Nuance In Manipulative Style: The Machiavellian Trifecta

Machiavellian Strategy

The Manifestation of Machiavellianism:

There are people who demonstrate incredibly manipulative tendencies from a young age. Be it a pronounced desire to manipulate, a natural aptitude to manipulate, or in exceptional cases, the manifestation of both qualities simultaneously. We will characterise individuals who show both or either behaviour as “naturals.” The naturals fall into what I have distinguished as two distinct groups: “The Kings” and “The Generals.” The remainder of the Machiavellian population are known as “The Advisers.” They learn to become Machiavellian early on in life due to traumatic or otherwise life-changing events, but for all intent and purpose before the inception of said event were not naturally predisposed to Machiavellian thinking. These people are socialised Machiavellians, the Machiavellians of struggle and necessity, and it is they who make up the final archetype which completes the trifecta.

Like most things learned in childhood and to a slightly lesser extent, adolescence, there is a certain intuitive competence acquired from one’s early life experiences. With all the impressionableness and raw aptitude that is embodied in the intelligence of youth the ferocity of necessity clashes with trial and error’s reactive and adaptive curiosity to give rise to the birth of potential greatness: Machiavellian prowess. This is a universal premise which applies to all crafts, hobbies and arts. The younger the person, the more pronounced the effect of their exposure to an idea; for the young are infinitely more malleable than the old and unlike the old, they need not de-program and then reprogram themselves: they are a clean slate. Machiavellianism is in that respect, by no means different from any other field of study or influence. The younger an individual adopts Machiavellianism as their personal philosophy and likewise practices it as their mode of operation, the more likely one is to proficiently exercise the power of the art.

The development of Machiavellianism often coincides with the development or redevelopment of “the self.” In childhood, adolescence and early adulthood this process is rather simply “the development of the self.” For older folks the same formation (or replacement of) personality is preceded by de-programming (unlearning previously learned behaviours) in favour of learning what are deemed more efficient ones. This is a practice known more vaguely as metaprogramming, a process where one undergoes cognitive rewiring via psychological reconditioning. There are a number of ways this can be achieved, but that is a whole other topic unto itself reserved for another time.

The framework which begins to take hold in the mind of someone in the process of becoming Machiavellian causes them to undergo a personality shift. This shift occurs as part of the internalisation of a new and rapidly evolving mental schema. And so it follows that it is upon the back of an internalised Machiavellian framework that social skills such as profoundly accurate analysis and the charm of persuasion manifest as reflexive and natural-seeming proficiencies. In a Machiavellian they are the product of something bigger, rather than skills learned in and of themselves for the sake of themselves. For the competent Machiavellian, they are merely symptomatic exemplifications of their Machiavellian aptitude having attained a certain degree of refinement.

Of course what I’m describing here is the birth of the manipulative mind in all its natural form. A natural Machiavellian in the truest sense of the word was always manipulative, however typically it is with both age and experience that the sophistry of such devices becomes more complex, more nuanced, more effective. Machiavellians are you see, in a perverse sense, architects of the mind. Manipulation is their art and they enjoy their craft, refining the craft and becoming masters within their own right. For the Machiavellians who are self-aware, not only is the development of manipulatory prowess a lifestyle, but likewise it is a hobby.

Now not everybody is what can be considered “a natural Machiavellian.” Everybody is, to some extent, manipulative and capable of some small-scale manipulation (a guilt trip here, a ploy for sympathy there etc) however “to be manipulative” is not “to be Machiavellian” per se. Under that criteria, each and every human is Machiavellian, which is in the context of what is being referred to here, a disingenuous and inaccurate claim. The average person’s manipulations are manifestations of innate desire, primitive, unrefined, predictable. They do not purposely set out to scheme, deceive and ascertain power, they simply engage in manipulatory devices now and again as a matter of course, out of instinct. A Machiavellian on the other hand can in partial characterisation be described as someone who is consciously manipulative. A Machiavellian enjoys manipulating, the entire construction of their lives is based around the philosophy of effectual manipulation. In the case of socially learned Machiavellianism this is what is referred to by the academic world as a “maladaptive coping mechanism.” Essentially, people become manipulative and develop cunning because they have to in order to defend themselves from some form of deprivation, be it material or psychological.

“The Advisor” – The Socialised Machiavellian:

Advisers are Machiavellians who are more defensive and indirect rather than aggressive or violent in their schemes. Advisers tend to use aggressive gambits as defensive measures, typically when a king or general is calling the bluff of the advisor having noted in their analysis of the advisor a lack of psychopathy. In essence, one could say the natural Machiavellians fitness test the socialised ones to see what mettle is behind all those well-placed words, well met glances and astute deductions.

“The Advisor” Machiavellian archetype is characterised by those such as myself and the infamous Robert Greene. The advisor is not a coloniser of minds, but rather, a complementer of minds. Advisers are sought out for their strategic cunning, understanding of power, and keen psychological insights. They do not lead and they do not conquer, they attract and infect for self-preservation, for profit and for self-gain. One could say that in the absence of loyalty “The Advisor” is a Machiavellian mercenary, a strategist for sale. Invaluable as they are this is why they are often in the employ of those with power, the naturals, the kings and the generals; for it is better to have an advisor work for you rather than your enemy. Likewise being learned, having consciously practised and read up on the realm of Machiavellianism, an advisor’s ability to articulate subtextual nuance is typically greater than that of the natural.

Kings and generals must form substantive friendships with advisers to secure their loyalty and ensure that the advisor does not defect or disappear. Advisors are high value assets that provide continuous value to kings and generals. If a friendship can blossom between any two such Machiavellians, “The Advisor” becomes more than a mental mercenary but instead a trusted advisor. They are usually granted a lofty position, considered family, and closely protected, partially out of affinity/respect and partially due to the secrets that they hold. Advisers are the most passive of the Machiavellians due to their lack of direct aggression and absence in actually executing the elaborately crafted strategies they devise. Whilst king’s and advisers keep their hands clean, it is normally the pawns and generals who dirty their hands.

The advisor is not a natural Machiavellian, the advisor is a self-taught product of their environment initially self-motivated by pain and powerlessness. Whilst personal turmoil may cause the amplification and refinement of such Machiavellian tendency within naturals, in the case of “The Advisor” it is fundamentally responsible for the emergence of such behaviour to begin with.

Where Machiavellianism is not natural, but rather, socialised: the laws of individualised necessity clash with the trial and error of pragmatism to form a new framework for the basis of personality. You see, although Machiavellianism never completely defines the personality in matters of explicit preference, it does largely govern perception and behavioural pattern. Machiavellianism rather crudely dominates one’s perception to fixate heavily on value exchange, eliciting an incredible awareness of one’s self-interest whilst simultaneously acting as an antenna toward the varying interests of others. When you understand what makes people tick, you can manipulate them. When you understand what makes yourself tick, you know how you can be manipulated. Machiavellianism is both sword and shield, it can be a reflexively improvised defence, or the core mechanism in devising elaborate and meticulously crafted schemes. There is not a single war nor a single battle that can escape the power of Machiavellianism, for Machiavellianism is omnipresent.

As the majority of people (non-Machiavellians) are largely unaware of much of the underlying subtextual dynamics present around them, any heightened power of observation is deemed threatening in and of itself despite its inherently passive nature. You may have never threatened another’s interests, but if that other is aware of your powers of observation they are hard pressed to trust you; for your skill can expose their vulnerabilities and their awareness for such potential elicits both fear and paranoia. It is in light of this that the Machiavellian learns quickly to downplay, disguise and conceal not just their power plays, but likewise their passive capacity to analyse. It is for this reason that the ability to appear unintelligent is a popular one. It is a mask that budding Machiavellians learn to adopt quite quickly as a device unto itself, being a most effectual form of concealment. Highly-trained powers of deduction quickly arouse suspicion in the majority of the population, eliciting fear, and thus unless it is your intent to instil fear, such power must operate invisibly rather than openly. To employ a metaphor, much like the modern CCTV camera becomes more increasingly innocuous, smaller in size with the lens concealed within a dome, your mind’s eye must likewise conceal its lens, operating hidden in plain sight.

In the transitionary phase of development, a budding Machiavellian is coming to grips with these realities. They are experimenting with and refining methodologies which strengthen their capacity to psychoanalyse and hold social influence whilst disregarding methodologies which do not lend themselves to this endeavour. Effectively the growing Machiavellian is fine-tuning their sensitivity to the minds around them, assessing said mind’s strengths and weaknesses, whilst experimenting with how to best present themselves to such minds. As mentioned in the paragraph prior, stealth is key. A non-violent Machiavellian must first be deemed non-threatening in the minds of others before escalating to cooption.  So it follows that as a Machiavellian, regardless of the archetype you fit, it is imperative to be seen as innocuous until you can gain enough influence to be favoured or even worshipped.

Stages of Influence:

You will never be worshipped straight away by another without immense preselection, eg: fame. In the absence of such external forces you will go through numerous stages of favour. There are two stages which grant you no power or favour with an individual; they are the stages of “rejection” and “indifference.” There are then three stages which follow on from that which bestow you with increasing levels of influence upon an individual.

A stranger, a person who does not know of you, is for the most part, indifferent. People who know you that behave as if they are indifferent or claim to be indifferent are not actually indifferent; they have in actual fact rejected you. The indifference stage is populated exclusively by strangers. There is little difference between rejection and indifference if rejection is not accompanied by penalty or punishment other than the rejection in and of itself. Where rejection causes another to designate you as a threat and to seek to undermine you, they likewise become your threat. No war is one-sided, just because you have not declared war it does not mean you are not at war. The rejection stage is populated by your enemies, detractors and haters.

Next there is acceptance, acceptance is an absence of negative sentiment or threat designation, characterised best as genuine civil co-operation. At the acceptance stage your existence is acknowledged, you do not set any alarms off, but you likewise hold little influence. The acceptance stage is populated by colleagues and acquaintances who you have neither gone to war with, or won the favour of.

Beyond acceptance we reach cooption. Cooption is when one deems you favourably to the extent that they will engage in non-consequential (small) personal sacrifices, grant you small favours and show a beyond “familiar” level of respect and admiration. The cooption stage is populated by casual friends, people who “think that guy is alright” and drinking partners.

Finally, we reach the stage of worshipper: a worshipper may not literally worship you in the “I’m your biggest fan!” kind of way but they are individuals who see you as an incredibly important person. They will be willing to make large sacrifices, lie for you, protect you, and are largely susceptible to your wants and needs. The worshipper stage is populated by dear friends, close family members and passionate lovers.

So how is one to traverse the sequence of stages, from stranger to worshipper without suffering needless rejection and social failure? By mirroring or at least complementing people well enough for them to feel happy and at ease when you’re around of course. Dale Carnegie’s “How To Make Friends & Influence People seems relevant at this point. When people are comfortable with you, you give yourself more room to manoeuvre non-aggressively by merit of people being more likely to consent to your plans. Likewise personal boundaries widen and you get to practice your Machiavellianism with a larger degree of freedom, be it that people are more forgiving of a social faux-pas when it is committed by somebody that they like.

For more information on the topic of becoming Machiavellian, refer to this article.

The King – An Untamed Psychopath:

The king has the capacity to perform and execute Machiavellian strategy and plans. They have an intrinsic desire to secure power at all costs and impose their will onto others, but often they lack finesse, patience, deep understanding of the subtleties of manipulatory subtext and struggle without council to put any exceptional plans together. Instead they oft opt to delegate tasks to their worshippers and pawns, watching how the dominoes fall with limited success. You see by nature of their ego, the king has something of a penchant for wasting time by playing with people’s feelings and relationships rather than simply doing what needs to be done to achieve an objective. Effectively, fucking with people is something “The King” does not just as a matter of outcome (causing people to suffer as a symptom of collateral damage,) but the king actually indulges in fucking with people purely for the sake of messing with them. Kings can be characterised as having a sadistic disposition, for schadenfreude feeds into their already gargantuan egos. From this it becomes clear just how dominant the ego is within “The King” archetype and how sadism acts as a mechanism of narcissistic supply for maintaining their self-majesty.

“The King” archetype is aggressive and has an intrinsic passion for controlling others whilst being subject to zero or minimal controls himself. The king has the will, the desire and the capacity to execute plans, and he is capable of devising strategies himself. However due to his limited understanding of people, emotion and a lack of psychological creativity, his plans oft fall short in majesty and efficiency versus the strategy of the “The Advisor” or “The General.” Kings are, effectively, natural-born leaders with a lust for power. They make great shows of strength but are oft caught up in their own perceived self-importance and thus their analytical abilities are inhibited by the ego in matters of defence. The king like all regal stereotypes is obsessed with his own majesty. His ego makes him easy to undermine and provoke, for he validates accusations which are an affront to him by acknowledging them. Where “The King” should mindfully overlook or disregard a provocative ploy for attention, he impulsively indulges in lèse-majesté.

Kings are simply put, to the detriment of their cunning, strategically stupid and overcome by ego when one dares to question, mock or interrogate them. Due to the dominance of the kings ego and their inability to control their ego and stop it from attacking wildly in reaction, “the king” operates erratically when the counsel of an advisor is not available. Teamed with an advisor, “The King” is a force to be reckoned with, alone however they are effective only against the common sheeple, being at a stalemate with other kings and outmanoeuvred by generals.

The General – Master Machiavellian:

A general dirties his hands where necessary, whilst in due accord appearing to be moral as and when required. Unlike “The King” who is afraid to dirty his hands, his ego too grandiose and self-important to demean himself to “the tasks of servants,” a general will do what needs to be done in order to achieve the objective at hand. No matter how undesirable or distasteful such an action may be, a general knows that in matters of necessity he is not above the game: he must comply with what effective strategy dictates. A general knows when he can trust somebody enough with a task to delegate it to them based on a fair assessment of their expertise and reliability, as well as gauge when something is sensitive enough in nature to require he dirty his own hands.

Generals have the same capacity to execute that “The King” has, as well as the rationalist astuteness of “The Advisor,” for general’s are the culmination of both personified within a single individual. Generals are at the very epitome of Machiavellian ability and tend to occupy the apexes of power (think Vladimir Putin.) The majority of Machiavellians tend to be neurotic king archetypes or passive advisers. It is rare you find a general, a Machiavellian who possesses the clear lucidity of the advisor as well as the ability to execute characteristic of the king.

Although generals do not need advisers, they often seek alternative perspectives and constructive debate for planning and refining strategy which requires meticulous execution and redundant contingency. The General is what follows as the natural progression of a king who has become aware of his fallibilities and become successful in mitigating them. A king lacks the training, self-control, experience and expertise of a general. A general is a king who has learned to shed his ego in order to deploy effective strategies. Unlike the king who indulges his ego as a matter of self-identity, the general has become aware of where his ego can be an effective weapon and likewise where the permission of its manifestation will hold him back, eg: in matters of defence. In light of this, the general has learned to condition himself to be egotistical only where necessary. One could characterise a general as not only a king with a more disciplined ego, but likewise a more mature and learned king. A king in his 20’s, with some self-awareness, experience and the counsel of an advisor or two could flourish into a general by the time he hits his 30’s or 40’s.

Generals do not have to evolve out of Kings, although typically from my experience and observation it appears that this is how they most frequently manifest. Aside from issues of ego, the other major difference that sets kings and generals apart is the ability to strategise. If the ability to control one’s ego and strategise well is present from a young age, then as unlearned as that Machiavellian may be, he is a young general. If said man cannot strategise as well as an advisor, then he is not a general, but a king in need of an advisor. A general in all simplicity is a fully dark triad man who has learned to curb his lust for sadism as well as mitigate his ineffectual narcissism in order to get results. He prioritises the mechanics of the game above his own quirks, he is thee pragmatist among pragmatists, the disciplined hand of amoral efficiency.

Enjoy this article and want to read more similar in topic? Then delve deeper…

The Psychopathic Paradigm

The Psychopath's Perspective

Preamble:

So it is thus I have become aware that due to my writings, some have begun to naively glamourise the nature of clinical psychopathy in the name of fearlessness, glory and the pursuit of power. The glamourisation of such perversity has ironically, never been neither my goal nor desire. Allow me to be as candid, concise and succinct as possible on my position of psychopathy’s relevance to the red pill framework.

Psychopathy is held up as an exemplar of a clinical disorder which brings about personality traits that facilitate goal acquisition. It is through this lens we look at psychopathy pragmatically as merely a means to an end, a form of self-empowerment. The end is the power and prosperity that psychopathy can facilitate the actualisation of, the means is the ability to cross boundaries and enter action with boldness relatively uninhibited, devoid of either anxiety or uncertainty. These are elements of the psychopathic personality that are pragmatically efficient and thus beneficial to anybody who comes to possess such traits. They are innate characteristics of the psychopath, but they are not characteristics that need be limited to the clinical psychopath. They are qualities that we may learn to emulate, and hence this is why the word psychopathy is mentioned at all, to give an example of, and a frame of reference for, a set of qualities we hope to embody.

Bearing that in mind, my intimate dissection, exploration, analysis and overall thesis of psychopathy is to give an example of that which comes naturally to a minority, to a majority that it does not. We are effectively, cherry-picking the utilitarian aspects of psychopathy to augment the social effectiveness of the non-psychopathic. People hear the word psychopath and they get distracted by the negative connotations of the word. They begin to become lost in their imagination, rather than really read and listen to exactly what it is I am saying. If you follow my voice through what I say in my words and ignore the playfulness of your imagination, you will find what I am saying about psychopathy is markedly different from what you think about psychopathy. In essence, we study and learn from the psychopath by attempting to emulate their strengths as accurately as we can whilst leaving their weaknesses, mainly the dysfunctional parts of their condition, well alone. Luckily for you, as a student, rather than a natural psychopath, these are things you may pick and choose rather than be forced to live with. Allow me to emphasise the point in order to really nail it home once more: the goal of studying psychopathy is not to become psychopathic, but to become quasi-psychopathic.

In light of this, I find it paramount that the fine readership here are educated intimately on the internal struggle and solipsism of the natural psychopath, in effect, as an effort to de-glamourise and debunk the ill-formed and simplistic views of psychopathy that the less intelligent have, such as: “how cool it would be to be like Al Capone.” It is my observation that those who struggle with self-confidence, anxiety and other debilitating personal afflictions peer into the world of the psychopath and experience a “grass is greener” mentality.

They see a huge antithetical chasm between what they are and what they are looking at, and immediately like moths to a flame they become drawn to that which they are not, whilst despising that which they are. Such people hear of how little fucks the psychopathic personality gives, and compare it to their own emotional wreck, perceiving the psychopaths dysfunction to be a state of being superior to their own. However, such a person only sees the perks of psychopathy, not the negatives, because by merit of not being psychopathic, they do not understand everything that being psychopathic entails. They see only the best bits, the theatrics, the highlights. They are not making a like-for-like comparison, but are being mis-sold by their own ignorance what the state of psychopathy truly entails. Such cognitive distortions lead to ill-formed, misguided opinion. In light of this, I shall shine a light on psychopathic solipsism by inviting you into the world of the psychopath’s perspective.

Introduction to the Paradigm:

The psychopath contrary to much misguided mainstream thought is incredibly emotionally intelligent, if they weren’t they would be more akin to autists who are inefficient at understanding the emotions of others, let alone manipulating them. Much unlike the autist, the psychopath understands the relationship between emotions very well. They understand the intricate relationships between emotion, which emotions feed into one another, which limit each other, and how to use them tactically to influence people. If you define empathy as an understanding of emotion, then they have empathy. But if you think of empathy as sympathy, as in, a capacity to rationally understand the emotional state of another via logical deconstruction, whilst simultaneously feeling altruistically concerned for another’s well-being, then this is something they fundamentally lack the capacity for. Under these set of definitions, they cannot sympathise, merely empathise.

Psychopaths are by merit of their condition, incredibly lonesome. Psychopaths believe they are the superior focal point of all social interaction that occurs, and it is this view which is accompanied by a sentiment of incredible arrogance. As the psychopath is unable to connect with anyone by merit of the strongly held belief that “they are better than everybody else,” the psychopath oft finds themselves in a quandary between a rock and a hard place when it comes to love, respect and emotional connection.

At their root, psychopaths fundamentally lack a capacity for appreciation, rather than appreciation, psychopaths have dependency, dependency being effectively what appreciation is when you take the emotions away and the subsequent respect that accompanies it. All relations are value judgements to the psychopath, people are dependent on them, and likewise they too are dependent on various people, much to their disdain. Psychopaths like those that they find useful to depend on them for something in order to acquire leverage and by extension, a measure of power over the asset or commodity that said individual represents. Comparatively, they do not like to have to rely or depend on others because anything that falls outside of their direct line of control makes them uncomfortable and paranoid. They do not admire, and they are not admired, as a matter of projection when one does come to admire them, the psychopath becomes suspicious of the admiration, perceiving it as a form of toxic, parasitic dependence. They enjoy the narcissistic supply, but very strong admiration, perhaps better characterised as adoration, repulses them and stirs sensations of immense distrust. Such an attitude towards the imposing feelings of others is a reflexive defence mechanism of the psychopath that is quintessentially symbolic of the paranoid detachment they possess.

Even if a psychopath wanted very much to appreciate another, to feel connected to them, they would struggle immensely, and without drug usage the endeavour would invariably fail. It is due to the insidiousness of this condition that the psychopath feels lonely, because in a state of disconnected superiority and an absence of emotional connection they feel nothing for anyone but themselves. To compound this further, they have such a low opinion of people that they struggle to find value in them, even those who they objectively know to be talented. Psychopaths have a knack for spotting talent, but feeling egotistically threatened by said talent they oft search for or invent some glaring flaw in the talented individual in order to overshadow and vitiate their talent.

When a psychopath sees a talented person who is non-psychopathic, it is like a lion watching a deer that can backflip. “Okay, lovely, nice moves you have there, I respect that, that must have taken you some time to learn, but you’re not a lion, you’re not like me.” Likewise they feel no empathy for the plight of others, and thus by extension cannot emotionally connect with people by hearing the tales of their struggles. Such tales are not a bonding experience for the psychopath like they are for the neurotypical, they are perceived as undue emotional burden, a transgression into the realm of the psychopaths mental sovereignty. The psychopath may not want to be alone, but they don’t want to take on your burdens to feel connection, they rather cause chaos to feel connected instead. It is for this fundamental reason that male psychopaths are dreadful at maintaining long-term relationships with women who lack the sufficient masochism to counterbalance the male psychopath’s abusive personality.

Logically, the psychopath can relate, but emotionally they cannot connect. They are effectively, a prisoner of their own reality, co-existing with other realities rationally, whilst being completely detached from the emotional and spiritual semantics of said realities. Emotionally, they cannot escape their own reality and are unable to cross into others. The psychopath is trapped in their own emotional solipsism and how they feel about others is always merely a lesser outcome in relation to how they feel about themselves. They don’t feel things for others outside of the context of their own emotional world, so for example if you were to anger a psychopath, they would feel hatred for you; but if you were to have a problem that did not affect them in any way, they would not waste a moment on worrying about you.

To surmise this train of thought: if you do not cause them a problem, you are not their problem. They are incapable of caring about anything independent of themselves, so when you have given them no logically self-interested reason to care, they do not and cannot.

Self-Medication & Dysfunction:

Psychopaths have a propensity to indulge heavily in both alcohol and narcotics. The substance abuse appears to be an attempt to use inebriation to induce an ability to “connect with the common folk” and experience “what it’s like to feel emotionally connected” absent of chaos induction. For the psychopath, it is an alternative way to experiment with emotional connection. Psychopaths by default give no fucks for others, this is not out of malice, but simply out of incapability. Malice is a component of sadism, a different element of the dark tetrad (yes tetrad, not triad) that falls outside the scope of this article.

As people with emotional needs who cannot connect with others sympathetically, the psychopath is unendingly tortured by their own sense of loneliness and thus compelled to engage in chaos in order to create a sense of connection in the absence of illicit substances. It is this need for rewarding emotional connection which forms the basis of the insatiable psychopathic lust for chaos. The psychopath believes that by engaging in highly emotional situations they will perhaps be able to feel something in context to another, effectively, as perverse as it is, the psychopath attempts to medicate their own emotional quiet via the strongest force they know, negative energy. They push boundaries not just because they can, but to find out what their boundaries are in an attempt to feel emotionally connected to another, call it psychopathic experimentation (at your expense.)

As I briefly mentioned in the prior paragraph, psychopaths tend to be lonely. Often the psychopath frequents rooms full of people, and yet, feels no affinity to anybody that is there. The functional psychopaths tend to keep company consistently, but are almost always alone. People are value functions to psychopaths, not emotionally connected personalities who share a spiritual link with them. By nature of having sympathy shut off, they get to avoid discomfort that neurotypical people feel at the expense of being unable to form meaningful mutual emotional connections. Functional psychopaths put on a really good outward display of “being on top of their shit,” but fundamentally they are damaged by merit of their inescapable emotional solitude. Psychopaths are not unfeeling people, they have and experience emotion, they merely care exclusively for their own feelings and are totally indifferent to the feelings of others. This assumes of course that the feelings of others are irrelevant to their plans and do not need to be manipulated in order to achieve a goal. If another’s feelings must be maintained or coaxed in a specific manner in order to achieve a personal goal, they will attempt to emulate sympathy and exploit emotion for personal gain.

Love & Loyalty:

The closest thing psychopaths experience to “love” or “closeness” is a respect for skill. Psychopaths covet intelligence, and because they are incapable of loyalty, they are perpetually paranoid that those who are in a position to betray them will inevitably do so. This is of course a manifestation of projection. They would abandon you in your hour of need if your value to them was disposable or easily replaceable. Hence they think through the lens of “what they would do” that the same is true of everybody else.

Rather ironically anybody who becomes aware of a psychopath in their life and all that entails would in the absence of abandoning the psychopath outright, quite rationally opt to betray them should a situation demand it. Wielding an understanding of the psychopathic personality reveals that such a person would betray one, so why would one feel loyalty to a person who does not reciprocate? Alas, you see, there is a self-fulfilling prophecy of distrust perpetuated by the psychopath’s inability to sufficiently trust. Psychopathic trust and its limits are limited to the confines of a power differential which is unfairly distributed in the favour of the psychopath. That is to say, psychopaths need hegemonic leverage and meaningful assurance to exercise any modicum of trust.

Loyalty as wonderful as it is does not flourish if it is not mutual, and the psychopath by merit of their condition is incapable of it, hence loyalty is an element of the human social experience that the psychopath utterly struggles with, much to their detriment. Alliances for psychopaths are tactical partnerships which lack the solidification of emotional bonds, and it is the absence of these emotional bonds which ultimately makes their alliances more fickle, opportunistic, and fleeting. Only a very unintelligent individual is going to be loyal to someone who has no loyalty to them, loyalty between the aware and intelligent being characterised as a reciprocal mutually shared affinity where personal sacrifice and help is guaranteed in case of emergency.

Likewise, psychopaths are terrible at maintaining the pretence that they care, it utterly exhausts them. Again quite ironically and somewhat humorously, due to rather pronounced narcissism and a constant need for stimulation, they struggle to tolerate the only people dumb enough to actually give them any meaningful measure of one way loyalty, the cluelessly stupid. So you see, the natural psychopath suffers from a kind of “trust paradox” (potential future article) which pollutes their life in so much as how it acts as a continuously permeating source of uncertainty.

Psychopaths struggle with trust and loyalty because they are intrinsically, irrationally, distrustful and disloyal. Never trust a psychopath to come and save your life unless your death would deprive the psychopath in question of something significant that they value. In order for them to save you in said hypothetical situation, you’d have to pass a cost-benefit analysis. Trust a psychopath to look out for their own self-interest and attach yourself to that self-interest should you need their assistance.

Psychopaths do not even feel attachment to their parents, much less others. That’s the thing with psychopaths, everything is a game, all of the time. As one would suspect, all this distrust, disloyalty and inability to sympathise makes them very bad long-term partners. Owing to this they have a pronounced tendency to be abusive in relationships because they simply don’t give a fuck about how the other person feels and what their psychological needs are. To a psychopath, the relationship is primarily about them, the other person serves as an accessory whose function is to service the needs of the psychopath. Psychopaths are very effective at picking up women, their short-term sexual strategy is second to none. However in long-term relationships, they absolutely bomb it. It takes a lot of conscious effort and training on the part of a psychopath to raise a somewhat functional family and not fuck it all up with blind rage, sadism and general disconnection towards their partner and offspring.

Psychopathic Investment:

Psychopaths only care about people in two ways: what that person can do for them (Briffault’s Law) and how much time they have personally invested into said person. The longer a psychopath knows you, the more they care for you owing to the amount of time they have spent on you.

Don’t mistake “care” for sympathy, I mean “care” as in a rare display of respect, however the respect is a strange kind of respect absent of emotional connectivity. It’s hard to explain, so I’ll put it like this: say you really like your laptop but one day your laptop ceases to work, you become mad because your laptop is broken, but you’re not sad that your laptop is broken. You took for granted something the laptop did for you and you came to like that, but you don’t actually feel an emotional loss for the death of your laptop. Well that’s how psychopaths are with people. Your death would cause them a problem by removing the supply of whatever it is they have come to rely on you for, and that would make them mad. They are mad that your death creates a problem, not upset that you are dead because they miss you or any other emotional reason you can contrive. Notice the subtle nuance there, it is relevant to understanding the nature of the psychopath. That’s “how they care.” Every way in which they like you is related to how you can make them feel within the moment, as well as how stimulating you are. If you were to disappear, they’d simply look for another version of you to fulfil that role within their lives. Eternally dissatisfied, people are nothing but varying classifications of stimulant to the psychopath.

When you have a psychopath in your life, you have to think differently when you deal with them in order to better relate to them. Being as narcissistic as they are, spending lots of time on you causes them to believe there must be something special about you because they don’t normally give people the time of day. Psychopaths are takers and they thrive on givers, they are parasitic people, and so they tend to place exceptional value on their time rarely doing anything that does not directly benefit them. If you have some trait, quality or use that has allowed you to monopolise much of a psychopaths time, they will ascribe a measure of value to you based proportionately to the amount of time expended on you. In this way, they are quite similar to the neurotypical, except the manifestation of this dynamic is far more ruthless and emphatically pronounced.

Functional relationships with psychopaths generally stem from mutually beneficial outcomes, that is to say, they want to use you for a purpose and likewise, you them. This can be characterised rather simply and innocently, or quite complexly and malevolently. Truly the nature of the quid pro quo transaction depends on the situation you find yourself in. Generalising the machiavellianism of the psychopath is difficult, and so without situational specifics it would be incredibly misrepresentative to attempt generalisation. It takes a certain kind of person to be friends with the psychopath, they are very aloof, uncaring and in need of a consistent stream of stimulation. If you are someone who seeks emotional connectivity, the “strangeness” of the psychopath will alienate you. If you are uninteresting, relatively unintelligent or unremarkable in any way, likewise, you will more than likely be discarded by the psychopath due to a lack of value demonstration.

Psychopathic Pretence & Exposure:

If they’re not actively “pretending to care” a psychopath will never wish somebody good luck, well wish or partake in any of the social pleasantries which come naturally to the majority of us. They have no concern for the well-being of others, so they do not express it. When a psychopath does pretend to care, as rare as it is, it is a sign they like you or are trying to convince you they’re normal due to an ulterior motive. Predominantly it is what the psychopath doesn’t do and doesn’t say that outs them as psychopathic.

Psychopaths are very poor at blending in and “seeming like one of the herd” because they get tired of fabricating interest about things that they do not fundamentally care for, the pretence wears on them and exhausts them. Furthermore, due to their narcissism they don’t want to “seem like others” because they believe they are better than most and “fitting in” would be lowering themselves. The best way to expose a psychopath pretending not to be one is through a war of attrition. They will only last so long at keeping up the façade before deducing the benefit from maintaining the façade is outweighed by the cost and thus opting to drop their mask. Making a psychopath pretend to care is the ultimate shit test and removes some of their autonomy, much to their own intense displeasure.

In closing - if you weren’t born an unsympathetic psychopath, you won’t become one. Glamourising dysfunction is pointless because even if you could somehow manage to induce a state of psychopathy, all you’d really be doing is trading one set of problems for another. You will always have to deal with the threat your capacity for sympathy represents, whilst the psychopath likewise has to deal with their unending loneliness, intense paranoia and overpowering distrust of everything.

Relevant Reading:

Blog Material:
Utilising The Dark Triad: Psychopathy

Book(s):
Buy The Wisdom of the Psychopaths in the USA
Buy The Wisdom of the Psychopaths in the UK
Buy The Wisdom of the Psychopaths in Canada

Of Love & Relationships

Of Love & RelationshipsThis 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 it is important for man to recognise his vulnerability and self-regulate 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. 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.

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, impliment 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 falsification and fabrication of the modern historical narrative 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

The Art of Fishing

The following article is a product of satire.

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.