The Green Pill: the Case for Doing the Right Thing; Why Feminism Is Good for Men, Too; and What to Learn from “Incels”.

Fifteen years ago, I got taken in by the male grievance cult and swallowed its nonsense whole: pickup artists, Chads, dual mating strategies… all that garbage, though we had different names for the stuff. It was the same ugly culture, thought it seems to have gotten worse. I was what would today be called an “incel”: unsuccessful with women, and seething with rage. I’m ashamed of my participation in that world, and in the then-fledgling art of internet trolling, seeing what all the nonsense has led to.

Today, for a contrast, I’m happily married to a feminist woman, and I’m writing Farisa’s Crossing, a novel with a female protagonist. What changed? Well, the time in between has been quite interesting, and I think there’s something one could learn from my own zero’s journey into (and, later, out of) the “red pill” world of male grievance culture. Yet, every time I sit down to write “that” essay… I just fucking can’t. I don’t like reliving it. Today’s incel phenomenon hits too close to home. I read delusional, angry screeds on the “braincels” subreddit or various other incel forums, and I remember a time when I could have believed (or even said) such things. It gives me a headache.

Forgive me if this is raw. I’m not a saint. I don’t judge the male grievance community– increasingly like a cult in its commitment to a set of incorrect, self-defeating, and misogynistic beliefs with no bearing in reality– from a place of superiority. I was there once. I got taken in, and I got out. I know how it operates, and I know why it appeals to some young men.

What is it that drives young men, while they endure that oppressively quotidian and not especially harmful problem of early-adulthood sexual infrequency, into such rage and despair? Well, I think everyone should watch this video about charismatic anger. Rage spreads. Fear sells a story. Angry memes stick in the mind, regardless of truth. Add to this some confirmation bias, apex fallacies, and ready-made excuses for one’s own sexual infrequency– “it’s not me; it’s all women”– and you get a self-defeating complex that takes years to evict from one’s head. As with a cult’s illogic, smart and otherwise rational people don’t seem to be immune to this.

Most of the guys who get taken in male grievance culture are like me around age 20: decent men in a vulnerable, difficult time where the rules are unclear, it’s hard to know what’s going on, and everyone else seems to be doing better. That said, the luminaries of this culture seem to be an assortment of loathsome creatures, such as: white nationalists (who argue that multiculturalism and miscegenation have caused the incel’s problems), domestic abusers, pedophiles (who wish to normalize their perversion by demonizing adult female sexuality), and the sex addicts who call themselves “pickup artists”.

The male grievance cult, in other words, draws its strength from the worst of the male gender.

Blue, Red, Black and Green Pills

Mainstream American culture doesn’t indulge in the overt misogyny of incels or pickup artists, but one of politically correct hypocrisy. We claim to be liberal and vote conservative. We support a might-makes-right economic system, corporate capitalism, in which economically successful men (until 2017) were able to maltreat women with impunity; it was one of the perks of being an executive. This corporatized, paper-thin, dishonest culture I call chauvalry: a combination of chivalry and chauvinism. It’s what the male grievance culture calls the blue pill.

The blue pill’s not feminist. It’s the worldview of the Hollywood movie where being “a nice guy” and working for hard for his boss is enough that a man “ought to” get sex any time he wants it. In romantic comedies, it shows us male behaviors that would actually put someone in jail: ticketless airport runs, stalker-level displays of singular attention at the Act-2/Act-3 transition, punching guys in the face who look at one’s girlfriend the wrong way. It tells men that if they do the right thing, two hours of cat saving ought to be enough to attract women– even if a man is still in high school. That’s not how it works. An exercise montage stands in for the hundreds of hours it takes to fix or improve an ill-cared-for body. Adults know this, but adolescents might not fully get it.

The blue pill, “nice guy” worldview is casually misogynistic. It indulges in just world fallacies that suit our corporate masters. Do what you’re told for fifty weeks, it says, and your beautiful wife will give you hot sex on your two-week vacation. Be the hard-working “all-American” guy, and you’ll get laid, no problem. It presents sex as the ultimate validation of male virtue, and women as a sort of “insert compliments and free dinners, receive blowjobs and nookie” vending machine. You don’t have to go to the gym and become an attractive person, or read books and become an interesting person; just show up at your job, and a pretty girl will come by and touch your dick, we promise.

Of course, sex is not (nor should it be) the measure of male virtue. Men are not owed sex for being productive members of society; they are not owed sex at all from anyone who does not want to have sex with them.

Usually by the first or second year of college, men realize that the blue-pill story is fraudulent. They see useless men getting ample sexual activity in high school and they’re told that it’s different in college. Whether they go to a state school or to Harvard, it isn’t. Actually, I don’t think that useless men are getting more sex on average than anyone else; they’re just the ones who make a trophy out of it. The decent people are having sex, too; they’re just not talking about it.

In The Matrix, the protagonist is offered a choice: take the blue pill and persist in self-deception, or take the red one and engage reality, starting on a hero’s journey. The male grievance community co-opted this metaphor, and starting using the term “red pill” to describe their alternative, less corporate but more vicious, misogyny. Of course, what they call “red pill” isn’t any more reflective of reality than the blue pill worldview they reject (and that all thinking adults know to be a facade). But, they took that term first, and we’re stuck with it that way.

The red pill view of women and relationships is much more dismal. It views all of us (male and female) as selfish, hypersexual, narcissistic and obsessed with physical appearances. Coming from a mix of failed providers who fared poorly in divorces– most divorces aren’t “won” by the woman, but impair both parties’ finances– and sex-addicted pickup artists, the red-pill view that dominates male grievance culture is intensely negative. For example, the typical red-pill view of women is that they all secretly long for domineering men (“Chad”, in incel lore) who will degrade them.

In the early 2000s, the process was called “speed seduction” or “Game”; now it’s known as pickup artistry. The truth about pickup artists is that they’re often insecure, disease-ridden, broken men. Their lives aren’t enviable. Their high-frequency promiscuity is mostly made possible by lowering of standards. A bona fide sex addict doesn’t care if she’s a “9/10” marriage-worthy chemical engineer or a “3/10” disease-ridden drunk party girl, and relationally-impaired men often can’t sustain the effort necessary to attract the former. However, their unhealthy lifestyles have given them hypertrophic social ability. They know what a certain subclass of women, selected for rapid sexual availability, want.

What makes pickup artistry so dangerous an art for a young man to learn is that (as with cults) the first courses and modules will focus on what 97% of people (i.e., the ones who know it) would call common sense: basic social skills and grooming: don’t talk about sex on the first date, wear dark colors to seem more masculine, do between 25 and 40 percent of the talking. All of this advice actually works, contradicting that two-word blue pill myth, Be Yourself. It’s the later material in the pickup world that’s more disturbing. Ultimately, pickup artists’ views of women are not based on the best sample, but on the small percentage of women on whom cheap tricks work. Since pickup artists are rarely able to achieve long-term, mutually enriching relationships, they deny their possibility. Run Game forever, they say. Never let your guard down, they say. Don’t be vulnerable, they say. All girls are basically the same, they say. It’s best not to listen to that shit. None of it’s true.

Pickup artistry doesn’t work, not as advertised. The high-pressure sales tactics that lead to quick lays will undermine genuine relationships. “Dread game” is abuse. Finally, having sex with a lot of different women never cures insecurity. Sex is amazing when it exists on its own, in the context of a loving relationship, but sex rarely solves problems. It does have a fascinating history of creating them, though.

Though the blue-pill lie ignores corruption, the red-pill lie exaggerates it, and advises one to manipulate it for personal benefit. This doesn’t work as most people hope, because few people get away with aggressive non-virtue for very long. Con artistry is a great way to get a one-night stand, and a shitty way to find relationships. In the long run, most people don’t find it fulfilling, men who indulge in pornified casual sex lose interest in “7/10” women, in the same way that porn addicts tire of vanilla scenes and gravitate toward the extreme, and obsess over the “9/10” they can never have.

It shouldn’t be surprising that men selling the secrets of how to con women into reluctant sex will also swindle men buying their services. They overpromise. Bed Models In 21 Days, only $26.99. Those who dip into these corrupt games find that they’re not winning enough, but the losers become enraged and disgusted. Despair sets in, and that’s what incels call the black pill.

Blue pillers view the world as just and indulge in hypocrisy. Red pillers view the world as corrupt and seek personal benefit, making the world a little worse with each move. Black pillers see the world as hopeless; it must be destroyed. That’s what produces the Elliot Rodgers and Alex Minassians.

When I was a redpilled guy trying to up my dating game, I learned about “negging”– an exaggerated refutation of the blue-pill notion that disingenuous compliments lead anywhere– and how to deal with those pesky interlopers called “AMOGs”. One learned how to play hot-and-cold games. I don’t like that I indulged in this, but the blackpill incel discussions of today’s world are worse: one finds martyr worship for murderers like Elliot Rodger, fantasies involving Westworld-esque sexbots, and female sexual slavery from the “pro” side of a debate that should not exist. These blackpilled men are, of course, deranged and need psychological help. I doubt many of them, in a country without universal healthcare, will get it.

Red-pill pickup artistry, at least, had better exit options than black-pill incel rage. In the mid-2000s, I used cheap tricks to get dates and make-out sessions, and to improve my confidence. It may have improved my life, though I doubt it. Eventually, with enough dating and relationship experience, I learned (spoiler alert) that women are people. Even when women I dated rejected me, they didn’t seem like terrible people; they were only quicker to perceive that it wouldn’t work out. Successes kept me going: the odds are always low, but the payoff is high.

With black-pill misery, though, there seems to be no exit. If I believed I lived in the world that these guys think is the real world, I’d be just as enraged. See, they believe that all women secretly want to sleep with their high school bullies, mythologized as “Chad”. In their view, romantic relationships are impossible, because they’ve used stunted male sexuality for their model of the adult female. Women who show genuine sexual interest in non-Chads, they believe, are settling for a “betabux” provider and, like a cat in heat, will do anything to get alpha sperm when she’s ready to have children. The red pill turned men into pickup artists; the black pill is turning them into suicides or, worse yet, murderers.

Most cults have an eschatological narrative, because cultish behavior is unsustainable and therefore the world’s imminent end must be, at least, wished-for. The recent turns in male grievance culture show us belief in a post-apocalyptic landscape. It says that women like their mothers and grandmothers no longer exist. It says that today, every “Stacy” has been fucked by 100 Chads before age 15. Ask a blackpiller about adult sexuality, and you get a picture of junkyard animals fighting over scraps of meat, ten weeks after the end of the world.

Fuck the blue pill. Fuck the red pill. Especially fuck the black pill.

There is corruption in the world; it has always been there. But, it is rarely so hopeless as to merit nihilism and destruction (black pill) and one need not get involved and add to the corruption (red pill). Are there women so damaged that they’ll sleep with men who deploy cheap tricks? Of course there are. That doesn’t mean that one has to take part.

I advocate what I’d call, in response, the green pill: to acknowledge reality as it is, with no self-deception, but then to do the right thing, rather than the easy thing that everyone else seems to be doing, anyway. If the world’s dirty, be clean. Plant a fucking tree. This is the approach of the ancient cynic or stoic, whose wisdom has not decayed with age. Don’t support women’s rights because you think it’ll get you laid (it might, or it might not); support women’s rights because it’s the moral thing to do.

In our might-makes-right, corporatized society, the green pill isn’t fashionable. We see bad guys winning, all over the place. Our president bragged about (and, almost certainly, has actually committed) sexual assault, and still got elected. Am I really going to make a case for virtue– as an end in itself, with no expectation of reward– when corporate capitalism reigns and so many bad people seem to be winning? Yes.

No one tells young men this, but being male sucks from ages 18 to 23 for most people. Men have a higher sex drive than women their age, but also the women in that cohort are attractive to the full age range of men, whereas men in that group can barely attract their own counterparts. Women have all the options; men have lots of competition. It gets better for men as the years pass, but the male initiation period has never been a positive experience. I went through it as well. Most men do.

Here’s what I’ve learned. The sex I didn’t have at 17, 18, 19, 20, 21… never mattered. In the long run, whether one loses virginity at 16 versus 26 is unimportant. That said, what I do remember, and not in a good way, is how often I acted like an asshole. I’d be lying if I said I was fully over that.

The results of actions fade in importance over time; the actions themselves stick around in one’s mind, and a person has to live with them forever.

Perhaps that’s the strongest case I can make for virtue on its own. I don’t know that I need a stronger one.

 

The blue pill is the chauvalry of disingenuous “nice guys” in a patriarchal corporate system where sex is a reward for good male behavior, rather than an immensely pleasurable expression of deep love. Blue pillers are just-worlders who go to work and believe their companies are “meritocracies”. Red pillers are men who’ve internalized how capitalism’s alpha males actually behave– they’ll lie, cheat, and steal to glamorize themselves– and apply it to sexuality. The black pill prescribes aggressive nihilism– humanity is hopeless; best to kill everyone. None of these are virtuous attitudes, and they’re all expressions of our right-wing corporate society. I advocate something else entirely: let’s be honest with ourselves about the world’s corruption– and fix it.

Why the Black Pill’s So Relevant

Red- and black-pill thinking, two branches of the male grievance culture, have always existed, but the red pill was always much more prevalent. People would rather believe they can manipulate their way to a better life than convince themselves that they’re terminally fucked (or the lack thereof). When I was taken in by the male grievance cult, wannabe pickup artists were common and no one identified as a permanent incel, or discussed murdering innocent people (as Rodger, Cruz, and Minassian have) to prove one’s point. So what changed? I’m going to borrow a dumb 1990s catchphrase: “It’s the Economy, Stupid.”

Back in my day, when we walked uphill (both ways) nine miles through the snow (now get off my lawn) we had something that doesn’t exist anymore: a functioning labor market. As I said, it has always been difficult to be an 18- to 23-year-old man– the supply/demand imbalances leave a lot of young men single. But, there were other things to do than stew about not getting laid. Let me explain how the whole “work” think used to work.

In the 1970s, a college degree and a car was all it took to talk your way on to a job– if you were 27 or older, a management job; if you were 32 or older, an executive job– anywhere in the country. So, what did you do, if you were a decent 22-year-old who couldn’t get laid? You worked, because these things called “careers” existed back then, and because if you actually showed up on time at your job and were still working at 1:30 in the afternoon, you’d be flying business-class by age 35 and running a company by your mid-40s. If you were what is now called an incel– back then, we just called it “not getting laid”– you could invest time and energy at work and distract yourself from the sex you weren’t having. That economic world doesn’t exist anymore; the 1% took it away from us. Thanks to offshoring and automation, the only thing left to do in the corporate world, except for those born into elite connections, is subordinate make-work with no career value, creative fulfillment, or redeeming social value.

It shouldn’t be surprising that our society would be throat-deep in a dangerous masculine crisis. Work sucks for women as much as it does for men– actually, it sucks even more for them– but men have been told for hundreds of years to identify themselves with their paid work, and that success in business is the ultimate expression of masculinity. With corporate consolidation and an imploded job market– one that hasn’t recovered from any of recessions we’ve had since 1973, although the stock market has and property prices are sky-high– this setup has produced an untenable situation where men are told that masculinity is to be found by… subordinating to other men. Of course the system would collapse. Ex falso quodlibet.

When I was an unsuccessful 22-year-old man, in 2005, I said a lot of shit that I now regret, but I held out hope (and was right) that my lack of social and sexual success was transient. The difference, in the post-2008 world, where housing is unaffordable in places where there are jobs, and where third-world corruption has become the norm in the “lean” private sector company, is that “incel” now stands as a permanent identity. Not knowing it, young people have conflated their permanent (unless we overthrow corporate capitalism) economic misery with their transient socio-sexual difficulties and become hopeless black-pillers. I don’t blame this on the women who are exercising their right to turn down men; I blame this on the 1% for stealing everything– for wrecking our economy and culture, and for perpetuating the simmering (blue pill, mostly) misogyny that makes these rages possible. The Elliot Rodgers of the world are like Japan’s hikikomori, but with the misogyny of an emerging fascist movement, and (scariest most) the guns of America.

So what are we going to do about it? We must overthrow corporate capitalism– a might-makes-right system of cancerous masculinity– before its corruption spreads further and the masculine crisis becomes an all-out war. We need to overthrow the red-pill corporate executives– the ones who perpetuate corruption for personal benefit– and the blue-pill establishment enablers, before this black-pill psychosis can fester and its shit really hits the fan.

In the Meantime

Angry young men such as today’s incels do not tend to believe facts put in front of them. If they listen to reason, they’ll still find their way to extreme interpretations. It’s very hard to change a mind in the moment. That doesn’t mean one shouldn’t blast bad ideas. People will eventually come around. It’s good to plant the good ones, even knowing they’ll be rejected at the time.

I’ve argued for feminism with incels. What these men don’t realize yet (and won’t be convinced any time soon, but there’s hope) is that feminism is actually good for the decent man, the “beta male” who’d rather play with his own kids than do 3 extra hours of work for a company that poisons someone else’s kids in Brazil. When I explain why feminism’s good for average beta males like me, the reaction tends to be either “well, obviously” (from the leftist progressives) or shock (from the zero-sum-thinking incels). Either way, here me out.

The incels have mythologized their high-school bullies, with a bit of male porn actor thrown in, as “Chad Thundercock”, the priapic Norse god of white male douchebaggery. The rest of us just call this loathsome creature “frat boy” or “bro”. The thing is, Chad is the guy who wins out under misogynistic structures like corporate capitalism. In societies where women’s fathers and economic forces parcel women out as a sexual commodity, Chads rule. Meanwhile, the more feminist a society is, the better results will come to the patient, caring, and less-macho men that women are more likely to choose– because they’re better fathers and far superior lovers than the Chads.

Incels tend to come, I’d guess, from the earnest lower-middle-class– the ones who once believed in all-American mythologies about corporate meritocracy, and who bought into the blue pill worldview– so they have a sense that the men women choose when directed by economic forces (or, better yet, economic necessity) are somehow superior to the brutish or monstrous men– there may be racial attitudes here– that women will choose if left to their own devices. There’s no evidence that bears that out, though.

Some women, of course, choose skid-row rotten men, just as vice versa. To the extent that there is a “Chad pattern” in some women, I think it comes from our puritanical attitudes about sex (paradoxically?) more than anything else. Tell young girls that sex is a disgusting thing, and they’ll do it with disgusting men: the abusive frat boys of the world.

There is one painful but beneficial result of feminism for men: we get rejected more. They have more options life. It may be counterintuitive, but all this rejection is a good thing. In the long term, relationships are symmetric: a marriage that’s good for one person is good for the other. Women are choosier not because they’re mean, but because they’re quicker to perceive mutual non-matches, while men are prone to “we can make it work” quixotry. Female choosiness, in the end, saves us time and emotional energy. A polite, respectful turn-down is a favor.

Why does rejection hurt so much, then? My guess is that it has to do with our evolutionary environment: small tribes of about 100 people. In such a small world, being rejected means being humiliated in front of all of one’s whole social world. Rejection and breakups feel like major, life-ending events because, twenty thousand years ago, they were pretty close to it.

In a world with 4 billion sexually active adults, though, rejection is harmless. You can get rejected 300 times and nothing bad happens. Our society is capable of discovering exceptional matches that would never have been found decades ago– I grew up in Appalachia, my wife grew up in the Philippines, and we met in New York– but the price of this is an ultra-high rejection rate.

Under the old patriarchal systems, women were pushed into marriage because they needed economic security, and as a way for their families to improve their social standing or achieve political goals. Love was optional, and long-term marital love seems to have been the exception rather than the rule. True, middle-class (and above) men were assured wives and the loss of their virginity, but “dead bedrooms” were pretty common after the baby-making stage ended.

Although lasting romantic love was the hoped-for marital ideal, it didn’t happen often in the old world that incels seem to want to return to. Old-style family sitcoms where the goofy dad always wants (and almost never gets) sex once seemed that’s-life funny and now, from a 2018 perspective, seem pathetic. Perhaps this is a cultural change more than one in reality, but when I look at the Everybody Loves Raymond marriage and its lost sexual chemistry, it’s not what I think people want, or will settle for. Feminism is forcing men to up their play if they want to get married, and almost everyone seems to be winning.

In sum on this matter, pairings that can generate long-term romantic love– the kind where a couple still want to jump each other’s bones after 10 years of marriage– are rare, and female choice isn’t 100% accurate in finding them, but it seems to be doing a better job than corporate patriarchy (“take it from your father: this boy’ll be a good provider.”)

It seems counterintuitive that heterosexual female choosiness– a source of extreme frustration in the short term– would lead to benefits for heterosexual men. If we accept though that relational health is, in the long term, mostly symmetric, it shouldn’t surprise us that much.

This would require another essay to explore, but I call it the Control Paradox. Relinquishing control can lead to better results, especially when that control is illusory. What’s magical about mature female sexuality, from a male perspective, is that it can’t be controlled. Nothing’s better than a woman going after what she wants.

Our economic system is brittle– corporate capitalism is breaking down already, and will probably shatter in the next fifty years– in the face of control paradoxes. See, we work in firms built on zero-sum thinking. The Graeberian bullshit jobs exist largely because corporate executives believe their subordinates’ happiness equals their misery. The more (stereotypically, at least) feminine open allocation approach to corporate governance results in more innovation than toxically masculine zero-sum command-and-control regimes… but the working world hasn’t learned that, and won’t until corporate capitalism has been overthrown.

It’s extremely counterintuitive that a system where men get rejected far more than ever before would be, in truth, better than all those other mating regimes we’ve discarded. The teens and early 20s are absolutely brutal. But here are things becoming rarer: divorce, loveless marriages, infidelity, and dead bedrooms. It’s sometimes amazing to me that, after all the rejection and false starts and misbehavior (on male and female sides) that I endured, I ended up getting what I wanted all along: marriage to the best woman, at least for me, I’ve ever met.

In Sum

When the blue-pill, politically correct, lies fall away, it’s a vulnerable moment for any man– much like what we are all going through as corporate capitalism’s total failure reaches a point we can’t ignore. Red-pill contempt and black-pill despair can set in, but I’d like to make the case for something else: to acknowledge the world’s corruption, without self-deception or undue negative emotion (for emotions themselves are useful data, but not recreation). I’d like to argue for the green pill: to do, in the face of corruption, the one thing that’s truly rebellious: to be better than that.

Advertisements

21 thoughts on “The Green Pill: the Case for Doing the Right Thing; Why Feminism Is Good for Men, Too; and What to Learn from “Incels”.

    • Corporate feminism is revolting and anti-woman. It wants to make women worse instead of making men (and women) better. Sheryl Sandberg’s exhortation that women date the bad boys (supporting the carousel narrative) is disgusting.

  1. > feminism is actually good for the decent man, the “beta male” who’d rather play with his kids than go to work and poison someone else’s kids in Brazil.

    Only a brainwashed cuck would think men had only two choices, feminism and killing kids in Brazil. You’re clearly weak in the head and rush to grab whatever certainties and truisms you can find laying around. Once it was incel. Today feminism.

    And it’s not surprising, in a way, since incels are so desperate they will throw away everything they believe to get a girl friend. You’re just another example of that.

    • I personally do not believe he is that brainwashed. I believe that is similar to Cipher. He chooses to believe the stake is delicious. I totally disagree with him and his choice but is his choice. No need for insults.

    • It’s not that I’m “weak in the head”. It’s the opposite. I have a strong sense of right and wrong and don’t hesitate to attack injustice.

      The truth is that the enemy all along has been corporate capitalism. I don’t like the term “patriarchy” (it demonizes fathers, and we need men to be better fathers) but the malignant system telling women that it’s feminist to date bad boys– it’s not; it’s the opposite of feminism to glorify relationships with abusive men– and thereby turning betas into incels… which is also the system that glorifies casual sex (which is unhealthy for most people, and 85-95% of women find it unsatisfying)… is also the system that’s letting the economic elite strip mine our whole society. All of these problems are connected.

      Feminism wants women to be able go after what they, individually, want. This does mean that a few women will pursue unattached casual sex; but it also means that more women will be telling their husbands that it’s more important to bond with their kids, take some of the domestic load off, and be sexually available husbands… all of which perpetuates the species and makes people happier… than to do additional unpaid work for the psychopaths running our economy.

  2. Man I am sorry to hear that but what can you do? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7BuQFUhsRM

    I am sorry you consider PUA’s to be representative for people against feminism, but the problem is that :
    a) feminism is based on lies born on female hate and envy on men
    b) feminism goes against biology i.e. no women cannot do it too, at least not 90% of them. Exceptions may exist but biology is biology.
    c) We do not hate women . We simply understand the simple reality that with extreme exceptions most women are children that avoid taking responsibility for their own actions. And is mostly biological, is not their fault.
    d) Your dream would work if society would not enable women to simply leave take the children and force you to pay for them and the children while denying you access. And for the beta male dream you need male authority.
    e) I hope and pray that this not happen to you but I never heard of a man married to a feminist not to be either divorce raped or cucked. Maybe if she is old and/or un-attractive bu is still hell to live with one. Believe been there, done that, never again.
    f) what you must understand is that women are optimized for bearing and raising children. This means that at anything unrelated to that they are simply not as good as men. As a programmer you should understand how optimisation works.

    • “feminism is based on lies born on female hate and envy on men”

      I think most feminists consider themselves equal to men and want political and economic equality. What’s wrong with that?

      “We simply understand the simple reality that with extreme exceptions most women are children that avoid taking responsibility for their own actions.”

      I would say that a good 85% of people, in our decadent society, never grow up. The numbers seem similar for women and men. That’s not a problem with women. It’s a problem with people and our society.

      It’s not like women don’t get ghosted, flaked on, and used for one thing– when men do it to women, it’s sex; when women do it to men, it’s attention– then discarded. Heterosexual women suffer all the same shit from men. You can’t pin the Silicon Valley Manchild Epidemic on feminism.

      ” I never heard of a man married to a feminist not to be either divorce raped or cucked.”

      I’ve met plenty. Of course, there’s a wide spectrum within feminism. I’m not a fan of the man-hating extremists, but that’s not what most feminists are. A lot of them are parents who want a safer, kinder world for their girls.

      “women are optimized for bearing and raising children. This means that at anything unrelated to that they are simply not as good as men.”

      I’m sorry, but that’s fucking ridiculous and doesn’t agree with my experience. I’ve worked in all kinds of fields– from writing to mathematics– where there are many, many competent women. You cannot seriously believe this.

  3. Glad you’ve gone a bit deeper on your redpill journey.

    I urge you to revisit what marriage looked like under early Marxism. Marriage was a form of personal property that the State must fairly distribute, by providing for free love and raising the resulting children in community schools. In practice, this meant that the political insiders got even more sex than they do now, and the Marxists had to dial back their rhetoric to prevent collapse of their perfect society under the weight of the orphans and unloved men.

    In contrast, traditional marriage (where the woman must be a virgin and stays with one man who must support her) ensured that low-status men were able to reproduce, leading to a fair and productive society. Christianity worked, until no-fault divorce and non-discrimination laws (which prevent good cooperative people from expelling selfish defectors) made it illegal. The result is the ~1.6 births per native-born woman that we see today in every Western country, since no self-respecting woman wants to spend her fertile, good-looking years raising children, when she could be having fun with friends in a city.

    You shared in this article that your wife is Filipino. Sadly, white men are often seen as especially racially desirable by Asian women…check out r/asianmasculinity for the flip side of this. Let me guess…you have zero children? This is not selling your argument very well. Have 3 kids and then I’ll follow your example.

    I’m glad to hear you haven’t had my experience of seeing women consistently choosing dominant and powerful men over good men.

    The fact that a high-IQ guy such as yourself, who was insightful enough to write “the 3-ladder system of social class”, doesn’t realize that the rich (the .001%, who control the majority of the world’s wealth) are funding both sides of today’s Marxist vs. Nazi feud as a distraction against rising ecomic inequality and lack of opportunity…it’s moderately terrifying. Both sides are wrong and reject fundamental human values of freedom, privacy, and individual rights. The historical naivete and low IQ of the voting public is why I own a gun and ammunition per my constitutional rights. Feminism is pushed today not because it’s moral, but because it lowers the cost of labor and sex for the equity lords.

    The “green pill” is propaganda, that does not have your best interests at heart. Unless you’re winning in the real world (i.e. have successful kids) you’re probably lying to yourself for a selfish man’s benefit.

    • > I’m glad to hear you haven’t had my experience of seeing women consistently choosing dominant and powerful men over good men

      There are some terrible women out there, of course. There also terrible men. I think the proportions are about equal. I don’t buy into the blue-pill demonization of masculinity (that girls are born pure until corrupted by horny, evil men) but I also despise the red-pill AWALT attitude. Women have the same moral distribution and variety that we do.

      The problem with douchebags is the same thing as the problem with politicians. People complain about “politicians” and “Washington” incessantly, but they like their local politicians. It’s the same way with douchebags. Everyone sees that douchebags are the problem, but people like *their* douchebags– the douchebags who seem to be on their side, who might be saved if they shown love. It’s not limited to women. Silicon Valley is full of young men looking to glom on to a douchebag mentor because they think they’ll get introduced to VCs and be founders if they just “perform” (and, of course, they’ll never get what was promised).

      > the rich (the .001%, who control the majority of the world’s wealth) are funding both sides of today’s Marxist vs. Nazi feud as a distraction against rising ecomic inequality and lack of opportunity

      I think you’re on to something there. The red-versus-blue polarization of the US is just another divide-and-conquer tactic the bad guys have been using forever, in the same way that they used racism to break up the New Deal coalition in the late 20th century.

  4. Writing as a happily married expat (location undisclosed) the “girls love assholes” thing is real, but also very American. Whatever criticisms I may have of my host country, as I spend more and more time outside the US it strikes me how much the US worships assholes. They “get the job done” (by firing and financially destroying all the people who got them where they are), they “kill the terrorists” (by carpet bombing the entire city where their crappy intelligence tells them they may be living), they “make money” (the bank robber who waves a gun in the cashier’s face also makes money), they’re “decisive” and “take control” (a serial rapist also decisively takes control of his victims’ bodies). A plurality of American women love assholes because a plurality of *Americans* love assholes. They elect them, promote them, work for them, obsess about them on TV, and in our business, invest in them while passing over smarter, better people. It has nothing to do with biology (except maybe the impulse to conform to the power structure), and everything to do with where we are as a nation – late capitalist, unequal, hateful, eating itself from the inside, desperately looking for new enemies to beat up.

    Sadly, I read enough “Game” nonsense to be familiar with what MOC is talking about. One thing that struck me is how these guys are obsessed with going abroad to get laid. But if you listen carefully, you’ll hear that their bullshit doesn’t work that well on women in these countries. To “get” these women, these “players” have to roll back their act and behave a bit more naturally. Their tactics are designed for a subset of insecure American women.

    But then the locals catch on to their act, and freeze up, as if they were a band of invading slimeballs. Now the players have to figure out a new destination … Brazil and Japan used to be great, but then the girls turned frigid, now let’s try Poland or Romania. And then they turn 40, realize they haven’t really done anything with their lives, and loudly fall into an existential crisis.

    I wish that America would go through some economic and cultural rebalancing, but, to quote Waylan from “The Wire”, America “isn’t anywhere near its bottom.”

    • Very well put. You’re absolutely right: some American women are into assholes (and a smaller proportion abroad) because our culture, as a whole, worships a sort of extreme masculinity that has no place in civilized society. And, contrary to the notion that feminists think, “Women good, men bad”, the truth is that in many societies, women are often as cruel to other women as men are. One reason toxic masculinity exists is that (some) women respond well to it.

      I did not know that there was a rolling dynamic, like what you described with Brazil and Japan, and now Poland or Romania. That’s fascinating. I was in Budapest in 2003 and it amazed me how much better the women were; you didn’t have to put up an alpha pretense just to register. I met a mid-20s woman (I was 20) in a cafe, we went to a bunch of art galleries and installations, and even though it never went beyond a few make-out sessions, it was a thrill to know the problem wasn’t (entirely) me. Perhaps that semester abroad is why, even at my worst, I never fell fully into blackpill despair.

      As the players move from country to country, this is just another form of Californication (note that Game culture, for which men and women share blame, came out of the LA area). I have the vision now of a locust swarm, moving into a place, stripping it clean, and moving on.

      • Your experiences in Budapest (one of my favorite cities, too) are what should happen. Girl and boy – or girl and girl, or boy and boy, or undefined and all three – find each other interesting, they hang out, they learn from each other, and nice stuff happens. The traveling player may fondly remember an experience like this, but will then develop a strategy to repeat it again and again and again, with one woman after another, sharing notes with others about logistics, what topics of conversation are not kosher, etc. – all with the aim of getting the girl to say “yes” – or “si”, or “hai”, or “da”.

        The implication is that the American (or English or Australian or whatever) player is leveraging the prestige of their country relative to that of the host country. You never see players going off to France or Switzerland or Germany, because those nations see themselves as on par with the player’s host country.

        Never does it enter the player’s mind that what may be happening is that the locals get sick of them.

        And, to be frank, more and more people today aren’t regarding the US as highly as they used to. Take it from someone thousands of miles away – American decline is real.

        Where I live, there are assholes, of course, and they do run everything. They’re especially prominent in politics. But there’s an implicit understanding that you pay attention to them when it affects you, but when it doesn’t you focus on your life, your friends, your family. People understand implicitly how the assholish behavior of their elites ruins lives, and so they try and cordon themselves off from it as much as they can. There’s no giggly “He’s such an asshole!” that you hear in the US so much.

        So one thing I notice here is that conversations at parties never start with “what do you do?” Meaning, where are you in the social hierarchy? How much money do you make? How does what you say about your education affect my little calculations about my earning potential? Americans love competition, everywhere, at all times. People compete here too in social gatherings, but it’s more about who is funniest, the most lively, the most witty – it’s nowhere near as boring.

        There are downsides. Working abroad, to be frank, sucks. Most companies here are horribly managed, inefficient, and unprofessional, and if you make a local salary your finances are fucked. What’s worse, when you come back people treat your time abroad is a CV gap.

        I love America for its wealth of economic opportunities. But we pay the price for that.

        • Your comment about Game originating in California is interesting. I believe there are three major places where it developed – LA, Toronto, and Washington DC. All three had an obstacle to normal human relationships forming.

          LA and DC are status-obsessed. Credentials, contacts, where you live, and your social distance from the movers and shakers are paramount in how people treat you, what jobs you’re given, who your friends are, and, of course, who you get to sleep with. Toronto, while not nearly as status-obsessed, is obsessed with observing the boundaries between people. Don’t make people offended, hurt, or troubled by trying to come too close, by expressing an unorthodox opinion, or by doing something unexpected. This is the dark side of the famous Canadian politeness.

          Game is explicitly designed to destroy these obstacles. Which is not bad. Where it went wrong, however, is that it wasn’t a strategy to build healthy, lasting relationships, but a strategy to get a quick sex with someone you’ll probably never talk to again.

          And strangely, because of this goal, Game tends to spread the very things it is designed to destroy. The locals of XYZ country get exposed to Game, they start mistrusting the players, and erect all the same barriers (“bitch shields”) of player’s home country.

          Does Game change cultures? I doubt it – there isn’t a big enough critical mass of players to do this. However, it does change how locals interact with people from the players’ home countries.

  5. Nowadays, I am keeping myself busy. So, I couldn’t have made enough time to read this article.

    Fomr the bits and pieces that I read from this article, I feel that you are becoming an ideological crusader. I see lots of ideological crusaders who talk about libertanism, capitalism, feminism, communism, socialism, etc, …

    90% of any single ideology is a load of bullshit.

    1) the notion that open allocation is female feels like an unnatural forced association.

    Women also have their own deep hierarchies just like men do. Hierarchy is an innate psychological feature of many species. Women and men mainly differ in directionality of thoughts. Men usually think in terms of what they do to the external world and tend to think the world apart from themselves. Women usually think in terms of what the external world does or gives to them and often think of the external world in relation to themselves. Thus, when men take pictures of objects, they usually just focus on the objects. When women take pictures of objects, they often include themselves in the picture. In plain english, women tend to take selfies with objects while men tend to take pictures of objects. Men tend to broadcast their intentions in front of other men. Women tend to communicate in small groups.

    I cannot fathom how open allocation fits female directionality of thoughts better. To me, it’s just a shallow hierarchy that can be either male or female.

    2) Remember sturgeon’s law

    Sturgeon’s law says “ninety percent of everything is crap”. It means 90% of any single ideology is crap or a load of bullshit.

    90% of science is a load of pseudo-scientific bullshit, too.

    On the other hand, it means 10% of new age stuff can be useful to one’s emotional grwoth.

    You need to filter bullshit.

    A corollary of sturgeon’s law is that any single ideology is falsehood and that ideological crusaders are believing a lot of bullshit that comes with an ideology.

    I’m afraid that you might be buying into a lot of feminist bullshit.

    3) My Conclusion

    In my memory, you were writing from first principles when you wrote how corporate malfunction was inevitable.

    I hope you stopped buying into ideologies and went back to first principles.

    Elon Musk, the founder of 3 companies, is also known to deduce things from first principles.

  6. Is there any particular reason why you hate non-feminist people, and wish to spread bizarre stories about them?

    Do you think that you are winning any public relations points for feminism, by doing this?

    I mean really, we are the majority, and it would be in your best interest to get along with us.

    • I don’t separate people into “feminists” and “non-feminist people” and I don’t hate people who disagree with me on elements of the feminist cause. I don’t even hate incels. I feel sorry for them– they’ve been taken in by a cult that thrives on charismatic, apocalyptic anger, and it works so well because we are in a post-apocalyptic economy.

    • I have the impression that Michael addressed the “incels” pretty directly in this one, and they are the ones he’s trying to win points with, to convert them to something else.

      Quite sure he doesn’t realise the slight hint of arrogance he (and his type of people) has, even when it’s told straight to him (see the “intellectuals are not ruining america” post). Perhaps he’s used to being forceful in a position of weakness, and now on topics where he sits higher compared to his audience, he hasn’t adapted his tone enough.

  7. You use a lot of hateful terminology and tend to re-define terms to suit your ideology.

    The clear issue with many of these men is a lack of masculinity. They have grown up in single mother households. They have been educated by an overwhelmingly female oriented education system. They have seriously low testosterone levels. Etc.

    So why use the term toxic masculinity?

  8. > Our president bragged about sexual assault

    No. He did not. This kind of unethical slander is unbecoming to someone who talks about virtue.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s