Doubling Down

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

–Hamlet, Act III, scene ii

In my last post, among other things I discussed the emotional reaction many women seem to be having to the Santa Barbara shootings (they don’t seem to mind the stabbings too much).

My intent was to describe the visceral reaction, the notion that something’s off becoming apparent and thus creating an emotional upheaval of sorts.  In no way did I mean to suggest that they young women were actually going to do something about it like treat lesser males with a bit more compassion or stop being so damn spoiled.

However, my last sentence could leave that impression:

But if men aren’t entitled to sex, if a young and virtuous bride is an unreasonable demand, that’s fine.  They’ll just stop giving women all the goodies to which they feel entitled.

And that’s when civilization collapses.  I suspect on some level, young women are beginning to suspect that.

And I did leave such an impression with three men I respect, deti, Reality Doug, and to a lesser extent M3.  (Doug objects to another one of my assertions, which I’ll deal with below.)

deti:

Well, yes, if the average man can’t get sex, he has no incentive to improve. And if he has no incentives, then he languishes. Multiply that by 10 million or so, and yeah, you have a recipe for civilizational collapse.

But are women suspecting that? I don’t think so. Are women drawing the connection between collapse and any role that they themselves might play in that? I doubt it. Not because they are stupid, but because they just don’t connect the dots. And they don’t connect the dots because they don’t have to.

and

I think they see the events of last weekend as proof that they, and society, are justified in avoiding and discarding these men as unimportant and dangerous. I think that they will use this as further proof that more and more men are rightly being pushed to the fringes of society because, well, that’s where they belong.

Look. I’m not saying that women have to start sleeping with these men. Far from it. I’m simply saying that this is going to be used as proof that awkward, socially misadjusted men are going to be viewed not as a symptom of what’s wrong; but as the cause; and therefore must be removed.

M3:

As long as they flip the switch and the light comes on.. life is peechy. As long as the iPhone can recharge and get a signal from the tower.. the world is fine. As long as there is water coming from the tap to make her morning coffee.. there is nothing to worry about.

Reality Doug, in a post of his own:

I think Martel gives women too much credit. I’m no closer, but I have field experience, and I can tell you field experience is the cure to giving women too much credit. Women are not complex, not unfathomable. I think Martel may be hoping against hope that women will wake up and realize how wealth stewardship is important to all of us. They will not.

This doesn’t particularly make for a wild and crazy shouting match, but I agree that “they just don’t connect the dots,” that young women feel “justified in avoiding and discarding these men,” that if “there is water coming from the tap to make her morning coffee…there is nothing to worry about,” and I seriously doubt that “women will wake up and realize how wealth stewardship is important to all of us.”

However, I wasn’t writing about a rational response to the shootings, for I began my post by describing the volume and intensity of the #YesAllWomen tweets, none of which (that I read) were sympathetic to the plight of any males in the slightest or drew any connection whatsoever between today’s sexual/marriage markets and impending doom.

Instead, I was referring to a subtle disruption, a sense that something might be off (although I concede I wasn’t as clear as I should have been).  Rational creatures like M3, deti, and Doug might respond to such a feeling by making an intellectual effort to “connect the dots”, to ascertain what’s really behind what’s going on.

Irrational creatures don’t.  They”l sense a “disturbance in the force” and loudly and violently blame what strikes them as easiest to blame.  Elliot Rodger hated women, therefore the problem is misogyny.  Claiming anything other than that much mean you’re a misogynist, too.  The more evidence you present to support your assertions, the more brazenly they’ll call you names.

Sometimes when discussing economics or other issues with lefties, they’ll be perfectly calm and reasonable until I’ve got them pinned down on some point or other, at which point they’ll get extremely angry and start calling me racist or misogynist or something.  They don’t do this when I’m still flushing out the points we have in common (before I’m any threat), they wait until they have to face the terrifying prospect that I might be right.

Such it is with this.  By no means to these women think that the ostracism suffered by unwanted males might merit some sort of attention or solution (do many of them even think at all?), but when one such male goes off and starts wreaking havoc, it’s got to shake them up a bit.

And it has.  We’re not seeing a calm refutation of Rodger’s thesis, we’re seeing fuck all loser men!!! being screamed all over the place on Twitter like never before.  This isn’t because they’re more convinced of the rational basis for the need to subvert the patriarchy, it’s because they’re beginning to suspect that there’s a problem.

That’s not to say they’ll correctly identify the problem, nor that they’ll respond to it with any perspective or maturity.  But they most decidedly had to sense that something’s wrong in a way they didn’t before.  Their reaction will probably be exactly what Alinsky advocates:  to double down in the face of doubt.  However for a moment, way deep down, they did have a brush with doubt.

Otherwise they wouldn’t be acting so damn obnoxious.

Therefore, I reject Reality Doug’s notion that I’m somehow overestimating women.  (I”m painfully aware of how much chicks dig serial killers.)  Moreover, even if I were being naive, it’s not my theology that would have led me to such mistaken notions.  Mine is the theology that teaches us about Eve, Jezebel, Delilah, and Herodita.  Besides, Christian deti was on the same side as Doug on this.

However, Doug does have another issue with my post that deserves to be addressed, for he directly took issue with my assertion that I don’t believe we should force women to “spread their wealth (sexuality) around”.

For many reasons, I advocate a government using force as rarely as possible on its own citizens, including women.  Unlike many others of a libertarian predisposition, I come to my conclusions not because I believe in some inherent goodness of man.  Quite to the contrary, I believe we’re too fundamentally craven to be allowed to have too much power over each other.

Fortunately, I see little need to break with this principle to rectify our current sex-based mess.

The problem is less that women are being “allowed” to do what they want, it’s that they’re able to do so with impunity, with Uncle Sam intervening to prevent them from suffering the full weight of their mistakes.  The vast majority of negative female behaviors are subsidized by government interference.

Why are marriage contracts the one type of contract (that I’m aware of, at least) that allows a first party to break it and afterwards use the courts to make the second party suffer for the first party’s breach of contract?  I’ve formulated a paternity testing system that minimizes governmental interference in families.  Government student loan programs encourage women to get degrees who probably shouldn’t (and consequently fund hard-left academia), government-mandated maternity care, government subsidized child care, healthcare, birth control, and welfare ALL encourage women to make poor choices on somebody else’s dime.  Furthermore, sexual harassment law has completely subverted the notion that you should be able to know whether or not you’ll be committing an offense before you do it (how the hell can you ever know if your “advance” will be “unwanted” until after you’ve made it?).

Before making the case that we should force women to do what they should, how about we first try to refrain from paying them to do what they shouldn’t?

So I support liberty for women the same way I do for men, but I harshly reject the government empowering them.

She can do whatever the hell she wants, but she has no right to require her employer to bend over backwards to support her childcare decisions, if she frivorces her husband she won’t get the house, she can get a degree in Victimhood Studies if (and only if) daddy is willing to pay for it, and banging a dude who refuses to support the resulting kids means she has to support the kids on her own.  She can play programmer at the tech conference, but nobody has to pay any attention to her if she gets offended by the dongle jokes.

Reforming the government in such a manner won’t completely solve the problem:  it never does.  However, it would help a lot.  Moreover, it doesn’t require more effort or deficit spending on our part to solve our problems, it just means stopping all the crap we’re ostensibly doing to solve them now (while actually making them worse).  Such an approach is anything but passive; it’s merely the enforcement of liberty.

Nevertheless, however messed up and misandrist our laws may be, nothing will work if we don’t get our own asses in gear as men.  Not only are wimps incapable of enacting legal reforms, they’re incapable of having a sufficiently positive influence on our overall culture, their communities, or even their own families.

So in addition to and more importantly than legal reforms, we’ve got to change ourselves, to keep writing and talking and leading and being the men we were made to be.  Only then will we attract those who want to be part of our strength, and only then will we strike sufficient fear into our enemies.

Besides, nothing makes a woman realize how immature she’s being than a strong man in her life showing her what’s what.  If it can be done (and that’s sometimes a pretty big “if”), that’s the very best way.

This entry was posted in Alpha, Culture, Feminism, Game, Politics, Religion, Rhetoric. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Doubling Down

  1. deti says:

    Good followup.

    I can’t find it now (I tried), but Captain Capitalism put up a post a couple of years ago responding to a collective female query along the lines of “well, what is it that you men want women to do and be?”

    Cappy responded (I’m paraphrasing here):

    Women can do whatever they want. Women can be whatever they want. But in return, they are not allowed to complain about the consequences, and they have to pay for it themselves.

    She wants a master’s in Women’s Studies? Fine. She doesn’t get to complain later that she cant’ find a job, and she has to pay for it herself. No government handouts; no forgiven loans.

    She wants to be a slut? OK. But she cannot complain later that no one wants to marry her or that she got an STD. And she has to pay for her lifestyle herself. No sponging off mom and dad; no Beta Bucks.

    She wants to be a career girl? Great. No complaining about her inability to find a husband because she has no time or domestic skills. And she has to fund her own retirement. No social security or medicare.

  2. deti says:

    Another mantra we often hear from the shrieking feminist contingent is “You’re not entitled to sex.” And you know, I completely agree with this. No man is entitled to sex from a woman he’s not married to.

    Every time a woman says this, the reply, the rejoinder, must be

    “You’re not entitled to commitment. You’re not entitled to a man’s money, time, attention, resources or fidelity. You’re not entitled to sugar daddy government help, either.”

    • Martel says:

      Good one. A quick rejoinded with whatever goodie they seem most attached to could work great, be it “you’re not entitled to free birth control” or whatever government goodie they seem most attached to.

    • Apparently, my objections are that you guys are too nice and water down the conceptual harshness of the salient truth. The ending was strong on this post, polite in words but robust in the truth of ideas.

      Jeremy noticed something that I too would not embrace. I do not propose that institutional government solutions are needed to spread the wealth of women. “We the people…ordain and establish…” I propose the men are the law or they are not actualized men, and women know it without knowing it to articulate it. Culture is created and maintained by a free market of violence; yes, even culture without government handouts that enable women (as noted in the post).

      Women respect superlative violence, dress it up or cover it how you like. Nice thinking and nice wording is something I’d like to suggest is part of the problem, by our conditioning. Sure, there are social situations where you use patience and take what you can incrementally. We are the underdogs. Be sly. If you water things down to be sly, I respect it and aspire to do that well myself. However, men need their free thought and speech places to develop with each other as men. Masculinity is about being the law in addition to attracting women. Obviously, there is overlap. PUA is essentially taking the law not otherwise restricted into one’s own male hands. Nature’s virtue says you can’t do that alone. As noted in the post, but I’ll reframe it here, women are delegated the law of sexual harassment. No female blessings for you if you don’t approach, and if you do, it is her discretion whether or not it is sexual harassment. All women want to HAVE, to have status because AWALT. Civilized men want to BE, to be the authority of status, of order, etc., or they are postmodern slaves with sugar plum fairies in their minds.

      For me, it is always virtual sugar plum fairy season.

      • Excuse me. My above comment is misplaced. I backed out of replying to Deti and went to the top comment box to comment, but it got put as a reply to Deti. If the above comment can be moved, and I haven’t checked with my WP (but could copy then delete, different timestamp), Martel, you might consider moving it to a regular comment after Deti and Jeremy and then deleting this comment.

      • Martel says:

        I’m awful at moving comments around, so if you’re cool, I’ll leave it as is. Were there zillions of comments here and the placement of a given one really mattered, I might give it a shot (and still will if you really want), but as it stands what you said in no way strikes me as out of place.

      • Martel says:

        “Nice thinking and nice wording is something I’d like to suggest is part of the problem, by our conditioning. Sure, there are social situations where you use patience and take what you can incrementally. We are the underdogs. Be sly. If you water things down to be sly, I respect it and aspire to do that well myself. However, men need their free thought and speech places to develop with each other as men. Masculinity is about being the law in addition to attracting women.”

        Nice wording can be a part of the problem, but it’s part of my preferred technique so I stick with it. However, nice wording alone won’t cut it and has to be put into context.

        For example, when I’m engaging somebody in conversation, I’ll word something pretty harshly near the start of the conversation. It won’t necessarily be directed at them, but they’ll know I’m perfectly comfortable with letting it rip. This frames me as dominant, so my niceness then becomes an expression of benevolence instead of weakness.

        But if they cross the line, I let them know they crossed a line, and then “nice” is the last word you’d use to describe me.

        That said, in a masculine environment, we’ve got to feel free to express ourselves naturally. However, I’ve found that bold wording is more likely to help those already inclined to agree with us that it is at persuading the unconvinced.

        Niceness and harshness both have their role. It can be incredibly effective to rip into somebody until you can tell it hurts, then drastically change your tone and tell them you understand how they feel, then calmly but firmly reassert your thesis. Likewise, ever seen how people respond when a gregarious friendly dude really lets someone have it?

        Nice all the time is ineffective, but so is the guy who knows how to let it rip but can’t do anything else.

      • I’m fine with the order. Hoping this gets behind the other replies. Does not show that I can reply with deeper nesting.

        “Niceness and harshness both have their role. It can be incredibly effective to rip into somebody until you can tell it hurts, then drastically change your tone and tell them you understand how they feel, then calmly but firmly reassert your thesis. Likewise, ever seen how people respond when a gregarious friendly dude really lets someone have it?”

        A little dark triad do I detect? hmmm. Yes. I have only lately in my life discovered that sweet spot of creating the metaphorical pea under the mattresses. (I think it was a pea in some fairy tale.) There are many seasons. There will be a season for action divorced from rhetorical persuasion. Reach out in missionary ministry as you like. It is one thing to turn someone to a more perfect social union who has it in him or her. It is the salvaging of everyone that allow the money priests to do this to us in the first place. I don’t presume any authority to tell anyone what to do, thought I aspire to it as a male popular sovereign. In my country, if I had one that was mine, natural selection would be seen as part of healthy social maintenance. Nature, or God’s nature if you like, is robust enough to control the long run. We only change the timing and the names with our actions and inactions, which can be very important to our lives, of course. If we are theorizing a long run in a long struggle, it does not matter much. Having a nucleus of people when SHTF is what matters. What to do in crisis will be all too apparent and uncompromising, and men will cease to debate theories for a time, until the new institutions are considered. I don’t expect me or my generation to be around at that point, certainly not with the physical agency to do something.

        If you can actually recalibrate people with civilized potential, I’m all for it. People who ape the prevailing authority will be of no help when it counts. I’d rather know who the syncophant are upfront and spread the wealth to those more staunch civilized character, but then I see everything in terms of evolution. We agree quite a bit, or this convo would not be happening. I think at this point we are clear on our positions and I don’t feel uncomfortable because we lack total agreement. If only these differences were of primary importance, what a world it would be. I’m pretty sure I’d be happily married and with kids and a career. Oh, well. I will make ‘love’ when the sun shines without happy illusions.

      • Martel says:

        @ Doug: “A little dark triad do I detect? hmmm.”

        I’m strong on two of the traits but quite weak on psychopathy. Dark biad?

        “If you can actually recalibrate people with civilized potential, I’m all for it. People who ape the prevailing authority will be of no help when it counts.”

        But far better for them to ape somewhat rational ideas than really stupid ones. I’d rather take a mindless follower of Ayn Rand (she’s got ’em too) than a mindless follower of Paul Krugman any day.

        Still, I agree we’ve got much common ground.

  3. Jeremy says:

    I am also in agreement that any legislated “spreading the wealth” w.r.t. female services is a bad idea. But you don’t need to do that. All you need to do, to reduce unchecked feminine power, is to fully legalize and de-stigmatize prostitution, universally and without exception. The price of a lay with a sex worker is artificially high in much of the developed world *because* of the legal and social restrictions placed on it. When it becomes legalized and encouraged, that price will drop. Subsequently the total price betas will be willing to part with, both in finance and pride, in order to achieve something special with a (non-sex-worker) woman, will drop. Chaste, or pretend-chaste women will be forced to compete with the most enterprising of women. That means creative solutions generated by average good women in an attempt to appease the average beta in order to keep him and his resources focused on the average woman and her own needs. The answer to government competition as the uber-beta-male-provider is a leveling of the economic playing field with regards to what men want from women. That’s the answer. I realize it’s unpalatable for the average christian, but it’s the most logical solution. Women have been allowed to raise the social and financial cost of not appeasing the good women to obscene levels, only inexpensive and almost socially-encouraged prostitution would reverse that.

    The problem with attempting to guess what all women felt after the Isla Vista murders, is that as with men there’s a wide variety of viewpoints. I have no doubt that there are women who exist and because of their familiarity with all things masculine, they actually felt very sorry for Elliot and the life he led (I refer you to the professional sex workers I spoke of above, as one reasonable example of this). I would imagine that the average blue-pill-indoctrinated woman did exactly what you said, they felt rage towards all loser males. I would also imagine that most of them didn’t think too hard beyond that. It’s much the same reaction that men had when they heard how much money Tiger Woods had to give up in order to ‘settle accounts’ with his ex-wife (i.e., “fuck all golddiggers”). None of us were actually involved in Tiger’s marriage, we had no idea how his family was treating each other, and we had no insight into Tiger’s motivation to cheat on Elin, so we really don’t know anything. But we do know the feeling of what it’s like to have much of the fruits of our work taken away from us against our will, and we hate that feeling. Much like this, women have absolutely zero insight into the lives/motivations of invisible men. Invisibility is something that women do not experience unless they be single and over 40. They have no concept, absolutely zero concept, of having no control over satisfying their sexual appetites as many males in the modern world experience. For most young women sex is like selecting which restaurant to go to. They know they can go to any of them if they play their cards right, but many times fast-food is all they need, and they can go as often as they wish so there’s no worry. For most blue-pill-indoctrinated beta/omega men it’s very very different, sex is like being stuck in a vast plain desert while you’re delirious with thirst and you can’t tell if you’re seeing a mirage or someone actually offering you water. Women do not understand this, they can’t, the world is just different for them until they get past the wall. So their thoughts on Elliot are entirely tainted by the thought that sex is as freely available as food in a feast, they have no concept of what actual involuntary celibacy is like for a human being, because any celibacy experienced by a young woman is entirely voluntary. They have to regard Elliot as something ugly that must have come from some kind of horrible evil against them, because to think otherwise would force them to actually try and see things from a male perspective. The last thing a young woman actually wants to do, is to try to put herself in a young man’s shoes. It’s also the one thing they are utterly incapable of, they just haven’t seen enough of life to see the pain they’re missing out on.

    So no, women won’t “connect the dots”, they won’t because their perspective on life, and what is available to them, is too different (in this arena) from what males experience to understand the perspective of a narcissistic incel. Elliot had terrible problems with abandonment from his parents, and all the women he was surrounded with were career Hollywood women. He’s literally a product of Hollywood shallowness. This is yet another reason/discussion of why women can’t/won’t see Elliot for what he was, because to their mind the life he had to grow up in was *perfect* for them, it was the kind of childhood any girl might dream of, meeting famous people, being exposed as a beautiful young girl to hollywood elites, etc…

    Women don’t just lack the capability to understand Elliot for the self-loving and self-loathing incel that he was, they fundamentally lack the capability of seeing why everything he was given through childhood created a living hell for him. It would be heaven for a woman, because a woman would get attention. It was an absolute nightmare for a young invisible man with no parental guidance.

    • Martel says:

      Regarding prostitution, I agree that it should be legalized but not that we should remove the stigma. I’m a Christian of the “I’ve no right to use stop you from committing certain sins, but I sure as hell have the right to call them sins” variety.

      “For most blue-pill-indoctrinated beta/omega men it’s very very different, sex is like being stuck in a vast plain desert while you’re delirious with thirst and you can’t tell if you’re seeing a mirage or someone actually offering you water.”

      Especially today. Being an incel has never been easy, but today it’s got to be a million times worse. In the 1950s you didn’t see quite so many yoga pants, you knew people were doing it but they weren’t in your face about it, it was possible to go somewhere or do something without being reminded of how much sex everyone around you was having or how much hot young flesh was out there for the taking (for somebody else). He even overheard his sister having sex: imagine that happening in 1912. If she were unmarried and “doing it”, she would have done everything in her power to keep her brother from even finding out about it, much less overhearing it.

      Today, all over the place, everywhere, all the time, SEX SEX SEX SEX, combined with how women (and some men) view damn near your entire worth as a human being on your ability to get laid.

      But you also touch on another things I haven’t gotten into yet: Rodger is yet another mass shooter who’s parents were divorced.

      • Jeremy says:

        Without the stigma removed, women are free to inflict additional social cost for using prostitutes, and convince politicians to outlaw it again. You have to remove the stigma if you’re going to level the playing field, or conversely re-create a huge huge stigma against women for failing to control their reproductive systems appropriately (i.e., single moms are re-stigmatized, sluttiness is re-stigmatized, behaving like a bitch to a nice guy is re-stigmatized, etc…)

      • Martel says:

        I see what you mean about the stigma meaning re-illgalization. However, my preferred way to combat this would be to start getting it through people’s heads that just because something’s immoral, that doesn’t mean it should be illegal.

        Likewise, I support the re-stigmatization of most of what you describe. We’ll never change things sufficiently if women feel supported by society for whatever dumbass choices they make.

      • I think there is common ground here. You could stigmatize female promiscuity more than male promiscuity. Gee, was that the way it was? lol Starting to make more sense.

  4. Peregrine John says:

    The inability to look directly at the problem without freaking out, the panic that instantly follows sensing that disturbance in the Force, that’s the part I’ve noticed most about this whole insanity. (That, and how obvious “intellectuals” are about where they’re getting their talking points. I swear, it’s like passing genes, conversationally.) As with the breakdown into calling you names that you mentioned, it comes back again to those 3 techniques we can use which they – lefties, et al – cannot: amygdala overload, amygdala avoidance, and …erm, I can’t remember the 3rd one we discussed just now. I maintain that a serious exploration of the theory and specific uses of these things are the keys to hijacking the narrative and getting some truth past some skulls. The fact that these techniques can only be used from a position of rational, objective truth is something our would-be enemies can neither acknowledge nor fight against. They are prevented from consciously recognizing what is happening unless the fallacious point of view is abandoned. And this, just from observing the techniques in their current, relatively primitive form.

    • Are there definitive posts on the three techniques that work on lefties? I’ve subconsciously assumed or supposed lefties would freeze in the SHTF, but making them do it when Daddy Gov is in charge? A practical way to do that would be fascinating, and I would no doubt attempt to deploy it in the field. *muah, ha, haaaaa*

      • Martel says:

        I don’t remember the third (reminders John?). However, the primary two are amygdala triggering and amygdala avoidance.

        The master of amygdal triggering is Anonymous Conservative. He’s reformed his site so it’s harder to find the info, but his technique is to tweak a lefty and intentioally push his buttons in such a way as to turn him into a blathering idiot.

        My preferred technique is amygdala avoidance. Instead of pushing their buttons, I evade them, thus enabling me to somehow make my points without getting screamed at (at least at first). This creates an odd effect in which I can tell they want to feel offended but can’t quite figure out why. They desperately want to strike at something but don’t know what to hit.

        I’ve done posts on this, but I’m drawing a blank as to which. If I remember I’ll let you know.

        In any case, each technique has it’s role. AC’s usually works best in a more competitive or fast-paced environment, mine when things are more low key. AC’s is somewhat focused more on persuading the audience, mine more on persuading the actual person I’m speaking with.

      • Peregrine John says:

        I really can’t remember just now – I’ll have to go over some earlier posts to try to find it. It wasn’t amygdala-related, at least not obviously, but something which complemented those techniques. Something to do with rhetoric? AC’s series on amygdala overload/hijacking/triggering (depending on the writer, all being the same notion) is a really good start. It’s not remotely the whole thing, though, and it needs development and field testing to bring it closer to its potential.

        A parallel would be looking at Rollo’s article, The Script, and trying to course-correct one’s life based on it. It’s an excellent article, and a short series of epiphanies at one go; but it’s largely theoretical: it’s about the why, the structure underneath the craziness we see around us. Specifics of how to make use of it are (of necessity) covered elsewhere.

        Likewise, I’d like to have the techniques of rhetoric and screwing with lefty amygdalas tried on a wide scale, similar to how pick-up techniques got rolling by thousands of guys trying things and comparing notes. We’re back at the fastseduction.com days with this topic, of realizing there is great potential out there but limited in experience. Fortunately, we have the benefit of curiously related analysis from the pick-up crowd, the androsphere, and some related groups, which show us both a way to structure our learning and some of what we need to know already. Just knowing amygdala overload and r/K-selection mentalities exist is a huge step forward.

        I’ll see if I can track down those comments from before.

      • Peregrine John says:

        Here’s a bit of a start:
        Anonymous Conservative’s original series
        (see also his book, which I suspect is that plus r/K theory)
        Escalation
        Amerika on fear
        Martel’s two part series on amygdala avoidance

        And some suggestions of what to apply it to (if not much of how) from:
        Amerika
        Free Northerner

      • Peregrine John says:

        Oh yeah – when I say “not much of how,” I mean of how to use amygdala-based and r/K theory techniques to fight individually. Free Northerner in particular has a long list of specific actions, but only some of them have to do with the topic I’m referring to.

      • Interesting, guys! Yes, I’m looking for something concise and pithy. I do like to research social skills, and I think anyone in the Manosphere who get it does, but there are limits of where we are and what we can try with the demands of life. I’ll bookmark this post and come back to the comments when I am ready. I think red pill seduction is stagnated before a growth spurt. I think the relationship of seduction for sex and political power for sex has not been properly developed, meaning that ‘for sex’ has not been fully appreciated. The institution of marriage and the tools available to the husband, and even men generally as male popular sovereigns, would be a part of that. I’m not sure how leveraging the natural mental inclinations of the sheeple is a part of the big picture, and maybe no one is, but it is sure as…it is an interesting possibility. Just to see the mountain of social skills is a wonderful positive, even though it is very high.

      • Martel says:

        @ John: Thanks a ton for the links!

      • There is something else I’ve been looking at, and it is using the third person. Milton Erikson would have a patient who was harsh on his wife. If he brought the harshness up with the patient, the patient would reject any notion of being harsh, due to the personal critiscism triggering the amygdala. If he spoke of how someone else was harsh with their wife, and then implanted an amygdala trigger, such as telling him how that person got exposed and was ostracized by their group, then his patient would become less harsh with his wife, because thinking about the criticism of someone else allowed the criticism through their amygdala filter.

        A lot will depend on who you are dealing with though. A full Narcissist is avoiding amygdala triggering out of what appears to be a structural pathology making them unable to tolerate it. I doubt anything could be done with Alinsky, short of killing him in the revolt, or hijakcing him into apoplexy. Somebody who has just gone r due to lack of amygdala development is a different animal, and may be able to be salvaged through some form of developmental stimuli. A lot of our r-nation will go K once the collapse begins, and the choice is go K or get killed at the Walmart in an EBT-card-failure riot. But that is a harsh developmental stimuli. Our question is can it be done more gently. Martel may just be the perfect guy God has chosen to take that baton, and organize the crowd-sourcing.

        I totally agree all of this is in its infancy. But if it can be developed like game, and we don’t need to collapse every ten generations, that would be a major turning point in the history of the development of civilization.

      • Peregrine John says:

        It would be a singular thing indeed. The only thing more astonishing than maybe successfully using the tools to dodge the collapse (even once) is having them in some form to begin with. It hasn’t escaped me that the biggest hindrance to clear-headed thinking which can avoid said collapse is the very thing these tools are made to combat. Ok, there’s a much better way to put that, but it’ll have to wait until I’m more awake. (Not a morning person in the least.)

        In any case, it’s good to see you here on this, AC. I believe that your series will eventually be seen as the turbo charge that got a crucial movement out of the wilderness and toward a tipping point. Developing the ideas and learning the specific applications, such as which sort (or cause) of r-thought one is dealing with and what to most productively do with it, is going to be a game changer, perhaps forever. Or so one hopes.

      • Martel says:

        @ AC: “But that is a harsh developmental stimuli. Our question is can it be done more gently. Martel may just be the perfect guy God has chosen to take that baton, and organize the crowd-sourcing. ”

        I’d like to be that guy (or at least one of the guys), but I’m confronting a couple of challenges.

        First, although I’ve instinctively developed a damn good system for getting through to people, it’s incredibly difficult to describe. There are so many caveats, special considerations, personality quirks to watch for, times and cases in which it makes optimal sense to change course, ways to create repoire with an audience, etc. It’s a bit like a “natural” with women trying to explain to a guy all the little tricks he has while seducing women. Yes, there are rules, but the rules are just an outline; if your opponent reveals something new about himself, it’s time to adjust strategy.

        So when somebody asks me specifically about how I should address something, I’ve got the answer right at hand. When it comes to describing how to change minds in the abstract, it’s a bit overwhelming, not because I know too little, but because I know so much and I’m not sure how to best describe it without going off on multiple tangents.

        One time it was me versus six lefties, but 90 minutes later four were on my side. I first established an alliance with the guy who seemed the most rational and used him to unwittingly gang up with me against his wife. I isolated another guy by calling him on his obnoxious crap and making him afraid to say anything. With another female I spoke in very soft and understanding tones, legitimizing her feelings while simultaneously condemning the conclusions she drew from them. One by one, they started making my case for me.

        But how the hell do I describe how I did that when I don’t even remember most of what I did?

        Regarding some sort of “organization” to spread this stuff and/or change minds in the process, with that I’d need some help.

        Glad to see you stopping by again, AC.

  5. donalgraeme says:

    This has turned out to be a fascinating and thought-provoking post, especially in the comments. I tip my hat to Martel for hosting this discussion.

    Milton Erikson would have a patient who was harsh on his wife. If he brought the harshness up with the patient, the patient would reject any notion of being harsh, due to the personal critiscism triggering the amygdala. If he spoke of how someone else was harsh with their wife, and then implanted an amygdala trigger, such as telling him how that person got exposed and was ostracized by their group, then his patient would become less harsh with his wife, because thinking about the criticism of someone else allowed the criticism through their amygdala filter.

    This is not entirely dissimilar to what the Prophet Nathan did with David, when confronting him over Bathsheba and Uriah.

    • Martel says:

      Thanks, Donal.

      Analogies like what Nathan and Erikson can be a powerful rhetorical technique, great a convincing somebody to see the error of their ways in either personal behavior or belief.

      For example, get some girl to complain along with you about somebody who wants to get something for free, then turn it back around on her demand for free birth control.

      We’re more likely to discern Truth when we’re detached don’t see our own worth as being on trial. Abstract Joe wants something for nothing, and we can all be fair. YOU want something for nothing, they feel like their very soul is on trial, and then you’ve got a huge fight on your hands.

      But I reiterate, sometimes you gotta straight up call somebody out. David could be reached because he was reasonable, the Pharisees required a more direct approach.

  6. M3 says:

    This post and every comment was worth bookmarking as i think i have to go through it all again when i get home from work to fully digest all the insights gleamed from therein.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s