A Heart of Gold, in a Pyrite Desert
The Manosphere has done a lot of good work publicizing just how truly awful women can be. By now, the Blue Pill reality is miles away; the claims that women are all pure, that they deserve to be pedestalized, that divorce is mainly due to abusive men, that girls like nice guys, and that men were ever, as a whole, oppressing women – these have been thoroughly wiped away. What started off as strangers comparing notes online – “Wait a minute, you’ve been through the same thing? I thought I was the only one!” – has grown into a well-researched, theoretically-coherent, and statistically-demonstrable rejection of the Official Narrative. Examples of toxic, exploitative women abound:
- Jenny Erikson, a Conservative, Christian, Mommy-Blogger frivorces her husband, and proceeds to endlessly blog about it: Dalrock, Return of Kings reporting.
- Brittney Pierre, a snark-faced manipulator, wheedles free dinners out of men on dating websites (and she’s far from the only one): The Daily Mail Online reporting.
- Ohio State girl acts slutty in public, accuses the man of raping her (identity uncertain). Roosh V Forum
reportsdoes a caption contest.
And these are just the latest examples which come to mind.
Compounding them, are the constant cries of NAWALT – “Not All Women Are Like That” – seen throughout our comment sections, the incessant feminist/leftist apologies for this behaviour, and the prevarications of the media, twisting their language to twist the story. Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, and three times is a conspiracy: not only do the facts point towards a conspiracy, we have plenty of examples of the conspirators themselves consciously manufacturing the false narrative; such as when I demonstrated the corrupt journalistic ethics displayed by ABC 20/20’s Alyssa Pry and Alexa Valiente.
Add in the fact that Game works, and we’ve got a full-spectrum antibiotic known as the Red Pill: as it turns out, Sheila, All Women Are Like That.
But what exactly does that mean?
We’ve managed to identify the Obvious Evils out there – Feminists, Sluts, Borderlines – and for many of us, it was an encounter with Obvious Evil that woke us up (in my case, a false accusation of domestic violence) – the sort of stuff which, in retrospect, we should have seen a mile away – but back then our eyes were shut to reality.
So what do we do now that our eyes are open?
ͼ-Ѻ-ͽ
It’s not the Obvious Evil that you have to worry about: an adult Rattlesnake will warn you before it strikes, but if it’s a juvenile, it won’t have grown its rattle yet: venom without warning. With women, the Feminists, Sluts, and Borderlines are easy to spot (now that we know what we’re looking for), but time and again we’re finding that ostensibly “good” girls are just as bad – if they don’t outright frivorce you, you wind up in a loveless marriage.
All Women Are Like That, but to what extent? Emotional, hypergamous, status-seeking, sure – potentially Evil? Yes! – but does that mean that women are inevitably callow, materialist, and solipsistic?
The answer is a resounding “No!”
Call it the Ontological Argument for Women’s Ensoulment: neither God nor Evolution would give Man a hunger which cannot be sated. Subverted by super-stimulus? Perhaps – but even here, the evidence is wanting. As individuals, we’ve all experienced addiction to super-stimuli of some variety – porn, candy, video games, or drugs – and yet, if these super-stimuli were truly satisfying, why do we label them as addictions? Why do we choose to struggle against them, and pursue the actual teleos underlying the hunger? Why is it that even rats – when free from the torture of solitary confinement – manage to overcome supposedly crippling addictions?
The Materialists might argue that we’re nothing but Chemical Automatons, a series of Inputs and Outputs, but what little evidence they had is eroding.
There is a hunger within us for Romantic Love. I have seen arguments that this is just a misplaced sense of Male Intimacy – “If you want intimacy, talk to your friends; if you want love, get a dog.” – but the failure of super-stimulants undermines this stance.
We crave both Intimacy and Love from a single person, and those can only be achieved with an Ensouled being, possessed of Free Will.
The cynicism is certainly warranted: many women have sold their souls, objectified themselves, sunken to the solipsist level of Relative Truth, and turned themselves into objects… and if we’re going to be honest, it is conceivable that all women have degenerated to this level… but women’s failure to be Good doesn’t demonstrate an impossibility; and our hunger for Romantic Love is palpable proof that such a thing is True.
The media has distorted Romance, but they didn’t invent it. When have you ever seen Evil create anything? It has no divine spark. That we have such hunger is the proof, and the proof is sufficient for us to Hope…
…and Hope demands that we get off the mountain, and start discussing tactics.
We can do better than just Sitting Poolside.
ͼ-Ѻ-ͽ
The ostensibly “good” girls are the most dangerous women you’ll encounter; there’s a deceptively innocent form of Evil within them. They’ll speak about moral virtue, they’ll do nothing that’s overtly wrong, and they’ll carry themselves with an air of honesty. How do they manage to pull it off?
They do it by never lying to you – they do it by lying to themselves.
These are the solipsists: they won’t outright scam 30 men out of dinner, but they will allow an individual man to take them out several times, before they “realize” that he’s not the one. They won’t outright argue feminism, but they’ll fail to notice how affirmative action constantly benefits them. They won’t slut about with the Bad Boys, but they’ll “fall in love” with a man for three months, before dumping him.
And if you ever try to call them on their behaviour, they’ll plead ignorance; this is where you catch them. This is where you realize that their innocence is Machiavellian.
At some point or another, we’ve all hurt somebody through ignorance: we said something which was unintentionally cruel, or we’ve accidentally taken advantage of them without realizing it. This is what the “good” girls pretend to be: “I never realized that the death camp was burning bodies!” There’s a fine line between innocence and wilful ignorance, and these girls are making the conscious decision to be on the latter-half.
In this era of celebrated victimhood, we’re all on our guard when somebody accuses us of hurting them: cries of “Check your privilege!” have given us calloused skins. Nevertheless, as Soulful Men, our minds are open. We require convincing, but we seek out information, we ask questions, we try and understand the Other’s point of view. The “good” girl will never do this.
While a Lady might not be aware of FRAs, Frivorce, or anything else we write about – while she might express shock that any woman could be so Evil – she will be open to new information. She might challenge it and demand proof, but she will listen. The “good” girl will change topics: she’ll shout “NAWALT!” when it was never your premise that all women engage in FRAs; she’ll lead you down philosophical side-roads, which hold little cogency to the argument at hand; she’ll jump back to previous topics, and use multiple definitions for the same word, without ever pinning anything down.
In other words, the solipsist will argue solipsistically; she’ll do anything to veer away from actually examining her own self.
Don’t mistake this for educable ignorance: it isn’t. This is wilful and conscious rebellion against the Truth, it’s the deliberate choosing of the Relative over the Absolute. The lie isn’t to save her conscience – she has none. The lie is for the sake of her persona – it’s so that you’ll mistake her for a Good Woman.
It’s the lie of the Confidence Artist, it’s the lie of the Psychopath, and now that you know it’s there, you’ll be able to spot it.
Dismiss with extreme prejudice, Men; save your love for the Ladies who deserve it.
Obviously, Aurini, your social life is richer than mine. I would not attribute civilized agency to anyone but philosophers. Sure, lessers can be sufficiently coerced into civilized utility, thus taking away some measure of political agency. I think ladies are made biologically but only preserved socially. A socially used/worn/broken women is not revivable. The emotional scarring accretes; the reproductive utility declines. And as for men: “We crave both Intimacy and Love from a single person….” You and I may want that (or I did), but I think only civilized men, the philosopher-warriors in spirit, would actually want that, for the riches of family not only for itself proper but as a platform upon which to heap even more and better treasures for the objective investigation into the nature of things. Family is the byproduct of patriarchy. Lately, I am not sure having many wives and mistresses like King Solomon would not be better regardless. The only thing that could persuade me to think one woman would be better would be to feel alive by dealing death to my enemies according to patriarchal virtue. I speak of the spirit and agency of a militia not a military. Give masculine agency its due. There is hardly greater intimacy with a woman for monogamy. That is quite impossible based on her reptilian locus of control. A mothers’ love though special is infinitely selfish reproductive lust to be contained, and it is no wonder little boys are helplessly conditioned into being nice guys that won’t put up a fight for civilized masculinity any more than their fathers did. What a freakish lie on the nature of woman is the precedent of maternal devotion. Red pill is to be alone or in rare company at the top of human awareness and to fulfill one’s destiny as masculine agency for the civilized planning and execution it affords and requires. Too many wives, possible only by political advantage over most other men, would make a man soft in the realm of first concerns. I’m not Buddhist, but this post reads to me like excessive attachment. It seems out of character with your other posts. Got a new girlfriend? –Your Friendly Neighborhood Curmudgeon
Monogamy, Usury, and Feminism are all part and parcel. One invariably leads to the others. Patriarchy, Slavery, and Polygamy are the antithesis; they are the pillars of a fair and just society.
What finally cemented the red pill for me wasn’t testing all these theories on other women…it was seeing that even my own mother and grandmothers are like that.
But they do get special privilege from me…I wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for them being that way. And in the end one of the hardest part to accept is that none of us men would be here either if our mothers didn’t think this way. It’s a strange mix of love because it benefits us…and hatred because it will end up destroying us.
The comments on this post are rather… interesting. One is saying you’ve gone soft and from a case of woman-in-the-bed and that you’ve turned traitor for loving your mother, the other wants to enslave all women.
Hey guys. Instead of complaining about how evil women are, why don’t you actually stand up, work to change that, and find a woman who isn’t? Davis isn’t saying anything out of line with anything he’s said before.
@Early – my mother’s one of the few women who I allow to say “NAWALT”;) others it’s usually a sign that they need to be dropped.
@MycroftJones
I’d argue that it’s a horizontal relationship:
Feminism —> Polygamy
Usury —> Slavery
Monogamy —> Patriarchy
@Sean The women who are intolerable are the ones in rebellion to their own nature, but some actually try and embrace femininity. This post was actually written about a woman that really ticked me off the other day.
Ah, so we should beware of girls who are ‘too’ good!
@Jordan Which post did you read? I was isolating people who put on a false face of decency.
Quite frankly, this isn’t limited to women; this is a general principle to follow with all people.
@Sean, no way did I label Aurini a traitor. He is one of the few men who’s judgment I trust, which is why I would bother pointing out where we disagree. Sometimes I learn something. Your wording comes off as trolling, but I know how sensitive a man can be to the illusory image of women. I used to want a loyal female partner as well, but that is a sell out of your masculinity and mine.
I don’t know where @MycrosoftJones is coming from. Again seems trollish to me. Does anyone else think the trolling sophistication and frequency has picked up? I am not sure what Aurini means by a horizontal relationship (or three?). I think his three causalities are roughly right. I wouldn switch the agency to Patriarchy -> Monogamy/Polygamy: history is pretty clear. Marriage is a patriarch’s law: Feminism -> Soft Harem, but that wrongly implies cultural frame. Feminism -> AlphaFux and Beta Bux = no social fabric, just fluid human packs, the social environment that made women and that women make.
The devil is in the definition of ‘slavery’:
Domestication = furnishing to cover an individual’s deficiency of civilized agency.
Slavery = furnishing to cover an individual’s excess of civilized agency.
Cf. the entymology of ‘nice’ as in nice guy and of husband vis-a-vis husbandry=farming.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=nice
The truth of the natural relationship between men and women is staring you in the face. Women and male politicians want you to be ‘nice’, as in servile and productive. Stop it and be nice to civilized masculinity, the only civilized agency in the world.
there’s a lot of poisoned hearts out there. this is the info needed to navigate and sift through them.
I’ve been thinking about the types of men taking the red pill. with a self taught/self researched curriculum it’s way too easy to veer off course. and totally misunderstand everything, or to get caught up hunting vampires, poon, or freedom wrapped in plastic.
anymore there isn’t just one red pill. there are many brands.
is the pill men are taking now, still the same one that I took a few years back? I think it depends on the brand…
@Doug, RE Nice
As I like to say, “The alignment’s Lawful Good – *not* Lawful Nice!”
@TBS
“Freedom wrapped in plastic” – that’s beautiful. It’s now in my vernacular. I’m probably going to use it sometime, and completely forget to attribute it to you.
Somebody needs to do a photoshop of that image; “Made in China” logo on the front, “Improving your User Experience” and the rest of the buzz words that mean “We’re taking away features that it used to have.”
I am not a troll. I am coming from a Biblical, former Christian, Hebrew Roots perspective. My greatest influence has been the theologian John Rousas Rushdoony and his amazing book, “The Institutes of Biblical Law”.
Now, to clarify.
Feminism doesn’t lead to Biblical Polygamy; it is firmly opposed to it. Polygamy weakens a woman’s individual hold on a man, so she must behave with more decorum. A woman that wants to keep her man to herself, has to work for it. On the other hand, if she is truly frigid, she get the wifely benefits, while another woman steps into the love-making role.
Patriarchy prevents matriarchy/hypergamy from setting the “frame” of society. Father knows best.
Biblical slavery is a form of restitution for mistakes, limited in scope and length of time. The alternative is todays usury and prison system, where you are enslaved through the subtle strings of debt, where masters are not held accountable for the well-being of their slaves. And where mistakes are punished with the “living death”… jail. Under slavery, you are still in the community, still able to function, grow, and progress. Those with poor impulse control are generally better off as slaves. Certainly better off than prisoners in gaol! Forgiveness of debts (and release from slavery) every 7 years in the Biblical system is far superior to the current debt/usury system, which parasitically weakens EVERYONE all the time, like a million little mosquito bites.
Monogamy doesn’t lead to patriarchy. Monogamy is a key stepping stone on the road to the blue pill. The only Christian societies with manly men, turn a blind eye to the “mistresses” of the alpha males. But this isn’t Biblical; it produces orphans and used up, bitter women when the man isn’t alpha enough to support them with the same long term commitment he gives to his official wife. Polygamy is a blessing; it gives a man motive to look after his family, and gives him the needed social standing to ward off predators that would impinge on his harem, giving stability to society.
The prospect of 7 years of slavery gives people real reason to consider their actions; the usury system entices people into lifelong slavery by degrees; the Law of the Bible forbids this entirely. In fact, the Hebrew concept of “witchcraft” involves “enslaving through deception”, or “enslaving through poison or other mental means”. Usury is witchcraft.
I recommend everyone read John Rousas Rushdoony’s book “The Institutes of Biblical Law”. He had an IQ of 180, had a photographic memory, and read a book every day. His writings are full of fascinating anecdotes drawn from such a broad range of history you have to see it to believe it.
I suppose it comes to this.
Does your anger focus its attention on women for taking advantage of the current situation presented to her…or the men behind the curtain who made a system that gave her the opportunity to take advantage of you?
It’s hard to decide because you’ve seen and experienced the women personally that have affected you…you’ve never met the guys who decided no-fault divorce, alimony, women’s sufferage, birth control, and promoting the feminist agenda was a good idea.
@MycroftJones
I am distrustful of polygamy, because of what we see in the Muslim world; polygamy leads to single men, who turn to erratic violence. That is the Muslim world, however; aside from the freaks in British Columbia (who – as they’re freaks to begin with – would manage to screw up any institution) we have no Western examples of societal polygamy.
I see a lot of issues coming up from it; it’d be up to you to argue that it’s a stable social structure, in light of modern technology, and reduced mortality.
@Aurini, I’ve had a similar thought, though based on the idea of political pull. I think the Jewish Bible is chock full of glorified political pull for the chosen people at the top. They were at the cultural vanguard no doubt, but whether ancient Israel or medieval Europe or today, the men who get the resources including pussy are winners picked by state sovereignty =/= an ecology of natural, individual agency.
But consider this: In a merit-based a free market system harmonious with mother nature and evolution, embracing natural judgment sooner rather than later, there is culling for individual merit. A population becomes educated more by individual failure to remove the delinquent and inept off valuable resources rather than by formal education, since education requires a tuned union of resources, meaning the material means of education AND the able student. There are compelling situations in which a civilized man as a first-class asset to society would possibly merit a second or third wife. My point is that monogamy is something of a welfare system doling out one play per person. Men developed rationalism precisely because the culling for non-rational men was extreme. Women have yet to be culled into cultural beings, much less civilized beings.
Having wives is little different than having children. Your resources are spread more thin and you run the risks of the r-selection strategy. It is the interference of the state or of institutionals generally that make the results of reproduction perverted, and so ruin the culture. The general principle of prohibition of using state power for coercion is the correct one even in this case. If men and women would be allowed to try marriage as they like but also bear the consequences, you would likely see better men have more wives than others that might have none. But then better women might be able to demand being the only wife! Is the unequal distribution of pussy (or dick) necessarily any worse than unequal distribution of any other wealth? Corrupt and unjust inequality is a mismatched union of two things, not the merely existent inequality per nature.
Who is to decide a woman should be stuck with a lesser man rather than a fraction of a greater man? Who is to decide every woman and every man as much as possible should get married and have that opportunity to reproduce? I think the lack of discrimination in institutional monogamy is a detriment to cream rising to the top and keeping society strong. I know one can argue that the results are not equal because different individuals have different SMVs, and it’s true. However, that does not mean an aspect of egalitarianism, of equal results, is not inherent in monogamy. Lockean freedom of agency is the correct freedom except in this quantitative matter of acquiring spouses? I think monogamy is very much better than state-sponsored polygamy; however, I believe real freedom of individual agency in the marketplace (a.k.a. ecology) is better, period, and the free market trade-off of quality vs. quantity would improve the genes and memes that are reproduced. Does not ethical competition not lead to better net results? Keep the state out of it and let men with spine destroy monopoly of anything by natural democracy, and you have ethical competition (for that in-group of men in societal cooperation, which is the correct scope). Would men and women be left out? Gawd I hope so! Is that bad? No! Posterity would be healthier for it. Institutional bias IS the problem. It delays the judgment of mother nature. It hurts the progress that only evolution can produce. It is the lack of population culling on individual merits, which by the law of conservation becomes culling or declining birth rates of betters, that put us into this mess. It is political power in the hands of abusers of their societal fellows that is the problem, and it is the degree of its lacking that is the degree of a society’s greatness.
There should not be specialized law. No special marriage law, no special banking law. There should only be contract law and investment risk contained to the persons directly involved (including children because only independence has rights/privileges, and I note that children aquire independence as they biologically mature starting with being a viable fetus). Letting people starve on their merits is far more humane than carrying their evolutionary ‘sin’ forward to perpetuate and expand the suffering at the expense of the pleasure and the greatness. Without jeopardy to the individual, there is no distinction between individual virtue and individual vice. Monogamy is redistributive TO THE EXTREME. I don’t discount that ‘betas’ don’t benefit society, but in more affluent society with freedom, betas ARE alphas, and if they aren’t, they are political mooches who OUGHT to be weeded out. They are postcivilized men who are politically feckless for lack of the lower masculinity, waist down, by which to conquer and maintain. It is the masculinity which women perfectly measure by their vaginal actions. Take away the risk of being soft, take away the motivation and raison d’etre of stand-up character and civilized culture. You know what the guarantee for women of Affirmative Action, alimony, child support, and shared custody per the woman’s convenience has done to the quality of women. People are not getting married like they used to. Better to let the human garbage fail at reproduction sooner rather than later. Monogamy is a small welfare, the safe thing to do like keeping your fiat money in the bank (banque), but it is playing to not lose in the long run, and that is exactly what will happen.
Imagine if culture evolved to the point that the cycle of civilization rise and rot could be broken. That is what I am proposing. I am proposing the first society of, by, and for philosopher-kings. A society in which individual culling is never short circuited by the institutional guarantee that means privileged people get to fail by making everyone else fail first. In a weird way, we can regard failure as a resource to be distributed, the best cleaner the world has ever seen.
I’m going to meditate on that, Doug.
@Aurini
“Lawful Good”
Law implies violence. So Lawful Good by definition of having Law is Good that does not tolerate evil and the use of violence on the defiantly evil.
@Aurini
I hear some MRA’s advocating polygamy and making feasible by artifically ensuring the the female to male ratio is 3:1 or close to that. Made possible by developments in biotechnology.
How would you interpret this study and its conclusions?
Sperm competition and female procurement of male resources as explanations for a gender-specific time dependent course in the sexual motivation of couples (PDF)
A bitter pill to swallow…
@Exfernal
I’ve been around the ‘sphere since it was icipient on the Tucker Max Board; I’d wager dollars to donuts that I’ve discussed this study already.
If in this regard AWALT, then what’s the point of signing the marriage 2.0 contract at all? It is destined to implode, sooner or later.
It is never too often to publicize this stuff. Is there anything worth knowing more central to the Red Pill?