One of the reasons the right will never win in because most of them lack the balls to actually confront the problem. Right-wingers will whine about feminism, hypergamy and women out of control. Yet should one suggest that women have limits set upon them these same right-wing cucks turn into shrieking leftists screeching about egalitarianism and equality. The cucks are all about saving Western Civilization until you get to the part where actions that would save Western Civilization have to be taken. Then they cuck out.
In general, women are not able to impose constraints upon their own behavior.
Women rationalize their behavior in order to justify it.
This rationalization process is the key to understanding the current mess in which we find ourselves. Remember, men are rational in their behavior while women rationalize their behavior. This is the fundamental difference between men and women and the core evidence for why matriarchal societies are always dysfunctional.
Men ceded power to women and women as a result are out of control. Women have no boundaries, and as a result they are miserable. The behavior that we see from modern feminists and women in general is merely an attempt to find their boundaries. But because we opened Pandora’s Box it is not possible to restore order to the situation while women still have a say in how things will be run.
. . . . .
The only effective strategy to combat feminism is the most unpalatable one; systematically roll back women’s rights, get them out of the workplace, get them out of positions of power, and get them back in the home where they belong. Until that happens we will continue to see the obscene degradations of modern feminism. If we stay on the same course there is no endgame. Soliphisty knows no restraints. We are caught between a rock and a hard place but we put ourselves there and we only have ourselves and our modern ancestors to blame.
Physical strength is a distinctly masculine trait in the sense that we respect men who have the ability to lift a lot of weight. We admire the physically strong.
Chances are, most people would regard an impoverished gym rat that can squat the weight of a small car more of a man than billionaires such as Mark Zukerberg, who has probably never done a squat in his life.
Some might argue wealthy men have strength as well, but not only is it indirect and confined, it is not strength the way we traditionally understand it. A physically strong man’s power is internal and a part of himself, while a rich man’s strength is of external origins. What a rich man has is power, which is similar but ultimately different from strength.
Our post-modern Western society has less of a need, at least economically, for physically strong men than it ever has. However, rapid technological changes cannot override something that has been an indispensable part of manhood for thousands of years. In a world increasingly secure, hazard-free, and deliberately devoid of physical risks that were part and parcel of the world until the late Twentieth Century, lifting is one of the few affordable and non-dangerous ways for men to bear some semblance to their ancestors for whom physical strength was necessary merely to survive.
We live in an era of renewed emphasis on identity, but it is primarily confined to politics. Having done my fair share of investigation into the discussion, I’ve found much of the debate convoluted, inconsistent, and fraught with misplaced effort due to a cargo cult-like misunderstanding about how the world works.
We’ve seen this with Donald Trump’s presidential slogan “Make America Great Again.” What exactly defines “greatness”, a source of immense contention among his supporters and detractors, is somewhat of a moot point from my viewpoint (personally I find greatness far less desirable than freedom, but that is a separate topic).
Almost entirely absent from the discussion is the role the individual plays in celebrating and maintaining in their home whatever they want championed elsewhere. Identity politics is more or less the idea that what you are, is inextricably and exclusively tied to the political arena and whatever happens in that realm.
Needless to say, this is all well beyond your personal control and authority.
What concerns me is the idea that government can make a nation great – as we’ve seen with communism and other forms of totalitarianism, they can certainly destroy it.
But what makes a nation great is its people, and what composes the people are individuals.
Women make the mistake of believing all guys understand when they are communicating rejection to them – they very often don’t, and for the same reason they’ve been taught to be zealously persistent. The Blue Pill makes them resistant to this. Blue Pill ‘creeps’ usually respond with either anger or self-pity when they finally realize their predestined girl not only rejects him, but she is scared of him or despises him. So the Nice Guy turns mean and vindictive, or he loses faith in his Blue Pill romanticization and gets despondent. Both are potentially volatile for the Beta.
I think a lot of well-meaning Beta “Nice Guys” come off as creepy simply because they follow a Blue Pill old-books script they believe will be reciprocated by women. Much of this creepiness is the result of their inability to do a realistic assessment of their own SMV. This is a tough bit of insight even for Red Pill aware men, but for Blue Pill guys it’s almost impossible because they are struggling against a social conditioning that constantly tells them what they do and who they are is ‘enough’ – or should be enough for any girl who’s of a quality to appreciate their unique-but-commonness.
In a way it’s a lot like today’s women’s egos being overinflated by social media and our present social narrative to the point that they believe their own SMV is, or should be, enough for any man, but especially men who are well above their own SMV. More than enough actually. So too does the ‘creep’ believe his own pathological self-impression. The problem here is that, for men, we must be the initiators and with that comes the potential to be taken as an aggressor or harasser.
. . . . .
I’ve said in the past that women don’t decide in the first five minutes of meeting a guy if she will have sex with him, rather, she knows if she wont have sex with him.
Creepiness is a feeling women get from men who lack the social skills to ‘just get it’ that they are or aren’t into them. What this distills down to on a root level is women’s presuming that men should know better than to approach them when they are beneath their Hypergamous attraction floor. It is the criminalization of men not understanding how they fit into women’s sexual strategies. I made a case for this in The Political is Personal. The more men resist the social intents of Hypergamy, the more it will become necessary to legislate men to comply with it.
Feminine-primary social doctrine is an extension of women’s Hypergamy.
Any deviation from this is on the part of men is met with a cultural reprisal designed to convince or coerce men to accept their inevitable role in providing those entitlements to women.
When those social contingencies fail, or become played out, the Feminine Imperative then appeals to legal legislation to mandate men’s compliance to what amounts to women’s social entitlement to optimized Hypergamy.
We’re rapidly reaching this peak Hypergamous state. As I mentioned in Male Control, since the Las Vegas shooting the narrative of masculinity has shifted. There is no more “toxic” masculinity – it’s masculinity on-whole that is toxic. As Open Hypergamy becomes more institutionalized and made a societal norm by the Feminine Imperative, and as more men become Red Pill aware (by effort or consequences) because of it, the more necessary it will become for a feminine-primary social order to legislate and mandate men comply with it.
. . . . .
We live in a new era where marriage has become disincentivized for men by the risks of capital loss in divorce that overwhelmingly favors women with cash & prizes. Now add to this the increasing ego entitlements of women to high value men. As the prospect of marriage looks less and less like a good deal for men wanting to protect themselves there comes a need for women to create ways to bypass the requirement for marriage to access men’s capital. Enter the era of increasingly more nebulous, acrimonious, accusations of sexual harassment or assault and de facto believability of women’s testimony.
Exit the era of frivolous divorce (okay maybe not entirely) and enter the era of more easily accessible capital via frivolous sexual assault lawsuits.