This article is part of a new category of posts I will be writing called “red pill ramblings.” Thematically, they are based loosely on and expanded from the various articles of the red pill constitution.
Sacrifice & Leadership
Contrary to the popular “woe is me” victim narrative that today’s blue pilled men and women spew, being a man is far more difficult than being a woman. As a man, more is expected. You have nobody to lean on emotionally and your gender can’t be used as a politically correct get out of jail free card. This is the way it has always been, and in today’s age of progressive superficial “egalitarianism,” in spite of all the rhetoric, things are no different. Beneath the surface level that society dedicates itself to reinforcing; we are all the same animals we were a thousand years ago.
For men, relationships are not an exercise in which he attaches himself to another. No, for you see it is he who is latched onto, not she. Men are humanity’s sacrificers. They do the things that nobody really wants to do, but need to be done, like working in waste management plants and getting drafted. Now, men in love are often happy to sacrifice due to an intrinsically deep-rooted provider instinct. However, it is this very instinct which is often exploited to man’s unenviable self-detriment and thus likewise it is important man recognises his vulnerability and self-regulates it accordingly.
“Happy Wife, Happy Life” has got to be the most idiotic misguided figure of speech to have ever been immortalised in the memetics of the societal consciousness. Happiness flows downwards, not upwards. In order for her to be happy, it is you, the man, who must be happy first and foremost. If you are not happy, you will struggle to make her happy. This means even in sacrifice, for her, or what you consider to be the greater good of the relationship, you must be enthusiastic. You cannot be begrudgingly forced to sacrifice by the parameters set out by the social contract. Your sacrifice for the significant woman in your life must come from a place of altruism and therefore be consensual rather than mandated by law or convention. You see it is laborious sacrifice stemming from obligation rather than love which leads to the growth of contemptuous discontent for your woman.
An indentured leader, the discontent sacrificial labouring lamb, is a bad leader. For truly, in the most candidly lucid judgement of the word “leader” and all it entails, he amounts to anything but such. Most emphatically, he is but a unit of labour resigned to the financial servitude of a discontented woman who enjoys the fruits of his labour, whilst to some degree, detesting him. He foolishly believes that by merit of his labour alone that he is worthy of a woman’s respect, and so by extension, her love. He believes this wrongfully. No matter how much he earns in the material world, such a gentleman will never be perceived by her as a man who is loveable in the immaterial. In the absence of any fabulous wealth on her part, he is but a tolerated personal wallet, the walking ATM, the fabled beta bucks.
It is by his lack of ability to lead that he remains incapable of inspiring her love, and so by extension of that, the respect that genuine female love for a man is based upon. She stays with him because doing so continues to bring her material benefit as mandated by the law of Briffault. For a woman to sustainably love a man with any measure of depth, he cannot solely provide material benefit, but likewise he must provide immaterial benefit. In TRP lingo, that’s the alpha provider. He commands the emotional excitement and lustful longing of the alpha archetype, whilst being able to provide the stability and security of the beta male work drone. Add unconditional loyalty to the equation and this is the epitome of what women seek in the sexual marketplace, the woman’s unicorn, “the knight in shining armour.”
Putting your own needs first.
If you can’t create and manage your own happiness, how can you be expected to inspire hers? A man must look after himself before he takes it upon himself to look after a woman. The express responsibility that comes with romantically associating with a woman all but demands it.
Foolish men in their naivety rally to placate the unending demands of the boundary pushing woman, whilst wise men concentrate first and foremost on pleasing themselves. They do not pedestalise the needs of the woman above their own. A man who is pleased with himself is in the position to give the woman with whom he associates the option to accept how he does things or to take a proverbial hike and take her chances out on the dating market. Often, out of sheer respect for “putting his foot down” and the sensationalism of the tingles that such assertiveness elicits, she chooses to do things his way. That ladies and gents, is the basis of “make up sex.”
For men, in relation to women, there are few needs other than ensuring a promise of sexual exclusivity that cannot be otherwise provided by an inner circle of male friends. Relational intimacy and emotional closeness with women does indeed have a certain appeal to various men, but it is hardly the necessity for men that it is for women. Rather perhaps much to man’s own romantic disappointment it is simply something to be indulged in from time to time, much like alcohol consumption and recreational drug use. A man who indulges in such vices too often gets irreversibly fucked up. Indulging in too much emotional closeness with a woman is likewise a vice, for it has the propensity to make man weak. This makes him pliable, and from there on we encounter the slippery slope of female contempt for male weakness which begins to manifest and ultimately undermine the health of the relationship. Based on this line of reasoning, such activities should be indulged in sporadically to assure her of your emotional fidelity rather than form the basis of your relationship.
For women, association with men is necessary, for they derive much of their self-worth based on the man (or men) they are publicly associated with. Their life is but one continuing stream of social media updates which pertain to their relationship status. A single woman is an unhappy woman, looking for a new man to fill the void in her insatiable appetite for high value male validation, whilst a single man is simply looking to get his end away and nothing more. For women, emotions come before sex. For men, sex comes before emotions.
The centre of her world.
As a leader, you are the centre of her world. To be crude, you are the host, not her. You are the basis for the relationship. You must be the rock in her storm. This means that everything stems from you and is centred on your ability to deliver, although in her tirade of demands it will oft seem to onlookers as if it is she who is the focal point rather than you. She isn’t, and if you make the naïve mistake of allowing her to become the focal point you can be rest assured that the relentlessness of her emotions will ravage everything the two of you have built, shredding up your little social contract in the process.
Everything fundamental to the survival of the relationship is based upon you, your strength and the amount of value that you bring to the table. You are the rock in her storm. Any value that she brings is largely, quite secondary and oft perfunctory to that which you bring. In a healthy relationship where you lead, she will be a reflection of your wishes and decisions, she will be malleable; for you are the captain of the ship and she the obliging first mate. This is the natural order; it is the way that things must be in order to ensure some measure of functional cohesion and relational happiness. When people do not have set roles, the ensuing power struggle leads to competition and destroys any chance of social cohesion.
Briffault & Value Exchange.
It is Briffault’s Law which states that for the female of the species to engage in continued association with the male, she must be sufficiently convinced that he will continuously provide value. If he could but now cannot, (eg: he became terminally ill) she will “move on” and replace him with a man who can. The implication that can be drawn from this behaviour is that she relies on you in more saturated concentration than you do her. Anything you rely on her for, at least in the context of a functional and committed union, will be secondary and lesser to that which she relies upon you for. She sucks your dick and makes sure the house is clean. You stabilise her emotions and bring home the bacon. It is this value disparity which ultimately makes male commitment valuable, and likewise highlights why men are the gatekeepers of relationships and not women. As women bring less to the table, their commitment is worth less than man’s. As men expect less from and derive less benefit from continued association with women than vice versa, female commitment is less valuable than man’s.
In matters of continued association, by merit of being female, she is infinitely more selfish than you are. She does not have the provider instinct that you do, and she has far, far more needs than you too. The modern-day rhetoric of “independent women” is nothing but an ironic farce. You see only a group of people who are so utterly dependant on another group, in both their pride and cognitive dissonance assert the opposite as emphatically as possible, hoping that if they repeat it loudly enough it will become true.
You see, in each instance where a woman has brought forth more immaterial benefit than the man, she will over a number of weeks, months or perhaps even years, grow increasingly disgusted by him. She will deem him weak, undesirable, “beneath her,” and as she concludes this, her once burning love fades as it is crushed by the darkness growing out of decadent disrespect. You see, female love as inherently pragmatic and conditional as it is, is based primarily upon respect for power and so by extension of that, value generation.
Where a woman brings forth more material benefit than the man, the man becomes keenly aware of the potential power imbalance her wealth is capable of creating. It is certainly not something that is an asset to the relationship, if anything; it gives the first mate the power to disobey and disrespect the captain even when this is not in the best interest of the relationship. We have established since long in the manosphere that female led relationships are ultimately doomed to failure, and a rich woman’s money grants her the freedom to circumvent your logic and your will should she so choose. It is to this end that high earning women ostracise themselves from men. They activate male aversion by robbing him of his provider role whilst simultaneously undermining their own capacity to love by reducing the significance of his role. You see in dependence there is a certain appreciation, and it is within appreciation of men that women find a fundamental ingredient necessary for love. Appreciation easily becomes admiration.
The Power Struggle of Value Exchange
Within the dominion of the physical, sexually it is you who acts upon her, but relationally in the domain of the mental, it is she who acts upon you. The “why” pertaining to this dynamic is quite simple. As already mentioned in paragraphs prior she has more needs than you and thus she depends, nay, expects you to fulfil them. As her “significant other” those are the responsibilities that come with unrequited access to her vagina. Of course, should you renege on your responsibilities; you will be framed and shamed as the devil incarnate. Antithetically should she refuse you sexual access? Her body, her choice, the social contract mandates you cannot rape her for not holding up her end of the bargain and so thus you are left powerless with no option but to threaten departure.
Sex is truly the female dominion of power and it is in this relational battlefield where sex is constantly weaponized, dangled, implied, used as bait and retracted to solidify and ensure your promise of commitment, whilst her promise of sexual access remains tenable and retractable. Many, many women are conscious of the power they have in simply saying “I’m not in the mood” when they are withholding sex as a mechanism to manipulate their man into bending to her will. Naturally, this is the go to nuclear option that women use to manipulate their partners. The male response should of course be, dread game. Bar any tremendous sexual prowess on your part, it is in the female nature to surreptitiously reduce your sexual access whilst she continues to maximise your level of personal investment into her well-being. Effectively, women use sex or the implication of sex strategically to ensure their self-interest in relationships with men. For her to crave your sex and lose the ability to leverage it over you, you must be able to own her like your name is Christian Grey.
Women have more to gain from relationships than men do.
For self-respecting men, relationships are not exercises in which you burden another with your baggage; likewise they do not lead to economic betterment and social mobility. For men typically marry downwards or across rather than upwards. Any man that’s ever heard other married men talk has surely heard of the “what’s yours is ours” and “what’s hers is hers” double standard.
You see for a man a relationship is a morbid attempt at controlled chaos, an exercise in the most burdensome leadership. It is something society encourages, because society derives benefit from it. Of course society derives benefit from all male sacrifice, which is why of course society has always encouraged men to do things that aren’t necessarily in their best interest at the time. By my use of the word “society” I of course refer to women at large, the female hive mind. So aside from peer pressure, why do we do even do it? Why do men have relationships with women when they can enjoy the best a woman has to offer without making a promise of commitment? Men have their various reasons. For some, it’s a fear of loneliness. For others, it’s the dream of being a patriarch that rules over his own family, a good (high value, well-trained) woman being essential to such an endeavour, rare as they are. For the men still plugged in, it’s based on an archaic idealistic notion of undying love served to you by the societally entrenched meme of “The One™”
This is why, in part, in contrast to women, as men, we are far more averse to having deep romantic relationships. Women have nothing to lose from securing a man’s commitment, but for a man it is a risk, a calculated risk. Our risk is higher because by merit of having more to give, we have more to lose. This is why it is so that in matters of romantic association with women, the foolish man endures a relationship whilst the wise man indulges one.