“It is a dangerous mistake to premise the moral equality of human beings on biological similarity because dissimilarity, once revealed, then becomes an argument for moral inequality.”
— A.W.F. Edwards, Lewontin’s Fallacy, 2003
Blankslatism is the belief that:
- Moral equality is based on biological similarity
- Biological dissimilarity does not exist
Thus, every race is morally equal.
Racism is the belief that:
- Moral equality is based on biological similarity
- Biological dissimilarity exists
Thus, the different races are not morally equal.
Reality is the acknowledgement that:
- Moral equality is not based on biological similarity
- Biological dissimilarity exists
Thus, being of a particular race is inherently amoral.
Of the first two, “Racism” is more attractive to intellectual free-thinkers and truth-seekers than “Blankslatism.” That’s because one of the two premises of the racist is correct. But most of the time people stop there. Being accused of Racism is enough to get almost anyone but the most entrenched racist to retreat back into Blankslatism. The risk of being canceled or otherwise ostracized and having your life wrecked is too great.
The fear from being labeled a racist is why most men whose reputations are at risk will either retreat into anonymity or else self-suppress their actual racist views. The latter will publicly portray themselves as blankslatists in order to save themselves from the inevitable persecution.
This is why the Reformed Presbyterians were able to pass their blankslatist resolution against racism without objection:
Blankslatism is the zeitgeist of the times. But it’s not the reality.
The fact is, there is no reason at all to premise moral equality on biological similarity. Some men can—and do—believe that biological dissimilarity exists and is real. Such men can also believe that this does not imply a moral judgment. In short, people are different and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
The problem is that blankslatists basically have no idea at all that they premise moral equality on biological similarity. They “know” that it is “true” deep down in their soul, but they never consciously think about it. So when a Blankslatist interacts with a Realist, all they can see is the belief that biological dissimilarity exists. They see a run-of-the-mill Racist…at least.
What makes it even worse is that when a Realist tries to explain to a Blankslatist the Realist position, the Blankslatist will just call the Realist a liar for denying the “reality” that moral equality is based on biological similarity. They’ll insist that the claim of biological dissimilarity is a claim of moral superiority or inferiority. They simply cannot accept that a different worldview exists from their own.
The realist is not racist, even though he believes that biological differences exist. But in order to be a realist in real life, virtually everyone you know will call you a racist. You’ll pay the penalty for embracing two truths instead of embracing two falsehoods.
Oh, and just for fun, here is the other option:
???? is the belief that:
- Moral equality is not based on biological similarity
- Biological dissimilarity does not exist
Thus, ????
I’m not sure what to make of the “blankslatist” who insists that races and ethnicities are fake social constructs, but rejects the modern doctrine of equality. I don’t think I’ve ever witnessed such a person. If you have, let me know in the comments.
Very good.
BTW I don’t know of anyone in the fourth category.
I think the confusion arises because people conflate morality with behaviors such as theft and murder, which crimes differ considerably in incidence according to biology – eg age, sex, race.
To take a non controversial example, the peak age for violence is about 15-25, after which it declines unless psychopathology supervenes. Genetics stay almost identical, but behavior changes.
The question is whether 90 year olds are therefore superior in morality to 30 year olds? I’d state not, but for most people there are no grounds for making such a distinction.
Funny this was brought up. Well, not really.
Over the weekend I was watching a clip from “Mister Rogers Neighborhood” from 1969.
In the neighborhood, Mister Rogers did some work outside, it was a very hot day. He decided in his “Mister Rogers” way that he just wanted to soak his feet in a little pool. He filled it with cool water, and at that moment, the mail man came by. Mist Rogers invited him to cool his feet as well. The mailman “just happened to be black” and the mailman complied. He sat with Mister Rogers and did this. It was a very QUIET attempt by Mister Rogers to “treat people the way you want to be treated”
There was no patronizing of the black mailman “Hey boys and girls, this man is black and let me show you and tell you how oppressed he is”
There was no virtue signalling of “look at me. Its 1969 and Im going share a little pool with a black man to show you how amazing, open and tolerant I am”
There was no press release. No gasps from “angry parents nationwide” about showing this, or doing this. There was no outrage to NET (Pre PBS formation) at the time.
Mister Rogers just did it because it was who-he-was, just being neighborly. Offering the mailman to soak his feet for minute on a hot day. Thsi is how functioning “neighborhoods” work. People just helping, encouraging, being “nice” (gasp!) to those around you so your neighborhood continues to function as it should.
He tackled a more poignent issue of that time in a very quiet and assuring way. Mister Rogers would have offered this if the mailman was white, a woman, or dyslexic Eskimo. It was actually very “christian” in a sense.
People mock Fred Rogers today for being actually an “evil” man and ruining masculinity but appliing this stance to a man whose program was geared to very young children is a bit unfair and wrong.
Perhaps if we took ol Fred Rogers stances to community, neighborhoods, our own personal lives as adults…perhas the world would spin a bit more easily than it does now.
You cannot “legislate” social cohesion unless its a by the point of a gun. Churches with statements like this in the end will have to do so ironically. Jesus would be “so proud” of them (rolls eyes)
In the neighborhood, Mister Rogers did some work outside, it was a very hot day. He decided in his “Mister Rogers” way that he just wanted to soak his feet in a little pool. He filled it with cool water, and at that moment, the mail man came by. Mist Rogers invited him to cool his feet as well. The mailman “just happened to be black” and the mailman complied. He sat with Mister Rogers and did this. It was a very QUIET attempt by Mister Rogers to “treat people the way you want to be treated”
There was no patronizing of the black mailman “Hey boys and girls, this man is black and let me show you and tell you how oppressed he is”
There was no virtue signalling of “look at me. Its 1969 and Im going share a little pool with a black man to show you how amazing, open and tolerant I am”
There was no press release. No gasps from “angry parents nationwide” about showing this, or doing this. There was no outrage to NET (Pre PBS formation) at the time.
Mister Rogers just did it because it was who-he-was, just being neighborly. Offering the mailman to soak his feet for minute on a hot day. Thsi is how functioning “neighborhoods” work. People just helping, encouraging, being “nice” (gasp!) to those around you so your neighborhood continues to function as it should.
He tackled a more poignent issue of that time in a very quiet and assuring way. Mister Rogers would have offered this if the mailman was white, a woman, or dyslexic Eskimo. It was actually very “christian” in a sense.
People mock Fred Rogers today for being actually an “evil” man and ruining masculinity but appliing this stance to a man whose program was geared to very young children is a bit unfair and wrong.
Perhaps if we took ol Fred Rogers stances to community, neighborhoods, our own personal lives as adults…perhas the world would spin a bit more easily than it does now.
You cannot “legislate” social cohesion unless its a by the point of a gun. Churches with statements like this in the end will have to do so ironically. Jesus would be “so proud” of them (rolls eyes)
i saw that episode about ten months ago when i was interested in watching the earliest episodes(1966-69) of MR.Rogers on PlutoTV.Today, all ”realMEN” over 35+ or so act like MR. Rogers forced ”niceness” on them.i only watched him ”seriously” for a few years, but even i knew at age 5 that most things on TV were fantasy, no matter if it was All in the Family, McGruff the crime dog, or MR.Rogers
The most reasonable position is take the R’cism one and add a 3rd plank “Some extraordinary men rise above their r’ces usualy moral indeptitude and do their race proud.” Hey, that’s what historical r’cists always believed, so that 3rd plank should be there anyway.
And then add a 4th plank “those that rise above their r’ce are probably due to Christianity” and then you have a move toward CN.
Speaking of supposed Realists, intellectual free-thinkers and truth-seekers, one who trusts NWO-alleigned presidents was griping yesterday that no one listens to his unmanly & crazy GOPLGBTQ simp framing, so here’s a brief history of Christian Civilization and who started Patriarchy in the Roissy/Manosphere for that strife-causing, simp framing GOPLGBTQING Trump Bot trolling fedpiller!
The Center and Circumference of Christian Civilization is Virgin Wives Who Serve and Honor God Over Dalrocka’sz Butt and Gina TIngzzlzlzlzlzoozzozozo & A brief history of Christian Civilization:
The Center and Circumference of Christian Civilization is Virgin Wives Who Serve and Honor God Over Dalrocka’sz Butt and Gina TIngzzlzlzlzlzoozzozozo & A brief history of Christian Civilization:
The Center and Circumference of Christian Civilization is Virgin Wives Who Serve and Honor God Over Butt and Gina TIngzzlzlzlzlzoozzozozo
A brief history of Christian Civilization:
EXODUS 20: And God spake all these words to Moses, saying,
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
GENESIS 3:16:
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Matthew 5:17
Jesus: Think not that I am come to destroy the law of Moses, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Dalrock 2012-2014: Christians must man up and learn GAME* so as to serve butt and gina tinzgzlzlzlzozoz as Jesus came to abolish the law of Moses. Also, Christians must man up and never, ever read a GReat Book for Men, nor quote them either, but only castigate and impugn the Great Books For Men, as reading them does not serve women’s butt and gina tingsallzlzozolzozzzlzozozozozoz, while wearing furry hats and negging them does. Every night, after gaming one’s wife so as to keep her from stealing teh children, and/or fornicating with women, one must kneel before the church of Dalrock and state, “Homer was a Pagan, but Dalrock, the great emperor, forgives us for our gamey gamez and fofnicationz and buttehtsthzt, for Dalrock is great and good, and the one,true, way, while Homer and Virgil are Pagans and Jesus came to abolish the Law of Moses.” lzozozlzlo
*The word Game can mean anything at any time. For in the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was good, and the Word was God, but now, I, Dalrock, dictate that My Words can mean anything at any time. So man up and get used to my Marxist march of deconstruction through our institutions, and the rule of da butt and gina tingzzlzlzolzolozoz.
i thought ST. Dalrock was the pro-patriarchy guy instead of pro-I, Dalrock, dictate that My Words can mean anything at any time. So man up and get used to my Marxist march of deconstruction through our institutions, and the rule of da butt and gina tingzzlzlzolzolozoz.
That I, Dalrock, dictate that My Words can mean anything at any time. So man up and get used to my Marxist march of deconstruction through our institutions, and the rule of da butt and gina tingzzlzlzolzolozoz.
That strife-causing, simp framing GOPLGBTQING Trump Bot trolling fedpiller thinks he’s messing with an amateur manosphere wanna-be like himself who also believes in man up and get used to my Marxist march of deconstruction through our institutions, and the rule of da butt and gina tingzzlzlzolzolozoz?
The above GBFM post ”The Center and Circumference of Christian Civilization is Virgin Wives Who Serve and Honor God Over Dalrocka’sz Butt and Gina TIngzzlzlzlzlzoozzozozo & A brief history of Christian Civilization: ” was in response to this ST.DAL’ ”patriarchy” post ”How Christians can take credit for Game. ”
How Christians can take credit for Game.
Posted on February 1, 2014 by Dalrock
In a recent exchange at Zippy Catholic, Alte and Elspeth discussed the controversy over teaching Christian husbands “Game” (emphasis mine):
Elspeth:
When my husband “negs” me, or any of the other little pieces I’ve read here and there that are just part of the way he is, it’s fun. Fun should be a part of any healthy marital relationship.
Alte:
Seriously. Maybe it’s because I didn’t grow up over there, but a lot of the criticism about husbands using Game seems puritanical, based upon a sort of melancholy. Like, “Oh noes, a married couple is flirting! We must stop this or they might end up having sex for reasons other than the solemn duty of procreation. Doesn’t that wife have a toilet to scrub somewhere?”
There’s a sort of passion and excitement in some of our marriages that we enjoy, and that Game enhances. Sex starts in the kitchen, and all that jazz. Why so dour?
Elspeth:
The argument V, is that what you’re describing is not game. That it has always existed in loving marriages just as the neg has have been around since Hobbits tilled the soil of the Shire.
That giving Roissyites credit for something that enhances Christian marriage is just plain wrong, morally. Not only is it incompatible, but it gives them credit for something which they deserve no credit for.
I believe that the concern Elspeth describes is shared by many (but not necessarily all) of those who oppose teaching Christian husbands Game. The problem is, the Roissyites do deserve credit for collating and codifying the concepts we refer to as “Game”, and this is assuming that there was absolutely no new understanding developed by the Roissyites in the process. The Brothers Grimm didn’t write a single new tale, yet they rightly are credited with advancing our knowledge and understanding of folk tales.
This leaves Christians with a dilemma. Some of the knowledge the Roissyites have described as Game could help Christian husbands be more effective when trying to lead their wives, and as both Alte and Elspeth point out if you are doing it right using Game in a marriage is very likely to be fun. However, teaching Game has the problem of giving credit to men whose focus is to enjoy our present culture of sexual immorality. One possible option would be to lie, and claim that not only is the basic knowledge old, but that we haven’t benefited at all from the experiences and efforts of a group of men engaged in a sinful pursuit.
However, while Christians can’t claim credit for collating and codifying the information, we can take credit for creating the conditions required for such an activity to take place. It is no accident that a formalization of the concepts we call Game only occurred recently and wasn’t completed some other time over the last several thousand years. In the past such knowledge wasn’t generally required for the average man, because we were still practicing traditional marriage. In addition, there wasn’t the concentration of experiences with multiple women to make it possible to hypothesize and test the kinds of patterns PUAs have seen.
As Christians we (collectively) can take credit for making all of this happen. Christians have provided the moral cover for both the sexual revolution and the divorce revolution. At the core of the Christian backing of the sexual/divorce revolution is the modern Christian rebellion against biblical headship. A woman who marries as a young virgin is far more likely to be willing to submit to her husband, and (modern) Christian fathers everywhere are terrified of such a prospect. For existing marriages Christians endorse the use of threats of divorce to ensure that a wife feels secure in her position of authority over her husband, and groups like FOTF make it a point to remind divorcing women not to forget to collect their cash and prizes. Likewise the modern Christian rebellion against headship has lead Christians to endorse an entirely new and perverted sexual morality. If you have ever wondered why the Protestant churches in the US have been so quiet on the divorce revolution taking place within their very congregations, or why the RCC responded to the explosion in divorces in the US by firing up the annulment mill, this is why.
So if you fear teaching Game to Christian husbands because Christians can’t take credit for the knowledge you are teaching, rest easy. We can’t take credit for the Roissyites, but we can and must take credit for creating the conditions required for the Roissyites to thrive.
Pointing at Roissy and company’s sin is easy, as it allows us to confront the sin of others without acknowledging and repenting from our own collective culpability. Acknowledging that Christians have collectively displayed shame and hostility for something so beautiful and wise as biblical marriage is much less comfortable. However, we would do well to remember that Roissy wasn’t trusted to share the wisdom and beauty of Christian marriage and sexual morality with the world; Christians were.
Moderator’s note: Since the definition of Game has been a long term derailer of discussions I’m asking commenters to refrain from engaging in yet another debate on the true definition of Game. This doesn’t mean you can’t state your own view so that others can understand how you are using the term. In fact, defining how you use the term if different from others will add clarity to the discussion. For example if you believe Christians shouldn’t use Game, you should clearly define what you include in the category you are prohibiting. This also doesn’t mean you can’t ever discuss the proper definition of the term; if you are interested in this I encourage you to do so, just not here, on this post. If you wish to discuss the definition of Game on my blog, I invite you to do so on the post Cypher’s Problem where discussing the definition of the term has been occurring since August of 2012. If you wish to discuss the definition of the terms used in the definition of Game, Cane Caldo has a post for this here. If you wish to discuss the definition of the terms used in the definition of the terms used in the definition of Game, I’m not aware of a specific post addressing this yet but I have every confidence that someone will create one soon.
BUT ST.DAL’s audience of simp framinging goddess-worshippers were the ones who cheered him on as this commenter was the first on that post:
runsonmagic (@runsonmagic) says:
February 1, 2014 at 8:12 pm
I wrote about why Christians are and should study game here:
http://runsonmagic.com/2014/01/favorite-bible-verse/
Studying game is a Biblical command in Matthew 10:16. Christians must know the ways of the world, even if they are not of it.”
Why can’t one claim watching simp framing CNN or FOX news is a Biblical command in Matthew 10:16. Christians must know the ways of the world, even if they are not of it.
SEE the world & simp framing goddess worshippers that populated ST.DAL’s site?
So strife-causing, simp framing goddess worshipper GOPLGBTQING Trump Bot trolling fedpillers are just as welcome today in the current manosphere.
Also see how the simp framing goddess worshippers back then loved calling the guys who ”created” the redpill and supposedly set them free ”sinners”?Talk about sumping goddess worshippers!:
Cail Corishev says:
February 1, 2014 at 11:17 pm
What I have said is that understanding reality does not necessitate a visit to the pick up artists. — SSM
It doesn’t now, thanks to this blog and other “Christian game” or “married game” blogs. Ten or twenty years ago, that really wasn’t the case. All the game conversation then was in the context of pickup artistry: how to get girls’ numbers, how to keep them from flaking, how to deal with last-minute resistance, etc. There was a little attention paid to relationships — for instance, experience showed that waiting for the second meet-up to have sex made a future relationship more likely, so men could act accordingly — but mostly you were on your own. The info just wasn’t anywhere else.
Technically, you could say the info is there in scripture and in old books and movies, but it was never laid out in clear how-to style, backed up with explanations of why it works. That’s necessary now because a man trying to swim upstream against the feminist river needs all the confidence he can get to fend off the constant messages that he’s wrong. He needs to know that game works and that he’s right to use it.
That information was rediscovered, studied, and developed into useful instructions primarily by a bunch of atheistic, evolution-believing, hedonists. It’d be nice if that had been done by a bunch of virtuous, church-going men — and it could have been, but they were too busy trying to be nice guys like their mothers told them and getting shot down over and over. So the PUAs had the field to themselves for a while.
It would hardly be the first time God used sinners to accomplish something good, though, so I don’t see that as much of a problem. Approach their offerings with care, of course, understanding that you’ll have to sort out the chaff, but there’s no need to discard the wheat too. And now that game is being discussed by non-PUAs, we can also confirm (or falsify) their claims against what we’re rediscovering from scripture and those older sources.
So 2what was ST.DAL’ trying to do in that post?” Dalrock, feeling the Jealousy of Cain, disobeys God, Moses, and Jesus Christ, and tries to steal Game from the Great HEartistes!!! | Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM(TM) GB4M(TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN(TM) GREATBOOKS4MEN(TM) lzozlzlzlzlzomglzozzll ”
YEP!& DAL’ was a saint as he tried to steal Game from the Great HEartistes!!! lzozlzlzlzlzomglzozzll
Maybe this was what Jack, the other strife-causing, simp framing GOPLGBTQING Trump Bot trolling fedpiller was trying to tell everyone with his Mike Davis post and his ”Anal sex is sanctifying” stuff?:
The Best Bible Verse For The Manosphere
January 21, 2014 by Eric Crowley 1 Comment
“I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as wise as a serpent and as innocent a dove.” – Matthew 10:16
The reason many Christians – SunshineMary, Dalrock, FreeNortherner, Vox, Martel – have come to the manosphere is because they want to learn the serpents wisdom. Knowing only the innocence of the dove is following half the command.
This verse is also a lesson for experienced men. It’s easy to become bitter after taking the red pill – to lose your innocence when you see how the world really is. Without innocence, they’ll be no joy in your gain – for what good is it to gain the whole world but lose your soul?
Every baby enters the world innocent. Innocence is our birthright. To reclaim innocence, focus on who you truly are.
Wisdom is what is. Wisdom is the myriad of options available to us., and seeing where each choice will lead.
Innocence determines what you chose, wisdom how you chose it.
A young man entering the world without red pill awareness is very much a sheep among wolves.
Be as wise as a serpent. Innocent as a dove.
”A young man entering the world without red pill awareness is very much a sheep among wolves.”
See? Jack, the other strife-causing, simp framing GOPLGBTQING Trump Bot trolling fedpiller was just trying to fulfill the command from JESUS in Matthew 10:16 with his Mike Davis post and his ”Anal sex is sanctifying” stuff!
That strife-causing, simp framing GOPLGBTQING Trump Bot trolling fedpiller didn’t know i knew he was just another tradcon ”traditionalist”femonist-worshipper once he, as ”george” accused i of ”Charge of Instability (Code White) – The White Padded Room Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being emotionally or mentally unstable. Examples:
“You’re unstable.”
“You have issues.”
“You need therapy.”
“Weirdo!”
Response: In response to this attack, one may point to peer-reviewed literature and then ask the accuser if the target’s mental and/or emotional condition can explain the existence of valid research on the matter.”
https://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/
i know their simp framing tactics!
i don’t get this post by that simp framing goddess worshipper known as Runsonmagic:
The Vulnerable Beginnings Of Game, does he want to be best buds with Roosh, like how GBFM was with Roissy or how a certain strife-causing, simp framing goddess worshipper GOPLGBTQING Trump Bot trolling fedpiller wants professorGBFMtm back at his site getting the traffic his strife-causing, simp framing goddess worshipping doesn’t!?
February 10, 2014 by Eric Crowley 4 Comments
When I was twelve, as my mom was driving me home from school, I asked her, “Mom – how do you get a girl to like you?”
It was a very innocent question. I had no idea, and figured my mom must have been a girl at some point. Maybe she knew.
“I don’t know,” she said. “Buy her flowers or something.”
Even at twelve, I knew that was the biggest load of bullsh!t I’d ever heard in my life. Why wouldn’t she tell me the answer? It never occurred to me my mom might not know. I just knew I had a question, and no one would answer me.
If Roosh and me were to meetup when we were both nineteen, we’d probably play board games together and talk about books. Now when people think about Roosh, they see the world-traveling pick-up artist, but I can see the seed his present form grew from. Is it any wonder that a nerd who spent hours playing RISK and studying petri dishes would make it his mission to collect flags and study cultures?
When people see a player, they don’t see the vulnerable boy he was, only the man he has become. They don’t see the school kid offering his heart in the form of a handwritten poem and scratch and sniff Teddy bear, they see the aloof ahole blogging about casual sexual adventures he became.
In some ways, I’m still that curious twelve year-old wondering how to get girls to like him. Every time I climb into bed with a girl, I still have the same sense of wonder I had looking a woman’s body when my hormones first began to develop and girls started to hold interest for me. I’m just better at what I do. More refined. More adult.
Most men who get into game do so from suffering. Tyler Durden and Jeffy Allen from RSD have been very open about their difficult childhoods. The Game opens with Mystery trying to kill himself. Many red pill stories begin with men saying how they couldn’t get a girl to like them. How they felt unworthy of love.
That part of the narrative gets lost in mainstream culture. It’s too complicated. It’s too messy. If it does get brought up, it’s in short shaming labels: Bitter. Misogynist. Virgin. Player. Pick-up artist. It doesn’t matter that they’re contradictory, and the point is to trivialize the human experience. To act like their suffering doesn’t matter so we don’t have to see it.
I can see it. I can see it in them, because I can see it in myself. It’s painful to look at sometimes. We try to act like it doesn’t matter, to cover it up with our new identities, but there’s nothing to be ashamed of. That pain is what made us who we are. We’d never have climbed the mountain if we hadn’t started at the bottom.
In any journey, the hero begins in one world, descends into another, and becomes master of both. We’re not pioneers anymore. The path of the red pill is out there. Only those who’ve never taken it can’t see the humble beginnings. They can’t see the boys who became men.
“The path of the red pill is out there. Only those who’ve never taken it can’t see the humble beginnings. They can’t see the boys who became men”
This is one of the biggest crocks I have heard in awhile about this “path” and pretty much a “religion” now.
Roosh lives a quiet and uneventful life in some random backwater town in New York State now. He renunced ALL of his past. Practices his faith tradition and has even removed his forum. Let me repeate that. ALL of his past he renounced. Not some, or a piece here and there. He took up his cross and followed Him. I cannot and will not fault a man who does indeed do this without fanfare, praise or speaking tours.
Neil Strausse is the only one from the whole PUA era who has a tad of repsectability around him, almost twenty years later since publishing “The Game” a two volume set which he has openly renounced many times. Not beacuse its “mean” to women or “treats women as objects” but his pursuit of this lifestyle left him more empty, broken, lost and sad than he was BEFORE he became this “amazing ladies man”
Fortunately, he is a very talented writer and has had some great books, interviews and the like since marrying (and divorcing, I guess his “Game” didnt help him there, he should have read Rollo, and listend to everyone at SIgma Frame). Teaming up with guys like Rick Rubin, and his work with Rolling Stone as a rock / music journalist are some of the best write ups from that era (1990’s).
All the big shots in the PUA / Game era had ONE thing that helped them.
They had something to BEGIN with.
Talents, smarts, writing, maybe their looks needed a brush up, but they didnt have to start in the negative integers (like most of their readers / followers). All of them had a gift for being well spoken, a camera friendly face. Thjey had SOMETHING. Most men dont at this point
and yes, its “all their own fault” they should have been born intelligent! (rolls eyes)
Anyway Red Pill is a mish-mash of different meanings. Each group or “school” claiming to be its sole bearer. Like the word “confidence” now. Like the word love.
All this was in the end was a monkey suiting, posturing and behaving to get women to like you. It had nothing, and still has nothing about being a man. It was only a dick measuring contest on who has more sex.
MOD,
Finally, some sensible advice from
Pseudonymous commenter says:
26 August, 2025 at 5:31 pm
If you’re a bottom 90% man and you want some semblance of a relationship with a woman, your choices are:
(1) “pay” a girlfriend for sex by providing dates, good times, social companionship and social proof in exchange for sex; or
(2) “pay” a wife for sex by providing her a house and all other basic life necessities in exchange for sex; or
(3) pay a prostitute ($20 crack whore, streetwalker, sugar baby, hooker, or escort) a set price in exchange for sex.
(4)go to the gym, eat clean, and keep it real (with lots of day and night game)to get into the top 1% then live by the rule of da butt and gina tingzzlzlzolzolozoz 4life as ye man up and get used to the redpillian simp frame leaders Marxist march of deconstruction through our institutions AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!!
That’s pretty much it, ladz.
Thjey had SOMETHING. Most men dont at this point
NO, NO, NO
(4-main ”option”)go to the gym, eat clean, and keep it real (with lots of day and night game)to get into the top 1% then live by the rule of da butt and gina tingzzlzlzolzolozoz 4life as ye man up and get used to the redpillian simp frame leaders Marxist march of deconstruction through our institutions AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!!
That’s pretty much it, ladz.
All they have to do is read the sensible advice given by Pseudonymous commenter above, and they will be extraordinary MEN able to poon slay (and win souls to CHRIST) with the best of them!
Maybe this ”options” video can help too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-4hIPtQgp0
Why Women Want Men Who Have Options