You’re not Dorian Yates

Last week’s post on here was about the importance of letting SMART (Specific, Measurable, Actionable, Realistic and Time specific) goals govern your life rather than LOFTY (Limitless, Obtuse, Fictional, Theatrical and Yabbering) ideals. As it is to be expected, this always brings on the same brand of low-brow dipshits with their “akschually“, parroting the latest nice sensible sounding soliloquy that just happens to be in vogue that morning, fortunately, by making things measurable I can just block them because spending time on them is not productive. They can take something as simple as “Water is wet” or “The sky is blue” and turn it into a 48 hour twitter argument, about “What about water in it’s gaseous state” or “What about when it’s cloudy huh?” this is essentially what that “gotcha” or “owned” trend on youtube did to social media.

What happens here is that something simple, accurate enough, and effective enough is argued against because the person doesn’t want to do it, so it’s disqualified for being “bro science”, or because it doesn’t cover 100% of cases, or because it’s not elegant, complicated or convoluted, and worst of all can’t be monetized. It reminds me of that guy who shows up at the gym (god I miss the gym), every once in a while, fresh lifter, no experience, natural, no dialed in diet, either underweight or overweight, and starts wanting to do board-presses with chains, reverse hypers, platform deadlifts and power cleans as his starting program.

There is no denying that all of the above are useful, but they aren’t useful to him because he’s not there yet, if he was there he wouldn’t be on the net searching for advice on what to do, he would already be doing it. This is not to promote simplicity above all, but I wrote Gendernomics: Building Value from the perspective of a guy starting from 0, that’s why the case study of Dave was as bad as it was, grossly overweight, no job, living off fast food in his mother’s basement, that guy has no way to go except up, and many of his problems have simple and effective solutions but they take the key variable: Time.

Many of the “fear-based” marketing techniques we see all day on social media are based on the concept of “You’re currently missing out, if you don’t get huge results immediately you’ll miss out even more, so buy my program/book/coaching to get extremely fast and big results.

  • “Lose 20 lbs in 2 weeks without changing or doing anything”
  • “Get rid of your debt in 2 easy steps, first step is putting my $1257 course on your credit card”
  • “Bang 9s and 10s in hours…. by buying escorts”

They have a few things in common with “It’s too simple” guy, they are based around this idea that something has to be complex, a dark secret, something “nobody talks about”, it’s that once piece that everyone except you seems to “just get”.

It just can’t be as simple as “squats and milk”, “Just talk to girls”, “stop eating paint” and “stop spending money on dumb shit”, there has to be “The Secret”, quite frankly hard work, discipline and focus are simple, but not easy. That’s the big secret, anything that actually works is boring, monotonous, fairly simple, very easy to create goals for and very hard to monetize.

When Rian and I did our podcast this weekend on the unmeasurables we went in circles, because the things that are simple, are always measurable and if something isn’t measurable then it means you haven’t done the work with making it concrete. Once you know your desired end state, you can create a theoretical process that will get you there, once you have your end-state and your process, you can come up with a metric to measure it, once you can measure it, you can create a timeline, and once you create a timeline you can measure “expected progress” against “actual progress”.

There is no shame in trying things that don’t work, we all do. The reason why I’m as knowledgeable about philosophy, politics, sociology and psychology, subjects that I generally warn your men against, is that I wasted a ton of time on them in my youth. That’s why I’m as adamant about focusing on your current problems in a very concrete fashion, and avoiding the abstract until you have enough of a foundation under your feet.

Once you’re Dorian Yates you can start doing board presses and inventing your own lifts, once you’re Warren Buffet you can invent your own investment strategy, when you’re Don Juan you can come up with your own version of game, but until then stop putting the cart before the horse.

If you had the knowledge, experience and ability to figure out what to do for yourself, you wouldn’t be in the market for courses, books, coaching and all that other shit, you’d just know, but you’re not Dorian Yates, you’re just being a dumbass.

The P words

As I finished up my work today, I found myself thinking about the past 6 years. I made this blog in December 2015, I signed up for twitter in Febuary 2016, and over that time I’ve met a lot of people, written a lot of essays, written two books and done countless podcasts. Most of it’s a blur, I can’t remember most of my essays, nor most of the podcast appearances, but I do remember a lot of what happened on twitter.

About 3 years ago now, I was having a series of debates both in public and in direct messages about philosophy with someone who was a friend back then and who loved nothing more to run away from the world into his head. I identified a bit with this because it took me much work to cleanse myself of that particular preference. From my perspective, I was making an attempt at saving this man from overthinking, from disappearing into a blue nothing of ideas, concepts and constructs, that had little of anything to do with the world as it exists. From a philosophical perspective it was reminiscent of analytic philosophy and continental philosophy, one focused on empiricism and reason, the other on pure reason. It was a significant enough of a schism back in the day that Kant took the time to write two tomes about the different stances.

The main contention was, as I remember it was about the usefulness of philosophy, this was around the time Jordan B. Peterson was the new darling of the manosphere, and one cannot listen to Peterson without respecting his level of scholarly knowledge. This was an aspiration I had as a young man as well, to be erudite, to be able to quote countless authors, to summarize, to synthesize and to understand the mechanics of the world. I’m still on that quest now, however in my mid-twenties after spending countless hours studying the world through the eyes of others, I came to the conclusion that one can never understand anything one has not experienced.

This is not the classic “can’t understand it unless it happens to me“, for instance Dick Cheney being anti-gay until he had a lesbian daughter, it’s more of the difference between the theoretical and the applied parts of a science. It’s fully possible to calculate perfectly what your hand weighs, and how fast you would need to accelerate it in order to knock someone out cold, however it’s quite different to actually punch someone in the face.

I was a poor teacher back then, and I still am, what I was attempting to get across was “worry about the theory later“, children understand this intuitively, they pick apart objects, struggle to put them back together, over time if they’re smart they’ll learn which parts do what, and what works. Once they’ve learned that, they can take classes, go to college or read books on engineering to figure out how and why it works.

This was my take on politics that I attempted to get across on Rule Zero yesterday as well. I’ve been paying taxes for over 20 years, in multiple countries, and who is in charge doesn’t really matter, right or left, my tax bill is more or less a constant. It makes very little sense for me to get involved, especially emotionally involved, because the other side of things, the social freedom side can be gained easily by moving to a different country.

What I attempted to say on the last episode of Rule Zero was that getting emotionally invested in politics or philosophy is going to be a negative force in your life in almost every situation. Whether that means alienating family members, co-workers, friends, robbing yourself of opportunities or of time trying to reclaim a feeling. Alternatively, spending a ton of time angry, upset, sad, miserable, because you are obsessing about something that an individual has limited influence over.

However, this isn’t to say that philosophy, psychology and politics should be ignored and one should act as if they didn’t exist, it is to say that they are systems you should understand and leverage to move towards your objective desired outcome.

Summary and final thoughts

The reason why politics and philosophy are such dangerous topics for young men, along with religion and a handful of others, is that it offers the entrance to the hero’s journey. It’s very easy to imagine oneself making progress when part of an echo chamber fighting for a political cause or an intellectual group of “wrong thinkers”, you are going to change the world, now you are small, but once your great movement makes it, you’ll be remembered in history.

This is much like the old bodybuilder being interviewed in the movie “Bigger, Stronger, Faster” who had 1 credit in an Arnold movie in the early 90s, and was still living in his Van outside Gold’s Gym in Venice 20 years later thinking he would make it or the 50 year old who has been playing with his bands since the 80s and still think that they just need that one break.

The grand narratives are seductive, but very rarely useful for the individual looking to improve his lot in life, as these narratives are often constructed specifically to make men go against their own best interest. When I originally started writing here, it was mainly motivated by a desire to share my notes with other men, but also to benefit from the arrangement by learning from other men. In the past 6 years, I’ve done a lot of both, but the one thing I’m left wondering is how many men I saw, raised by women, who reacted like women, and let their emotions take control when reason would have been a better guide.

Whether that was the guys who went deep into:

A) New age bullshit like tanning your asshole, energy, crystals, astrology, MBTI, or various other things.

B) The guys who went into politics with a fervor, those who took the god pill

C )Those who went down a rabbit-hole of conspiracy theories, some did

D) Those who did all that shit

It rarely if ever ended well for them, when I look at where they were early on, and where they are now, the lucky ones are still stuck in the same rut they were in 5 – 6 years ago.

However, what makes me appreciate the way I’ve spent a lot of time over the past 6 years, are the guys who have made tremendous progress, and in the end which men ended up where depended on a single choice:

“Do what is hard because you must or do what comes easy because you can”

We have to go back!

I was going to do this as a twitter thread, but about halfway in I realized it would do better as long-form content. Now, I’m not going to share tweets in here, because I’m for the most part against giving people who cry for attention what they crave.

To summarize how I’d define “Trad Twitter” the best summation is “Appeal to tradition”*, this is an informal fallacy that usually takes the form of “This is right because we’ve always done it this way”. We could go into depth about the presumptions of this fallacy, and why they create a problem, however I find it much more interesting to make an analogy.

One of my more pleasurable pastimes when I’m not participating in this community or working, is playing old games from my childhood. Within the community for such games, there is always “that guy“, the guy who got dominated at the game when he was young, so now he’s come back to get his vengeance and the status he deserves, 5 – 15 years later, with perfect information, on how to dominate. The problem with this player is that he assumes that the context around the game has been static and he’s the only dynamic variable. What I mean by this is that if he travelled back in time with his current knowledge, he would most likely dominate, but in the years that have since passed, all variables around the game have been dynamic.

  • The way people play it has changed
  • The type of people the players are have changed
  • New strategies for meta-gaming have been created
  • New game-modes have been introduced such as speed running

Upon discovery of this the player type in question engages in complaints of “how the game isn’t played the same way“, “People are ruining the game” and so on, despite the fact that most players are simply doing what he was planning to do, and he’s still coming up short. The fundamental truth being that, what this player was after was an edge so he could dominate at the game. Once he goes back, fails again this usually results in emotional “fuck you guys, fuck the devs, fuck this game, I’m leaving” posts that litter various game forums all over the web.

I went through that rather long anecdote, because I think it illustrates the “trad-mindset” very well, generally they are men who struggle with adapting to many of the “changes to the game” that have been introduced in the past 70 years or so:

  • No longer having economic power over women
  • Working your whole career for one company not being the modern way
  • Being able to get a job at the factory right out of high school, then have a house, 2.5 kids and a wife for life

However, instead of accepting that the world has changed, this person advocates that we should revert to how to game used to be played, back when he understood and knew the game and where he thinks he has an information edge.

I can understand the impulse, with nostalgic glasses on, it’s easy to imagine a “perfect” time in history where you think you were perfectly adapted, a time where they’d appreciate a faithful, loyal, hard-working, dad, who puts God, Country and Family first. I’d personally love if all the unhealthy foods I like had the nutrient profile of eggs or broccoli, but this is the game we are stuck playing.

Even if we could revert back to the values of old, perhaps just to the 1950s, they still wouldn’t be the 50s, because European and Asian manufacturing hasn’t been bombed flat, we have smartphones, the internet, and many other technologies and ideas that we can’t just put back into the tube of toothpaste. Even if we by magic found ourselves with social values and ideas set back 70 years, your future “good wife” would have a smartphone, how long until she started taking ankle pics for her Instagram?

Summary and Final thoughts

I’ve often entertained myself with thought experiments of how I’d react if I was transported back to a given time in history. The appeal of it is that if you could keep all the knowledge you currently have, which is far beyond people who lived a mere 200 years ago in terms of technical fields, you could easily set yourself up in a high status and very wealthy position.

Heck, if you could go back to 2016 you could buy bitcoin at $380, hold that until Dec 19th 2017, short the crap out of bitcoin on the same day, close out your short Dec 18th 2018, then ride it back until now where bitcoin is $18K per coin. The people I know in finance usually laugh at such theoretical moves, because they are just that, theoretical. Can you luck out like that once in your life? Sure, are you more likely to mistime the market in your attempt to catch a falling or flying knife? For sure.

The converse to the trads are the people who appeal to novelty, I like new things, but not all new things are good and the implementation of new ideas should be done in a reasonably controlled manner. However, we cannot fight progress, the world will develop whether or not you accept it, so the best thing to do is adaption, as our world favors those who are most able to adapt to changing contexts.

The funniest thing about the whole situation to me, is that all sides, including the status quo group, are all fighting to bring about a world where they have an innate edge that they didn’t really have to earn. Instead of learning how to play the game, they work very hard to change the game.

  • If you suck at playing the mating game, you probably want arranged marriages or a state mandated girlfriend so that someone else solves your problem for you.
  • If you suck at playing the money game, you are more likely to support communism or UBI, since that means someone else solves your money problems for you.
  • If you suck at playing the lifting game, you can always go on TRT at 18 and use fake weights for your instagram profile.

The jock wants to play football, the nerd wants to play chess, the cheerleader wants to create spirit, and the badboy… well the badboy gets laid regardless so whatever.

The most important point is that these are all strategies to try and outsource the things you are responsible for, but not competent at, so instead of stepping your game up, putting in work and effort, you try to outsource it under a “noble narrative“. The argument boils down to “It would be better for EVERYONE, if ALL OF YOU support my ENTITLEMENT COMPLEX“.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition#:~:text=Appeal%20to%20tradition%20(also%20known,always%20done%20it%20this%20way.%22

It’s been a while

It’s been a while since I posted here.

Now being the rumor-mill and gossipsphere it always was, I’d like to think that at least they came up with some juicy rumors about my absence.

  • “Carl got a girl pregnant”
  • “Carl converted to Christianity”
  • “Carl’s MBTI profile is obviously not suited for the long-term exposure he was taking on”
  • “Carl got married”
  • “Shit, Carl really was a Russian spy and the NSA just got him”
  • “Shit, Carl must have died”

Only one of those are partially true.

Long story short, went in for some surgery back at the start of September, there were complications, then there were infections and here we are a little over 2 months later. Quite frankly, you’d be surprised how much catching up to do you have once you aren’t able to work at all for 2 months, it takes some time to get a handle on the critical factors of your life, such as being able to live it. To be honest though, I stayed away a little while longer than I had to, I’m sorry that I didn’t keep Rian updated, nor anyone else while this was going on, but I felt like I needed a break from the manosphere. If for no other reason than to reflect on the space as a whole, its many parts and things that have gone down over the past year or so.

3 months without any content, any contact with other content creators and no contact with the space really clears the head. Add in almost dying and you realize how petty and pointless many of the squabbles really are. Most of all they detract from content that is useful, and that’s really where I failed towards the end, I was uninspired to write for the longest time, because I felt like I was rehashing the same topics from a different angle on a constant basis, never getting into producing some new and useful information. Quite frankly, there is a limit to how many times you can repeat “Women chase the best deal“, “Men prioritize availability over price and quality

I’ve got some upcoming ideas for content now that I’ll be working on, and until next time, best of luck.

Best regards

Carl

 

On Reflections

For the past 3.5 years or so, I’ve developed somewhat of a routine, every Wednesday night, I pour myself two fingers of Scotch, I collect my notes from that week and I write that week’s essay. I actually quite enjoy writing these because it allows me to elucidate what has been on my mind that week, not just to those of your who read this, but also to myself. It’s not uncommon for me to have concepts, constructs and components circling in my mind, just beyond the tip of conscious thought. That’s why I also enjoyed doing the podcasts, because often times I’d be left with ideas to complete for the following week.

One of the first things I made clear to every man I’ve worked with in this space over the past 3.5 years, is that my association and participation in this space is because I want to be part of it, not because I need to be part of it. This is why I warned them all, “I will work with you, however once the faggotry of the space hits peak 2007, I’ll probably take a few years off again“, simply for the reason that I’m all about the value propositions.

From my perspective, the biggest issue within this space, is specifically that many of the men who participate in it as teachers and guides, do not participate because they want, but because they must. The space is for them perhaps the only space in their life where they can achieve high status and a reasonable high income, for a quite frankly pretty damn low effort. Note, that I’m not saying that many of the content creators do not work hard, simply that if you can build 10.000 twitter followers, a decent sized email list, and start to sell consults at $100 – $200 in hour, plus add some affiliate marketing on top of that, a great majority of the men invested in that particular venture most likely increased their income 10x over.

Richard Cooper, a man I’m proud to call a friend, and a man who does not need to participate in this space, but does it because he wants to, put out a great video last week, entitled “The Problems With The Manosphere” where my primary contribution was “Too many one-eyed men selling glasses to blind men“, I do suppose some of you got that based on the fact that I’ve got somewhat of a habit of speaking in metaphor and analogy. The thought behind the analogy was simply that much of the time in the “sphere” we double up on Dunning-Kruger, a man with a little bit of knowledge tell men with no knowledge what to do, can make a decent income and even build himself his own niche where he acts as the “guru”.

Value Propositions

Rich asked perhaps the most salient question I’ve heard and what is probably the biggest contributor to this space in terms of thought this past year “Would you trade lives with this person?” If you wouldn’t trade your life for his, or at least some part of your life for his, why are you listening to his advice, his criticism, or his perspective? I realize this is a bit of a “shoot yourself in the foot” question coming from an anon is it is a pretty ethos-loaded question, after all, how would you know if you’d trade your life for that of another person without knowing and seeing some proof of the life that the person lives?

On the other hand, it’s easy to fake a lifestyle for social media,  you post those 2 times a month you go out to a restaurant and have a nice 3 course meal, you rent a car or two and do a photoshoot, you rent a penthouse, cut down to 10% body fat, etc and you got material to build a pretty solid ethos-feed. Once you’ve got that, it’s not overly complicated to milk that content for a couple of years, then do the same thing over again. It reminds me greatly of those people who come to you with investment opportunities who provide you with glossy printed material, great looking branding work, and are wearing a nice suit, but cannot tell you the difference between revenue and net profit if asked.

I don’t mean to shoot down the personal brand guys, but it’s a relatively easy thing to fake, and the value proposition is rather implicit in that. “I can tell you how to life my life” and that would be great if they lived the glossy print material life, however many don’t.

They are the equivalent of the BPD girl who is hot, exiting, amazing in bed and love bombs the crap out of you, only to steal your credit card, file a fake domestic charge and take off to L.A on your cards for a couple of weeks while you’re busy dealing with the cops. The value proposition looks amazing at first, you only notice that it put revenue front and center and said nothing of sustainability, value over time, or nets.

All in all, for me my participation in this space is a question of value propositions as well, you can choose to believe me or not, I know I’m anon and that is much fertile ground for sowing all sorts of doubt. When I decided to come back, it was because the space looked like a great value proposition at the time, The Red Pill subreddit was growing like a weed, a lot of great authors were busy producing great work, including but not limited to Illimitable Man, Heartiste, Rollo, Roosh as the major mainstream guys, there were also a lot of guys producing great niche content within various forms of self-improvement. Plus, the trend was towards classical liberalism, Gamergate had a great deal of momentum, ideologies with little empirical or rational backing were facing a backlash in the mainstream for the first time in many years, and perhaps the most important thing was that “the manosphere” was on the cusp of greatness yet again. Just like it was back in 2005 – 2007. Neil Strauss had published “The Game”, Tucker Max and a couple of other men were producing literature for men that was impacting the mainstream, Robert Greene put out great work, and Mystery’s “The Pick-up artist” TV show was perhaps the first time “Game” and our space made it into the mainstream. Then the faggotry happened.

In 2016 when I came back, this looked to be a new chance for a more mature and ready “manosphere” to make a mainstream impact, the literature had been greatly expanded, and unlike the 2005 – 2007 period, there was empirical backing outside of the pure “We know it works because we tested it”, there was mainstream research being done that supported long-standing concepts and this was why I made my return. My whole first year and a half of writing, including the publishing of Gendernomics was focused on expanding on, and fleshing out the foundations and demonstrating by way of statistics and other empirical data, that the theories were accurate.

It’s very easy to dismiss PUA stuff, and complex theories based in rationalism and small samples, it’s much harder to dismiss a fleshed out theoretical framework backed by mainstream research and data from OKcupid, Tinder, Google, and various other reputable sources. That first year, to two years from early 2016 until mid-2017 was a great time for this space, a lot of new content was being put out and much of it was built on empirical foundations. Then Jordan B. Peterson and Donald J. Trump happened.

I like some of Dr. Peterson’s work, however his focus on the spiritual, non-tangible, and non-empirical sent this space careening off a cliff where the focus was drawn from the empirical and rationalist type of writing, towards mysticism, metaphysics and and more “Non-tangible” subject-matter. This was further exacerbated by the 2016 election that caused many conservative voices to intermingle with the manosphere, because there were and still is some overlap between conservative values and the manosphere theoretical framework. The major issue in my view is that the traditional conservative influx included a lot of religious, and otherwise non-espistemic perspectives that were permitted to intermingle a little too much with the space.

While this was going on, another major trend within the manosphere was “Personal Brands”, you may ask “Carl, why are you bringing up personal brands?” and the answer is simple, the foundation idea behind the “Red Pill” metaphor is that when you take the red pill, you see reality, absent your illusions. A brand is what we in corporate would call “an intangible asset” that does not have to conform to, be measurable or map accurately with reality. In essence, there was an influx of men and the idea into the “sphere” that were advocates for various illusions whether they be MBTI, religion or ideological values or constructs that are not based in reality.

Another factor was the fallout post 2016 election also created a much more hostile media and political climate, that I would argue culminated with the red pill reddit becoming quarantined and that continues to result in increasing degrees of censorship of political and ideological ideas. Lets just say that Heartiste was not taken down because of the 16 commandments of poon.

Summary and Conclusions

This is a bit of a disjointed rant on the state of the space, one of my major issues with it as I outlined with the metaphor I gave Rich is that much of the time, the men giving advice in this space aren’t “Apex level” men, they aren’t the men who are successful with business, with women and in other areas of life. Lets be realistic for a second, if you’re the type of guy who pulls in $100k in real life off a corporate gig or a business, why would you spend your time doing $50 – $100 consults or selling $247 courses?

You would need to sell 1000 consults p.a (roughly 2.73 every day) or 404.85 courses (1.1 per day) to match that corporate income. I get it, “passive income” but selling consults that income is hardly passive, and if the course includes some form of personal feedback, then that’s hardly passive either. You may say that “1000 consults each lasting an hour is 1000 hours, that’s way less work than a full corporate gig” and you would be right. However, think about the time spent outside of those consults, selling them, setting them up, handling the accounting, foreign payments, tax issues, and so on. You’re not “just” working 1000 hours a year.

I get it, when you threaten people’s income or online status, they get upset and they attack, often in packs. However, one of the major reasons why I never saw the need to go after the various unscrupulous people in the space, was that quite frankly, men need to learn how to spot them for themselves. I deal with these types of people in corporate all the time, I’ve dated quite a few of them as well, and once you’ve been screwed out of a few promotions, some pay raises, had a girl almost stab you and so on, you learn to spot the red flags. Learning to spot them is probably the best investment you can make.

To be honest, the funniest thing to me about the “Red Pill” space, is that if it should have one major hangup, it’s wanting to align your world-view as closely with objective reality as possible. Back when I first met Rian he asked me to troubleshoot his diet, and I went pretty hard on him, and pushed him on whether he was accurately tracking his calories and macros. Turned out he wasn’t. However, after I did, I told him “That’s just my perception though, do what you want” or something similar to that, and that’s when he said:

Don’t backtrack, when I ask a Red Pill man a question, I want the truth

The truth is, this space is in trouble.

I know, it’s not fun to be “unplugged”, it’s not a great source of enjoyment to feel alone in a room full of people, it’s not a great feeling to hear a co-worker, a friend and a brother sit there and complain about his relationship knowing you could help, but at the same time perfectly aware that they could not hear you speak, even if they so wanted. It’s not fun, to accept your own agency, that you are the source of your misfortune and misery, and I trust me, I understand the impulse to look for something… to look for anything to mitigate those feelings. Part of me does feel like Cypher at times, and I would love to be plugged back in, however, it’s a short-term solution for a long-term problem.

My favorite book on investing is “The Intelligent Investor” by Benjamin Graham where he says:

 “In the short runthe market is a voting machine but in the long run it is a weighing machine.”

The ideas that are most often popular, are those that you suffer from in the long-term. Take a short-term perspective on diet you get fat, short-term perspective on lifting you get no progress, short-term perspective on money you go broke, short-term perspective on intersexual dynamics you get a divorce or BPD girlfriend, picking comfort and complacency over conflict and competency always leads to more pain.

Now that you know, what are you going to do about it?

 

Levels of Game

I’m not sure where the idea that I’m fundamentally against long-term relationships in general and marriage in particular began. While it’s true that I’ve cautioned men against marriage in many essays over the 3 years that this blog has existed, I can’t remember ever having said “Never under any circumstances get into a long-term relationship”. I have probably said “Never get married”, for the simple reason that as far as risk and reward goes, you can gain the same benefits, without many of the downsides from cohabiting with a private contract between you, or alternatively with a private marriage (a marriage without getting the state involved.

Once you have children with a woman, you are exposed to the legal system in terms of child support, and various other payments anyway, but a private marriage or cohabitation with separate finances can help build a wall that keeps an ex away from your assets. I’m of the position that once you have children, it’s your duty to support and raise them. Few men want to stop their children from having access to the opportunities presented by resources, what they do want is their former partner having as little financial influence over them, something that can easily be granted by modern family courts. I’d wager that most men would prefer their money going towards the betterment of their children, rather than to as financiers of their former partner’s hunt for a new mate.

However, to return to topic, the reason why I’ve argued a position that men should avoid monogamous long-term relationships in general and marriage in particular, is that I’m observing many young men seeking to cash out of the sexual market place early, influenced by the idea that if they find a “quality woman”, often cited as being young, nurturing, low notch-count, from a good family and so on, they can get out of the SMP and live the trad life. Meaning one man, one woman, one family, under god, or something like that. This is not the case at all. If I held the position that men in monogamous, long-term relationships were the antithesis of a red pill men, I would not have participated in quite a few podcasts where a majority of the men I appeared with are in monogamous long-term relationships. Rollo holds the record with what I believe is a 21 year marriage, going on 22 years, however Donovan and Rian are also in long-term monogamous relationships.

For much of history, men and women did not get married because they were in love, they got married because the man needed someone to tend house, bear his children, and make his life easier, the woman needed a man to finance her life and protect her. This makes marriage into a need, rather than a want. Men had one set of needs to which a wife was a perfect solution. Women had another set of needs to which a husband was the perfect solution. However, as marriage shifted from being a need “I need someone to put food on the table and a roof over my head” to “I want someone who makes me happy”, the social dynamics that surrounded the couple were also one in which for the most part the needs of society was aligned with the needs of the men and women. It was not an optimal solution for any of them, but it was the best one available. One that curtailed the worst excesses of female sexual strategy and the worst excesses of male sexual strategy.

In the previous “needs based” sexual market place with strict regulations on divorce, remarriage and so on, the entire structure was such that once a man locked down a woman, he was free to focus on other non-SMP related activities, mainly contributing to society. In that sense, the old school marriage was a lot like a job back in the day, once you were hired you were hired for life. Modern marriage is a lot more like being an independent contractor or consultant, you are hired on a temporary basis unless you can make yourself indispensable. My position is simply that there is an illusion being sold that once you “lock her down”, start living your trad lifestyle and have kids, you are out of the sexual market place and are free. This is not the case. It may have been the case back in the day, when the social group around a married couple had skin in the game, where they were married as an alliance between families, or as a practical partnership to achieve goals outside of the marriage. Continue reading

Of Lifestyles and Limitations

The red pill sphere has a major focus on self-improvement, which is one of the reasons why I enjoy being part of it. Men all sharing knowledge, encouraging improvement and driving each other forward is probably one of the things that we’re missing when raising boys today. However, it can be a bit of a double-edged sword at times. I had lunch with a childhood friend of mine earlier this week, and as conversations among men often do, it included his lamentations about not being able to get laid enough. This is hardly a rare topic topic in conversation for me, and I’ve developed a bit of a diagnostic model for rapidly diagnosing the problem the man I’m talking to is having in his relationship with women, that I call the PIECE model, short for Populate – Initiate – Escalate – Close – Enduring.

I came up with this model because I concluded that just about every issue men have with getting laid falls into one of the following areas:

Populate – How many women populate the man’s immediate area of activity. If you work in a male-dominated field, all your hobbies are either things you do alone, or activities that largely involve couples or just other men. You will have few interactions with women as a natural part of living your life, this means that unless you specifically set off time to go out to places where you meet women, engage in online dating or go out and do day game, you’ll probably not interact with many women.

Initiate – How often does the man initiate interactions with women. If you never really initiate interactions with women, you will never be in a position to reach the escalation stage. Some MGTOWs may work in female dominated environments, but advocate a position where you never initiate or interact with women unless the women initiate.

Escalate – How often is the man able to escalate the interactions. You can be surrounded by women at work, in your hobbies, and initiate interactions all the time, if you never escalate the interaction in some manner, you will not get laid a lot. One could go into details of kino escalation, topic escalation and so on, however from the big picture perspective the role of escalation is to signal interest. The most classical form of escalation is simply asking a women for coffee or drinks.

Close – How often and capable is the man of closing. Once the escalation has run the course, how capable is the man of isolating the women in an environment where the final escalation to sex can take place. The work done in the preceding stages lead up to this point in the interaction a man who is incapable of doing this will never get laid. Continue reading

Sophism : How to actually make logic abuse

sophistThose of you who have read my posts on logic, and particularly my posts on logical fallacies, should be familiar with how you can call someone out when they make fallacious or spurious arguments against you. This was my own motivation in immersing myself in the field of logic for years, the ability to become a human logic machine. This is its own reward, the ability to use reason as a rapier can be exhilarating and bring great intellectual satisfaction, however logos alone is not an effective tool for the rhetorician.

In ancient Greece there was a group of teachers that were called the sophists, they were teachers of many things but are perhaps most renowned for teaching the tools of convincing rhetoric. Depending on who you read on the topic of sophism, Plato for instance derided them for using their knowledge to their own ends rather than seeking justice and truth, you may have a different picture. The modern meaning of the term, has come to mean one who uses the tools of logic and rhetoric to deceive someone in a debate. The term “sophistry” has come to be defined as using sophisms for subtle and deceptive argumentation or reasoning.

Continue reading

When ideas (should) die.

The concept of falsification is central to ideas in the sciences. To prove something true is much more difficult than to prove something not true. If we adopt this principle when dealing with ideas, and systems of thought, how would we go about determining when an idea can be dismissed and should be removed from the toolbox of ideas?

If we use Marx’s communism as a baseline, as this is a system that has on multiple occasions been implemented fairly in line with the conditions laid out in “Das Kapital”. In each case the implementation has resulted in tyranny, mass murder and a lack of rights for the individual. This holds true in the Soviet Union, Cambodia and North Korea, plus many of the less well-known communist states in Eastern Europe and Africa. In every case there has been a tendency that progress towards the ideal state Marx describes stops with the dictatorship or rule by the revolutionary committee.

Continue reading

Fun with fallacies 20: The fallacies of #Gamergate

fun with fallacies 20When I started this series, it was more to drive me to write something on a regular basis, so that if I get busy, I will have some content to post. Since this is post 20 in the series, and we have quite a few to go, I figured I’d make a special post on the two new fallacies I saw emerge from #gamergate.

For those of you who didn’t follow it, #Gamergate is a quantum-state topic, for some it is the gaming communities rise against what is a clear lack of integrity from gaming professionals. Triggered by the discovery that an indie game “developer” who got great reviews for a game that is unplayable, based on sleeping with a string of members of the gaming press. Continue reading