Every so often I see a comment that is egregiously bad. But this time it isn’t just one comment, it is same one twice, both here and at Sigma Frame:
The c. 3rd century BC Septuagint uses the Ancient Greek word, “apostrophē” (ἀπόστροφή) which means “a turning away”. It is derived from the verb “apostréphō,” which means “to turn away.” Jesus quoted from the Septuagint.
The last part of the Genesis 3:16 from the LXX says:
πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα σου ἡ ἀποστροφή σου καὶ αὐτός σου κυριεύσει
When I put that into an online translator it renders it as:
“Your aversion to your husband will overwhelm you, and he will overwhelm you.”
So, when I put just those words into an unbiased translator, that’s how it rendered it. Unfortunately, When I put the whole verse in, the translator’s AI seemingly recognized it and spit out the Brenton’s Septuagint version’s English translation verbatim.
(liked by 1 person: Jack)
I’ve seen some bad takes over the years, but this one is among the very worst. Let’s start by getting the obvious stuff out of the way.
First, the “unbiased” translator gave him a result he personally liked and then gave a biased result (i.e. Brenton’s translation) that he didn’t like. This is an almost unbelievable lack of self-awareness.
Second, the commenter’s preferred, “unbiased” translation is completely novel. The verse has never been translated that way in the history of biblical translations. The English Bible translations (here) do not come even close. If anything, novelty implies bias.
Third, the “unbiased” translation was obviously biased. It is an obvious interpretive paraphrase. Alarm bells should have been ringing because of how it translated the two clauses by including “overwhelm you” in both of them. Do you see any words common to both clauses that could both mean “overwhelm you?”
πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα σου ἡ ἀποστροφή σου
Your aversion to your husband will overwhelm you
καὶ
and
αὐτός σου κυριεύσει
he will overwhelm you
Just eyeball that. Is αὐτός in both clauses? Nope. How about κυριεύσει? Nope again. Oh, look! The word σου is in both locations…. three times in total! What does it mean? Of course it means “you”, which is fairly obvious even if you don’t know any Greek.
The point is, the word “overwhelm” does not exist in both clauses (it doesn’t exist in either clause). The “translator” has added it in to the translation where it does not exist in the original. This is obviously a heavily biased translation just by looking at the words. The commenter—who is well aware of the various English translations of this verse—should have immediately noticed that there was a problem when he saw the word “overwhelm” used twice. None of the English translations (see them all here) come close to translating it like this.
To call this unbiased is pretty delusional.
For reference, here is the interlinear, which reads:
| Greek Text (LXX) | Transliteration | English Translation |
|---|---|---|
| καὶ | kai | And |
| πρὸς | pros | to |
| τὸν | ton | the |
| ἄνδρα | andra | husband |
| σου | sou | of you |
| ἡ | hē | the |
| ἀποστροφή | apostrophē | turning [away] |
| σου | sou | of you |
| καὶ | kai | and |
| αὐτός | autos | he |
| σου | sou | of you |
| κυριεύσει | kyrieusei | will rule |
That’s much, much more accurate and—if I dare say—unbiased.
Fourth, he translated from Biblical Greek into English using a modern Greek to English translator. It took me a short while looking at various AI translators, but I figured out where he got that translation:
| Model | Translation |
|---|---|
| ChatGPT | Your turning shall be toward your husband, and he shall rule over you. |
| Grok | To your husband will be your desire, and he will rule over you. |
| Gemini | Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you. |
| Claude | Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you. |
| Google Translate | Your aversion to your husband will take over you. |
| DeepL | to thy husband thy abhorrence and he shall possess thee. |
| Bing Translate | Your aversion to your husband will overwhelm you, and he will overwhelm you. |
| Reverso | before your husband your turning and he overtakes you |
I cannot express how dumb it is to translate the ancient biblical language using a modern common language translator as if the Bible were written in Modern Greek. This is truly one of the most insane things I’ve ever seen with respect to the commenter’s complete inability to work with biblical tools (e.g. Concordances and lexicons) and his very poor knowledge of language and grammar.
This is so wildly insane, that I cannot fully express how ignorant you have to be to make this kind of mistake. When I told my son that the commenter had done this, he was flabbergasted. It’s such a “rookie mistake” and conforms to what I said recently here and here:
The skill gap between what is being claimed and what is being demonstrated is like claiming to be able to do Calculus but struggling to multiply 2 times 3. This is so awful that I am starting to suspect that the Commenter might actually have an intellectual disability or some other mental health challenge. His claim to have an at- or near-genius level IQ may be a delusion. I have no desire to debate with someone who is cognitively impaired.
The evidence is stacking up:
- Failing to recognize that Hebrew reads from right-to-left
- Failing to recognize that the original Hebrew had no punctuation
- Conflating grammatical gender with biological sex
- Mishandling singular collective nouns
- Misusing concordances and lexicons
Honestly, I had considered that he might just be engaging in masterstroke trolling here…
Are you serious? I mean, seriously? Really? This is embarassing. …until I realized that he had—in all seriousness—double-posted the comment on Sigma Frame. And that leaves me to my next point: Fifth, Jack @ Sigma Frame liked the comment. Considering how completely crazy the substance of that comment was—what was there to even like?—this would seem to prove that you can actually say the stupidest, most absurd thing in the Manosphere and the leaders will complement you on your sage wisdom…. so long as it confirms their biases. The Manosphere is full of highly credulous folk. I really hope the “like” was a mistaken click. Sixth, here is what happens when you use Bing Translate to translate the English back into Greek: Before: πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα σου ἡ ἀποστροφή σου καὶ αὐτός σου κυριεύσει After: Η αποστροφή σου για τον άντρα σου θα σε κατακλύσει και θα σε κατακλύσει I’ll just let that speak for itself. Seventh, in case it wasn’t clear, the Greek word “apostrophē” (ἀπόστροφή) has in fact changed greatly in ~2,300 years. Here is a summary that compares the use of “aversion” with the history of the word: While this is not precise and scholarly, you can clearly see how the meaning has changed over time. For a more precise demonstration, let’s look at John Chrysostom, writing in c.400AD. He understood Genesis 3:16 in the ancient sense of “turning”: — Homily 26, 1 Corinthians 11:3 Per Chrysostom, Eve had not been subjected to her husband prior to the Fall. Rather, she was his helper. But she gave up her duty as helper and chose to ensnare and ruin (the opposite of helping). So God said she would turn away from that to turn back, restore, or return towards her duty as helper. But now her husband would rule her and she would be subjected. Chrysostom was a native Greek speaker at the start of the 5th century, and he understood the word to refer to a turning. His theology naturally flowed from this fact. And he was not the only one: The Hebrew word teshuqah, now almost universally translated as “desire,” was previously rendered as “turning.” The word appears in the Hebrew Old Testament only three times: here in Genesis 3:16, in Genesis 4:7 and in Song of Songs 7:10. Of the twelve known ancient versions (the Greek Septuagint, the Syriac Peshitta, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Old Latin, the Sahidic, the Bohairic, the Ethiopic, the Arabic, Aquila’s Greek, Symmachus’s Greek, Theodotion’s Greek and the Latin Vulgate), almost every one (twenty-one out of twenty-eight times) renders these three instances of teshuqah as “turning,” not “desire.” Likewise, the church fathers (Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Epiphanius and Jerome, along with Philo, a Jew who died about AD 50) seem to be ignorant of any other sense for this word teshuqah than the translation of “turning.” Furthermore, the Latin rendering was conversio and the Greek was apostrophē or epistrophē, words all meaning “a turning.” The shift from “turning” (in Classical Greek) to “aversion” (in modern Greek) is very large. NOTE The Hebrew word tshuwqah is sometimes translated as “desire”, but the etymology also means to “turn away” or “turn towards.” Something similar occurs in the Greek. The Greek word ἐπιθυμία means “desire, longing, lust” but the Greek word used in the Septuagint is ἀπόστροφή (or ἐπιστροφή), which means “to turn away” or “to turn back.” See the table in “Genesis 3:16 Revisited” which shows how the meaning of Genesis 3:16 has developed over time. There is a similar Hebrew word that corresponds to the Greek word ἀπόστροφή found in the critical editions of the Septuagint: Interestingly, the Hebrew word teshuvah (which looks similar to teshuqah) means a “turning” or “return,” etc. This word is derived from the root שׁוּב—shuv. Shuv and teshuvah are neither rare nor obscure words. (More on shuv here: BlueLetterBible.org.) Is teshuqah really meant to be the word teshuvah? Given how closely teshuvah matches the word used in the Greek Septuagint, it is worth asking if teshuvah was the original Hebrew word, not teshuqah. If so, then the denotation of “desire” is not original and the Septuagint’s translation should be accepted as the most accurate.
Period
Meaning of ἀποστροφή
Context & Notes
Classical Greek (5th–4th Century BC)
“Turning away”, “recoil”, “withdrawal”
Commonly used in military or directional contexts (e.g., retreat or change of direction).
Hellenistic & Koine Greek (3rd Century BC – 3rd Century AD)
Primarily “turning away” with potential for “rejection”
LXX translation of Genesis 3:16 likely uses “turning toward” rather than “aversion.” Early Christian writers occasionally use “rejection” but not emotional aversion.
Patristic & Byzantine Greek (4th–15th Century AD)
“Aversion”, “disgust”, “rejection”
Shift toward “aversion” in theological and philosophical texts (e.g., aversion to sin or evil).
Modern Greek (1453–Present)
Fully developed “aversion”, “repulsion”, “disgust”
Commonly used to express dislike or emotional repulsion in contemporary language.
Derek,
i know you can see how the following is connected with your post today…
I cannot express how dumb it is to translate the ancient biblical language using a modern common language translator as if the Bible were written in Modern Greek. This is truly one of the most insane things I’ve ever seen with respect to Commenter Kansas complete inability to work with biblical tools (e.g. Concordances and lexicons) and his very poor knowledge of language and grammar.
This is so wildly insane, that I cannot fully express how ignorant you have to be to make this kind of mistake. When I told my son that Commenter Kansas had done this, he was flabbergasted. It’s such a “rookie mistake” and conforms to what I said recently here and here:
Derek L. Ramsey
If you knew how to properly use a concordance and lexicon, you’d know the answer. But you don’t, so you misinterpret a tool of the trade because you are a novice who doesn’t know what he is doing. You are an ignorant fool, a novice who thinks he knows more than he actually does. You should be submitting to the authority of the men who know what they are talking about. You should not usurp their authority, but rather learn in subjection and silence.
The skill gap between what is being claimed and what is being demonstrated is like claiming to be able to do Calculus but struggling to multiply 2 times 3. This is so awful that I am starting to suspect that the Commenter might actually have an intellectual disability. His claim to have an at- or near-genius level IQ may be a delusion. I have no desire to debate with someone who is cognitively impaired.
But that leaves me to my next point:
Fifth, Jack @ Sigma Frame liked Commenter Kansas’ comment. This would seem to prove that you can actually say the stupidest, most absurd thing in the Manosphere and the leaders will complement you on your sage wisdom…. so long as it confirms their biases. The Manosphere is full of highly credulous folk.
…goes along with the following Roissy=Heartiste post.
Every once in a while, when I sense the white knighting idealism beginning to take a stronger toehold on the thinking of some of my readers, I like to offer helpful reminders about the true nature of the creatures they are doomed to forever misunderstand.
In today’s special edition, a Seattle 19 year old pimp legally named Deshawn Cashmoney Clark was convicted for running a prostitution ring (hat tip: reader Master Dogen). This is not the most humorously banal angle of the story, though. No, the really SHOCKING, HEAVEN FORFEND surprise is how his harem of hookers is sticking by this uber-asshole’s side.
When that teen left the area in early 2008, Clark took up with a then-15-year-old girl he’d also met while attending school in West Seattle.
The two had been dating for several months when Clark propositioned her, demanding that she “walk the track” on Pacific Highway South and solicit payment for sex. While she did so, Clark would monitor her earnings by cell phone.
“If he felt that she was taking breaks unnecessarily, he yelled at her to get back out on the track and make him some money,” O’Donnell said in court documents. “At the end of each day, he returned to pick her up and took the money she had earned.”
The girl had run away from home while working for Clark, O’Donnell told the court. In one instance, the girl’s mother believed she had located her daughter. Instead, she found Clark, who, with a smile, issued her a warning.
“You will never find her,” Clark said, according to court documents. “I’ve got her so tight. She’s all mine.”
That girl — tattooed in Clark’s honor with the words “daddy’s little girl” — continued to support Clark throughout his trial, even as he married another woman.
Cashmoney wasn’t bluffing. He had her locked down, because she *wanted* to be locked down by him. This is a revelation about the female mind that escapes the logical thinking of so many men — why would a woman want to be with a man like Cashmoney? Why would any woman willingly offer herself as a rentable hole to a man hawking her goods to streetside bidders? Because women want to submit to a powerful man. Whether that power comes in the form of a crooning emo rock star, a CEO, or a pimp daddy with fists of fury doesn’t matter. All that matters is the male power, and the tingly feeling of submitting — wholly, completely — to that power. Every woman, deep DEEP inside, wants to be “daddy’s little girl”.
One admitted pimp and Street Mobb member, Mycah Johnson, described learning how to manipulate and intimidate young women from Clark.
“‘Cash’ showed me how to be a pimp,” Johnson wrote the court. “He would tell me where I should have (her) work and would explain how to use Craigslist to post her ads. He told me how to manage (her), specifically with respect to the money she earned — I was to keep all of it.”
Betas everywhere would do well to read the life stories of pimps. They have some useful advice. Naturally, the anti-game crowd will squawk “oh but these women were being manipulated!” They love that word manipulate. Cling to it like a newborn chimp to its mother’s furry belly. So much can be dismissed for consideration by shotgunning that word “manipulation” into any conversation about men and women they find distasteful. Unfortunately for them, it isn’t as readily dismissible as all that. Like hypnosis, you can only manipulate those who are manipulable. Those who, at some level, wish for the manipulation because they enjoy it. It is for this reason that the term manipulation is next to useless — apply a broad enough definition and you indict any goal-oriented communication as “manipulation”. Seduction? Manipulation. Sales? Manipulation. Politics? Manipulation. Convincing a buddy to see a great movie you just saw? Manipulation. No, Cashmoney’s honeys craved his manipulation. It TURNED THEM ON. How would he and his brethren pimps otherwise know how to “handle” women in the prime of their marketability? He knew because the evidence was staring him in the face — women who would fall for him, screw him, defend him, and yes… even love him.
The cries of “manipulation” ring louder. “Those women didn’t know what was happening to them!”, they will scream. Right-o. Funny thing is, the world is full to brimming with lovelorn betas attempting to manipulate women into sex and running headlong into a major road blockage. Their manipulations aren’t working. Some manipulations are clearly more effective than other manipulations. And which ones would those be? Well, the manipulations that turn women on!
Addressing North, defense attorney Alfoster Garrett, Jr., argued that, while his client profited from prostituting the teens, they were willing participants in the scheme.
Describing Clark as a “scapegoat,” Garrett noted that his client was 16 or 17 during at the time he was accused of prostituting the other youths.
This is one of those few times I agree the defense attorney has it exactly right. What else do you call an employee of Clark’s who cheers him on in court except a willing participant in his lifestyle and chosen career? Who you gonna believe, your lying eyes or a bunch of sociology trained femtards? It’s time to reform the law. Yes, as ringleaders and the administers of violence, pimps are more culpable than their whores, but whores share some of the blame. A fair justice system would punish all parties involved.
While he their circumstances may have made them susceptible to the pimp, Clark’s upbringing set him on a path to crime.
“He is a product of his environment,” Garrett said, asking that Clark receive an exceptionally short sentence.
Actually, his genes set him on his path of procuring limitless loyal poon. His environment only greased the skids.
North rejected the contention that the teens’ former involvement in prostitution evidenced a desire to continue in that life.
“I don’t find that the victims were willing participants,” North said. “It’s a complex relationship not unlike a domestic violence situation.”
Paging Rihanna. Still nurture pangs of love for your past lover Chris Brown, don’t you babe? I know, I understand. CH is here. No judgment. Pour out your heart. I won’t bite. Much.
North’s decision to impose the 17-year term followed a plea by Clark’s 19-year-old wife, Julata Clark.
Julata Clark, who gave birth to Deshawn Clark’s second child weeks before he was sentenced, said her husband is young and able to change his life.
The hilarity train keeps on rolling. Hey, Cashmoney had family values. The guy got married! Gotta love a wife with two kids storming court to support her husband’s pimping, carousing, and general assholery to the nth degree.
And society’s gotta love that this guy, at the ripe age of 19, already pumped out a couple of spawn while MBA toting 30 year olds examine their stock portfolios to gauge whether now is the right time to have that first autistic, underweight baby.
A parting thought. Owing to the rank stupidity or, more generously, the willful misinterpretation, of a minority of my readers who can’t wrap their minds around the simple concept of is-ought and who fervently believe (or secretly wish) my posts detailing in loving glory how much chicks dig jerks is tantamount to advocating every man set himself on the path of pimpdom, let me remind you that I am merely a courier of reality. I tell you how it is; what you do with that knowledge is up to you. The Pimp’s Way holds much truth about the nature of women in their fertile prime from which the average law-abiding man can personally benefit, but that truth does not need to come delivered in the same package to be effective in your own lives. You grasp the truth, and then you apply it to yourself and your dealings with women in the way that is most congruent with your values.
And to the all-too-predictable choir of cliche-spouters: No shite not *every* woman likes a-holes. Do I need to put that addendum after every fuxxing sentence I write, or are you capable of discerning the all too obvious subtext? Here are my thoughts on the phenomenon of chicks digging jerks:
Like most things about human nature, the female a-hole-loving urge runs along a bell curve. To the far left we have women who would have nothing to do with assholes. To the far right we have Cashmoney’s honeys. Bunched in the middle are most women, who despite their protestastions to the contrary get tingly for an a-hole, but won’t see it all the way to shacking up with a pimp.
So many overaged yentas write to me telling me indignantly how they despise a-holes and would never do what the girls featured in my posts do. I don’t have reason to doubt them… much, but I would remind them that the types of women who are most fond of a-holes are exactly those women men most desire — that is to say, the young, supple babes with sex in their eyes and femininity in their souls. As women age out of attractiveness, they also (coincidentally!) age out of their attraction for assholes. Which brings me to…
Maxim #71: In their sexual primes women’s attraction for a-holes is at its strongest. You can catch a lot of hungry flies with honey, but shite attracts the most well-fed flies.
Tune in next week for another edition of “WOW, that’s news to me!”
But these parts:
The girl had run away from home while working for Clark, O’Donnell told the court. In one instance, the girl’s mother believed she had located her daughter. Instead, she found Clark, who, with a smile, issued her a warning.
“You will never find her,” Clark said, according to court documents. “I’ve got her so tight. She’s all mine.”
That girl — tattooed in Clark’s honor with the words “daddy’s little girl” — continued to support Clark throughout his trial, even as he married another woman.
Cashmoney wasn’t bluffing. He had her locked down, because she *wanted* to be locked down by him. This is a revelation about the female mind that escapes the logical thinking of so many men — why would a woman want to be with a man like Cashmoney? Why would any woman willingly offer herself as a rentable hole to a man hawking her goods to streetside bidders? Because women want to submit to a powerful man. Whether that power comes in the form of a crooning emo rock star, a CEO, or a pimp daddy with fists of fury doesn’t matter. All that matters is the male power, and the tingly feeling of submitting — wholly, completely — to that power. Every woman, deep DEEP inside, wants to be “daddy’s little girl”.
One admitted pimp and Street Mobb member, Mycah Johnson, described learning how to manipulate and intimidate young women from Clark.
“‘Cash’ showed me how to be a pimp,” Johnson wrote the court. “He would tell me where I should have (her) work and would explain how to use Craigslist to post her ads. He told me how to manage (her), specifically with respect to the money she earned — I was to keep all of it.”
Betas everywhere would do well to read the life stories of pimps. They have some useful advice. Naturally, the anti-game crowd will squawk “oh but these women were being manipulated!” They love that word manipulate. Cling to it like a newborn chimp to its mother’s furry belly. So much can be dismissed for consideration by shotgunning that word “manipulation” into any conversation about men and women they find distasteful. Unfortunately for them, it isn’t as readily dismissible as all that. Like hypnosis, you can only manipulate those who are manipulable. Those who, at some level, wish for the manipulation because they enjoy it. It is for this reason that the term manipulation is next to useless — apply a broad enough definition and you indict any goal-oriented communication as “manipulation”. Seduction? Manipulation. Sales? Manipulation. Politics? Manipulation. Convincing a buddy to see a great movie you just saw? Manipulation. No, Cashmoney’s honeys craved his manipulation. It TURNED THEM ON. How would he and his brethren pimps otherwise know how to “handle” women in the prime of their marketability? He knew because the evidence was staring him in the face — women who would fall for him, screw him, defend him, and yes… even love him.
The cries of “manipulation” ring louder. “Those women didn’t know what was happening to them!”, they will scream. Right-o. Funny thing is, the world is full to brimming with lovelorn betas attempting to manipulate women into sex and running headlong into a major road blockage. Their manipulations aren’t working. Some manipulations are clearly more effective than other manipulations. And which ones would those be? Well, the manipulations that turn women on!
Addressing North, defense attorney Alfoster Garrett, Jr., argued that, while his client profited from prostituting the teens, they were willing participants in the scheme.
Describing Clark as a “scapegoat,” Garrett noted that his client was 16 or 17 during at the time he was accused of prostituting the other youths.
This is one of those few times I agree the defense attorney has it exactly right. What else do you call an employee of Clark’s who cheers him on in court except a willing participant in his lifestyle and chosen career? Who you gonna believe, your lying eyes or a bunch of sociology trained femtards? It’s time to reform the law. Yes, as ringleaders and the administers of violence, pimps are more culpable than their whores, but whores share some of the blame. A fair justice system would punish all parties involved.
While he their circumstances may have made them susceptible to the pimp, Clark’s upbringing set him on a path to crime.
“He is a product of his environment,” Garrett said, asking that Clark receive an exceptionally short sentence.
Actually, his genes set him on his path of procuring limitless loyal poon. His environment only greased the skids.
North rejected the contention that the teens’ former involvement in prostitution evidenced a desire to continue in that life.
“I don’t find that the victims were willing participants,” North said. “It’s a complex relationship not unlike a domestic violence situation.”
Paging Rihanna. Still nurture pangs of love for your past lover Chris Brown, don’t you babe? I know, I understand. CH is here. No judgment. Pour out your heart. I won’t bite. Much.
North’s decision to impose the 17-year term followed a plea by Clark’s 19-year-old wife, Julata Clark.
Julata Clark, who gave birth to Deshawn Clark’s second child weeks before he was sentenced, said her husband is young and able to change his life.
The hilarity train keeps on rolling. Hey, Cashmoney had family values. The guy got married! Gotta love a wife with two kids storming court to support her husband’s pimping, carousing, and general assholery to the nth degree.
And society’s gotta love that this guy, at the ripe age of 19, already pumped out a couple of spawn while MBA toting 30 year olds examine their stock portfolios to gauge whether now is the right time to have that first autistic, underweight baby.
A parting thought. Owing to the rank stupidity or, more generously, the willful misinterpretation, of a minority of my readers who can’t wrap their minds around the simple concept of is-ought and who fervently believe (or secretly wish) my posts detailing in loving glory how much chicks dig jerks is tantamount to advocating every man set himself on the path of pimpdom, let me remind you that I am merely a courier of reality. I tell you how it is; what you do with that knowledge is up to you. The Pimp’s Way holds much truth about the nature of women in their fertile prime from which the average law-abiding man can personally benefit, but that truth does not need to come delivered in the same package to be effective in your own lives. You grasp the truth, and then you apply it to yourself and your dealings with women in the way that is most congruent with your values.
And to the all-too-predictable choir of cliche-spouters: No shite not *every* woman likes a-holes. Do I need to put that addendum after every fuxxing sentence I write, or are you capable of discerning the all too obvious subtext?
It TURNED THEM ON. -that doesn’t sound like what happens to males who liked them some whores also plugged into the matrix that they think exists?
&
This is one of those few times I agree the defense attorney has it exactly right. What else do you call an employee of Clark’s who cheers him on in court except a willing participant in his lifestyle and chosen career? Who you gonna believe, your lying eyes or a bunch of sociology trained femtards? It’s time to reform the law. Yes, as ringleaders and the administers of violence, pimps are more culpable than their whores, but whores share some of the blame. A fair justice system would punish all parties involved.
See about sharing ”the blame” does that sound familiar to recent reactions to your posts & even reactions to Biblical curses for Adam & Eve?
& Rollo in the original version of the above said thusly:
Rollo Tomassi
the world is full to brimming with lovelorn betas attempting to manipulate women into sex and running headlong into a major road blockage. Their manipulations aren’t working. Some manipulations are clearly more effective than other manipulations. And which ones would those be? Well, the manipulations that turn women on!
This is the textbook definition of Beta Game.
Like any other Beta animal, alternate methodologies had to be developed in order to facilitate human breeding under the harsh conditions of Alpha competition. In essence, and as found in the wild, Beta males have developed (evolved?) methods to ‘poach’ potential females from an Alpha’s harem, or at least in this case his perceived, potential harem.
& the anoukange comment here too seems to apply to what you are saying about some RP Leaders.
anoukange
This is all true. And you even covered the middle ground and the grays, thank you for that. People have the right to be extremists, but others have the right not to be.
Woman do look to be dominated and led, but the belief and proof of a guy’s “alphaness” is shown over time. That’s why they stayed and defended him. A lot of proven alphaness is shown to a girl by what is happening behind closed doors as well. Much is chatted about how a guy needs to be in open society, but clearly this pimp “brought it” on a more complete level to have this type of loyalty from his women. Woman want to be loyal, they want to be guided and those who claim they don’t just don’t know their own fears yet. Men have the power to take and shape what comes out of a woman. Be careful with the asshole term…if the girl is no longer enjoying herself, she is not turned on. Men seem to have the most trouble with the degree of asshole they apply.
I don’t think woman lose the likeness for alpha/a-hole ways as they get older, I think some simply prefer a guy who has mastered the levels of it. One who can apply the most subtle lines around her. A more suave “a-hole”. That’s one of the few great angles of aging, everything becomes more loaded.
also, there IS “the daddy complex” for a majority of women, and then there’s the “professor complex” for some others. Same difference except age changes. A guy eight to twelve years older than a girl is a very nice dynamic that isn’t forced. He will be more learned and more knowledgeable. He will be like a professor to her. It crosses into “daddy” territory when money comes in.
Q: Could too many ”beta” MEN also have a similar daddy or mommy complex or “professor complex” for some others? that bias them to believe what blue pill parents, churches, society, AI & government tell them?
A& Conclusion?All that above is why i don’t go railing against women like too many want i to or railing against ”simps, cucks & betas”like they tell i , are mostly ”innocent”.
As this part is mostly overlooked especially.:
Like most things about human nature, the female a-hole-loving urge runs along a bell curve. To the far left we have women who would have nothing to do with a-holes. To the far right we have Cashmoney’s honeys. Bunched in the middle are most women, who despite their protestastions to the contrary get tingly for an a-hole, but won’t see it all the way to shacking up with a pimp.
So many overaged yentas write to me telling me indignantly how they despise a-holes and would never do what the girls featured in my posts do. I don’t have reason to doubt them… much, but I would remind them that the types of women who are most fond of a-holes are exactly those women men most desire – that is to say, the young, supple babes with sex in their eyes and femininity in their souls. As women age out of attractiveness, they also (coincidentally!) age out of their attraction for a-holes.
Women & a-holes & MEN(who oft get tingly for whores or sluts like women do for aholes) and sluts essentially claim the same thing that they are icky and want nothing to do with them, but oft too often they want them and then say later ”i was MANIPULATED” sort of like Adam & Eve both claimed to have been, yet were still punished anyway.
&
A parting thought. Owing to the rank stupidity or, more generously, the willful misinterpretation, of a minority of my readers who can’t wrap their minds around the simple concept of is-ought and who fervently believe (or secretly wish) my posts detailing in loving glory how much chicks dig jerks is tantamount to advocating every man set himself on the path of pimpdom, let me remind you that I am merely a courier of reality.
That is the main reason Roissy=Heartiste & GBFM worked together so well(& why a minority of them thought they were one and the same dude) and the two most loved & remembered members of the Roissyosphere & manosphere to this day.
They told you about reality, what you did with it was based upon your lusts and ”wants”.
Or as one fan(whose site didn’t stay out long for some reason) of both wrote almost 6 years ago,
Heartiste and GBFM, the Best Of Collections
I do not own any of this content. I’m just a fan of Heartiste and GBFM’s work. Someone else compiled Heartiste’s. I put the GBFM book together. If anyone has a
problem with me hosting this, let me know and I’ll take it down.
For those that don’t know, Heartiste is one of the best writers on game/relationships. His blog was banned. GBFM Great Books for Men is a poet/renaissance man that
posted comments on Heartiste and Dalrock. He’s more interested in restoring honor and virtue to the world than game. For that reason, I thought about only posting
GBFM’s book, but Heartiste helped shape me into the man I am today, so maybe he’ll have a positive influence on you and your relationships.
Heartiste will make you attractive. GBFM will make you happy. I recommend the latter.
See? He knew Heartiste & GBFM well yes?
I only have a moment to respond here. You’re sperging-out again. The point is the Septuagint text mentioned a “turning away”. So, your buddy’s contention, which you heralded, that
is shown to be wrong. “Turning away” was translated into the Septuagint text by 72 Jewish scholars around the third century BC.
If you’ll read about that passage, many of the church fathers believed that the “turning away, or against” referred to Eve turning away from God to her husband. They didn’t want to see the enmity being put between the wife and her husband (who was mentioned) but chose rather to believe it referred to Eve/women turning away from God and instead towards her husband.
Either way folks were already trying to explain away the text’s “turning away” of the wife from her husband long before the 1970’s.
No, we’re not going to get distracted and ignore the important substance. Not this time.
You used an online translator to translate the Septuagint. And you actually thought this was such a good idea that you posted it on two different blogs. This is like the time you didn’t realize that Hebrew reads from right-to-left. These mistakes—and others like them—are not ones that anyone who is skilled enough to discuss the original languages of the Bible could possibly make. They are not even mistakes that a beginner should make. At the very least these show a fundamental and complete inability to meaningfully engage on these topics.
You are clearly not cognitively equipped to have a conversation about this on anywhere close to an equal level. I’m sorry, but that’s just how it is. You may be incapable of understanding what that means, but we can’t have these types of conversations anymore. It is bordering on the unethical for me to continue in this manner, lest I (rightfully!) be accused of schadenfreude.
Just a heads up, I may retroactively anonymize all your comments to protect your identity as best I can. None of what you’ve said here should be held against you. If I decide to do this, future comments will be treated accordingly.
I’m open to feedback from other commenters as to how best to proceed.
I will give one last chance. This…
…is a blatant misrepresentation of Pseudonymous Commenter Firefly’s clearly expressed position, described here, here, here, here, here, and here. If you can cognitively understand why this is a misrepresentation and bring yourself to acknowledge why your summary statement is very clearly wrong, then we have one last chance to proceed.
Derek,
You are the king of misdirection. Hey, look a squirrel! It is crazy for you to declare that only you get to decide what is the main point and what is obfuscation. That every time I disprove your arguments, the point is somehow that I shouldn’t be trusted, because I managed to make a fool of you with only half a brain, reading backwards, not understanding punctuation and dictionaries, and using circular reasoning and survivorship bias because I am so poor at higher-order reasoning.
You’re the silly sheep that reflexively follows the apostate church’s Feminism without thinking it through. When commenter, Malcolm Reynolds, posted a defense of the traditional Feminist interpretation, you gulped it down, hook, line, and sinker.
You wrote: “But then comes Reader Malcolm Reynolds to set them all straight:”
And He had written: “This is new doctrine created in 1975 by a woman.”
When I disproved that by citing both Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance (1890) and the Septuagint (c. 3rd century BC) mentioning “against” and “turning away from”, all you could do was to try to make me out to be too stupid to blindly follow Feminism like you do.
Are the Biblical-languages luminaries who created the NET Bible also too stupid about translating to contend with you?
“The NET Bible was produced by a team of more than twenty biblical scholars, led by W. Hall Harris, Daniel B. Wallace, and Robert B. Chisholm, who worked directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. The project began in 1995 and aimed to create a new English translation that would be freely available online.”
Here is how those preeminent scholars translated the passage:
Genesis3:16 To the woman he said,
“I will greatly increase your labor pains;
with pain you will give birth to children.
You will want to control your husband,
but he will dominate you.”
And here is a portion from their footnotes on that verse:
Genesis 3:16 tn Heb “and toward your husband [will be] your desire.” The nominal sentence does not have a verb; a future verb must be supplied, because the focus of the oracle is on the future struggle. The precise meaning of the noun תְּשׁוּקָה (teshuqah, “desire”) is debated. Many interpreters conclude that it refers to sexual desire here, because the subject of the passage is the relationship between a wife and her husband, and because the word is used in a romantic sense in Song 7:11 HT (7:10 ET). However, this interpretation makes little sense in Gen 3:16. First, it does not fit well with the assertion “he will dominate you.” Second, it implies that sexual desire was not part of the original creation, even though the man and the woman were told to multiply. And third, it ignores the usage of the word in Gen 4:7 where it refers to sin’s desire to control and dominate Cain. (Even in Song of Songs it carries the basic idea of “control,” for it describes the young man’s desire to “have his way sexually” with the young woman.) In Gen 3:16 the Lord announces a struggle, a conflict between the man and the woman. She will desire to control him, but he will dominate her instead. This interpretation also fits the tone of the passage, which is a judgment oracle.
Are those premier mainline churchian scholars also all Manosphere incels who have an axe to grind against women, as well as the translation teams that produced the ESV and EXB?
No, you just disagree with I and them and then you write obfuscating screeds to dodge where I have shown the foolishness of your reflexive impulse to swallow all things that lead to the exaltation of women, even when they are so easily able to be shown to be false by pointing out that this topic was open to debate long before 1975.
Solomon once wisely said “there is nothing new under the sun.” If I cared to spend the time looking, I’m sure I could find other pre-1975 references to controversy over the “turning away” mentioned in Genesis 3:16. All your endless ranting does not change the fact that I disproved your favored assertion that nobody ever considered that aspect of the verse prior to 1975. Malcom probably believes his church is more infallible than God’s Scripture. You two are strange bedfellows, joining up to support churchian Feminism.
It also seems that what you posted regarding the definition at the time of the creation of the Septuagint, contradicts you:
{Hellenistic & Koine Greek (3rd Century BC – 3rd Century AD) Primarily “turning away” with potential for “rejection”}
And it now seems that you (Mr. No-Censorship) desire to alter or censor my comments that prove you to be a woman-worshipping simp. Oddly you’re becoming like Jack in wanting to either remove or alter my comments. LOL
Furthermore, arguments based upon a “like” are silly. And you know it. You’re sticking words into the mouth of the person who clicked the only available response to my comment.
And even you should have known better than to side with a comment that is so easily shown to be false. If you keep sperging about this I will be inclined to disprove you on this a third time, with yet another pre-1975 reference.
Oddly you’re becoming like Jack in wanting to either remove or alter my comments. LOL
Jack just thought (before SF became ”live” on September 17 2017 ) if he had G-rated language & interaction at his site, it would lead to the acceptance into the mainstream of ”Christianity” and ”Conservativism” that Dalrock NEVER got(as he followed standard Roissy/man/MGROW/MENSRightsosphere PG13/R-rated protocols) , but acceptance into the mainstream ”Christianity” and ”Conservativism”isn’t based on G-rated language or
”1. The Null-Hypothesis
The way scientific research is structured poses some problems. Most reproducible research experiments are based on a null hypothesis. This means that you make an assumption, and then try to prove that it’s wrong in some way. When the results of the experiment lead to a confirmation of the null-hypothesis, it means that “there’s nothing to see here”. In effect, it makes the research worthless (from the perspective of the individual researchers ego investment*). A rejection of the null hypothesis only comes after you can safely conclude that something has statistical significance, meaning that there is some kind of correlation which we did not expect to see.
For example, Dr. Smith’s video had an unstated null hypothesis, which would be something like, “Red Pill theories about hypergamy and/or ovulatory cycle predict female infidelity and divorce.” Then the latter half of his video tried to discredit this claim. As you can see, it was hard to do, and his conclusions were indeed thought provoking, but not very convincing.
To give another example, if I did a study of male privilege, then I would have to choose a hypothesis something like, “Male privilege exists”, and then try to prove that it doesn’t. But how can you prove such a thing? Even if it could somehow be proven, it may not stand through a peer review hosted by Woke psychologists.
* Research that accepts the null hypothesis is not entirely “worthless” because it can close a door that needed to be closed. But since everyone doing research wants to “discover” the next new thing (like male privilege) it is worthless to their professional reputation and careers.
2. The Replication Crisis
Towards the end of his video, Smith talked about the Replication Crisis. Put simply, this is when others cannot reproduce the same results that researchers obtained through clinical studies. He states that there is a lack of academic rigor within the Manosphere. This is definitely true. Academic rigor and a peer review system is needed to establish authenticity through repeatable procedures, but the Manosphere does not have the institutional framework to allow this.
3. An Echo Chamber Based on Personal Anecdotes
Smith mentioned that a lot of Red Pill theories came about through a crowd sourced discussion of abstract ideas. Confirmation bias amplifies these ideas until they take on a life of its own. But that doesn’t mean that those ideas are justifiably true, nor that they are replicable in other men’s circumstances.
4. The Personality Cult
A lot of Red Pill ideas are largely centered around individual personalities. Their personality is a confounding effect because it sells the ideas, it becomes popular, but the results that they get tend to be unreproducible for most other men.
5. Unique Human Factors
Behind the reproducibility crisis is a number of factors unique to the human condition. For example, some men have natural charisma, while others don’t. Peacocking might draw positive female attention for one man, but for another man, it comes off as clownish. How then can such behaviors be replicated well enough to withstand a critical review?
6. Lack of Support
Dr. Smith and I are qualified to discuss these things, and even write a scientific research paper about it. But if Dr. Smith and I ever tried to publish a peer reviewed paper about any Red Pill ideas, then it would be met with strong, immediate resistance, not only from within the academic world, but from the larger society as well. Another problem for me is that I don’t have a long history of research and publications that would make my work convincing to a team of reviewers. I’m also not willing to spend my precious time working on something that would only bring backlash upon myself and my family.”
As Scott wrote in this posthttps://web.archive.org/web/20210730015812/https://sigmaframe.wordpress.com/2021/07/17/what-is-preventing-the-red-pill-from-going-mainstream/
When its really because of things listed here:https://www.quora.com/Why-do-some-people-just-refuse-to-accept-new-ideas
Profile photo for Assistant
Assistant
Bot
7mo
People may refuse to accept new ideas for a variety of reasons, including:
Cognitive Dissonance: When new ideas conflict with existing beliefs, it can create discomfort or anxiety. To resolve this, individuals may reject the new ideas rather than change their beliefs.
Confirmation Bias: People tend to seek information that confirms their pre-existing views and ignore or downplay information that contradicts them.
Fear of Change: New ideas often require changes to established routines or ways of thinking, which can be intimidating or threatening.
Social Identity: Beliefs are often tied to social groups. Accepting new ideas may mean distancing oneself from a group, leading to social repercussions.
Lack of Understanding: If a new idea is complex or poorly communicated, individuals may not grasp its value or relevance, leading to rejection.
Cultural and Environmental Factors: Cultural background and social environment can shape how individuals perceive and accept new ideas, with some cultures placing a higher value on tradition.
Emotional Attachment: Strong emotional connections to existing beliefs can lead to resistance against new ideas that challenge those beliefs.
Understanding these factors can help in addressing resistance to new ideas and facilitating more open discussions.
”Chtistians” & ”Conservatives” have based the ”survival of Western Civilization” too much on NOT seeing the reality of women being less than sinners like MEN as the main reason why most of them still see the redpill and game as uncouth & ”uncivilized” NO matter how G-rated the language or scholarly the writing is.
The Roissy/man/MGROW/MENSRightsosphere already had heavily scholarly writers in Anakin NICEGUY(whose scholarly writings were the G-rated but very serious version of GBFMS satirical PG-13 writing style) & Novaseeker back between ’06 &
’13, did any of that get through to most ”Christians” & ”Conservatives” in the mainstream?
So why would Jack think his G-rated scholarly writing would?-When the red pill and game has already been rejected by most ”Christians” & ”Conservatives” in the mainstream?
That’s why i told him long ago to do his own red pill/game rebrand and ”be more original”.
And it now seems that you (Mr. No-Censorship) desire to alter or censor my comments that prove you to be a woman-worshipping simp.
He just doesn’t want to put your moniker next to them so how is censorship if it still gets out?
That ”moderating” but really ”I NEED TO FEEL I HAVE CONTROL/POWER OVER MOSES, JESUS & GBFM like I think I do God also by reading the Bible!!!” crap(that was very foolish to do to THE MAIN commenter pushing your page views, amount of comments, and commenter higher than before, BUT you knew best and that’s part of the reason i left your site) you were pulling on me at your site was closer to censorship than anything Derek is doing.
Jack wondering why I’ll NEVER come back to his site.-
He should ask ”Akismet” and his MKULTRA langlyists overlords about doing a blanket WP ”moderation” on me between Sunday, February,5th 2023 & Monday, August 14th 2023 with help from either fanboy FB or fanboy Feeriker
Y’all can pull shite like that (& most likely get away with it)on novices to life and how it works but NOT on veterans of them like myself(or Derek) is the point on that.
Professor,
Right, this is completely irrational. It rather illustrates my point, don’t you think?
———————————————————
For those who need a pedantic refresher, I do not engage in viewpoint censorship. I have no serious ethical objection to non-viewpoint censorship. For example, I routinely delete spam and I’ll also delete comments by certain minors.
I reserve the right to delete or censor nudity, profanity, blasphemy, personal attacks (i.e. ad hominem), plagiarism, and repeated incivility. This blog is intended to be a G-rated site for adults. If you can’t handle me striking out the occasional curse word or deleting a picture of a nude statue, then find another site.
I also reserve the right—but have never used it—to delete comments that have absolutely nothing with the topic of the post or the themes that we discuss at this blog. This is not the place to rant about the politics or sea level of Tuvalu.
Peace,
DR
That was one last attempt to check your ability to understand how you misrepresented MR’s position. Having failed, we are done debating.
I owe you no further explanation, but I will give you this last one as a courtesy. I have not yet censored anything you have written, but I am in the process of redacting your name from the record, just as I would if a 7-year old child used her real name here without parental permission or an 85-year old man with dementia—who could not rightly consent—embarrassed himself and his family. As this shows…
…you are delusional and embarrassing yourself.
As I would with either of those, I’m scrubbing your identity to reverse-dox you in order to protect you from anyone who might bear you ill-will. This won’t stop a determined person from finding you (e.g. in archive.org), but it will keep basic searches from associating your comments here with you as a person or your other online identities. All your content will remain here and all links to them will remain valid. Only your name is being scrubbed. This is an ideas blog. Consequently, your ideas, for better or worse, remain part of the public record.
The irony is that I’m going to have to aggressively edit the Professor’s comments, while I barely need to touch any of yours (mostly just quotations). At least I know he won’t mind.
If you wish to link to all your comments here from your own blog to identify yourself that way, or if you wish to rant-and-rave on some other blog, that’s your own business. But I will take no part in allowing you to disgrace your own name. I don’t care if you agree with me or not. Whether true or not, I will treat you as if you are cognitively or otherwise mentally impaired and not responsible for your own actions. I might be wrong, but I can’t take that risk.
Now, since you no longer have any approved comments under your original username, you are currently in moderation. This is not censorship, just the way the blog software works. If you wish to avoid being in permanent moderation, you’ll need to post here under a new username (without any personally identifiable information, such as a valid email, URL, or a recognizable username). I’ll then approve that username for future comments.
You may continue to comment content here as you wish, according to my anti-censorship policy, but if you attempt to dox yourself, I will delete your comments and/or place you into permanent moderation. Do not test me on this.
I may also, at my own discretion, delete or edit (i.e. censor) any and all of my posts and comments where I identify you or your website.
Unless you can find an advocate to convince me otherwise, this will likely be permanent.
So, what you’re apparently saying is that you want to make it more difficult for people to find my website and to read my views directly by just clicking on my screenname.
Likewise, when I came to see that you were determined to keep lying about me, and had no interest in coming to the knowledge of the truth, I deleted your pingbacks that had previously been on my website. I don’t owe it to you to refer people to a site where you lie about my beliefs, you lie about our disputes, and you make unfounded statements declaring that you had “disproved” thus and so that I wrote, when all you did was argued against it and presented your evidence. When I started using your same language back at you, you apparently couldn’t take it and now seemingly feel that you must change the nature of our relationship and de-person me here. LOL
You’re just upset that I proved you wrong in so many cases by arguing to the contrary and providing evidence to the contrary. You’re like a rooster packing at itself in a mirror. Silly bird! Don’t break your beak. You seemingly can’t handle it when men do unto you as you’ve done unto them, not even a little bit. You also opted not to allow your church’s elders to judge between us, for fear they might side with me regarding your lies. See the link below:
https://derekramsey.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/redacted-name.jpg
I certainly don’t have the time to devote to you, that you’ve had to devote to me. I haven’t tried to determine it, but you’re likely approaching the point where you’ve written more words here contending against me, than I have written at my primary website. I try to value people’s time and therefore present my points and arguments succinctly and in commonly understood terms.
You know, if I dare say so myself, my site reveals many long-obfuscated doctrines in a way that makes them accessible to even those of us whose intelligence Derek questions. It is worth seeking to find what concepts a Feminist like Derek doesn’t want you to see.
Professor,
He just doesn’t want to put your moniker next to them so how is censorship if it still gets out?
Right, this is completely irrational. It rather illustrates my point, don’t you think?
YES.
For those who need a pedantic refresher, I do not engage in viewpoint censorship. I have no serious ethical objection to non-viewpoint censorship. For example, I routinely delete spam and I’ll also delete comments by certain minors.
I reserve the right to delete or censor nudity, profanity, blasphemy, personal attacks (i.e. ad hominem), plagiarism, and repeated incivility. This blog is intended to be a G-rated site for adults. If you can’t handle me striking out the occasional curse word or deleting a picture of a nude statue, then find another site.
What guys like Jack don’t get is that he’s seen as a tradcon(a pusher of unreality by the young MEN he wants as readers ) i.e. NOT based in reality no matter how many times he uses the word ”redpill”(mainly because he pushes marriage as even he says ”it’s a bad time to get married”-which will be obviously be seen as irrational to most old school redpillers and blackpillers but even more to the mainstream ”Christianity” and ”Conservativism” he wanted to attract as readers.
Jack as well as others think when i say ”G-rated” I’m(of course) only talking about words, blood, gore, nudity, or sex but tons of parents saw lots of evil in their showing of NYC atmosphere/enviroment as a trashed-up, dark, rainy, and dangerous=violent world in the PG-rated 1990 TMNT film(as if it was instead the real violent and mean, R-rated 1994 Crow film-which they would really have problems with) as described here:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/228-movies-older-releases-and-classics/76713690
Synbios459 6 years ago#1
The first TMNT movie is easily the best one, yet due to parents complaining the sequels were greatly toned down in terms of fights and such. Heck, even the actress that played April refused to do the sequels due to all the “violence”. LMAO! I get this was the early 90s but there was no blood, no gore, two “damns” and most of the movie was pretty light hearted.
bigtiggie23 6 years ago#3
More damage was done with baseball bats and golf clubs than katana or sai.
I only appear to be out of line because I am the only one who is in line.
rockoperajon 6 years ago#4
Yeah, it does seem pretty odd, considering how disturbing most kid’s movies were at the time. Look at films like Time Bandits, Labyrinth, The Neverending Story, and just about anything directed by Don Bluth. Not all of these films were violent (some were), but they were all very dark and traumatized many children in some of their heavier scenes. I don’t remember any parents complaining about them. But I guess watching a guy in a turtle suit get into a cartoon fight with a ninja is worse.
That is all TRUE but too many parents want the brightly colored sunshine, singing, and dancing feel-good (fake)world of various MGM musicals as well as Disney features.
How much do some parents i have know wanted their children to be out of touch with reality?
One parent i knew for many years said ”I don’t even want my children to know there is such a thing as yardsales!”
That’s why i have such compassion for the guys in the manosphere as they were (obviously)sheltered from reality(heck even TVS INCREDIBLE HULK Lou Ferrigno in his first BOOK in 1982 said ”he didn’t understand why all the MEN on Fire Island near New York’ Long Shore kept coming up to him smiling and wanting to shake (my )hand” back in 1974/’75/’76.
That is part of the reason the world of young MEN NEEDed Roissy & GBFM.
So many parents raising their children for a children’s world of ”brightly colored sunshine, singing, and dancing” instead of an adult world that is even more vicious than the world WE know as children among other children(who can be as mean or meaner than most adults to other children) and adults.
Parents need to ease(like they with swimming/water) their children into reality not some brightly colored sunshine, singing, and dancing feel-good (fake)world feel-good fantasy on TV & in Films or back in the day too many BOOKS is the main point of the above.
How do they think WE get guys like redacted on here-who were also obviously sheltered from reality and NOT told how mean and cruel life can really be then he feels he needs to explain through the Bible as ”Biblical”,” GOOD” & ”RIGHT”?
It is a form of censorship if you delete the link to my website that naturally occurs with each WordPress comment I leave. You are trying to prevent people from clicking that link and seeing what is written there. And you also reformatted my first comment. As I recall it was the very first comment when I first left it. But after you altered it, it now appears below ProfessorLGBTQ’s lengthy copy and paste barrage. No doubt some folks will have already decided not to bother reading the rest of the comments before ever making their way through all of that single comment.
[Editor’s Note: Comments are sorted by comment_ID in the wordpress database. Redacted’s comment was comment_ID=22298, comment_date=2025-03-24 13:48:00. The Professor’s comment was comment_ID=22297, comment_date=2025-03-24 13:45:49. The latter got stuck in moderation and was approved at a later point in time.]
Will this open the debate again that Christianity was “cucked” in 872 AD or whatever? And our only hope is a few men today in the ‘sphere who figured out the “hidden truths” of this? And this was discovered only because of Red Pill and Game?
No, debate is just a sideshow. The right question is “Who can I trust?”
You and I both know that language changes over time. If you take a 2,300 year old word and interpret as if it were modern, the result is going to be wrong. What do you think of medieval priests doing the same thing? The question is whether or not you can trust them. Do you trust them?
Do you trust anyone in the sphere? Have they earned your trust?
Do you trust me? Have I done anything such that you should believe me?
At the end of the day, do you trust Jesus who said:
Not all debate is the same. There is nothing inherently wrong with discovering some ancient truth, but it has to actually be ancient. It can’t just be something that someone made up to support their pet theory.
Oh, and as for for when the word “desire” was introduced into doctrine, that began with Italian Santes Pagninus (1470 to 1536). Pagninus or Pagnino the Dominican monk who “fixed” the c.400AD Latin Vulgate’s mishandling of Genesis 3:16 by referencing the Jewish works on the subject. This isn’t a case where the key events are unknown.
The right question is “Who can I trust?”
LOL Weren’t you the guy who once claimed to be able to evaluate ideas on their own merit, and not according to ad hominem against their author or credentialism?
At least I’m glad to see I won’t have to argue with you against the “desire” interpretation that appears in all but around 8 of 57 English translations shown at Biblegateway.
Apparently, you’re willing to accept a markedly minority viewpoint on Bible translation, just so long as it doesn’t interfere with your Feminism.
And for any folks who want to read SUSAN T. FOH’s concise paper, here it is.
Lastmod,
Although your delivery is confrontational, your assessment is pretty close to the truth.
The church was cucked pretty early on. I won’t estimate dates, because that’s the sort of thing Derek has shown that he likes to sperg-out over, and then later claim he has disproven my ideas, on account of disagreements and uncertainty over exact dates. But surprisingly early on the church began to say prayers to Mary. Then later they allowed women to claim the image of God and thereby were able to make Mary a deity (whereas formerly she wasn’t even eligible to be a likeness of deity). Supposedly she was equal with Jesus Christ, a co-redemptrix, a female member of the Godhead, “Queen of Heaven”, and the “Mother of God”.
The Protestant Reformation and the mass printing of Bibles in the language of laymen eventually pressured the Church of Rome to roll back their false deification of Mary, but the churches all still need to also roll back the image of God the Father and Son from off women and leave it with only men. (in keeping with 1 Corinthians 11:7) Then most everything makes sense, like why husbands are to rule like God, and why wives are to reverence their husbands, why wives are categorically called weaker vessels, why wives are to submit in everything as unto the Lord, and why the husband images Jesus Christ (who is God) while wives image the ever-straying church (which is not God).
We world-defying men of the Manosphere, may have been through the wringer, but it is our divine privilege to be counted worthy to suffer to bring further reformation to the religion of the whoring churches that were once betrothed to Jesus Christ. I don’t presume the churches will ever quit their whoring, but a small remnant is being separated out from the body of Christ (like the rib was separated out of Adam) to be made into the bride of Christ, the Last Adam, just like how the bride of the first Adam was first separated out of his body.
huh????
It’s the Pseudonymous Commenter Kansas. I suspect he has Schizophrenia or an intellectual disability (it would explain the paranoia), so I’m not letting him beclown his actual real self by using his name or URL alongside his nonsense. He’s refusing to pick a new username, so he’s stuck in moderation and forcing me to manually redact his old one.
He’s trying to proselytize and indoctrinate you with respect to your commment. Silly, I know, but that’s where we are.
I suspect he has Schizophrenia or an intellectual disability (it would explain the paranoia), so I’m not letting him beclown his actual real self by using his name or URL alongside his nonsense.
His blaming others for his non-success is just him being him(like Jack also does).
NEXT?
He’ll have his fanboys tell you how mean and unfair you are to him.
lengthy copy and paste barrage
”Good” excuse, the same lame excuse you used at Spawnys to try to put the blame on, why you failed to get your message out and ”liked”.
You like others can’t just admit, you failed.
It is okay your future wife will NOT think less of you(remember when you told Cameron similar about his wife at SF in 2020?)you can give your garbage barrage but can’t take it-which is why you hide behind Jack and Spawny as they give you the sympathy and white knightry that Derek and Deepstrength don’t.
As they think ”of you can’t handle the heat get out of the kitchen, but you are a little sneak who tries to get the sympathy of the crowd as well as plant fanboys i.e. bee1234567890Joshua5500 and surf dumb in it to do your bidding and fool the NOT hip to your ways – marks and rubes that are among them) instead of being an actual dominant top-ranked player in the game like i, Derek & MOD.
Professor,
Yes, I expect that will be the case. It’s sad, but unavoidable. Hopefully they treat him with kindness.
No, I think it is more than that. Jack’s behavior is easy to explain. [Redacted] is likely much more intelligent than Jack, but presents as deeply impaired. He makes basic cognitive mistakes that I don’t see others making. He seems completely incapable of things that should be automatic or second nature at his level of intelligence. He’s also paranoid and deeply judgmental. I’ve long just written this off as TRUE BELIEVER syndrome, but something just doesn’t feel right about that explanation. For someone at his IQ, his claims are just so delusional, fallacious, and contradictory, that the only way I can apply the Principle of Charity is to assume there is something wrong with his brain.
I mean, he’s often completely unable to even comprehend the arguments I am making. The points I make just fly completely over his head. I don’t know what your IQ is, but you understand things instantly that just completely blow by him. And, his responses often make no sense either.
I’ve never experienced this with anyone else, including Jack and the OG Pseudonymous Commenter. I had thought maybe he was on the Austism-spectrum, but the symptoms don’t quite seem to match.
Look, I could be way off base, but I don’t have a better explanation for the otherwise bizarre behavior. And, if there is a mental disability at play, there could be more to the divorce story than we are aware. I don’t want his kids to potentially be impacted by anything that goes on here in any future legal action.
In any case, I don’t have to be right about this. But, in removing personally identifying information, I’m doing my best to protect him. That’s all I can do. If he wants to keep posting here, he’s free to do so. We’ll consider his ideas at face value without personal considerations. That’s as fair and ethical as I know how to be.
The other sites will take better care of him, because they don’t antagonize or engage. I don’t think it is healthy to affirm his delusions, but it will cause us no harm if they side with him completely.
Peace,
DR
“He’s refusing to pick a new username, so … I suspect he has Schizophrenia …”
LOL That’s some serious irony you’re laying down.
If I were like you, I’d jump to saying that must be projection. But I’m not like you. And I can see that you are in contrast rigid in your thinking and very stubbornly compulsive in your behavior.
“Right, this is completely irrational. It rather illustrates my point …”
“All-or-nothing thinking” on display there. If somebody’s opinion is different from yours, it can’t even be considered a rational thought. LOL
“… complete inability to work with biblical tools … complete inability to meaningfully engage on these topics.”
Same again. Folks who arrive at different opinions are seen as being completely unable.
But I’m not a shrink, and I don’t care to properly diagnose you.
It’s more fun to just make jokes regarding your dysfunction.
LOL You’re not on the spectrum, ‘cuz you’re the whole dang rainbow!
Besides, if I bothered to figure out your diagnosis, and I rightly pinned the tail on that donkey, you’d just lie about it. You’d feel compelled to, to “win” the debate at all cost. And that’s how you cost yourself friends and allies by “winning” at the price of honesty and reasonability.
Your Feminist perspective is the popular feel-good perspective. A smart guy like you should literally be swimming in friends and fans. And yet you manage to have alienated most folks who should be your natural allies just by your method of arguing. Whereas you say my beliefs are completely novel, and as such I should have nobody who can agree with me, and yet there are quite a few folks already who share many of my same beliefs, and that number is growing.
Even the fact that I’ve got my own dedicated troll site now is an indicator that my ideas are turning the corner from first being ignored to then being mocked to now being seriously battled against. And lastly the truth will eventually prevail and y’all will claim you always knew that our heavenly Father wasn’t imaged by females, and that it was self-evidently so.
This is a good illustration of what I mean by paranoid delusions.
Having misrepresented my thrice clearly expressed view…
You may continue to comment content here as you wish, according to my anti-censorship policy, but if you attempt to dox yourself, I will delete your comments and/or place you into permanent moderation. Do not test me on this.
…you must either be stupid, dishonest, or impaired. Unless I see evidence to the contrary, I’m going to assume the latter. I have difficulty accepting that a free agent would act as you do. If your impairment is due to substance abuse, I strongly recommend you seek professional help.
The reality is that your comments go into moderation because you are refusing to set up an account that will allow me to automatically get around the WordPress moderation limitation. I literally can’t do it for you. But since you have refused to do so, I bypassed your refusal by writing a script to auto-approve your messages within 60 seconds of you posting them.
Those are the facts of the matter, not your paranoid delusions.
As for so-called censorship, I’ve begun removing your Personally Identifiable Information. This has nothing to do with censoring your viewpoints and doing so does not violate any of my ethical or moral stances. In fact my ethics demand that I do what I am doing. If you want to call that “censorship” and continue complaining about it here at length, be my guest. The extreme irony will only further reveal your paranoid delusions.
Lastly, your claim that I’m altering your comments because I don’t like your beliefs is nothing but a paranoid delusion. The only editing I do to comments is to improve their readability.
For example, I recently replaced all blockquotes with a prettier quote display.
For example, the Professor’s comment here and yours here. I figured you’d thank me for making comments legible and readable, but I guess that’s too much to hope for.
And our only hope is a few men today in the ‘sphere who figured out the “hidden truths” of this? And this was discovered only because of Red Pill and Game?
YES!😉
Will this open the debate again that Christianity was “cucked” in 872 AD or whatever?
NO, as DAL’ hinted it was around this time(shhh 1100AD as i revealed in my debut comment ate SF in early ’21):
https://digital.library.txst.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/d45e0195-fef3-4e59-ad13-6cb8c9ceaa26/content
ABSTRACT
FORBIDDEN LOVE: THE ARABIC INFLUENCE ON THE COURTLY LOVE
POETRY OF MEDIEVAL EUROPE
by
Annie Schultz, B.A.
Supervised by Dr. Susan Morrison and Ms. Joann Labay
Texas State University-San Marcos
2012
Although is it generally accepted that the romance genre of medieval Europe was
influenced by the French troubadour poets, the poets were themselves influenced by the
Arabian love poetry of Spain during the Islamic caliphate. The theme of forbidden love
graces the pages of many of the courtly love tales of chivalry that came out of medieval
Europe. The Iberian Peninsula, the meeting point of France and Spain (the Pyrenees),
harbored an exchange of culture in the twelfth century; this thesis will explore the themes
of forbidden love found in Arabian love poetry and their influence on the writing of the
troubadour poets.
viii
The character Tristan the Knight, the hero of the widely known popular and illfated affair between Tristan and Isolde, can be found in many different poems, epics, and
stories. Focusing on the story of Tristan and Isolde and the character Tristan, an evolution
of themes is revealed: from Arabian poetry, primarily that of Ibn Hazm, and the canon of
characters and themes constructed by Arabian literary scholar Ibn Dawud, to the
troubadour love poems, ultimately to occur in Tristan’s story found in the Arthurian
epics. Discussing Beroul’s Tristan, Gottfried’s Tristan and Isolde, and Malory’s Le
Morte D’Arthur; this study will explore the way in which these tales retain the themes the
troubadour poets borrowed from the Arabian love poets, and ultimately how the theme of
forbidden love has relevance in our modern day society.
Also from here:https://www.abdn.ac.uk/sll/disciplines/english/lion/love.shtml#:~:text=Yet%20'courtly%20love'%20also%20came,%2Dheroes%2C%20battles%20and%20monsters.
link to poem
The singer is performing a poem by the 12th Century troubadour Bernart de Ventadorn (right). Troubadours were poet-singers from Provence in the south of France. They were famous for their lyrics about love.
A lover tries to persuade his lady to go with him
In these poems the woman the poet is in love with is described as all-powerful. He is her servant, her slave, her prisoner. He says she is his ‘lord’, his ‘master’, his ‘jailor’. The lover sighs and weeps, he does not eat or sleep. He trembles when the lady is near. He grows pale and ill with love, and only she can make him better. Often in the troubadour poems, the lady rejects the lover, or does not even notice he exists, but he goes on loving her anyway.
A lady takes her lover prisoner by binding him with gold threads of love
Some of these ideas came from a famous book by the Latin poet Ovid called The Art of Love, written hundreds of years before. Yet ‘courtly love’ also came to France from Spain, where many Arabic poets lived in the 10th and 11th Centuries. The Arabs had different attitudes towards women and their poems were full of gardens and love and pleasure, while the Christian Europeans still preferred tales of warrior-heroes, battles and monsters.
However, this new way of thinking and speaking about love soon became very fashionable in the courts of France, and later England and Germany. Noble ladies in particular liked to hear about love. Noblewomen like Eleanor of Aquitaine, Queen first of France and then of England (as wife of Henry II), and her daughter Countess Marie of Champagne encouraged poets to write about the problems and pleasures of love. Chrétien de Troyes wrote at least one of his stories for Marie, whose court was at Troyes. These famous ladies held Courts of Love where lovers presented their cases and women passed judgement, deciding whether the lover was worthy of his lady, or whether she had treated him fairly.
A lady gives her heart to a lover
Writers about courtly love did not think this kind of love was very likely to exist between a husband and wife. In noble families in the Middle Ages, marriages were almost always arranged by the parents. The bride and groom-to-be might be only babies at the time. The wedding could take place as soon as the children were seven years old. So perhaps it is not surprising that people did not expect to be in love with their husband or wife. Yet although courtly lovers were seldom married to one another, often one or both of them might be married to other people. Keeping it a secret so the husband or wife didn’t find out was thought to be one of the pleasures of love.
Two knights fight in front of ladies
Courtly love soon became part of the tales of King Arthur and his knights. It was already part of the idea of chivalry (what it meant to be a perfect knight) that a knight should defend women and keep them from harm. According to the troubadours, a man in love must do everything he can to make himself worthy of his lady. So now there was a new feeling that knightly deeds could be performed in order to gain a lady’s love. This is why a knight fighting in a tournament often wore a ‘favour’ (such as a scarf or flower) from his lady, to show that everything he did on the field of battle was to win her love and admiration.
Which is why i gave the exact year =time of 1100A.D.- see how it all flows together without the charts & graphs DAL’ would instead show it ALL by?
what do i mean about too many ”Conservatives” trying to be Clinton-esque ”Conservative”(& oft failing harder each time they fail at it)?
Like this one where Rod Sterling talks of ”Conservatives” who compared an episode of Lassie having puppies was compared to sex and burlesque shows:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/vmR1gf-veVw
{”they” went overboard on an animal giving birth, while ignoring all the constant pushing of ”Conservative” porn e.g.women showing off their bodies and their defiled(anti-Patriarchal) mouths more and more, on TV & in films until they couldn’t ignore it anymore.}
This is why ”Conservatives” demanded that game PUA or NOT versions needed to be ”cleaned up” & insisted it be presented as being a (life)script of instructions for a ”happy” marriage instead of what it was usually desperate for sex guys wanting ”tips” on how to get harlots.
Why didn’t the ”Conservatives” just turn/וַיִּפְנ֤וּ מִשָּׁם֙ הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֔ים/panah(heh) the following about Judah and Tamar into a ”life-script ” of instructions for marriage?
At least this could have made a better case for it being ”Biblical”(life) script
Judah and Tamar
38 Now at that time, Judah left his brothers and went down to [stay with] a certain Adullamite named Hirah. 2 There Judah saw a daughter of Shua, a Canaanite, and he took her [as his wife] and lived with her. 3 So she conceived and gave birth to a son and Judah named him Er. 4 Then she conceived again and gave birth to a son and named him Onan. 5 Again she conceived and gave birth to still another son and named him Shelah. It was at Chezib that she gave birth to him.
6 Now Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn; her name was Tamar. 7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was evil in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord killed him [in judgment]. 8 Then Judah told Onan, “Go in to your brother’s widow, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law [under the levirate marriage custom]; [be her husband and] raise children for [the name of] your brother.” 9 Onan knew that the child (heir) would not be his [but his dead brother’s]; so whenever he lay with his brother’s widow, he spilled his seed on the ground [to prevent conception], so that he would not give a child to his brother. 10 But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord; therefore He killed him also [in judgment]. 11 Then Judah said to Tamar, his daughter-in-law, “Remain a widow at your father’s house until Shelah my [youngest] son is grown”; [but he was deceiving her] for he thought that [if Shelah should marry her] he too might die like his brothers did. So Tamar went and lived in her father’s house.
12 [a]But quite a while later, Judah’s wife, the daughter of Shua, died; and when the time of mourning was ended, he went up to his sheepshearers at Timnah with his friend Hirah the Adullamite. 13 Tamar was told, “Listen, your father-in-law is going up to Timnah to shear his sheep.” 14 So she removed her widow’s clothes and covered herself with a veil, and wrapped herself up [in disguise], and sat in the gateway of Enaim, which is on the road to Timnah; for she saw that Shelah had grown up, and she had not been given to him as a wife [as Judah had promised]. 15 When Judah saw her, he thought she was a [temple] prostitute, for she had covered her face [as such women did]. 16 He turned to her by the road, and said, “Please come, let me lie with you”; for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law. And she said, “What will you give me, that you may lie with me?” 17 He answered, “I will send you a young goat from the flock.” And she said, “Will you give me a pledge [as a deposit] until you send it?” 18 He said, “What pledge shall I give you?” She said, “Your seal and your cord, and the staff that is in your hand.” So he gave them to her and was intimate with her, and she conceived by him. 19 Then she got up and left, and removed her veil and put on her widow’s clothing.
20 When Judah sent the young goat by his friend the Adullamite, to get his pledge [back] from the woman, he was unable to find her. 21 He asked the men of that place, “Where is the temple prostitute who was by the roadside at Enaim?” They said, “There was no prostitute here.” 22 So he returned to Judah, and said, “I cannot find her; also the local men said, ‘There was no prostitute around here.’” 23 Then Judah said, “Let her keep the things (pledge articles) for herself, otherwise we will be a laughingstock [searching everywhere for her]. After all, I sent this young goat, but you did not find her.”
24 About three months later Judah was told, “Tamar your daughter-in-law has played the [role of a] prostitute, and she is with child because of her immorality.” So Judah said, “Bring her out and let her be burned [to death as punishment]!” 25 While she was being brought out, she [took the things Judah had given her and] sent [them along with a message] to her father-in-law, saying, “I am with child by the man to whom these articles belong.” And she added, “Please examine [them carefully] and see [clearly] to whom these things belong, the seal and the cord and staff.” 26 Judah recognized the articles, and said, “She has been more righteous [in this matter] than I, because I did not give her to my son Shelah [as I had promised].” And Judah did not have [intimate] relations with her again.
27 Now when the time came for her to give birth, there were twins in her womb. 28 And when she was in labor, one [baby] put out his hand, and the midwife took his hand and tied a scarlet thread on it, saying, “This one was born first.” 29 But he pulled back his hand, and his brother was born first. And she said, “What a breach you have made for yourself [to be the firstborn]!” So he was named Perez (breach, break forth). 30 Afterward his brother who had the scarlet [thread] on his hand was born and was named Zerah (brightness).
So Why didn’t the ”Conservatives” just turn/וַיִּפְנ֤וּ מִשָּׁם֙ הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֔ים/panah(heh) the following about Judah and Tamar into a ”life-script ” of instructions for marriage?
Cuz it would have been shot down fast as just trying to dazzle w/o brilliance but trying to baffle with B.S.
BUT ”Conservatives” with
game could try to be seen as dazzling with brilliance instead of bullshite stupidity
A s most of the general public, let alone the RP® ”Conservatives”(who consider themselves non-spergy non-autistic Genuises yet have massive trouble (like TVS Sheldon Cooper) with women & navigating around words and the evilz and chaotic yo their sperginess world around them e.g. life in general-which doesn’t agree with his demands but its own demands and desires) know very little about the game” pioneers” of Albert Ellis, Roger Conway, Eric Weber, Ross Jeffries, Tucker Max, Eben Pagan/David Deangelo, Mystery, Roissy, Roosh & Rollo.
Nor their voluminous and oft-confusing tomes of millions of words(like some guy known as Taiwan & another known as Scott have said about who they see as their masculine superiors as their own writing is oft by their own admission-
” poorly written, confusing, and with voluminous posts and comments”
-that have oft led at least one of them having imaginary ”rows” In September 2021(when by sheer coincidence ”their massive recent success” ended in a gay headship strapon porny way), –
with their self-admitted masculine superiors whom they oft slander as their own fanboys say their own self-admitted non-masculine non-superior writing is quote-”gayish as well as turdy” and nonsensical as well as wordy in an over-the-top improper and verbose manner like their own $#itting on ”other” MENS Patriarchal rights over their daughters that they happily defiled with their Satanic feministic lust )
Conclusion?All their need for red pill,game & ”Patriarchy” would have ended long ago if they had been TRUE ”Dittoheads”15-30 years ago who agree with the following:
https://www.maxwell.syr.edu/research/article/polarization-and-the-politics-of-personal-responsibility
Polarization and the Politics of Personal Responsibility
Jeffrey M. Stonecash
Oxford University Press, December 2015
Related:
People
Jeffrey M. Stonecash
Departments
Political Science Department
Topics
United States
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Polarization and the Politics of Personal Responsibility
America is divided by two clashing views about how much individuals can be held responsible for their situation. Liberals see many individuals as not completely responsible for the situation they are in. They see the opportunities of individuals limited by their class, race, and sex. The resulting distribution of outcomes is therefore seen as unjust, and the remedy is for government to help offset the limits people face. In contrast, conservatives believe individuals can and must live their lives with a presumption of personal responsibility for what happens. Without that presumption as a norm, individuals avoid responsibility for their actions. Government assistance is not seen as valuable, but as creating dependency and ultimately crippling to those who receive it. Society as a whole suffers.
Based on the above what are the ”Conservatives” in the manosphere?
America is divided by two clashing views about how much individuals can be held responsible for their situation. Liberals see many individuals as not completely responsible for the situation they are in. They see the opportunities of individuals limited by their class, race, and sex. The resulting distribution of outcomes is therefore seen as unjust, and the remedy is for government to help offset the limits people face.
Most ”leaders”( how many of them believe this about themselves” how much individuals can be held responsible for their situation?) in the sphere are obviously liberal if the above is TRUE yes?
Also,
Derek
What do you think about this PDF i just out about today?
https://espace.curtin.edu.au/handle/20.500.11937/89661
The Manosphere as an Online Protection Racket: How the Red Pill Monetizes Male Need for Security in Modern Society
89485.pdf (364.6Kb)
Access Status
Open access
Authors
Bujalka, Eva
Rich, Ben
Bender, Stuart
Date
2022
Type
Journal Article
Article has an altmetric score of 7
Metadata
Show full item record
Citation
Bujalka, E. and Rich, B. and Bender, S. 2022. The Manosphere as an Online Protection Racket: How the Red Pill Monetizes Male Need for Security in Modern Society. Fast Capitalism. 19 (1).
Source Title
Fast Capitalism
DOI
10.32855/fcapital.202201.001
ISSN
1930-014X
Faculty
Faculty of Humanities
School
School of Media, Creative Arts and Social Inquiry
Rights
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/89661
Collection
Curtin Research Publications
Abstract
To effectively manage, empathize with and respond to the implications and impact of the so-called ‘Manosphere,’ this paper is centered on the premise that researchers require an understanding of the draw factors that lead individuals to engage, affiliate with, and contribute to the various groups that constitute this wider movement. This paper seeks to contribute to the growing body of knowledge around the Manosphere by exploring how thought leaders propagate symbiotic cycles of ontological security and insecurity through YouTube in a manner that resembles a protection racket. It argues that these constructed ontological security cycles provide a powerful impetus to not only draw individuals into the Manosphere, but also to extract material and social resources out of them that can be reinvited to retain them within the movement.
And the pdf itself :
Fast Capitalism ISSN 1930-014X
Volume 19 • Issue 1 • 2022 doi: 10.32855/fcapital.202201.001
To effectively manage, empathize with and respond to the implications and impact of the so-called ‘Manosphere,’
this paper is centered on the premise that researchers require an understanding of the draw factors that lead
individuals to engage, affiliate with, and contribute to the various groups that constitute this wider movement.
This paper seeks to contribute to the growing body of knowledge around the Manosphere by exploring how
thought leaders propagate symbiotic cycles of ontological security and insecurity through YouTube in a manner
that resembles a protection racket. It argues that these constructed ontological security cycles provide a powerful
impetus to not only draw individuals into the Manosphere, but also to extract material and social resources out of
them that can be reinvited to retain them within the movement.
Introduction
In late October 2021, the 21 Convention—a conference run by a collection of men who make up a portion of
the online groups collectively known as the ‘Manosphere’— held its fifteenth annual men’s conference in Orlando,
Florida. This event was originally pitched for men, but now is targeted at fathers and women, with the intention of
making men (and now women) “great again” by rebuilding patriarchy and by developing men’s capacity for “selfimprovement” (21 Studios, 2021a). It is worth noting that even in the midst of a global pandemic, the Manosphere
and the men who produce content on popular social media platforms like YouTube continue to organize in-person
and online events that maintain and mobilize their community of supporters and retain their popularity and relevance
as patriarchal ‘thought leaders .’ The event’s advertising as “America’s last stand for masculinity” (21 Studios, 2021a)
indicates a catastrophizing language that proliferates within the Manosphere. Curiously, such framing provides both
a diagnosis of and a means to address a current crisis—that is, the promotion for the event declares that there is a
crisis in masculinity and that to pay the fee to attend the 21 Convention is to take a stand against this calamity. Over
the last five years, the Manosphere has gained increasing attention within academia. Currently, research into the space
tends to take up one of three primary focuses: i) identifying the proliferation of ‘categories’ of masculinity and antifeminist discourse within online spaces (Chang, 2020); ii) speculating the threat that Manosphere content and the
men who consume it, present to society (Bates, 2021); or iii) examining the troubling role that social media platforms
like YouTube or Facebook play in the distribution and dissemination of this content (for instance, Papadamou (2020)
examines the ways that the YouTube algorithm may steer viewers toward such content).
Breaking from the approaches of previous research, this paper adopts a new approach to understanding the
Manosphere. That is, to understand the impetus or draw of Manosphere content to its consumer base, our focus is
instead on how influential content producers construct a perception of threat in their audience while simultaneously
positioning themselves to provide a solution to this same threat. In this paper, we refer to these individuals as ‘thought
The Manosphere as an Online Protection Racket:
How the Red Pill Monetizes Male Need for Security
in Modern Society
Eva Bujalka, Ben Rich, and Stuart Bender
fast capitalism Volume 19 • Issue 1 • 2022
Page 2 Eva Bujalka, Ben Rich, and Stuart Bender
leaders.’ In constructing a sense of catastrophe and insecurity around ‘the crisis of masculinity,’ these thought leaders
offer an apparent means through which their audiences can regain a sense of security and protection from this same
malaise. We argue that influential figures within the Manosphere perpetuate symbiotic cycles of ontological security
and insecurity through the YouTube and social media content they produce. Such cycles, we propose, amount to a
‘protection racket’ wherein these influential Manosphere ‘thought leaders’ maintain and grow their audience from
whom they extract material, social or political resources. Beyond the influential capacity of these thought leaders, we
also highlight the ways in which the neoliberal capitalist system produces ontological insecurity and underpins the
‘solutions’ that these thought leaders peddle. Thus, we show how the broader system of late capitalism is rendered
invisible or innocuous to an audience who is committed to these thought leaders and to the crises and solutions they
devise.
In mounting this argument, this article adopts the following structure: it first outlines the nature of the
Manosphere and the various subgroups that make up this wider online movement. We will frame our outline of the
Manosphere through ontological (in)security racketeering theory which we will draw on throughout our analysis.
Through this framework, we identify cycles of insecurity and re-security that powerful ‘thought leaders’ use to incite
fear and then a sense of security among their audiences—a cycle that simultaneously provides the thought leader
with material resources and a consistent audience. Following this, we will define and discuss three representative
Manosphere ‘thought leader’ influencers who possess significant followings in the movement and are, we argue, able
to stoke anxiety and insecurity within it. We will then use this model to map this very cycle of catastrophization and
assuagement onto the online content produced by these three influential Manosphere ‘thought leaders .’In doing this,
we will examine how Manosphere content producers can draw and maintain their audiences and how this cycle can
provide financial or other incentives for Manosphere influencers to continue producing media content.
The Manosphere: An ontological (in)security theory analysis
The ‘Manosphere,’ as it has come to be known, is a predominantly online, heterogenous, non-uniform collection
of groups, websites, and blogs operated by men who actively address what they have come to identify as a crisis of
masculinity in culture, society, economics, and politics. The Manosphere is made up of a number of online (and
occasionally in-person-meeting) groups, including the Men’s Rights Movement/Activists (MRMs/MRAs), Pick-Up
Artists (PUAs), Involuntary Celibates (Incels), Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOWs), and Proud Boys, among
others (Bates, 2021). While these communities share a general concern around a perceived sense of a loss of men’s
status, rights, and sense of self, they are disparate and often disagree over the precise cause of and appropriate means
of redressing this sense of crisis.
We argue that the enduring sense of crisis that connects these divergent groups (and their disparate beliefs)
within the Manosphere can be critically examined through ontological security theory. Ontological security theory
has found growing salience within Social Science over the past three decades. Originally conceived within psychiatry
by Robert Laing (2010) in the 1960s, the concept was popularised in sociology through several works by Anthony
Giddens (1991, 2013). The 2000s saw ontological security increasingly employed by scholars interested in questions
around International Relations (IR), beginning with Catarina Kinnvall (2004), Brent Steele (2008), and Jennifer
Mitzen (Mitzen, 2006a, 2006b). Beyond IR and Sociology, ontological security theory has experienced something of a
renaissance in Social Science. Generally, it is being used to explore topics ranging from populism (Homolar & Scholz,
2019) to immigration (Dingott Alkopher, 2018), the impacts of terrorism (Combes, 2017) and bushfires (Slade, 2020),
and even the persistence of private car ownership (Kent, 2016).
This theory provides a useful lens through which to analyze the underlying function of central figures, content
producers or, what we will go on to refer to as ‘thought leaders’ within the Manosphere and the ways by which they
may reframe breakdowns in identity, routine or at a broader social or cultural level through particular narratives or
frameworks (for instance, as we will go onto examine, their adherence to biological determinism or the perceived
It’s mostly talking about the Youtube(Monetizes is the codeword for that nowadays’ instead of what Athol Kay (among a few others)once had at his site) version of the manosphere which contrary to some experts has been out as long as since 2008 or so but didn’t get ”popular” until the blackpill era of the mid/late 2010s.
Feminist Margaret Mowczko writes:
LOL
Even woke AI admits:
I think Margo is trying to manipulate us into not seeing what Schopenhauer saw. My entire marriage was a fight for control from day one. There was never a single day that I had control over my wife, even though I had been lured in with submissive behavior and vows of future obedience. It had all been a manipulation to get me to marry her. The day of our marriage her pathological need for overriding control immediately became manifest.
The blue pill is strong with some who deny that women are schemers and usurpers. Have they never read Aristotle or Sirach? Women’s nature has been known since Eve usurped Adam’s command from God and manipulated Adam into joining her in that rebellion against God the Father’s holy order of patriarchy. Some prefer blindness to seeing the ugly truth.
Schopenhauer lived from 1788 to 1860. He was 63 years old when he wrote Parerga and Paralipomena (from whence comes “On Women”). He died at 72.
Schopenhauer was not popular, due to his abrasive, arrogant, and socially difficult personality. He would routinely criticize others, including his colleagues. He had few friends. His biographer described him as solidary, mistrustful, and bitter. He had a fued with Hegel, who taught at the same university. He once scheduled a speech at the same time as Hegel, but everyone just went to listen to Hegel, leaving his lecture hall more-or-less empty. He was humiliated. This led to him giving up teaching.
In 1821, at 33 years old, he physically shoved Caroline Marquet out of his doorway, causing her to fall and suffer a lasting injury. She sued him for assault and damages and he lost. After a lengthy legal battle, he was forced to pay her a hefty lifelong pension, which he paid for the better part of two decades until her death. He was 54 years old. This situation was likely a contributing factor that led to his belief that women were controlling, manipulative, and opportunistic.
While Schopenhauer taught at the University of Berlin for a couples years, he appears to have spent most of his years living off his inheritence. His father was a wealthy merchant who committed suicide when Schopenhauer was 17. Other than some minor royalties from his published books, he never had to work for his own living, spending life as an ascetic.
Schopenhauer had a deeply troubled relationship with his mother, who was critical of his pessimism and difficult or abrasive personality. From Schopenhauer’s perspective, she was a superficial and manipulative woman. This led to an estrangement.
Schopenhauer never married and was unsuccessful with women. He had trouble establishing intimate relationships with women who he viewed as untrustworthy and shallow.
Schopenhauer’s philosophy of women was quite likely deeply impacted by his own personal, largely negative, anecdotal experiences.
Pingback: A Matter of Trust - Derek L. Ramsey