This is less philosophy and more on avoiding philosophy with women. However,this is related to some of the philosophy and literature posts I’ve done in the past. Plus, I made this mistake on Friday night, so the timing and relevance of an answer that Roosh gave hit close to home. I messed up, so I’m taking the chance to further internalize the lesson while I write about it.

From his email

A reader asked a very basic question; which I’ll paraphrase in one sentence:

Why do women whom claim to be intellectuals, with whom you actually have deep conversations in which you feel like you connect, tend to be harder to capture than the elusive Moby Dick?

The response a devoted intellectual courtship can expect from the modern woman

To which Roosh responds as follows:

I know exactly what you are describing. It happened to me recently with a girl from South Africa. We went out, had a great time talking about all sorts of things without any pauses, but after several hours she pulls the goodbye and doesn’t even give me the opportunity to kiss her.

Like you I spent time going over this, and since I’ve had a few cases like this before I think I know what’s happening…

There’s no tension.

Without tension there is no attraction. There has to be something raw or edgy about the interaction where not everything is perfect, where some type of emotional button is pushed. Otherwise you’re just brother and sister.

I purposefully DUMB DOWN conversations with smart chicks to achieve this tension. I tease them instead of talking about world politics or whatever it is we have in common. Then after we have sex a couple times I can talk about the things I wouldn’t dare touch before, like the literature I’m reading.

Lack of tension is why smart, intellectual guys don’t have many sexual partners. Tap into a strong jerk/primal vibe instead, only tossing a bit of it aside once you’re getting the sex.

In other words, without tension, the average woman will find the average male is about as unappealing as this:

I don’t know how the whale made it that far from the beach….

He doesn’t really get into the why this is important part of the answer, so I will

No One Cares About Your Mental Capabilities

So get over yourself.

And by no one I really mean no one. Not people at your job, not your family, not your dog. Close friends that you develop a relationship conversing over whiskey and a cigar are the exception, but must be cultivated and certainly are not the rule. And they will nearly always be men, and not women. There was a reason men retired to whiskey and cigars together, and there’s a reason why this has died off with the change of cultural values.

You develop yourself for yourself, not to show off to others. So stop trying

I’ve written about this more in depth in the past, so for the curious as to why no one cares and instead, will actively begin to resent you, check out the link below to a previous post of mine. Accept the reality and keep developing your logical abilities regardless of the haters.

But women who actively say that they want a man who’s mind they can respect throw off the best of men’s hard learned lessons every now and then. Lets delve a bit into why women will say one thing, and follow through on the actions of this particular topic with completely opposite reactions.

The Confusion Women Give Men

There are three basic reasons women will suddenly become much harder to get in the sack once you start to show that you’re better than the average bear in terms of anything related to your brain.

1. Intellect is linked with “Marriage Material” values. By showing off too much intellect, you raise your value in her eyes in such a manner that she believes she has to pass a morality based vetting process with you. She will suddenly add several hours of time, if not several actual dates, to her mental evaluation of how long she has to keep you out of her pants so as not to give off a slut vibe.

This is the same sort of reaction a woman will give any man of whom shows traditional Christian values. This is entirely independent of whether you happen to be a Christian or not. Or a Charismatic, masculine leader or not. If you show marriage values to her, you raise the stakes for her.

If you’re pursuing a woman of possible wife material, she’ll hide any sluttiness more. I’d avoid it simply so that you can accurately sound out their true nature.

If you’re pursing a hedonistic ends, you just gave off the wrong sales pitch on what she should value you for. An intellectual mind does not a hedonistic cruise down lovers lane make. Switching gears is about as awkward as that sentence structure is.

Avoid it.

2. No control over emotional connections and no emotional foundation to safely lead her back to. By staying within an intellectual realm, you are literally asking a woman to freely make intellectual leaps without any control over where she might land. Women are creatures that want to romp through a world of emotions, with you as the leader to assure her safety. A woman will forgive and love many a man for sticking up for his beliefs, but only if she’s already attracted to him. Which requires that emotional foundation. If you lack an emotional foundation to where you can safely lead her, you’re poking a dragon with a stick in hopes that it will give up it’s treasure, rather than simply eating you whole. Sometimes you will get lucky, often you won’t. You’ll rather build a blend of emotions without leadership to which she’ll connect you when thinking back upon the experience.

A man well versed in game can lightly use a subject to tease her, but getting into any depth will entrench you. Entrenchment in the anathema to emotional romping.

Avoid it.

3. Your intellect is a resource. Women realize this. When she says that she values intellect, and you start giving away something of value for free, you’re giving away your commitment without obtaining anything in return from her perspective. What’s more, is that since every man on the planet values their intellect, you’re now also qualifying for her rather than her qualifying for you.

Guard your gates. Guard your commitment.

The closest you can get to winning with this part is by making her qualify for you instead of the other way around. Yet, if you get an intellectual belief of hers you disagree with, without that proper amount of crazy-as-sin-oh-my-god-he’s-a-real-man attraction, you are forced to either cede the point you don’t agree with or get eaten by the angry dragon when it doesn’t pass a qualification it deems far more important than the current level of attraction to you.

Avoid it or engage at your own risk.

Sexual attraction, and not intellectual, is the basis of any relationship. Make her want your dick first, then make her want your brain, heart, and soul.

Related Links

Roosh’s Newsletter

Uneducated Hatred and Let Us Not Become Misologic

Hold The Line: Guard Your Gate

Swing That Dick and Name My Son Dick

If you buy lottery tickets at a gas station c-store during afternoon rush hour, I fucking hate you.  The lottery is America’s tax on people who are can’t do math, and I support that, but for fuck sake let the rest of us pay for our gas before you stand there bringing the entire city to a halt. We’re trying to have a society here, so hang on, watch an extra hour of Jerry Springer or something (it might be the episode with your sister in it!) and give the rest of us time to get gas and go home.

I know this is one that people harp on all the time, but that’s because this is the easiest to implement, easiest to forget, fastest game changer that will take months (if not years) to internalize.

If Badger was still blogging regularly, this is exactly the kind of thing that he’d be posting. An easy fix that adds up quickly.

This woman admits that it is testosterone and cortisol that leads to people doing better in school when graded by merit, by accomplishments, and by willingness for participation.

Gee, that sounds awfully like actual work environments, like picking up women, and like taking other risks. Sounds like it’s what being a man is all about.

Key Notes

We contrast one another – If someone is showing dominant body language, the other person will likely show submissive. Conversely, if someone shows submissive body language, the other will adopt dominant body language

Powerful people think more abstractly

Powerful people believe they’ll win, even at games of chance

Cortisol is overlooked in most of the manosphere; at least I don’t think I’ve ever read about it. High cortisol levels will have people react poorly to stress, with more energy and anxiety. I’ll need to look into what you can do besides body language to impact cortisol levels.

Body Posture

There are other factors the woman cites that most people here already know about such as facial structure determining elections. We don’t have control over that in our lives. But we do have control over our body posture, and it’s a short, easy fix to get noticeable results.

Two minutes people.

Two minutes of holding a powerful body posture is enough to markedly increase your hormonal levels in your saliva of all things. Two minutes is enough to change the likelihood of whether or not someone would gamble. Two minutes is enough for an employer to decide whether you get a job or whether you’re back out on the street, and they didn’t give a damn about the words coming out of your mouth.

Years of Practice

The other part I liked about the video was her personal story. That it took her years of being pushed to fake it until she became what she was faking. In the end, we all become the masks we show the world. Instant affects on our bodies, years to change our minds and self image. Years to get from where we are to where we want to be.

From the TED talk:

You’re not going to finish college. There are other things you can do, but that’s not going to work out for you

 

Compared to what we’ve all heard:

I just don’t think of you like that. Lets just be friends.

Or, for those divorce folks

I Love you, but I’m not in love with you

My favorite quote was that body posture doesn’t make you ‘fake’ something or allow you to be someone else, but allows you to bring your true self to the table. By assuming a confident posture, you allow people to truly see who you are as a man rather than pass their attention span over some invisible crouching thing in the corner. If you haven’t internalized it yet, you might not think it’s your true self, but they will. And they’ll be right; what they see will be markedly closer to your true self if you adopt good body language and posture than if you don’t.

Don’t do this:

A tribute to men without balls

Be This

Don Draper style

Head up

Chin out

Arms taking up space

And maintain eye contact. Don’t be the pussy looking down at the ground.

Show them what it’s like to look like a man by showing yourself what it’s like to be one.

The plot looks interesting. Timberlakes character gets screwed over in a game of online poker and, since online poker is illegal in the U.S, is forced into either sucking it up (thus not being able to pay school tuition) or going to actually do something about it. He chooses the latter and gets caught up in some interesting third world power struggles.

From the trailer it looks to be a grown up, less whiny version of 21, the black jack card counting poker film a few years ago. Men being men, taking chances, getting their asses kicked, and maybe coming out ahead. Much better than the young spoiled brat gang of 21. Which surprised me; before seeing the trailer I would have guessed it as DiCaprio, an actor I’d describe as just having recently found his masculinity and his balls, leading Affleck and Timberlake in search of theirs. Lord knows I haven’t enjoyed an Affleck movie since Dogma year ago, and Daredevil was so atrocious I haven’t seen anything of his since. Timberlake isn’t exactly a man’s man either. Yet the movie doesn’t look to back away from anything. My expectations being blown away are probably the result of an unknown director getting his first (and maybe only) shot to make his name. So he looks to be taking some risks, good on him. Loved this quote from the trailer

This is your job. You want a clear conscious, go start a charity. But if you want your own island, and your boss says you gotta go out there and take a beating, go out there. Take it. Come back to work. And say, ‘Do you need me to do it again?’!

Pussies need not apply.

Which is exactly what I want in a movie.

Some discussion ensued after my recent post regarding my belief that feminism will eventually give way to the massive inertia of human history. When a trend has run wild for several decades, it’s tempting to simply extrapolate the trend into the future and not account for human nature’s powerful tendency to revert to historical norms.

Misandry, which is generally interlocked with feminism, has been correctly described as a bubble. We are now just entering the asymptotic part of the curve. It will get worse. But that is necessary.

I am not going to debate the merit or original intent of the feminist movement, other than to say that at its inception, many of those early demands appeared reasonable to many. This gave feminism its initial traction. The problem with political movements is that once the machinery of change is in place, some individuals and organizations see potential for political and/or financial gain. For some, it is simply an opportunity to work out all their personal rage against imagined wrongs, which provides incentive to prolong the grievance process.

This is another example of the means/ends problem. The fact that many women are constitutionally predisposed to drama and recreational conflict gives feminist agitators a ready army of superbly qualified malcontents. Think of the Prussians, except armed with flaming brassieres.

Feminism as a political movement used the law and the re-engineering of our culture to consolidate and secure all of those early demands long ago, so in order to continue the process of profit and vendetta, it became necessary to search out new grievances. The next tranche of grievances were no doubt less reasonable than the first, but with their opponents sufficiently cowed by feminist shaming language, it was no problem to implement those demands either.

Flush with success, and with an increasingly timid opposition, hubris and idiocy were bound to make their standard appearance. With the path now clear in front of them, feminists went from victory to victory, until they have now become – in their minds – akin to some sort of societal clergy, unshakeable in their self-righteouseness.

Machiavellian by nature, feminists interpreted men’s chivalrous lack of resistance as a tacit admission of guilt. This continued accommodation by men had the perverse effect of convincing these women that even the most specious of their grievances were founded in reality, and amplified their sense of outrage at their supposed mistreatment. Essentially, feminism has turned a lot of women into the equivalent of the most damaged, butthurt beta males you have ever seen.  Like betas, feminists are fragile beyond belief, and will slap and snap at everyone and everything like a female version of a mama’s boy. Given this loss of control over their emotions, political overreach is inevitable.

It is important to reiterate a point I made earlier: Whatever the original intent, feminism is now a machine dedicated to the discovery and rectification of perceived wrongs. The supply of plausibly reasonable wrongs has been fully exhausted, and each new grievance becomes an obvious overreach.

Ever see a riverbank wash away in a flood? The deterioration of the soil happens for quite a while, almost unobserved, until finally the riverbank collapses in an instant. Like this current, the relentless efforts of feminism have been slowly eroding the intellectual and moral assent of many. With each new unreasonable demand and accusation, sympathy for their cause erodes. For now, the riverbank seems as solid as ever, even as the current becomes more intense. This increase of intensity is what the commenters in the previous post are noticing.

So why don’t the feminists tone it down a bit and enjoy the gains they have achieved? Why do they keep eating away even at their allies? Simple – feminism has become a social machine over which none of them exercise any control. They have incited a mob, and they must now deal with the mob mentality they have created. As everyone knows, mobs take on a mind of their own, usually resisting the best arguments of even their most revered inciters.

Recent articles by first-wave feminists have admitted as much. A number of them have lamented the direction feminism has taken, and they point out the now-obvious destruction that is being done. Will the current crop of feminists pause and listen to the doyennes of their movement, or take the advice of their elder gender warriors to heart? Of course not. These sobered-up first wave feminists are routinely shouted down as sellouts and traitors by the very machine they crafted with their own little man-hands.

It is also important to remember that societal change requires an investment of social capital. People do not accommodate you based on a simple request; they require that you have some sort of social capital to exchange for social favor. The West has spent the last several decades flagellating itself in deference to various victim groups, with victim status being the current societal Gold Card: It’s accepted everywhere. Feminists have spared no expense in the pursuit of their goals, having made enormous withdrawals from the social account of Western women – an account previously funded by the gracious and ladylike deposits made by their grandmothers.

Men (and some women) are finally awakening to the fact that their best efforts to please and accommodate have actually been on the losing side of several decades of the prisoner’s dilemma dynamic. Resistance has materialized, and that resistance has begun even as feminist demands are becoming more unreasonable by the day. Therefore, greater amounts of social capital will be required by the feminist movement, even as men start requiring a higher price for their accommodation. For many years, men were actually contributing social capital to the feminist cause, but as we move from collaborator to opponent, our refusal to make social deposits will have notable effects.

Feminists will not take these new headwinds graciously. This is why I fully expect the implosion of feminism to be preceded by a blitzkrieg of initiatives on their part. Like any other bubble, rapid but tumultuous advances are more indicative of a turning point than a new plateau. Expect their demands to go beyond unreasonable to downright insane. Expect them to raise the emotional temperature of the discussion to an elevated pitch. Every new demand will be framed as though it is equivalent to freeing people from the WWII concentration camps.

I’d buy stock in Godwin’s Law, if it was possible.

The final surge of feminism will be underwritten by whatever remaining social capital Western women possess. This may still be a considerable amount, and feminists will be willing to spend it all if necessary. Yes, there are plenty of white knights and manginas who are willing to throw their social capital behind the feminist cause, but a feminist society is more like a machine than a natural organism. The machine requires a continuous supply of fuel and maintenance for continued operation, and eventually, Western civilization will tire of it.

Left unexplored here is the fractures that have developed in feminism as more women discovered that feminism came at a high cost. Many are unwilling to see their remaining social capital wasted in service of the petty vendettas of feminist leaders. Feminism, as we experience it now, is not the natural state of women, no matter how much they may appear to be enjoying the spoils of war.

Women are not our enemy. Women are our natural worthy opponents in the human sexual game. Our unnatural enemy is feminists and their mangina enablers.

This is why it is so critical to turn the white knights back into men. With each one turned, feminists lose a collaborator and gain an opponent. This is why shaming white knights is the correct method; it was through shame that they were coerced into the unnatural state of being fem-servants, and it was shame that kept them there. The polite deference other men have shown in this regard must stop. We must make these men choose between feminist shaming and masculine shaming. They have shown us what button to push, we just need to push it. When forced to choose between disapproval by feminists and disapproval by men, many will choose to abandon feminism. This has an incremental effect, just like the eroding riverbank, but the results will eventually show up more dramatically further down the road.

All change happens at the margin, and much of it is invisible until it manifests itself in sudden ways.

Wait for it…

Don’t care about what your dick, your masculinity, or your ego brushes, touches, pushes, or simply bulls over. You’re a fucking man. The world should deal with you just as much, if not more, than you deal with the world. Women and men should be in awe of your dick slinging abilities. If a woman isn’t attracted to dick slinging, there is something fundamentally wrong with her. Next her and move on. If a man isn’t in awe of your dick slinging abilities, there is something fundamentally wrong with him. Either they’ve been deluded and self neutered, they have mental issues, or they’re hiding their awe for selfish reasons likely to be bound up within a sense of shame or competition. They will undermine you. Get ride of them or remove yourself from the situation, as they will never be good for your health, wealth, or goals.

People should talk about your dick swinging around. It should fascinate them. Awe them. Make them laugh, cry, or downright angry. But respectful. Your masculinity should leave no room for them to avoid it if they want to be around you. People today are STARVING with desire to have something INTERESTING AND MASCULINE to talk about, because the media and politically correct culture have banned such subjects or made empty mirages of masculinity which, when approached, turn out to be an overzealous overcompensation of femininity.

Be a leader.

And lead with your dick.

Links

Cane Caldo’s There are not Ugly Truths

Cane Caldo’s I make you Look Good

Lets Clarify What I mean by a political structure centered around a Tradition or Belief

First, the ‘tradition’ or belief does not need to be old. A traditionalist needs only to have a tradition, code, and belief system to rely on for guidance; the said tradition does not have to have stood the tests of time. Obviously a tradition that has shown it’s strengths over a length of time has shown its usefulness to a society, but conditions on the ground may require adaptation, which should be considered with caution. Avoid the haphazard lurch of progressivism, so that a society can move forward with purpose rather than progress for the sake of progress. If that seems like a difficult thing to accomplish – that’s because it is. There’s a reason the average lifespan of a nation or empire is of a limited time span.

A Traditionalist can be described in a few different ways, depending on the size of the group he identifies with.

He could identify more with a Tribe of men chosen as individuals of worth.

He could identify more with a Community of men whom reinforce values upon members of the community.

He could identify more with a State which upholds values he considers dear within a larger nation.

He could identify more with a Nation which inspires specific lifestyles for its citizens while having a clear idea of where the nation aspires to be within the world of global politics.

He could identify more with a Religion which places specific sets of morality upon its followers under the belief that those morality sets will make them more satisfied, productive, and rewarding individuals whom will better the world through bringing glory to the God(s) they follow.

Obviously these are not mutually exclusive, though most men will have one which they identify themselves belonging to more than the others. Some will hold no allegiance at all. It depends on how the tradition is set up. If you require further explanation, go read any of Jack Donovan’s work. The man is an expert on group identification; his blog is great, and The Way of Men (link below) is brilliant to the point where I will likely never stop recommending it until he comes out with better work.

As with many things, the dangers of Traditionalism lie in it’s strengths

The strengths of a group founded upon a tradition are primarily that of strong group identification. Within humans this leads to greater incentives to assist others within the tradition as doing so often assists ourselves. Dicipres just had an interesting article discussing how our emotions reward us for doing so (Link Below). Challenging others within your grouping (whether directly through strength or indirectly through stigmas, shaming, and positive societal expectations) raise the strength of the group. A desire to convert others (through rational thought, emotional rhetoric, or simple conquest of war) expands your population base for the group to draw upon, as well as usually adding to the amount of territory claimed by the group.

Again, these strengths can apply from anything as small as a gang or tribe, to as large as a nation or religion.

The main dangers within, as far as I can tell, are three fold. Whether these are evil or not is a personal opinion up to you as an individual. I consider them a lesser evil than progressivism, and they’ve shown themselves to be necessary towards maintaining any tradition or belief that a group of any size can expect to maintain a self identification of it’s members at a level necessary to keep the traditions alive.

First – Members born into the tradition that don’t identify as belonging to the tradition.

Traditions survive from one generation to the next by finding a reliable way to pass on their values and way of life to the majority of its children. There will always be outcasts. There will always be Not All Women Are Like That as well as Not All Men Are Like That. These people really have a shit time of things. They will be forced to either conform against their nature, be outcasts all their lives while serving as an example of shame to keep others in line, or expat to another group.

Honestly, this is the evil that progressivists rail against the most verbally.

Yet it is the most necessary towards creating a group that has individuals self identify as belonging to the group. There needs to be an Us vs Them, otherwise there is nothing which makes the group special, thus no reasons to identify as within the group, thus no reason to strengthen the  group through short term sacrifices because there would be no long term gain.

If a progressive or liberal calls you out for being a selfish asshole that engenders conflict between groups – feel free to point out that they do the same thing. They merely fluctuate whom they identify as Them based on temporary emotions – thus why there’s a propensity for Democrats or Feminists to throw each other under the bus forever for a slight waver in the willingness to toe the party line. Tradition merely gives one a stability in what makes a friend or foe, as well as a rational ability to identify them based on the guidelines of the tradition.

Thus, greater stability.

If you’re going to hate people, might as well be consistent about it.

Second – Over Burdening of Members

Humans are extremely adaptable creatures. Yet, even so, there are limits of what the normal human psyche and body can take before breaking. While these can be pushed to extremes for small segments of a society in order to serve a particular purpose. An example would be the military, with increasing levels of difficulty for special forces. Or high stress emergency doctors. Or miners. Or those crazy fishing boats catching all our food and making it onto television. Hell, one could argue that the average human isn’t suited and would spiritually break if undergoing the spiritual trials necessary to be a cardinal in the Catholic Church. While a minority, I’ll use the molestation of youth in the Catholic Church as an example of what happens when those ill suited towards spiritual trials are given leave to under take them.

Every society has always had elite groups that exceed expectations for the good of society, and usually receive ample rewards of money, power, and prestige or they wouldn’t do it.

Yet the fact remains that those people go above and beyond what would break most humans today in some capacity, and applying the standards of the elite within a traditional society to the majority of the society will lead to pain and suffering for those citizens. They will break, and the tradition’s maladaption towards one of an overbearing society is the cause. Depending on circumstances this can lead to suicides (look at business men in America, any military, or the self killings of failed Japanese), riots (pretty much any riot cause by poverty or starvation), uprisings (U.S. independence due to unfair treatment at hands of the British), or perversions of the tradition maladapting into progressive governments (Germany’s over burdening of Fathers and Sons during a time of poverty eventually led to a populace ready to a populace ready to blame their own Jewish citizens at Hitler’s approval, Spartans so geared towards war that they over streatched while also allowing women power in politics while at war).

However, this danger of traditionalism is usually rare and confined. The most dangerous parts are rarer, and mostly dangerous because they tip the balance of internal power within the group to allow progressive politics seize the reins of the group’s leadership, much as I discussed in the last post. So, something to be wary of, especially in times of trouble within the group.

Third – The Growth of a Traditional Group

This one is dangerous for both the group itself as well as groups around it. Groups grow through three things I mentioned above (outside of procreation): Rational appeal of logic, Emotional Rhetoric to attract new members, and Conquest of groups in close proximity. The first two are dangerous to outside groups, yet also dangerous to the group itself if it attracts converts through logic or emotions, but attracts them in such massive numbers that they fail to actually convert the individuals’ self identification to the group as the primary marker. Today this is primarily seen in immigration (catering to immigrants expectations rather than having a national pride that they would then participate in and expect to receive after becoming a citizen in spirit rather than name: see U.S, Sweeden, U.K, Roman Empire). Yet it can also be seen in religions, as modern religions fail to reliably raise children to self identify as the religious marker as a primary (or even important) identification in any way that inspires real actions and sacrifices to follow traditions.

The third danger of group expansion is obviously that of conquest. Progressive governments tend to turn their aggressive tendencies inward first, then reach a point where the government distracts from internal instability through forcing outward instability. Traditional groups go straight for the outward focused aggression, and are generally much more successful with their aggression due to having a position of internal strength. They forge empires. Rome’s early expansions are a sign of this. Greece’s empire. Mongolia. The British Empire. Every nation involved in the colonial period. The U.S. during our Imperialistic/Nationalistic faze.

Simply put, the danger is imperialism and nationalism on steroids.

Over reach is the danger, leading to protection of too many territories to be feasible, each of which likely hasn’t had enough time/inclination to properly consider themselves citizens of your country.

But gang wars can do this too. As can individual states, growing cities declaring themselves a separate municipality, a state’s succession from a nation, etc.

Unchecked growth leads to people that don’t properly adhere to the tradition that binds them together and gives them strength.

Morality

The Dangers above are necessary for a tradition to survive. Without them, the potent, distilled power becomes diluted with non-believers whom take the benefits of the tradition while giving no sacrifices. With too much of them, there’s not enough time to properly distill the desired traits and instill the proper behavior within the new additions to a group.

Yet the morality of any of these dangers or the methods within each individual danger is debatable, as shown by political debates since the end of time. You’ll find people on both sides say that one way or the other is unacceptable. Thus why I consider America’s founding fathers to have given America a brilliant tradition: The freedom to pursue happiness with minimal governmental interference. A tradition of hard work and independence where the strong succeed, the weak are allowed to fail, accompanied by a culture and belief system that, with minimal risk, encouraged those succeeding to find ways to give those failures a change to succeed of fail again.

I don’t see that any longer within our country. Nor do I see a replacement. Rather I see a growing society composed of individuals with little to no group identifications nor any traditions to bind them to a greater purpose.

The only glimmer of hope I see is in the re-discovery of masculinity here around the Manosphere. Which, honestly, is a large part of why I write and blog. To have that glimmer of hope, and contribute to it. For myself and a desire to belong to something greater.

Because I fear that without something to unite the country under a unified belief, sooner or later, the fall occurs.

Links

Last weeks post: Elites Do Not Equal Conservatives

Jack Donovan’s The Way of Men

Dici’s The Selfish Nature of Selflessness