwise known as “long-term relationship game with an aspiring red pill woman.” Even so, not every man is willing to take a woman on as a full-time project alongside his own self-development. A woman who has taken the initiative to make herself worth a damn regardless of the value of her pussy is vastly superior to one who hasn’t; she didn’t need a man to take up the reins of father figure and teach her how to be a good woman, an effort which involves fighting her every step of the way on each and every detrimental habit she’s acquired over the years.

There is, however, a phenomenon I have noticed with a number of veteran red pillers: the total inverse of bitterness. The proud proclamation that in spite of the volume of knowledge and wisdom they have amassed on women, they have come to “love women.” Accepting women for who they are and managing them, adjusting your management style to complement their individual quirks is one thing; loving them as a collective just for being women is something completely different. An appreciation of the feminine form is a refined predilection that all men possess, but allowing this to take hold as “love” is futile. If taking the lens of political correctness off women to see them for who they are has caused you to “love them” in spite of the perversity that is the modern state of femininity, something is definitely wrong with you. Just how shitty do women need to be for you to not “love them?” Or are you going to be a hopeless romantic no matter how low the bar is set?

When I hear a “red pill” man say “I love women!” (plural) rather than a particular woman, it strikes me with all the familiarity of Stockholm syndrome delusions. It’s almost as if there is a desperate urge to love women as a collective in such a man (an irrational ideal), rather than simply to love a specific woman where conditions permit. Stockholm syndrome is defined as the desperate need to love someone in spite of their abusive nature. With some “red pill” men in the acceptance stage (and blue/purple pill men) this concept is applied to women as an ambiguous collective rather than any one particular individual. It goes something like this: you so badly want to see the best in modern women and crave to be in love so much that you’ll consume yourself in the self-accountability that the quest for masculinity and self-improvement has taught you. Then in your romanticism, naively project your new-found sense of hyper-responsibility into your relationships with women.

Your only inherent responsibility is how well you objectively govern, not any affront to your governance. If you lead well but she fails to follow, that’s not your fault. It is implied that a good leader will not lose influence over their subordinates, but that is not necessarily so. If someone thinks there are better alternatives than you or is simply delusional, they will leave or otherwise rebel against you. In your endeavour to embody all things masculine, placate your ego to realise that you cannot control everything. You can merely stack the deck in your favour. It’s as simple as that.

I’ll give you an example: say you manage a company and despite meeting all your quotas and ensuring the staff are looked after and have their grievances met, one member of staff persists in disliking you. Is it your fault that this particular member of staff doesn’t like you? Are you going to blame yourself for not having read “How to Win Friends and Influence People“? Or is this person simply influenced by extraneous factors outside of your control? You wouldn’t blame yourself when one of your employees disliked you despite great leadership, so why blame yourself when things fuck up with your woman after you played your cards right?

Men in love lose cognitive clarity: even the most masculine of men burdened by the responsibility of romantic leadership blames himself for any mishaps that occur whilst the woman is all too happy to kick back and agree. Romanticism seems to profoundly cloud otherwise lucid reasoning within men. This is the delusion I see with some of the guys in the acceptance stage: all-encompassing hyperagency, rather than holding women to account for their shortcomings. This is a blue pill error that even the most seasoned masculine man will make, and it is something that will come to kick you in the ass with the precedent that “always taking the blame” sets.

The feminine imperative combined with masculine pride has convinced even the most red pill of men to take the blame for all manner of things in spite of the irrationality of such a policy, and it’s pathetic. For your own happiness and sanity you should learn to accept women for who they are, but realise they possess far more negative qualities than they do positive. Women are an unending source of drama, they are a lot of hassle, and they need constant management. It is for this reason we refer to women as “the most responsible teenager in the house.” When you romanticise them in any way that deviates from reality you’re adding tinges of blue into your view of women. To love them, worship them, or even prefer spending time with them over men despite having read a lot of manosphere material, is not red pill at all, but really, a purple pill mindset that’s gone full circle.

To elaborate, it looks a little something like this: you began as an average uninformed guy, you were blue pill in your beliefs because you were ignorant and had no success with women. Then you 180’d to being red pill but bitter, angry or otherwise indifferent but well-informed about the nature of women. After employing some asshole game, you had some success with women and got yourself a relationship. She then managed to wear you down and begin to betafy you over time, and as a result you’ve 180’d again into a purple pill hybrid. You have red pill knowledge but you find it easier to give your chick free passes and blame yourself for her misbehaviour rather than put your foot down. You confuse leadership with being a hegemonic scapegoat. You’re the wilfully ignorant guy blaming yourself for any mistakes that occur because you believe women have no agency and merely reflect how you’ve made them feel. You don’t hold her accountable because you believe that by being the leader everything automatically becomes your fault. This is hyperagency.

For those who don’t know what hyperagency is, it is the male tendency to assume responsibility/fault for things that weren’t directly the man’s fault, but through some indirect slippery slope reasoning can be convincingly rationalised as being his fault. Men who have taken the red pill and gone down the path of accentuating their masculine qualities to then successfully land themselves a relationship tend to be hyperagents, whilst plate spinners are more likely to throw caution to the wind. Hyperagency is the inverse to the feminine hypoagent instinct, which you guessed it, is the predilection of women to divert responsibility for their actions away from themselves. She will take credit where it is due, but where fault is to be allocated her instinct is to blame shift and shirk accountability. Being accountable to yourself and acquiring discipline and honour to keep yourself on track in the quest for masculine self-improvement is fine. Holding yourself accountable for a woman’s fuck-ups, however, is as blue pill as putting them on a pedestal. It implies they are better than you are because they are beyond the realm of fallibility. Yes, you can influence a woman’s behaviour greatly, any masculine man can, but assuming all responsibility when anything goes wrong is irrational and just plays into the narrative of the feminine imperative – the innate Machiavellian tendency women possess to absolve themselves of blame. If accountability is important to you then blame is attributed where it is due. Logic will best deduce where blame should be attributed. Treating yourself as a catch-all for anything that goes wrong is not the answer and it doesn’t make you “a real man” or “a proud man”; it makes you an honourable idiot.

Ultimately as men I think we’re fighting our instincts. Our instincts are to romanticise women, care for them, provide for and protect them, seeking sexual favours in return to pass on our genes, whilst our culture has made our instincts deadly to our own survival. All of this is exacerbated by cultural Marxist indoctrination which makes us ripe pickings for women who have been trained to be less empathetic, more narcissistic and more predatory towards men. Women are manageable when their egos are kept in check (this is why negging works) but, allowed to get high on “you go girl!” instant validation streams for the tiniest and most asinine of things (such as a selfie), they become increasingly self-centred and unmanageable. Combine men’s predisposition to romanticise women with women’s Machiavellian nature and what we have is a disaster waiting to happen: a culture that brainwashes men to give in to their romantic instincts whilst dissecting and supplanting their masculinity with feminine sensibilities. These sensibilities then get mixed in with the male protector/provider instinct (masculine romanticism) in such a way as to make them hard to tell apart from one another. In part, this is why guys sometimes pathetically bicker over what “being alpha” is, especially in relation to women and long-term relationships which are no doubt the trickiest sphere for any man, let alone a seasoned red piller or manospherian.

Feminism, as institutionalised as it is in society, is responsible for exacerbating female narcissism. It encourages women collectively to celebrate and exemplify their worst traits (hypergamy/entitlement and solipsism) in order to make us collectively (as men) responsible for their material betterment, training them to hang us out to dry rather than learn to appreciate us and work with us despite our differences. Part of the facilitation of this conditioning is to create conditions in which women can’t love, trust or pair bond to any one single man. This is accomplished by encouraging them to be “sex-positive” aka huge sluts. It is a well-established maxim throughout the manosphere that the more partners a woman has had, the less capable she is of bonding romantically to any future partner. This is great if you want casual sex but it’s bad if you actually want to be in love/start a family. A woman who’s had many dicks and relationships no matter what she rationalises or desires is near incapable of pair bonding. These women are often bitter, they feel owed something from their chain of suitors as a symptom of their latent narcissism and view men collectively as an arbitrary segment of the population that can be exploited for self-gain as a result. All of this only makes the conscious choice to “love women” as a collective even more insane.

Without a patriarchal society in place to enforce honour on women, our freedom to love women is diminished because they have the ability to destroy us and get away with it. Allowing yourself to love a woman should not mean tussling with the Devil. Due to the vast chasms that separate masculine and feminine nature, equalism fails in matters of love. This is predominantly caused by three things: 1) femininity’s lack of reason; 2) femininity’s lack of honour; 3) perhaps most importantly: the ability of the female mind to so easily rationalise away atrocities as necessary for its emotional well-being, and therefore, perfectly acceptable. This is what is known colloquially as “hamstering” and it ties in with the earlier point made about the feminine predilection to absolve herself of blame in order to avoid cognitive dissonance. This instinct is so strong that it will even override the decision-making process of women that otherwise possess strong logic.

By making them our legal and social equals without their being our rational and ethical equals, we have upset the balance between leader and follower, captain and first mate, and left ourselves susceptible to their whims. What has this done? Destabilised society, leading to massive increases in divorce rates, the ensuing post-divorce suicide of what was previously a husband, and a whole bunch of other fucked up crazy shit that no attractive woman’s sweet voice, long hair and gentle touch is worth. For all the flak they get, the “men going their own way” are in some ways the rational ones here: they’re rational in pursuing their own happiness, but irrational evolutionarily as they implement the destruction of their ancestral genetic line. If there was ever a war between nature and nurture, this is it, and it’s socially engineered human reproductive kryptonite.

Update: This article has been revised for grammatical refinement and has been updated as of 26/08/2014 to reflect the implemented changes.

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. At the same time, hardened women make for some utterly repulsive beings that do not inspire the same kind of response in their peers, for it is the endurance of prolonged pain that is at the heart of the masculinisation process.

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 experience 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 intangible asset long ago.