“Dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic of the very stupid as of the clever.” – Arthur Schopenhauer
1.) The Paradox of Cunning Naivety
2.) The Double Edged Sword of Rationalisation
3.) Her Deficit of Loyalty
4.) On The Duplicity of Beauty
5.) In Closing / Relevant Reading
1.) The Paradox of Cunning Naivety:
Why are women so manipulative? Know that firstly in matters of people, manipulation is as natural to a woman as stinging is to a scorpion. Woman herself needs no education in wielding her sexual powers to exert undue influence on man, for nature has equipped man to covet her sexuality, and woman herself to abuse it. This intersexual blend of Machiavellianism is thus as automatic as it is instinctive, it is less so a product of conscious higher thinking, and more so an inevitability of the selection pressures that bred her.
From here we discover a curiously enigmatic piece of the feminine puzzle, one that leaves many a man dumbfounded in its seemingly paradoxical juxtaposition. If we are to presuppose that woman is intrinsically cunning, then how can we simultaneously assert her propensity for fantastical gullibility? If women are so manipulative, why is it that they are more susceptible to propaganda and given to believe more fervently in the supernatural, the religious, and other such unsubstantiable things? After all, the cunning are known not for their epitomisation of gullibility, but for their deficit of it. So if they are to be mutually exclusive, should one not the preclude the other? And if so, how can she be cunning if she is likewise gullible?
It is my contention that in neither man nor woman is gullibility mutually exclusive from cunning, and I shall endeavour to explain why this is hence forth.
As I alluded previously, a woman’s cunning is a byproduct of her instinct, not a premeditated affair. Her ability to seduce is more nature than it is nurture, her manipulations no more than mechanisms of her biological wiring than they are conscious exertions. Her spasmodic capriciousness, penchant for blame shifting and affinity to the plausibly deniable are evolutionarily adapted survival traits, as is her propensity for rationalisation and its subsequent supplantation of her reason.
And yet the very capacity for rationalisation that makes her manipulations so powerful is the very thing which confers her gullibility in matters of the esoteric and abstract. Effectively, her ability to rationalise makes her most effective in the manipulation of people, but the very deficit of reason such rationalisation causes is what leads to her gullibility in the abstract.
As an additional factor, one must note women’s unconditional loyalty to authority. She is obedient in much the way a child is, and it is this obedience which makes her prone to foolishness.
If a person of repute is to tell her something, she will evaluate the thing based on the importance of the person who told her it rather than dissect the elements of what she was told. It is in this way that lesbianic upper class women duped the common woman into working; by playing on the innate victim complex characteristic of woman’s infantile narcissism, they were able to convince her that labour was a freedom women were denied rather than a burden from which they were saved. Womankind subsequently rationalised away her position of relative comfort unencumbered by the harshnesses of labour, and bought into the idea she was born into an oppressed class. As such it becomes quite clear, interpersonally she is cunning, but ideologically she is the very fool she manipulates relationally.
Be she cunning mindfully or instinctually, she is innately predisposed to a degree of cunning one way or the other. This is not to suggest that women are incapable of consciously premeditating their manipulations for such a thing is possible if not commonplace, but rather it is testament to the baseline of duplicity present in women even when conscious effort is absent. Even then, I make this distinction only to emphasise the intrinsicality with which cunning exists in women, I by no means believe the typical woman lacks either the interest or inclination to more mindfully develop the instincts that nature bestowed her. Likewise it is in tangential relevance to this I find it important to note that women’s profound interest in, and domination of academic psychology is no more than an effect of her intrinsic Machiavellian propensity.
Women who are instinctively cunning rather than mindfully cunning will often succumb to gullibility in spite of themselves. For you see, their instincts equip them solely to seduce and petition man, not to engage in the strategisation of complex, abstract mental work. Women with a flair for the strategic are either learned or dark triad and are therefore by definition outliers, the base of the female population’s Machiavellian instinct scantly extends beyond the interpersonal and the intersexual.
And so when it comes to things outside of this arena, she is as naive as the dictation of her emotions and the deficit of her reason allows. Combine this deficit in logic with her evolutionary propensity to rationalise away the undesirable, and the strength of her need to believe is laid bare.
2.) The Double Edged Sword of Rationalisation:
The very thing that makes her manipulations so notoriously effective is the same thing that leads her to be so easily misled – her tendency to rationalise rather than reason. Whilst the average woman is more manipulating than the average man, she is likewise more manipulable than him. Where the typical woman is manipulating in relationships but manipulable in matters of reality, the average man is manipulable in relationships and more finely astute of the abstract.
The gift of reason that lends a man his astuteness in matters of reality is thus absent in his estimation of women, the deficit of reason experienced by women abstractly is equivalent to the deficit of cunning man experiences intersexually. In a relationship, man is behaviourally idealistic whilst she is behaviourally pragmatic, although one should note that such a thing does not prevent her from amassing unrealistic expectations of what being a man should consist of in relation to her self-interest.
Where beauty is the primary cornerstone of feminine power, the capacity for pronounced rationalisation is its secondary cornerstone. Where a man’s reason prohibits him from employing the mental gymnastics necessary to effectively execute a manipulation, a woman faces no such obstacle. Sanity as we think of it is an assessment of one’s ability to demonstrate cogency in their methods and consistency in their beliefs, women are hard pressed to demonstrate either, which is why we often think of them as crazy.
One should not also forget that womankind has been evolutionarily equipped to rationalise the undesirable through her maternal line’s history as a spoil of war. Before civilization legislated against, and effectively nullified the power of man’s physical strength, a woman’s ability to deceive man was her only defence against his encroachments.
3.) Her Deficit of Loyalty:
Where traditional masculinity is rigid, based on systems of honour and loyalty and reliant on force to punish transgressions of these, femininity has no such concerns and is therefore more fluid in the fickleness of its alliances. Where men want their team to win, women simply want to be on the winning team. The men who are similar to women in this way tend to be dark triad in their personality makeup.
Women’s inherent amorality leaves her capable of showing loyalty to whoever exerts the most dominance over her. A woman never completely rules out betrayal, for women are creatures of opportunity; instead she hedges her bets by playing both sides and betraying as is financially or emotionally necessary.
Betrayal is the spark that ignites the match when a woman moves on and adapts herself to a new man in the face of what she deemed to be insufficiency in the previous. Loyalty is symptomatic of honour, an inherently masculine behaviour. Don’t believe me? Look at the divorce rates. The majority of divorces are initiated by women, a true testament to their disloyalty. Likewise men report a light switch effect when breaking up with a woman, a 180 degree change in her personality as she effortlessly gets over him whilst he continues to pine for her.
When a rival tribe would kidnap a woman, her ability to rationalise was the only thing that allowed her to cope, adapt, and continue to lead a rewarding and prosperous life. I believe it is this evolutionary history that is the foundation of women’s intrinsic loyalty deficit. Women who were inferior rationalisers would have expressed loyalty to their birth tribe in the presence of their captors, consequently causing themselves inordinate grief.
Inevitably, such women would’ve been culled to the point where only women with a more fluid sense of loyalty would survive such a prevalence of kidnapping, henceforth selecting for women who were loyal to the powerful and disloyal to the weak, the losses and gains of power imitating the ebbs and flows in her retraction and pledging of loyalty.
Where men adopt their own principles, women adopt the principles of the most powerful people in their lives. Where men fight enemy tribes and die in war, women fall in love with their captors using their innate capacity for cunning to completely remould themselves and even thrive – a feat even the most objectively talented man would be hard pressed to perform.
4.) On The Duplicity of Beauty:
Nature has armed womankind with dissimulation and aesthetic appeal, in which the latter vastly complements and lends itself to the former. Beauty is the fulcrum on which many a successful deception is predicated, for its inviting allure baits with desire whilst falsely associating itself with virtue. To enhance one’s beauty is therefore to augment one’s influence, to appear more noble, more capable, and therefore more trustworthy. Women know this intuitively.
Beauty is not only disarming but enticing, its presence aiding in the signalling of women’s most favoured illusion – innocence. Man’s most foolish visceralism is his propensity to conflate the beautiful with the virtuous, for in doing so, he invariably sees woman for who he’d like her to be rather than for who she is. It is this flaw of instinct in which man perceives virtue as an attendant characteristic of beauty that he inflicts on himself the self-detriment of intersexual naivety.
The duplicity of beauty is predicated on a presumption of innocence that only women and children enjoy, for beauty connotes its virtue through an aesthetic of infantilism. As Leo Tolstoy rather famously said, “It is amazing how complete is the delusion that beauty is goodness.” Beauty is as such feminine rather than masculine in its aesthetic, for handsomeness neither connotes nor confers onto its possessor the same illusion of virtue that beauty does.
Handsomeness lacks the visual childlike innocence signatory of beauty that leads the observer to infer virtue. Effectively the visual cues that lead us to believe in the innocence of children is the exact mechanism from which women’s beauty takes a degree of its power; that degree pertaining to the conflation of beauty with virtue and the presumption of innocence that results from it rather than woman’s sexual power per se. This phenomenon alone serves as further proof of women’s immaturity relative to man, if further proof were even necessary; greater neoteny is a biological marker of lesser maturity. In summary of this section’s thought, I leave you with this concluding statement: her first concern is her appearance, her second concern her cunning, but both serve the same ends.
5.) In Closing / Relevant Reading:
Woman’s desire to remain blameless forever and always plays a significant role in her desire to cultivate an innocent visage. Defensively, a woman’s primary method of manipulation is her presumption of innocence, offensively it is the seductiveness of her physicality; both rely on her beauty, the prior to a mere lesser degree than the latter.
The weaponisation of sex, the falsification of tears, the feigning of innocence and the allergy to blame, know the tools of womanly deception and recognise them for what they are when they rear their ugly heads. And remember, I do not convey such displeasurable truths in order to dissuade you from interacting with women, but rather, so that you may act with shrewdness when you do interact with them.
Machiavellian Thinking vs. Conventional Logic
The Anatomy of Female Power
The Art of Seduction
The Manipulated Man
30 thoughts on “Womanly Duplicity & Its Constituent Parts”
“Look at the divorce rates. The majority of divorces are initiated by women, a true testament to their disloyalty.”
In this case there’s the fact that the woman is going to win the divorce 9 out 10 times. Anyway, even in non married / no kids couples she’s usually the one who breaks up.
I like how you reduce the strength of my assertion only to present even stronger evidence that supports the crux of my original point. Excellent.
I fully agree with what you’ve written, but I was wondering, if divorce rape ended, how would that change the ~70% rate of divorces initiated by women.
Given the fact that women get married and have kids just half an inch before hitting the Wall, when they divorce their SMV is very low. If it wasn’t for custody and alimony my guess is that they would think twice before leaving their beta providers.
Or maybe is related with their ability to imagine alternate realties in which they can achieve their blue prince at 45, more than 20 years after their peak SMV.
As someone said, women are hipergamous but usually not very good at it.
I love your articles and red pill man! As a musician, I even feel like rock n roll lost it’s masculinity in the early 2000’s and became feminized so lost it’s edge and balls so rap and electronic dance music, the genres not afraid of fearing being called misogynistic or flaunting their success spoke more to the generations rather than all this “progressivism”. Email me new articles and how to find more stuff like this.
“”Beauty is not only disarming but enticing, its presence aiding in the signalling of women’s most favoured illusion – innocence. Man’s most foolish visceralism is his propensity to conflate the beautiful with the virtuous, for in doing so, he invariably sees woman for who he’d like her to be rather than for who she is. It is this flaw of instinct in which man perceives virtue as an attendant characteristic of beauty that he inflicts on himself the self-detriment of intersexual naivety.””
Incredible insight. Who are you?
“”The weaponisation of sex, the falsification of tears, the feigning of innocence and the allergy to blame, know the tools of womanly deception and recognise them for what they are when they rear their ugly heads. And remember, I do not convey such displeasurable truths in order to dissuade you from interacting with women, but rather, so that you may act with shrewdness when you do interact with them.””
The whole are article is astounding but these gems are just amazing true of a very complex animal the woman, yet they really are not because you have torn away the veneer of lies that’s been inflicted on men in western cultures by your reasoning and logic, ergo your a real man.
Rice study suggests people are more trusting of attractive strangers
Trusting someone more because they look good isn’t the same as thinking a woman is intrinsically innocent due to the neoteny of her beauty. That’s the very fine distinction I’m making here, the halo effect is a separate but similar point – definitely causes people to favour you, but I wouldn’t say they’d necessarily think of you as innately innocent. Innately innocent and more trustworthy are similar but different. Innately innocent = she can do no wrong. Greater base trust = you have more room to fuck up, but if you fuck up the blame is all yours, people won’t rationalise you out of trouble.
Yes, and the particular study may confound what we in the red pill community distinguish as female-innocent and male-dominant as a more general “trust”. My point was to elucidate a bit more about the strong affects of appearance as 1) affirming your assertion about women and 2) showing it’s less cut-and-dried about men.
The articles on the Lucifers Daughter were awesome!!!!
Jerry Airheart, MSHR< PHR
More great content. Today’s youth could learn a lot by watching old movies from the 1950’s, with actors like Robert Mitchum and Ronald Reagan. Films from that era are like a wake up call to the confused young minds that have been addled by thirty years of rampant feminism.
It takes a different culture from our current one to shed light on the more natural ways in which men and women relate ideally.
Might look at Bogart movies instead of Reagan.
In regards to the prevalence of both manipulation and gullibility in women, the best manipulators believe their own BS. So, they aren’t acting at all. This is why men do not like male manipulators because we think they are doing it very purposefully. When a woman does it when think it rather cute because they seem to really believe that crap. Also, if some if gullible, it would make it less likely for them to be suspected of manipulation. So, again, it aids the effectiveness of the manipulation.
I was wondering when we were going to start receiving new content.
Holy fuck that article was good
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article. Beautifully written. I found myself realizing increasingly throughout just how much of an advantage an amoral/DT man has in dealings with women, to whatever ends one has in mind – simply due to the ability to recognize and avoid the pitfalls inherent to interacting with the feminine. A well-rounded DT man has no difficulty avoiding the psychological manipulations and guilt-tripping of women in relationships or elsewhere. Nor does he view beautiful women as out of his league from “conflating their beauty with virtue,” which of course allows him to act more naturally around such women, leading to greater success.
Before I even finish reading, the perfect example of cunning and being gullible. Kids. The way they can be creative in lying trying to get something or get away with something. But easy to get them to believe in Santa Claus.
That light switch effect of breakups that men say they get is also part of women needing to be blameless. After she’s given much thought to breaking up that the man many times feels, things aren’t perfect but we can work through it, and then gets the blind side that you often hear about. She needs to start causing arguments so she can tell herself that she isn’t the bad guy.
It sounds better to her, and she feels it’ll sound better to everybody else, to have it that they either couldn’t get along, or grew apart. Or she can put it on him changing. To say that she was considering the breakup while the man was in the dark puts her in a bad light. Which is why the common reply to the man describing how a breakup came out of the blue is “he should’ve known”.
It also why women can’t stand if a guy breaks up with them first. Or gets somebody new before they do.
great work here… informative & insightful but best, it’s truthful.
I loved your opinions, and having been married mmmmm, lets see 4 times, I thought it was really insightful. You might consider shorter, crisper sentences. The writing style was gaudy and uneccesarily (sp) complicated.
I’m curious as to exactly what context Ninon De Lenclos said what you quoted. Where might I find it?
On the light switch effect men see, can’t that be attributed to women no longer wanting to reveal their weaknesses on a former mate even if she still have feelings? That and women tend to have a bigger social circle which can diminish the effect of sadness. Reading some stories on Darlock’s blog, I see stories of women regretting a divorce. Also, what exactly is the difference between rationalization and reason?
As much as I understand that anybody should protect themselves from manipulation, I also observe that the fear of men to be manipulated by women makes communication next to impossible. I think I understand how it happens. Men are on their guards, women as well. Both looking at each other as enemies rather than companions, failing to recognize each other’s needs. Failing because each suspects manipulation. Most people are not aware of their motives. They are lead by impulses rather than goals. If the goal is balance and the respect for each other’s differences, then one will not be able to avoid all complications, however, it might be possible to resolve them. Listening and willingness to asses one’s own mistakes is key. Teaching power games to the unconscious is dangerous as they apply it without thinking.
I am one of the outliers, ending up reading these pages by pure coincidence, nevertheless I understand that I have to understand the rules of the game in order to play with people who play it, even though I despise any kind of dishonest unauthentic communication. Well, to some people playing is authentic.
The point is that, for me as the outlier, the loyal woman, able to reason and preferring fair arguments based on logic and mutual respect, the woman who would like to find someone who is worth the loyalty, who will not use the power he has over her to satisfy his own needs, the one who understands that he will get whatever he wants, simply because she wants the other to be happy, well… for such an outlier it seems next to impossible to encounter men that are trapped in the illusion that all is manipulation and all is game.
Most men are either incredibly naive and without any consciousness at all, or, if they developed some consciousness they are lead to believe that women are “evil” and one constantly has to pass the “shit tests” they initiate because they feel “shit tested”. No fun at all for someone who believes in continuous development and mutual growth.
It feels like I would have to wear a mask and play along rules, in order to be recognized by the one that doesn’t want games and all this simply because most men believe that women play games. Weird.