MMX2010

There are only three types of women: Pretty Women, Medium and Nice Women, and Ugly Women. Pretty Women don't need feminism because they're pretty. In the absence of feminism, pretty women are (in rare cases of extreme craziness / immoral behavior) well-provided for by latching themselves on to men. Medium and Nice Women don't get the same level of attention, validation, and provision than Pretty Women. In the absence of feminism, these women are moderately well-provided for. Ugly women absolutely need feminism because they're ugly. In the absence of feminism, these women are rarely provided for and are therefore doomed to a life of spinsterhood AND working crappy jobs (or staying at home to care for mom and dad in old age). Ugly women must say that ALL women are oppressed because that appeals to Medium and Nice Women. Their loud, angry complaints persuade Medium Women to vote for candidates who are pro-feminism. Ugly Women's complaints must be exaggerated, because they wouldn't appeal to Medium Women and politicians if they weren't exaggerated.

Yes, but that's just one controversy. A second controversy is whether alpha men can lead women to become better, in order to build a better culture. Alpha cads cannot, but true alphas can. A third controversy is whether true alphas should lead women to become better, in order to build a better culture. And a fourth controversy is whether a true alpha should lead modern women in his culture to become better, in order to build a better culture OR whether he should move to countries that respect masculinity more, thereby making his job easier. If you're a beta male, you have to go through all four of those controversies simultaneously before you can just peacefully accept the existence of alpha and beta male behaviors. But you can only go through those controversies by becoming alpha first. This fuels the "alpha cad versus true alpha controversy". And it spirals from there.

Here you go, RJ. The Laws of the False, Idealized Self (or Ego-Driven Superiority) are as The False Self is more concerned about appearing superior than actually being superior. The False Self specifically wants to be better than other people, rather than pursue excellence and greatness for their own sake. The False Self not only wants everyone else to be inferior and remain inferior, and will do whatever it takes to keep them from improving themselves significantly. The False Self not only needs to appear better than other people, it needs the world to know about the apparent superiority and acknowledge it. The False Self not only needs the world to know about the superiority and acknowledge it, but it also needs people to be envious. The False Self wants to convert people and make them followers, but never let them become independent of, equal to or greater than the master. The False Self is always looking for individual and collective “others” to label enemies, so that it can raise its own status by devaluing and attacking these others. The False Self is always looking for individual and collective “similars” to label as allies so that it can raise its own status through praising these others and proving them superior thereby basking in the reflected glory. The False Self is always looking for acolytes and true believers who will buy into the image the false self is trying to convey and treat it like it was the real self. The False Self is always looking for other false selves to idealize, look up to and hero worship The Laws of the True Self (or Enlightened Superiority) are as follows: 1. The True Self is more concerned with doing its best than simply appearing superior. 2. The True Self is more concerned with pursuing greatness for its own sake rather than pursuing images of greatness primarily to ensure others are inferior. 3. The True Self doesn’t mind sharing its creative tools with others and giving them the means to improve themselves in similar ways. 4. The True Self doesn’t mind having others know about and acknowledge its accomplishments, but is perfectly fine if such acknowledgment is never received. Such people generate their own validation internally rather than relying on external validation for their self-esteem. 5. The True Self has no desire to inspire envy and jealousy in others. 6. The True Self, even if it converts others and makes them followers, ultimately aims to help them become their own gurus in time, and is secure enough to even encourages them to someday surpass the master. 7. The True Self realizes that it can’t and shouldn’t attempt to raise its own status simply by labeling individual and collective “others” as enemies and then devaluing and attacking these others. 8. The True Self derive its self-worth from its personal attributes and accomplishments rather than by basking in the reflected glory of similar individuals, cultures or organizations. 9. The True Self is always looking for others who are mature enough to appreciate and prefer the true self as it is rather than encourage and buy into the image of the false self for what it pretends to be. 10. The True Self is always looking for other true selves to take on as gurus and learn from.

I will briefly share my own ultimate conclusions about my parents, having been raised by an abusive father who ruined the best parts of my mother. (Both of my parents are still alive.) I currently live 2200 miles away from my parents, having just moved less than a month ago. If I were told that my father is dying, I wouldn't feel anything. He has brought all of his loneliness upon himself, and he procrastinates so thoroughly because he cannot face what a shitheap he has made of his life. I wouldn't fly back to see him before he dies. I wouldn't attend his funeral. I expect him to be cremated, because it's cheaper. I also expect to ask my siblings, "Would either of you mind if I dumped his ashes in a sewer?", and I expect them not-to-answer, giving me their silent permission to do so. If my father dies first, my mother will be free. But her freedom is only one of opportunity, not attitude. With therapy, she could work out some issues, begin to make new friends, and acquire some small semblance of peace. But she is old, frail, eternally psychologically defeated by my father, and is, therefore, unlikely to take advantage of her opportunity. ------------------------ If I were told that my mother is dying, I would feel sad. She took a lot of punishment trying to protect us children from my father's assholery. But taking that punishment only prevented worse outcomes; it didn't make us happy, good, well-adjusted adults. So, on the one hand, she has my respect for trying to protect us. But, on the other hand, I have to transform my respect into mild contempt in order to free myself from their marriage. I can't cast my mom as the helpless victim because I've already done that AND doing that has only made me irresistibly attracted to single moms with sweet natures who are being browbeaten by their husbands. Having tried one such relationship, I promise you that they don't work! (Once I feel like I've "solved" her essential self-esteem problems and helped her move forward, I get bored of her.....even when she's left her husband to be with me.) I wouldn't fly to her hospital bed to see her. I wouldn't attend her funeral. I expect her to be cremated because it's cheaper. But I would keep the urn in a dark corner of a rarely-visited closet. And on those rare occasions when I see it, I'll feel mildly sad and say, "I'm sorry your life didn't work out for you. Thank you for trying." My father will die within three months of my mother's death because he has no personal self-caring skills, and doesn't realize just how much my mother propped him up. ---------------------- I tell you this, cogito, not to guarantee that you'd see your mother the way I do were she still alive. But to merely offer a possible way that you might have come to see her. Hope that helps.

Hah. People constantly mistake hard-won, constantly enforced social conditions for natural tendencies. (Example: the sanctity and desirability of marriage.) That makes sense to me. You did have a strong cultural influence towards loyalty-to-men, but it was your peer culture instead of your parental culture. (*makes note of that for my own future dating prospects*) I was going to ask you a long, detailed question. But I decided to ask the entire forum instead. Thanks for inspiring me to ask it, though.

Naturally, I expect even rookie FDR listeners to know that I mean "your mothers" in the title. I am especially interested in womens' experience with this, because I have a hypothesis of how it "must be done". And only womens' input can help me determine the degree to which my hypothesis is true. Also, my hypothesis is controversial, but it's ONLY a hypothesis. It's not a conclusion, nor a personal attack on either you, or the entire female gender. ----------------------------- I think the best thing Stef teaches us is to hold our mothers accountable. https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/41658-powerful-series-of-posts-excellent-journaling-opportunity/ In therawness letters, (linked above), their author insists that men who don't hold their mothers accountable become White Knights, who are really just latent misogynists. White Knights protect all women because they're secretly protecting their own mothers from truthful criticisms, but misogyny develops when the White Knight internalizes that (a) she chose his father, (b) she constantly chose to remain with him, © she never deeply considered her children's needs when deciding to stay, and (d) she remains blind to (or highly resistant towards) her own responsibility. When parrying her son's emerging misogyny, his mother says, "But I didn't know it would all turn out this badly!" At first, he thinks this is a flat out lie, but when he accepts that it's actually true, he can properly grieve by following the Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance model. (In fact, he recognizes that accusing her of lying is simply part of the Anger stage; Denial is the White Knight stage.) Last night, I reached a state of deep, sorrowful acceptance regarding my own mother's decisions. It sounds like Denial, but she really didn't know (not initially) that my father would be such a horrible match for her and us. And she definitely didn't know (not initially) that my siblings and I would be dreadfully hurt by living under his roof. I'm angry, but accepting, that she suffered a lot of pain to keep our family together. And I'm angry, but accepting, that this largely unsuccessful strategy caused me so much pain that it stunted my adulthood. I also grieved for all children in the past who were raised by "mothers who didn't know, and couldn't have possibly known". I even grieved for the mothers who didn't know the dangerous mechanism by which the whole cycle started: their desire for hope, safety and comfort through their relationships with men. My hypothesis is that every woman in FDR must've experienced deep loathing for herself as a woman, because she had to slowly and painfully realize that a woman's (her mother's) desire for hope, safety, and comfort from her boyfriend/husband is the primary cause of parent-to-child violence. If you're a devoted female FDR-listener, but you do NOT accept this, then you felt stunned and slapped-in-the-face when you read my bold-printed words. To the women, I ask: (1) Did you go through a self-loathing period like I described? (It would have to be self-loathing, in my opinion, because you "had to" recognize that your deepest biological and socially-reinforced desires for love and for children are the primary producers of evil. Eventually this self-loathing went away when you realized that self-acceptance and self-healing has broken the cycle of violence.) (2) If you've never believed that your desire for hope, safety, and comfort is the primary cause of parent-to-child violence, then what emotions did you experience when holding your mother accountable? To the men, I ask: Does my description of White Knight first, misogynist second ring true for you? What, in general, did you feel when you were initially learning to hold women accountable? And what do you feel now when imagining yourself holding women accountable? Thanks for reading this. I look forward to your input.

In this great interview, Krauser says there's no such thing as alpha males and beta males; there are only alpha behaviors and beta behaviors. This is why a beta can, through intense self-work and self-reflection, improve his life by re-discovering his own alpha behaviors. ---------------------- In this lovely article, Rollo offers only a somewhat (!) disagreeing opinion. http://therationalmale.com/2014/09/01/the-myth-of-the-good-guy/ The article's closing paragraph blew me away: "There is no Alpha with a side of Beta, there is only the man who’s genuine concern is first for himself, the man who prepares and provisions for himself, the man who maintains Frame to the point of arrogance because that’s who he is and what he genuinely merits. There is only the Man who improves his circumstance for his own benefit, and then, by association and merit, the benefit of those whom he loves and befriends. That’s the Man who Just Gets It." ------------------------- And in this third awesome article, the author explains what "The Man Who Just Gets It" looks like when he unleashes himself out onto the world. http://redpillzen.com/king-world/

It is; they're you're most honest and intense feelings about the topic. I would say that men are, indeed, violent in nature. But society puts so much emphasis on controlling male aggression that the majority of men don't seriously struggle to suppress murderous / violent impulses. The artificial, society-generated message against male violence is so persistent - starting from birth! - that males feel that non-violence is natural. Once this happens, men don't really struggle to suppress their violent / murderous nature. Would you say that you had a strong parental figure that taught you loyalty to men? I'm not denying your experience, just wondering where you think it comes from.

Feedback in dating is hard to obtain, because women have a duplicitous sexual nature in a society that devotedly conceals that duplicity. http://therationalmale.com/2012/09/25/your-friend-menstruation/

You didn't need to add, "When in these situations, I don't care much for myself. I just want to look after my siblings. I would do pretty much anything for them." I say this because when I read, "I actually decided to cut off contact to try and get the message across to my mother that I wasn't happy with the whole home situation that she had going on.", my instant reaction was, "Whoa....wait a minute. Your mother was an utter helpless asshole to your siblings AND YOU your entire life, but the only thing you could think was, 'How do I conduct myself such that she'll become a better mother?'" My statement above can't possibly be very effective through message board text, though. You have to be able to hear the emotion in my voice (empathetic, but also sarcastic and angry - but mostly towards your mother), and be able to respond in real time - preferably with your own feelings (not your thoughts, though they're welcome).

This is too abstract to answer. If you were discussing a specific man, a specific woman, and a specific argument, that'd help a ton.

I wish I could upvote this comment ten times. Caller, go with this!

I gotcha. I asked those questions because you feel guilty that you weren't there to save your mother during her successful suicide attempt. If your mother had a habit of only attempting suicide when you were around, then it could be argued that she had (consciously or not) extremely strong faith in your desire to rescue her. (But that's not the reality of what happened.) If your mother had a habit of only attempting suicide when someone was around, and only successfully committed suicide when no one was around, then it could be argued that she (consciously or not) only attempted suicide when people were around because she strongly believed someone would rescue her. (You're not sure if this is true.) If, in addition to this, she only successfully committed suicide when no one was around, then it could be argued that her only "real suicide attempt" happened when no one was around. (I'm sorry for the callous phrase "real suicide attempt" - what I mean is that she successfully committed suicide only when she found the resolve to actually die.) I know the answers to these questions can't eliminate all of your guilt, but I hope they helped with some of it.

Just stumbled across this one. Wow.

Okay, if your mother had only attempted suicide when you were around, then she would've (consciously or not) known that you were the special child who would rush to save her. Other than her successful attempt, did your mother attempt suicide in a fairly-likely-to-succeed way when no one was around? (Sorry that the question is so morbid, and that I'm texting rather than saying it directly to you.)

It depends. The statement, "I don't want to hit or yell at my kids because my parents did that to me." can either be a compulsion / resolution devoid of self-knowledge and scientific research OR a compulsion / resolution backed by self-knowledge and scientific research. When people are compelled to never hit their kids, but never either research why spanking is bad or come to a scientific conclusion as to why their parents spanked them, their primary concern is making themselves feel better by never hitting their kids. But it's not enough to never hit your children. You have to never abuse them. And that includes: don't yell at your children, don't send them to daycare, don't use timeouts, don't take away precious toys in rage, learn to negotiate, and so on. A compulsion / resolution devoid of scientific research and self-knowledge is much more likely to produce a parent who both believes time-outs are really effective AND is extremely resistant (often with obvious agitation and bullying during conversations about time-outs) to scientific research explaining why time-outs are bad. That resistance is the most obvious sign that their no-spanking compulsion is self-centered, rather than child-centered. There's also sub-conscious, non-obvious absolutism, "Every parent who has never spanked their child is a good parent! Any parent who has ever spanked their child is a bad parent!" rather than conscious negotiation-based absolutism, "Any parent who has spanked their child was acting badly while doing so, but with self-knowledge and scientific-research on all forms of abuse, including spanking but especially on abuses-that-are-NOT-spanking, every parent can become better - regardless of whether they spanked or didn't." The information in this topic ( https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/41658-powerful-series-of-posts-excellent-journaling-opportunity/) was very helpful for me. Specifically, the definitions of secondary inferiority, overcompensation, false idealized self, and narcissistic injury. Secondary inferiority: "As an adult, it's my job to never spank my children. That's all I need to do." Overcompensation: "Since I was hit as a child, I will never, ever hit children. Hitting is the only bad way to parent." False, idealized self: "Once I learn to never hit my children, I will become the patron saint of parents. Because of this, I will acquire boundless love and devotion." Narcissistic injury: "FUCK YOU! What do you mean I'm a bad parent because I use time-outs!?!? You're unempathetic and arrogant! How DARE YOU suggest I do scientific research!?!? I don't need to do that! My instincts and experiences are enough!!!!!!"

I've decided to devote myself to learning Game, not specifically to pick up women, but to empirically decide whether it actually helps with women and life. This series of posts sounds very much like what Stefan offers to an FDR-caller, right down to diagnosing the author's childhood and offering tailored-advice. If you don't want to explore it all, I've extracted the following terms and definitions - (which appear in part two) - that form a powerful journaling / self-reflection opportunity. ------------------------------------- Before we get started, I’m going to bring you up to speed on some key psychological concepts from a variety of sources that will come into play in discussing your codependency: primary inferiority; secondary inferiority; faulty coping strategies; surrender; overcompensation; avoidance; final fictional goals; false, idealized self; narcissistic injury; repetition compulsion. To start, let’s discuss Alfred Adler’s concepts of primary inferiority and secondary inferiority. Primary inferiority is the type of inferiority feeling that defined your childhood. You can also refer to it as your core issues. Everyone as a child unavoidably has some feeling of inferiority, because all children are weak, helpless and dependent. However some children develop a more exaggerated feeling of inferiority growing up than others, sometimes due to perhaps neglectful, abusive or over-pampering parents, sometimes due to comparisons to siblings and other children, or sometimes due to other trauma like physical defects, harsh environments, mental limitations or socioeconomic limitations. Most people learn deal with this primary inferiority feeling by using one or more of the following three faulty coping strategies as defined by Jeffrey Young, developer of Schema Therapy: surrender (freeze), overcompensation (fight), or avoidance (flight). For example, say my parents intentionally or accidentally, through neglect, bullying or pampering, made me feel growing up that my job is to self-sacrifice and be responsible for their emotions. I may surrender to this feeling and decide to accept these self-sacrificing values, and become a caretaker who seeks out dysfunctional people to fix, and I always emotionally and physically give without ever asking for much in return, hoping one day it will be my turn to receive. This is the codependent’s solution. Or I may overcompensate by rebelling against the idea that I should self-sacrifice, instead choosing to give as little as possible while taking as much as I can. This is the emotional vampire’s solution, particularly Cluster Bs. Or I may choose avoidance (flight) of all situations that involve giving or taking altogether. This is the solution of the paranoid and the recluse. People often create adult goals when they get older that are based on their primary inferiority feelings and the particular faulty coping strategies they’ve chosen to follow. Adler called these goals that guide our adult quests our final fictional goals. People believe on some level that these final fictional goals will fix whatever primary inferiorities they developed as kids. The codependent wants to erase his feelings of worthlessness by finding someone to please, impress or fix in the way he could never please, impress or fix his parent. The narcissist wants to erase his feelings of worthlessness by always appearing perfect, being a superachiever, demanding things from others and making others serve his emotional needs. And the paranoid or recluse wants to avoid people and the feelings of worthlessness they bring about in him because as a child avoiding his parents wasn’t an option. Other examples of final fictional goals can include a certain high-status career, sleeping with a certain amount of women, finding a rich man to fulfill one’s Cinderella fantasy, having a certain type of family, living in a certain type of house in a certain neighborhood, having a lot of political power, being a famous celebrity, living a high-profile jetset life, being a celebrated author, or being a spiritual leader. The options are endless. Whoever you feel you have to become in order to fulfill your final fictional goals is your false, idealized self. This is the mythical person, the symbol of perfection, that you imagine you have to be in order to be found worthy and to overcome the childhood traumas created by your primary inferiorities and eradicate your self-loathing. Many psychologists like Karen Horney and D.W. Winnicott discuss false, idealized selves. Freud also touched on the idea, but called it the “ego ideal.” Dealing with the false self plays a big role in Buddhism as well. Another important concept is narcissistic injury. This is a very complex concept but for the purpose of this article I’ve going to oversimplify it a lot and say that narcissistic injury is anything that bruises our ego and has the potential to expose our false, idealized self as a fraud either to ourselves or to others. Don’t be fooled by the name, you don’t have to be a full-blown clinical narcissist to suffer a narcissistic injury. We all have an ego or idealized, false self to some degree, and therefore are all capable of suffering narcissistic injury as a result, although the bigger your ego or idealized, false self is, the worse the damage you suffer when the narcissistic injury happens to you. Secondary inferiority is the pain we feel whenever we suffer narcissistic injury from failing at these adult goals we created for ourselves and feel unable to live up to our false selves. Not only do we end up feeling the current failure, the second inferiority, but we end up having our childhood buttons pressed as well, and all the childhood pain from the narcissistic injuries associated our primary inferiority gets reactivated and comes rushing back into awareness as well. We end up reliving our primary inferiority feelings and childhood feelings of self-loathing that we forgot about. This is especially true the more the dynamics of your secondary inferiority mirror the specific dynamics of your primary inferiority. For example, say your current girlfriend rejects and abandons you. This creates a secondary inferiority. You end up not only feeling that current pain, but suddenly you feel that primary inferiority from your past that lies at your very core and that you worked so hard to repress: the same crushing feeling of worthlessness that your parents used to create in you when they used to emotionally reject and abandon you by offering conditional acceptance. Repetition compulsion is an idea introduced by psychoanalysis and expanded upon by many mental health professionals that can be summed up by the folk saying “what you don’t complete, you will repeat.” This means that the situations and dynamics we had growing up, whether functional or dysfunctional, are what are the most comfortable to us, and we will feel compelled throughout our lives to seek out and repeat similar situations and dynamics in our adult relationships, often even when we believe we’re setting out to find the exact opposite of our childhood experiences. Repetition compulsions are especially pervasive when you’ve built up a lot of defense mechanisms over your life to avoid dealing with your core issues head-on. It can be one of the most pervasive and counterintuitive self-sabotaging strategies we have to deal with in our lives. --------------------------- http://therawness.com/reader-letters-1-part-1/ http://therawness.com/reader-letters-1-part-2/ http://therawness.com/reader-letters-1-part-3 http://therawness.com/reader-letters-1-part-4 http://therawness.com/reader-letters-1-part-5/

*hands fire up across the FDR listenership* But David, I've moved across the country to never speak to my abusive father. Doesn't the obviously count as making him irrelevant? David, I haven't spoken to my bitch mother in four years. Surely that counts as making her irrelevant! No and no. It's not enough to never contact them; you have to make them irrelevant. My family dynamic is that my father had (and still has) these large emotional needs that he magically expected his entire family to fulfill. Since none of us could ever do so, particularly not my mom, he would routinely explode in anger. By watching these explosive episodes over and over again, I've generated a list of actions, (some of which I'm not even conscious of), that I should never do because then I'd be "exactly like my father". For example, I've told myself that I should never smoke cigarettes. The first problem with this is that it's inaccurate. I definitely shouldn't smoke cigarettes over a long period of time, because that would make me significantly less healthy as a person. But that doesn't mean I should never smoke a single cigarette in my lifetime. The second problem is that refusing to smoke cigarettes because I don't want to be like my father renders him RELEVANT. He's still influencing my decisions. Worse, he's influencing my self-perception. And so he's still affecting my freedom. If I smoke one cigarette today because I want to and have a good reason to, I'd be thoughtful and free. If I smoke one cigarette today because I want to and have bad reasons to, I'd be anti-thoughtful and free. If I smoke one cigarette today because I want to and no have reasons whatsoever, I'd be thoughtless and free. But if I refuse to smoke one cigarette today solely because I don't want to be like him, I'd be NOT-free. Some time soon I've decided to enter a convenience store, wait for the first person to buy a pack of cigarettes, and tell him, "Hey man, I'll buy your pack of cigarettes if you let me keep one of them. My therapist told me it'd be a great idea, and you can get a pack of cigarettes for free." Then I will smoke that damn thing, being open to whatever feelings I have. But the most important feeling I'll have is, "You smoked a cigarette. Guess what? It didn't come close to making you just like your father. :D" Hope this was helpful for y'all.

First off all, I'm filled with sorrow and dread when I read your childhood story. Secondly, did your mother ever attempt suicide when someone else was the only one home to call 911 and perform CPR?

Thanks. I'm a professional SAT tutor, and Nevada ranks 50th in terms of public education. It also has the fourth largest population of school-children in the country. If this works out, I've the potential to make a large sum of money in a short period of time. That's a good question. I feel like I'm "cheating" by answering it correctly, because everything became crystal clear only last night when he was venting his frustration and explaining why I could no longer live there. But when I was deciding to move in with him, I didn't have the philosophical knowledge to see the pitfalls. The correct answer is that she is under 25, has never been to therapy, and has experienced a very terrible childhood. I haven't taken her ACE score, but I'm guessing 5-or-higher. He married her very impulsively about four years ago, even though he has never worked out his own childhood issues. I'd guess his ACE score is 3 or less. The major red flag is that he feels it's his moral duty to provide support and guidance in the marriage, while hoping that she'll blossom into a powerfully self-motivated, accomplished woman. But it's fairly obvious that he has only derived this sense of duty because of the way he was raised. She has never lived independently. And she has so many triggers that cause anxiety, depression, shutting down that she finds it difficult to sustain her motivation over long periods of time. (There's worse, but I don't want to divulge everything.) ------------------------------ http://therationalmale.com/2011/10/12/frame/ He works enormously hard to manage her pain and anxiety. But, in doing so, he has completely surrendered the frame. Her every panic attack or anxious moment is either his fault (because he didn't anticipate what would trigger it) or someone else's fault. And so, on the one hand, he constantly admonishes himself to "take control of the environment" so that he can take care of her. But, on the other hand, (and perhaps subconsciously), he resents the sheer amount of work required to maintain her. When his resentment builds, his motivation sags, their collective environment gets worse, and she gets worse. When it gets worse enough, his motivation returns, their collective environment gets better, and she gets better. And so it cycles. On the plus side, he is in therapy. And when he explained this all to me, about two months ago, I said, "Sounds exhausting. You can't be free because she won't let you." So there are seeds that are probably rattling his conscience right now. But he told me last night that he's "finished", and that he "doesn't care what I have to say anymore". So I've (supposedly) lost all influence in his life. We'll see, though, if those seeds I planted break through. --------------------------- As for me, I've never felt so motivated to succeed. I've had so many fresh ideas to improve my business in the past twenty-four hours. And I've been working out consistently over the past month, having experienced renewed vigor to do so today. It's all on me now, and I don't mind at all. I've been reading a lot of Manosphere literature lately, because I want to blend (to the extent that it is possible) its philosophy with Stefan's. And the three things that really moved me today were: (1) http://www.returnofkings.com/42653/a-passage-for-trumpet-shows-the-nature-of-happiness (2) http://www.returnofkings.com/33751/the-obsolete-man-the-death-of-the-american-mind and this beautiful comment in response to the "Passage for Trumpet" article: "Older television shows are interesting in their approach. You'll note that this show approached Joey as if he had value and never wavered from this. Joey is a drunk who sold his only means of earning an income yet the point of the show was to prove that such a man is valuable, can be valuable. An episode like this couldn't be produced today. Joey would be labeled a demon right out of the gate and if he sold his only means of support that would be the last straw. How could he pay his holy child support and all his taxes? A man today is defined by what use others have (particularly women and the state) of his resources not any inherent value he possesses as a human being. The second the man lost his ability to be used by definition he becomes worthless to today's society and of course he better produce to quota or else. Its uplifting and at the same time disheartening to see the greatness of what we once were and what we've descended too. Joey gets help in this episode and not only help from above, but people, real people, put money into his hand out of pity. Today of course Joey would be condemned because those who want to take money out of him aren't getting what they consider to be enough - therefore Joey is evil. What he doesn't have to contend with is an army of people spitting on him, stealing from him, and pretending that the theft of his mind, body, spirit, and resources is moral, proper, expected, and holy which is exactly the state of men in America today. Any "absolution" by such a character today would need to include a very quick turn around culminating in him handing over a large check to the child support apparatus and tax man. Only this would "save" him in the eyes of the current society. Re-written for today, Gabriel would show him how to make enough money to double up on his alimony so as to get current - which of course is the only way of restoring his worth (what men are told today). Thank GOD that heaven isn't run by such accountants. Even if we no longer here that men have any worth beyond what we can produce for our masters doesn't change the way things really are. Churches, governments, television, employers, women, our parents, our relatives, our "friends", all agree that the only value men have is what we can produce for others to consume. Evil means late or lacking payments. There is no value in what we are only what we do to allow others to live lavishly. Parasites are allowed to define what is morally right and wrong at all levels. Red pill truth means realizing that this is wrong and that every last one of them can and will likely go to hell. If you can take care of yourself fully, even if your life is modest, you are already better than any government or woman who cannot exist without parasitizing you. You are worth more than what lavishness you produce for others. That is the takeaway and would that we could see this more nowadays." -------------------------- Ultimately, I feel like I've just been blind-sided and blasted by a force so large that the me-before-philosophy would've quickly predicted, "There's no way he can handle that. No one could. He's defeated." But as the dust settles, I find myself surprised, hurt, and yet not-at-all surprised. And if the universe had an ear, or if there were a malevolent god/demon blocking my path, I would say to it - with a half-smug smile, "It'll take more than that."

My name is David, and I'm 38 and have been rigorously listening to Stefan's podcasts for nine months. I just moved to Vegas to live with two people whom I thought were my friends, but it ended badly and explosively. So now I must build my life here, from scratch, with very little support. To make up for this lack of support, I must supply my own motivation, determination, and persistence. I've learned, through philosophy, that there are only two completely opposed ways to succeed. The first is to provide value to others through free trade; the other is to get people to like you. Throughout our childhoods, we have been told that the only way to succeed is to get people to like you, so we cultivate "friendships" wherein we substitute our real thoughts, feelings, and ideas with carefully crafted words to make other people "happy" - which will inspire them to make us "happy" in return through identical methods. As you improve at this - (particularly if you're intelligent, perceptive, and genuinely helpful to others) - people will increasingly depend on you. But as you explore philosophy - particularly voluntarism / free-trade - you'll discover the first way to succeed. Consequently, you'll ask of your current relationships, "Why am I in this relationship? What am I getting out of it? Are the benefits I receive sufficient relative to my sacrifices? Is it possible, or even likely, to find a more beneficial relationship? Scariest of all, is it better for me to end this relationship - even if it means ending ALL of my relationships? Am I willing to build my life from scratch, with what seems like nothing - and which everyone will tell you IS nothing - (just philosophy and self-motivation)?" My warning is this: Even if you never overtly express these thoughts to the people who've known you the longest, they will sense that something has "shifted" within you. They will feel you becoming stronger, braver, more curious, and more willing to assert your own needs. But they will interpret this shift as you not "loving" them, you no longer "caring" about them, and you not having any "empathy". This will provoke such great anxiety that they will inevitably try to "win you back". BUT because they can't earn your appreciation, devotion, respect, and attention through free-trade, they'll resort to bullying, dominance, and lying. They simply cannot help it! Philosophy will help you see the crucial moral contradiction in their demands. This is good because it'll prevent you from submitting to them, but it's bad because once you reveal this moral contradiction you will be violently and summarily ostracized. Stephan has repeatedly said, "People accuse me of trying to get FDR members to reject people. We don't reject people. We express the truth about ourselves and our needs, and in response people reject us." This has never been more true for me than now. Stephan has also said, "Once you get the people out of your life who don't really appreciate you, and don't really care about you, your path will be so much clearer." This has also never been more than for me than now. The truth is dead simple: "Succeed now, here - or die." And my motivation, which has always been attenuated and/or unreliable, is sky high and permanently with me. There's a beauty in facing the world with "nothing", and daring to carve your own life, your own imprint, by your own rules, despite its opposition and/or indifference to your presence. But this beauty is not meant to be grasped by the masses, and the majority of the people whom you call your "friends" are completely unable to grasp it. So once you start this philosophical journey, you will deeply threaten the people around you - in ways you cannot predict. You have been warned.

How does pointing out the mis-use of the concept in wolves and dogs proves that it's also mis-used in humans? (I only quick-skimmed the article, but I didn't see it mention humans at all.)

One of my favorite Stef quotes is, "If you really think there's such a thing as a Nice Spiritual Person, you haven't tried to disagree with her about something really important."

Do you remember which podcast, and which caller, most vividly triggered this response?

I didn't find the description to be accurate, not did I find the prescription (to men) very helpful. I read a lot of Roosh, Roissy, and Rollo, so I hold no illusions about the nature of women. But I think their information about women is so much more valuable than this video is.