Edit: I hit the character limit when I submitted this post, so I'm going to edit this up a bit and add the rest of what I wanted to say into a blog post. Will edit the link in to that here when it's done.
Updated version: http://illimitablemen.com/2015/05/19/the-red-pill-you-morality/
You can choose not to be a snake and not betray a man you respect because you are a man of principle. You can choose not to fuck another man's girl, whether he's a close friend or not because one of the principles you follow in your life is the golden rule:
"I wouldn't want a guy fucking my girl, so I won't fuck another guy's girl." Or "do unto others as they do unto you"
Moral principles aren't blue pill. Thinking that everyone has the same principles as you, and that most people don't succumb (or even value) incentive over principle, is.
Modern men who prioritize sex and utilitarianism above principles; men who prioritise incentives over an innate sense of justice we all possess don't want to hear that.
They don't want to observe another man's moral code, one that holds that man to a higher standard of behaviour than he subjects himself to. Because for the ruthless Machiavellian, the pragmatist, justice is an obstruction to his desires.
They think "Does this guy think he's better than me? Why is he trying to preach his principles like religion or something? The best way is the way that works, he's naive for having principles. Period."
These people, the "amoral bandwagon" as I call them, like to prioritise incentive over justice. These people make shit friends and business partners. Incentive cares about what you get out of it. Justice cares about "what the right thing to do is." These people violate justice because there is an incentive to do so. That doesn't make them evil in the satanic meaning of the word, but it does make them prone to immorality. These people know what they're doing will hurt others, they just don't give a shit.
"Doesn't matter, had sex."
And then without a hint of irony the same guy who said that is going to be pissed when he finds out his baby mother just sucked off some guy behind a dumpster. He wants other people to respect his dignity and not violate him, but he doesn't give a shit about violating others.
Humans are emotional people, emotional people follow principles and have certain codes of behaviour they follow.
Having one guiding policy "do whatever and fuck whoever to get what you need" is destructive. Some people are like that. There were always people like that. Fuck it, whatever. That's their choice. In some situations, we advise that. But do these people really have a moral pedestal to say "you have principles and therefore you're an idiot who doesn't get TRP?" - No. Shut up.
You can understand the game and keep your principles if you want to. Just realise that to live up to your principles, you will sacrifice incentives. If you have a particularly strong sense of justice, you will never live out RP philosophy fully.
To be honest, to fully live out TRP philosophy in your life, you'd have to be incredibly immoral. To be amoral is to be psychopathic, because amorality is neutrality, it is factual, it is devoid of human emotion. Human action is not amoral, only strategy/knowledge itself is. Do you see the disconnect there?
The world is not a fair place, sometimes you may need to be immoral to simply survive, but there's no need to glorify that shit. If it's necessary, and you're not simply indulging yourself, then so be it. But there's a difference between stealing to eat and stealing because "who's gonna stop me?" And guys who get the game but choose not to steal other people's girls, or scam people out of money in sales aren't blue pillers. They simply have stronger moral principles than you. Maybe they can afford to have those principles and survive, and you can't, it simply is what it is.
TRP is here to show you how the game works, not to tell you how to live your life. We give advice when asked, sure, but you live the way that suits you best. You own your choices.
TRP is amoral in the sense that it says "it is what it is.":
Hypergamy? It is what it is.
Branch swinging to the next best thing? It is what it is.
Alpha fucks, beta bucks? It is what it is.
Women have innate value whilst men don't? It is what it is.
You can't change these things, you can build a culture designed to subvert these things, but they're not going anywhere. The reason the west is falling apart is because we don't subjugate these things like we used to.
Peel back all the bullshit, and you see women, as well as a lot of men on this board, are immoral creatures. I don't intend that to be a value judgement, but without getting into some bullshit philosophical argument and redefining what good and bad are (been done to death and people always try to whore up my time with this nonsense) we all know what good and bad is innately.
If you violate someone else's rights because there is incentive for you (stealing, adultery etc) that's bad. Some philosophical ideas preach otherwise (Nietzsche and social darwinism comes to mind,) but these are simple redefinitions of reality from a metaphysical or scientific perspective. You are not mathematics, burying yourself in abstraction will not immunise you to human instincts.
It doesn't matter if DNA and atoms are amoral, and that you're a collection of atoms and DNA that is in an amoral competition. The combination of all those things in tandem gave you a sense of justice. You have a revenge instinct. Your sense of justice and need for revenge are the basis for all moral guiding principles. You're part of a game that is not adequately represented by maths and physics. Those things can't explain morality in a useful manner, because morality is only part logic, the rest is the intangibility of emotion.
If a guy doesn't want a life of ruthless Machiavellianism and unbridled hedonism, that's his choice. Just like MGTOW, PUA or being a patriarch with a family is a choice. None of which are "right choices" but simply "are." As long as he understands that this won't stop other people from living that kind of life, and that women are immoral, he's good. If he takes action to defend himself from people who respond only to incentives and disincentives and ignore moral principles based upon justice/injustice, then he's good.
People will always debate shit to death out of the principle of "demonstrating superiority," but most people who advocate for immoral behaviour don't even have the conviction to call what they're advocating for immoral. They know it's immoral, they know fucking someone's wife and breaking up that family is immoral. But they rather call it amoral and say "well she was going to ruin that marriage anyway." "If he was alpha enough she wouldn't be cheating on him, so he deserves it." "I have no commitment to that other guy, I don't even know him, so if his girl wants my dick, I'm going to press that." If that doesn't sound like bullshit to you, I don't know what to say.
The guy is complicit, he's an accessory to a whore's immorality, but because pussy is on offer, he doesn't care.
When you try to call that shit AMORAL, you care - a lot. You don't want people to think of you as immoral, so you try to say it's not good or bad but that it just simply "is." That family falling apart, or a relationship falling apart isn't your fault. If you give a girl dick who is in monogamy, that's always immoral, because you violated another man's rights.
In agreed monogamy, you have rights over exclusive sexual access, when those rights are breached, immorality has occurred. Now if you have some open shit going, and your girl fucks another guy, then you knew the score. You may be butthurt, but you weren't betrayed. You were complicit. Complicit like the guy who knew he was fucking a taken girl but whose horniness overrode any moral principles he may otherwise adhere to. Betrayal is the key act that evokes a need for revenge. When betrayal occurs, so does immorality.
"Bro-knighting" (a faggy term if I've ever heard one) is an issue of moral contention on this sub. It is men of different moral principles (and some without) essentially bickering what the right thing to do is when it comes to fucking a whore who is currently the sexual property of another man. I'm going to tell you now, I don't think this subreddit can tell you what the fuck to do. You have to figure that shit out for yourself.
We can present balanced arguments, we can tell you the benefits of immorality vs. the benefits of morality, and combined with your own pain and experiences you will make a choice on how you choose to live your life based upon that. Sometimes you may violate your own principles because you can't keep your instincts in check, you're fallible after all.
Telling you how to fuck someone over, as a "sexual strategy" is amoral. Actually doing that and infringing on someone else's rights and causing emotional pain? That's immoral. Every man must decide "do I want strong moral principles that I want to live by, or do I want to behave however I need to behave to get what I want?"
And neither is red or blue pill. It simply "is." All choices and strategies are amoral, it's the act itself and how it affects others which is moral or immoral. People in this community who have chosen immoral lifestyles want to sell it as amoral. But that's disingenuous face-saving bullshit.
If you're going to be immoral, own it, don't come up on the sub and act like folk with moral principles are "blue pillers" because even though they understand how fucked up the game is, they want to adhere to certain guiding moral principles in their life.
A lot of people on TRP confuse amorality with delusion. They are different things. Amorality is simply stating what works in a scientific and pragmatic manner. Delusion is believing in something that is not true.
So if you understand the game, but refuse to adapt to it - you are not blue pill, you are simply defiant, stubborn.
You know some of you are fucking your guy's girlfriends and sisters and shit. That is fucked up you know. You don't deserve a wolf pack when you're pulling moves like that.
Trust is a commodity. You need to adhere to certain moral principles whilst demanding others live up to the same moral principles to ensure that the bond of trust is not broken. People who are constantly out for themselves end up alone because there's a lack of trust on all sides. No trust = relationships fall apart.
Why do men instinctually almost have close to zero trust for women? Because we know they're immoral creatures. We know they don't give a fuck. They must be regulated. If you've read TRP you know these women will do whatever is necessary to ensure their own well-being. They don't have a higher mode of thought, they just run off biological programming and do whatever to "get theirs."
You can call that amoral if there's no malice behind it, but regardless the pain it causes across society is anything but. We used to check female behaviour with man's sense of justice posing as divinely ordained, and then impose this on society as a whole. But now men have lost control; female morality runs the show. And plenty of guys are adopting a feminine view of morality to "get ahead."
If you think morality is a wholly rational process, it isn't. Even in the intellectualism of Nietzcshe's master-slave morality or Ragnar Redbeard's "Might is Right" you can sense a certain hatred and contempt for weakness that inverses traditional morality as we know it. In fact, in a perverse way, I would say it something akin to natural female morality. As it seems all but apparent that hypergamy is the basis of female morality - what enriches her is good, what doesn't, is bad. It ignores other people's need for justice and is entirely self-serving. Sound familiar? In a way one could say TRP is the female strategy applied to male interests.
Vice becomes virtue, and virtue becomes vice. Women are without honour unless they are taught and shamed into having some. They don't possess the natural sense of honour that men do, although, it would seem in this age of emasculation, more and more men are taking on female traits to "adapt" and "win."
Look at society now. That is unsuppressed female sexuality running wild. Corrupt the women and the men will follow, because when men lose control on a cultural level they individually adapt themselves to succeed in a feral mating climate. That is what happens when we say "stop locking up your daughters and confining sex to marriage, let's have a mass orgie." Sex pushes people towards immorality to get an orgasm and feel powerful. The bonds of family, and thus civilization, are destroyed; one adulterous orgasm at a time.
Neither the immoral/amoral or moral guy are really right in what they do. The immoral guy is "right" in he acquires the most incentives. The guy with strong principles is "right" in the sense he causes the least pain in the world. These aren't absolutes, you will do moral and immoral things throughout your life.
Do I think the guy who leans more towards morality is blue pill? No. He is a man of principle. Choosing to have principles regardless of reality doesn't make you blue pill. What makes you blue pill is not understanding reality and telling yourself that things that aren't real are in fact, real. The blue pill is accepting dogma over the nature of how things work.
So if you understand the game and decide you're going to be an upstanding guy, as long as you understand fully what is going on, you understand other people aren't going to play along to your tune, but DO YOU ANYWAY - then you're not deluded. You simply refuse to become immoral to be more successful. You value your principles more than financial or sexual success. That is rare, but good for you. In a success driven capitalist culture people will view you as weak for that, but it's a mature decision we all must make.
The game is fucked up, I know that better than most, and trying to normalise betrayal, deceit and double-crossing as the status quo is indicative of that. It's cultural regression.
Don't do everything TRP tells you. Honestly, pick and choose to apply what you read here. As much as dark triad theory helps one acquire incentives for instance, I don't want to create a cult of wannabe psychopaths who try to medicate their pain and poverty through ruthlessness. So check yourself on that shit. As with everything, moderation. Anything taken to it's utmost extremity is insane. We've seen that with what feminism turned into.
Alright, I'm done. Peace.
Plugs:
Support my blog: http://illimitablemen.com/
Support /u/GayLubeOil for LOLs: http://twitter.com/GayLubeOil
Support /u/redpillschool by making sure you're on the puerarchy mailing list: http://puerarchy.com/mailing/?p=subscribe&id=1
This is one of the best articles I've read on The Red Pill in a long time.
[permanently deleted]
Seriously. I think this might be my first comment here, but I've been frequenting for several months now. I've read a large amount of the suggested reading, and it's invaluable.
Before I found /r/theredpill and the amazing resources contained within, I was dealing with a pretty intense breaking down of my own cognitive dissonance regarding issues that related very much to the entire blue pill vs red pill theory/debate. That was far from the first of such cognitive dissonance barriers I had broken down, but easily the most physically and emotionally trying one.
The books and blogs linked in the sidebar are priceless. This post is amazing. The mods and submitters here do a fantastic job of keeping this place a consistent source of high quality literature and discussion.
Thank you.
There is so much mental gymnastics in this post, I'd almost think it was written by a liberal SJW. Everyone has their own set of morals, if you don't feel bad fucking someone's wife, whatever go do it. But don't write up an article trying to convince me to be okay with it.
Bro Knighting has been a problem here for a long time, at least a year.
It's why Field Reports are almost non-existent anymore, because any encounter that doesn't involve a 100% single woman is deemed as being complicit in making women behave badly, when in fact, these women are acting on their natural impulses and aren't being taken advantage of at all. Plus, no attractive woman is ever 100% single in the eyes of her friendzone admirer or half-boyfriend, who has staked a claim on her in his deluded mind.
The real truth is you are your own man and can fuck anyone you want, no matter what anyone says (or posts) about your over-reaching (on one hand) versus non-existent (on the other hand) sense of morality. Who gives a fuck? You will either deal with the consequences or there will be none at all.
Wait, time out for a second. You are replying in agreement to a statement about this article being good, but your statement contradicts the message. He is saying that trying to fuck a girl you know is in a relationship is not something we should aspire to do. It is harmful is a violation of trust, a lack of respect, and such thinking on a large scale is corruptive to society.
Yes, he states that people are free to do as they will, but it is a sign of strength, not weakness to have principles, even if society as a whole is not of mind.
Did I misunderstand his point? I feel like I am being trolled right now, because your statement is the opposite of the article.
The way I read and understood it... well here, let me take a few lines from the submission to help.
This post started off with the reference to the golden rule and my jaw dropped, because it had been for the most part the driving influence in my own moral compass and principles. After reading No More Mr. Nice Guy, I realized that while my driving influence (the golden rule) remained unchanged, my understanding of it and interpretation of it did significantly.
Previously, I saw it as "I don't want to live in a world where people do shit that annoys me, so I'm going to make sure I don't do anything that I would find annoying."
"Be the change...," right?
Yeah, if everyone else felt that way, and everyone prioritized morals over incentives, the world would be great.
You know what? It's not like that.
I've come to feel that whatever agreements/commitments you make in any relationship are your responsibility to uphold. Agreements/commitments between others are their own responsibilities.
This whole article is very relevant to a lot of internal debate I've been having. Here's how I see it.
I was in a monogamous relationship for 9.5 years. After some exposure to /r/theredpill it was clear that sometimes the change can be made (BP->RP) while in a LTR and the relationship can survive and sometimes flourish, but seemed like it was often a difficult transition that a lot of relationships couldn't weather.
My relationship (28M/27F, together since the first semester of college) had been rocky for a long time, ups and downs like crazy, but we had each seen the other through a lot of difficult times and while I spent most of that time pretty solidly BP, spending nearly 10 years in a serious LTR with someone is going to create a pretty strong bond no matter what your personal worldview and philosophy is.
I mentioned No More Mr. Nice Guy above, and in that book it talks about the difficulties of making changes while in a relationship, and advised that if one were serious about it, they would have their partner read it. I requested/strongly advised my partner to read it, and she did, and it was incredibly helpful, but also created problems of its own.
Early in our relationship, after it came out that she was my first sexual partner, she stated she wanted me to have sex with someone else before we were married. I declined, for a multitude of reasons, and the topic continued to come up occasionally and her opinion remained unchanged.
Eventually it was dropped, but then several months ago someone came along that made me want to take her up on that offer. We then discussed the issue in depth, and it came out that she had wanted it to be someone of her choosing/approval (obviously someone of lower SMV than what she perceived her own as being) that wouldn't be a threat to the future of our relationship. I stated that I now understood (maybe?) her wanting me to experience sex with other(s) before making a lifelong commitment to her and that frankly, it would be necessary.
This went over better than I'm sure it would in a lot of agreed monogamous LTRs, but still was a pretty big incident. We ended up renegotiating our relationship terms from "agreed monogamy" to "agreed polygamy" with the understanding that I could make no guarantees about the future of our relationship (Man controls the relationship, woman controls the sex?) if she did something/someone that lowered my respect for her.
This conversation wasn't exactly out of nowhere, as we had discussed polyamory over a few months prior to all of this going down, so we had laid some groundwork and had an idea of where each other stood on the subject. That's a whole other can of worms that I won't go into here.
The relationship was hanging by a thread, and I was going to spend some time with this new girl I was interested no matter what, because based on the circumstances, I knew if I didn't it would be something I would regret for a long time.
The status of my LTR was very unclear, and I wasn't going to pull any blue pill shit with this girl I was interested in. I had made plans with her, and stopped home to grab some condoms, because part of our "renegotiation" was that we would always practice safe sex outside of the relationship.
I didn't expect my partner to be home at the time, but she was. I unabashedly grabbed some condoms, and she freaked out because she knew I had plans with this girl and she knew what I was thinking. I told her I didn't know what was going to happen that night and that I wanted to be prepared. For the sake of brevity, let's just say I ended up discovering the power of Dread Game and was astonished.
We ended up modifying my end of that polygamous agreement to "open to girls my partner doesn't have to interact with on a regular basis" which in this case was difficult, as we all worked at the same place.
But I agreed to that, and stopped pursuing/thinking about this new girl, because I still valued our relationship, and by that point had gotten through The Power of Now, Models, The Selfish Gene, Mindset, The Blank Slate, and Awaken the Giant Within; all of which greatly influenced my perception of myself and the world around me, as well as how I lived my life.
I've lost myself, and maybe my entire point. But maybe someone will read this and find some value in it. I know I will probably come back to it.
Edit: Oh yeah, let me try to wrap this up.
After the last paragraph about my LTR, we had a rough several months, with me continuing to make progress and changes in my daily life towards RP ways. She couldn't deal with it anymore because she couldn't see the reason behind a lot of my actions, and even when I tried to explain things, it didn't work. So I simply said "I'm done." one day a few weeks back, and that was it.
When I said "I'm done." I wasn't even exactly sure what I was saying, but in the hours following I figured it out, I was done explaining myself when I knew that it would result in miscommunication and fighting, which meant I wasn't going to be explaining myself very much.
We had a good few weeks after that, but in the end she couldn't deal with it, said as much, and moved out, ending our relationship. I'm going to continue increasing my SMV daily for a very long time. I harbor no hard feelings, and I wish her well. I'm curious to find what the future holds for both of us.
Edit2: Reading through the article again, this really stuck out to me.
This has led me to change my social circle in a pretty harsh (and to the outsider, probably quite callous) manner, because you can't change other people. You can only affect what you do, and what you're willing to tolerate. So people that acted in ways that were intolerable to me were cut out of my life. I am so much better because of it.
TLDR: On the issue of morals, principles, and how you live your life and treat others -
Models and No More Mr. Nice Guy have changed my thinking. I found those books have made me to look at my motivations for what I do more so than why others do what they do. Because of that, I think they are more valuable than most of the other books commonly recommended here on the sub. However, when reading Models, I find a lot of the ideas to be contrasting to what is often discussed here and discussed by PUAs like David DeAngelo, Tyler, and Roosh.
I am still digesting the pill, and maybe I am just reading on three different topics and not yet understanding how they all fit together, much like how at first I did not understand how the materials in Calc III, Differential Equations, and Linear Algebra fit into my engineering classes.
I think his point, "who gives a fuck" should tell you all you need to know about his stance as it relates to the OP.
However, his other point is pretty important: that you will be crushing some guys heart out there by sleeping with any girl. I've been on both sides of the situation, so I understand the whole "if it weren't me, it would be some other dude" mentality.
But when I was on the losing end, my situation illustrates the extent to which immorality can reach. Typical oneitis straight through high school into beginning years of college. I already knew about most of the dudes she'd slept with (some of whom were my friends but didn't know or care enough about my attachment to pass it up). But it was finding out that she had slept with both my best friend and my brother that really put me in a predicament:
All these people are in fact leading separate lives from me. My emotions may be tied into their decisions. But ultimately, the claim I staked over this girl held no weight relative their self-serving desires. By this rationale, I should not be offended. I should accept the reality as an unfortunate quirk of human nature. HOWEVER... the fact that all parties involved boldly lied to my face that the sex did NOT happen when it came directly into question- is fucked up.
One might counter: they were protecting me from a harsh truth that would nevertheless be buried in the past. But that would ignore the fact that I was lied to purely so that they could remain my friends with impunity. It's selfish and deceitful.
And speaking of the regression of society, what kind of state are we living in if it's okay for deep personal relationships to be based off deceit?
IllimitableMen's post really IS remarkable, because he covers every base when it comes to peoples possible responses (like TRPsubmitter's).
Don't argue with a narcissist you'll only get frustrated. It seems this subreddit leans towards feeding and amplifying narcissism at times.
When a man makes the switch from blue pill to red pill, their interest in themselves increases greatly, because they recognize that's the only thing they can control, and is the key to their future success. If you're a RP in a sea of BP, your interest in yourself may seem excessive. But you know what? Fuck what people think, make yourself better.
Looks like you fully understand it. It appears morality is just too complex a subject for many.
Yeah...holding yourself to higher moral standarts that prevents you fromgetting what you want and what would make you happier (fucking this gorgeous woman) is indeed showing strenght....or idiotry.
The way I see itm if you need to sacrifice a little bit of your sexual strategy to show off strenght then you should hit the wieght more, work more and challenge yourself more..
It is not about about showing your strength. It is about living a meaningful life. You can choose to be a parasite, taking what you can through means of strength at the cost of others. And this lifestyle might work for you. But there are people who choose not to be a parasite. People who realise how important society is and realise men need to work together in a constructive, not destructive, mindset to keep it working. There is strength in making that choice. Choosing not for what is easy, but for what people feel is right.
I was agreeing with the comment about Broknighting (where guys try to shame other guys into the "brocode" aka don't sleep with other guy's gfs or wives). The brocode is also shit like MGTOW where you try to place male friendship on a pedestal and demean other males who get pussy because it somehow "enables women" to act like "sluts", when in fact, there's no such thing as "sluthood" and these women are only acting naturally.
And I've disagreed with IM before on the role that morality plays in sexual strategy. I believe it has zero place except for non-harm to the direct parties involved (no rape obviously, etc). However, IM as he said above thinks you have an obligation to other men not to enable women's "bad behavior".
However, I don't think "good" or "bad" have any place in sexual strategy. Something that is "bad" for the husband can be "good" for the woman and myself, and vice versa. Something "bad" now can be "good" 1 month later, and vice versa. Who gets to decide that? The guy? Just because he feels entitled to tell another human (his gf) or two humans (his gf and myself) how they should act and what obligations they should uphold? No. My answer would be no one has that power. Plus, any marriage/commitment pact or trust that is broken is between her and her bf, who I have no obligation to.
It's like lying. Is lying wrong? The reason that most people think lying is bad isn't because of it being a non-truth (we encounter non-truths everyday and don't care). It is because it's actually a form of betrayal, which implies that you have preexisting trust with that person to begin with. For me, I don't think lying is wrong at all if you don't know the person. They aren't entitled to know shit from you and you don't owe them anything.
However, lying becomes bad when it's your friend because it's actually betrayal; they have a reasonable expectation to get the truth from you. However, people you don't know do not have a reasonable expectation to get the truth from you. If they believe everything they hear, then that's their fault and they're dumbasses.
By extension, I hold the same view with sexual strategy. Golden rule for friends/family and those you have preexisting obligations to. But I don't give a shit about the guy down the street who will "feel" betrayed just because of his self-perceived entitlement to some pussy who doesn't even respect him anyway.
Plus, give some credit to women. They have agency to have sex or not. They are adults and can decide for themselves which is more important: sex with me at that moment OR maintaining the sanctity of their bf/husband relationship. Once they make that choice, it's no longer my concern.
Additionally, the argument that we are "complicit" in immorality if it "enables" others' bad behavior is a terrible precedent. What about the guy who makes the motorcycle purchase instead of saving for his kid's college? Is the motorcycle dealer complicit in financial gluttony? Of course not. It's not his job to police others' actions.
I will say one thing though: it certainly feels good to try to inject morality into sexual strategy and then be on the right side of it. It will get tons of upvotes because thats what TRP newbies want: solace that men can be upstanding creatures even though we no longer believe women are.
Lastly, one of the toughest truths out there (which many here don't even accept) is that when someone fucks you over, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are immoral or even tried to fuck you over. Instead, it was a result of circumstance because two people can't get what they want if they want the same thing.
TL;DR You can basically figure out what your view is by answering one question: "If you find your gf and a guy in bed together, are you more upset at the guy or your gf?"
[permanently deleted]
Men are capable of both "good" and "evil". It is the choices that one makes in how others will perceive that person. Should you care what others think? That's really up to you.
I care not for what others think. I care about living up to my own standards (which is already admittedly difficult).
I agree. There has been a great deal of bro knighting lately. I still remember the whole GLO thing from a few months back where everybody collectively lost their shit about married women.
No man can ever own a woman, any marital or relationship bond had doesn't matter when it comes to the cold hard truth of hypergamy.
If she perceives another man as sufficiently better and her chances as reasonable, she will jump, or try to jump. The only defense against this is being better. And even then that's not a total defense - a truly better man than you can come along at any point, and if he wants her, you are done.
Basically you are saying let's have a race to the bottom with women to see who can become the filthiest piece of shit to exist. TRP is based on a society of highly egoistic people acting without honor or obligation to others. Sexual anarchy.
To suggest that this is ideal is horse shit. To suggest that it is an innate predisposition is also horse shit. Current inter-gender relations are based upon seismic shifts in the consequences of sex (controlled pregnancy selection) and the move away from women's dependency on men. Previously, the consequences of infidelity and mate changing were so high that women lacked the ability to jump from partner to partner. Their welfare was better off locking down one mate and supporting that person's success in life.
Basically, you getting up on your high horse pretending as if you are some enlightened savant is you stroking your own ego while denigrating people who hold different values. Why don't you stop masturbating and recognize that different value systems can flourish depending upon the constructs of the era.
For those of you who missed it the other day, OP's post was directly inspired by this comment thread: https://archive.is/4aaTp
I think this post needed to be made. I think a lot of guys on this sub use TRP philosophy and strategies as an excuse to be scumbags, because "sexual strategy is amoral." Sexual strategy is indeed amoral, but if you use that truism to define every aspect of your behavior, you are immoral. If every action you take is calculated to maximize how much pussy you can get, you haven't internalized TRP at all. I believe that compromising or discarding any and all non-SMP-related principles and/or preexisting moral codes in order to bang hot women because "sexual strategy is amoral" displays a lingering blue-pill pussy-on-the-pedestal mentality. I will not lie about who I am, or pretend that I'm exclusive with a woman so she'll let me bang, because if I have to lie, then I'm admitting that the lie is more attractive to her than my true identity - why accept that compromise? When it comes to a particular piece of ass, I can always take it or leave it. While I don't necessarily think less of a man who chooses to cuckold a hapless beta, I prefer to show women that a high-value man like me don't want or need to bang whores who are looking for Alpha Fucks to supplement their BB marriage. I get more satisfaction out of the knowledge that the married woman who I rejected will go home that night knowing that I believe I'm too good for her than I would if I had banged her out in a motel room she paid for with her husband's money. Fundamentally, TRP is about redefining yourself as a self-actualized man with an invincible frame, and since women are attracted to that, a consequence of adopting TRP principles is that women will want to bang you. Use TRP to make yourself a man that other men respect; not just a Fuckboi who will eschew all he needs to in pursuit of pussy.
This one single sentence contains an unusually strong amount of truth in it. Notable.
^ TLDR - "Behaviors I don't like are Blue Pill, ones i like are Red Pill."
What a man chooses to tell a woman to bed her is none of your fucking business. He can say he's the Supreme Ruler of Jupiter. He can say he's worth $20 million dollars. He can be a married man who declares himself single. Does it god damn matter? WTF are you so worried about other peoples' dicks for?
How many, how often, and what type of women another man fucks is also none of your business. Seriously, what kind of shit are you on right now? I don't even understand what crowd it is you're advising. It's like the only way for you is the M'lady-turned-TRP who's still an introverted pussy with a superiority complex who is desperate to prove himself some kind of universally loved casanova with no enemies. Who the flying fuck cares? Make enemies. Break shit. Spend money on dumb shit. Live your fucking life.
This "Ultra RP" elitism shit is incredibly vexing. So now we're supposed to be TRP, but not too TRP? Last I checked, that's Purple Pill and not too many steps away from the slippery slope of re-bitchifying yourself. Do drugs if you want to, in moderation. Dirty bulk instead of clean bulking. Bang a few married women. It's not all that serious.
Your anger and contempt in your post seems to betray that his words have made you uncomfortable. Is it possible that he's striking close to home with you, and that you in fact are not completely secure with your immorality?
You are not being asked to be moral, nor immoral, or even amoral. It is all "take it or leave it" here, as /u/IllimitableMan said in the article. However, you must accept your actions and any consequences that they cause for you to be considered a self actualizing man. Is lying acceptable to you? Fine. Is fucking married women acceptable to you? Also fine. Do you really think it is without consequences though?
You're probably not as adept at hiding your actions as you think you are. Even if no one knows of the immoral things that you do, your character will reflect your immorality, and people will be able to see you for who you are. There is a certain kind of karmic balance with immorality. Others who know you as a liar and a homewrecker will not treat you with the same respect or give you the same amount of trust you might otherwise receive. This includes your female companions, who would at the very least lose respect for you if not break up with or cheat on you when they discover your history, as well as your male companions, who could not possibly be expected to trust you to uphold moral principles (aka, not fucking them over) in business or friendship when you cannot be expected to uphold moral principles in your personal life.
Are you done yet? Heh.
The thing I find the most humorous about your fantasy-world, Cleo-the-psychic diatribe you just typed out, is somewhere in there I went from banging married women for sport, to being in exclusive relationships. After all, this
isn't possible with plates. Plates can't cheat on you. But don't let me interrupt your Chicken Little scenario whereby banging someone's wife will immediately lead to being fired from your job, your car breaking down, your plates all abandoning you, your dog running away, etc etc.
This is part of a larger issue of immaturity and lack of world experience that is permeating this sub. You people actually believe - you actually believe this shit - that everyone is either moral or immoral; and that there's no such thing as someone who selectively fucks over the weakest people in society, is a sycophant to the more powerful members of society, and subsequently lives a very comfortable life with many adoring plates, friends, and family. -- This scenario isn't even comprehensible to you because you're still stuck in Fairy Tale Land, where all the bad people get their comeuppance, and all the good little TRPers will eventually be rewarded with their unicorn bride.
You just don't get it - you legitimately don't. You have no understanding whatsoever of what the entire fucking point of TRP is. You still fucking think it's about holding hands and singing songs - but with your bros instead of women. No part of you understands that men, on the whole, is weak as fuck and getting weaker. NOT EVERYONE can be saved. Not everyone can be rehabilitated.
And this hope you keep holding out on is going to get you buttfucked one day, i guarantee it.
Like I said, I don't necessarily think less of a man who will lie to women to bang them, or bangs married women. Although I think such behavior in a man can often be a red flag that a man is not trustworthy, it isn't always that way. Some men only lie to women, and are otherwise honest. Some of my best, most loyal friends exhibit that kind of behavior. However, to masquerade such actions as based in TRP is incorrect, in my opinion. The end goal of TRP is to shape oneself into the ultimate alpha male, which according to TRP is just about the most attractive possible man you could be. If that's true, why would lies be necessary? You've peaked without them. I'm not saying you can't have swallowed the red pill and still lie and cuckold, but to say you do those things "because TRP" does not logically follow. As for banging married women, to each his own, all I'm saying is it doesn't jibe with who I've decided I am as a man. I didn't say that behaviors I don't like are blue pill; I simply implied that certain behaviors that many on this sub claim are redpill, aren't. They aren't necessarily blue pill, either. However, I think if you are the type of man who doesn't normally lie, and yet will lie to bang women, you are allowing that woman's frame to dictate your actions, and that is blue pill. Just because you end up fucking her doesn't mean that you TRP'd your way into her pussy.
I can't agree with any of this because you failed to provide any examples, whatsoever, of what a "lie" is, to even give me some kind of idea what threshhold you have. If I say I'm the Ruler of Jupiter, I'm lying but also obviously kidding. You're also an idiot if you actually believe it. If I say I'm worth $20 million, I may be lying, but who cares? If a woman fucks me only because she thinks I'm worth $20 million, she's the idiot; I'm not a liar, I'm an opportunist. I saw the opportunity to tell some dumb skank I'm worth some impossibly large amount of money and she was stupid enough to believe it.
Once we start delving into illegal lies - saying I'm a cop, or some such things - then sure, that's immoral. Lies like "My bro saw your husband kissing Sara the other night! I swear it totally happened!" or some other such manipulative fuckery - also immoral. But saying I have a 12 inch dick, or that I'm a virgo, or giving you a fake name............I mean, it's not even worth going on until you can give me some examples of what kind of "lies" constitute "red flags" that someone is "untrustworthy". You keep relying on these buzzwords but not expounding on anything.
I guess we disagree on this point, insofar as I even agree with what an "ultimate alpha male" would even encompass. It's been discussed ad infinitum that the "ultimate alpha male" has a mix of blue/red traits. But that aside.........the ultimate end goal of TRP isn't to shape yourself into shit. It's to insulate yourself from all the social encumbrances that other people have to deal with; to have your friends be so worried about losing you as a part of the group, based on the value and leadership that you provide, that they'll tolerate just about anything.
If you're in a group where everyone is equal - then everyone is a bitch by default. It's a fact of life. There's always a hierarchy.
No, that's not all you're saying. And that's the problem. You just fucking said
then you go on to say this fuckery about "if you lie to bang women" then ipso facto, through a series of tubes, in and out of the other side, series of conversions, a bunch more fuckery....doot doot doot, beep beep, processing, please wait....you aren't an "ultimate alpha male".
Again, if a woman is stupid enough to believe your white lies to get them in bed, then chances are, they would have fucked you even without them. Some of them are smart enough to know you're lying, and don't even care, because there's enough plausible deniability there to allow them to indulge and then "OMG ur such a jerk" regret their way out of it, and "I won't make that mistake again" wink-nod.
We keep saying it repeatedly in this subreddit, dude. Women. Are. Not. Fucking. Idiots. AWALT, but they're not fucking idiots. They will fuck every last one of us over, by any means necessary, if we let them, and it doesn't have to be by out-smarting us. They just have to be smart enough. Which they are.
This fuck business of dividing TRP into the "Moral Kingdom vs Dark Triads", it's got to fucking stop.
Seems like we disagree about a few things on some pretty fundamental levels. I don't see further debate going anywhere. That said, at least neither of us are suffering under any delusions about the nature of AWALT. Just to clarify, I don't refuse to lie to women for their benefit - completely the opposite. I just don't give enough fucks about any piece of puss to bother. If she doesn't like what she sees/hears, she can move along and I'll take home the one that does. Also, just so I'm clear: I am not insinuating that morals are in any way necessary for applied TRP. I'm just saying that a lack of morals isn't necessary either. The TLDR of my entire point is that you don't need to eschew your preexisting morals to apply TRP, nor should you.
I have no problem with any of that. I encourage you to fuck or not fuck whoever you want. I only take issue with you referring to someone using perfectly legal means, on a level playing field, bedding spoken-for yet mutually-consenting women, as "immoral". Because that's bullshit.
With the stakes so high - wealth vs poverty, health vs sickness, social circle vs isolation - I'm doing whatever it takes without putting my freedom, money or health at unnecessary risk. History is written by the winners, not the losers. I'd rather be a controversial winner than a conventional loser.
[permanently deleted]
In the interest of full disclosure - I'm about as far from Dark Triad as it gets. I feel bad if I accidentally go through cross-walks when a pedestrian is waiting to cross, for fucks sake. But when it all boils down to one man and one woman, on an even playing field, fucking each other - just leave morality out of it. It's the wrong word. It's rude. It's unbecoming. It's a lot of things. But 'immoral' isn't one of them.
This post and ones like it help the subreddit grow, because it gives plenty of fuel to the "H-hey those TRP guys aren't all bad! We have a little bit of common ground!" - but with each new wave, the message is getting more and more watered down. We have a festering problem of Bro-Knighting that is now being re-worded and re-packaged, much like Feminists re-word and re-package their failed ideas.
I'm not sure what you mean with 'on an even playing field' but in any case, you're oversimplifying. If a man and a women, both single, have sex then indeed morality isn't in the picture. But if a man and a women have engaged in a contract of monogamy - be that verbal or on paper - and that contract is broken (I.E. cheating) Then of course this becomes a moral issue. If a breach of contract/agreement/trust isn't immoral, than what on earth still is?
The only question that remains -and what most of the discussion is about- is whether only the cheating women is immoral, or also the man she's cheating with. And my personal stance on that is if you knowingly fuck a women who is bound by a monogamous contract (again, this also includes people exclusively dating) then you are empowering an immoral act, which makes you immoral too. I say refrain from immoral acts to all but those who are immoral themselves. I couldn't care less if you went out and shot a proven child molester.
[permanently deleted]
All things considered, that is a sensible stance to take.
Ultimately it comes down to my role in the environment. If I hadn't been exposed to RP truths, rest assured I'd be the most honest, upstanding citizen of my society. But I've seen far too many redpill scenarios play out in real life to give a shit anymore.
I think ultimately comes down to the philosophical debate of deontology vs consequentialism. Further reading: Crime and Punishment by F. Dostoevsky.
I'm beginning to wonder if it's still possible to be an honest upstanding citizen anymore without getting screwed over? Seems most people will resent you in one way or another for doing good and then the rest will try to exploit your good behavior. There seems to be a sense of "fuck you, I got mine" that doesn't appear to be anywhere close to stopping.
I honestly think we're going to have to experience many years of decadence until shit collapses in on itself. Once collapse happens, the collective culture will have to rebuild by swallowing the red pill first. We're being artificially propped up on bullshit right now. Once that prop collapses, shit is going to get real.
Living under the systems we do (political, economic, social)... definitely not if you're going by what other people consider "honest upstanding citizen"
I think it's probably doable if you can really adopt and internalize the belief that what other people (that don't matter, which is the vast majority) think of you means jack shit in the long run, in addition to figuring out your own moral guidelines and principles and holding true to them to the best of your ability.
Wouldnt that be the kind of thinking you criticized in your post tho? "There is no trust between strangers, therefor it is an amoral action to fuck a stranger's girlfriend."
There is no reason to cultivate justice or fairness on someone you are never going to meet. There is no reason you should be concerned about the fairness of the situation you ar creating between a stranger and a semi-stranger (your plate). All of your actions are, therefore, amoral, as you are only doing that action to "feed" yourself and it is not your fault that someone else is suffering because of it.
I may be concerned by my own sense of justice and have a feeling of empathy with the other guy, projecting what i would feel i this situaion happened to me. I may choose not to proceed out of respect and fairness. But, if you do choose to continue, you are not betraying him, as there was no sense of justice or fairness between you two to begin with. You were both strangers. In that situation the full force of immorality would fall on the woman, who is the one who is actively performin an act of betrayal on someone thst trusted her.
Now, I'm not defending their position because I myself think the facilitation and encouragement of immoral behaviour makes you part of that immoral behaviour yourself, but I can understand why those guys justify their actions as ammoral in some sense. I guess like everything in life, not all things are black and white and there's an infinite array of shades of gray.
Thoughts?
I have to disagree with Moral Relativism. No, there is no way to empirical verify the morality of a given action. But when dealing with ethics and morality, this is not the standard by which right and wrong are judged. Though the debate it certainly still open, the majority of ethicists will say that there is an objective morality that can be rationally proved, usually with inductive reasoning.
What you're talking about is Aristotle's Virtue Ethics, which is an increasingly popular moral theory, and one I find most efficacious. But, I think what you're doing is stopping short of the teleological goal of virtue which is Eudaimonia, the ancient greek concept for true happiness. The virtuous man, may certainly show particular kindness and preference to his friends or those in his honor group, but you can't just turn off your virtue, either you're a person who is kind, just, courageous and prudent (cardinal virtues) to everyone, or you're usually not at all. If virtue is not practice by habit, then by definition, you are not virtuous.
I agree that there is no trust between strangers, but if everyone had the virtue of honesty, there would be. And yes, this is wildly unrealistic. But we can still be honest and remain prudent at the same time. None of this should preclude reasonable kindness, even to strangers.
Virtue, by the way, differs from, other theories of ethics in that it takes a common objective of all humans, i.e. to be truly happy and identifies traits in people that are advantageous to have across all cultures and creeds. as above, the big four are Kindness, Justice, Courage and Prudence.
TL;DR: While it is good to show loyalty to your neighbor, it is still hugely unjust and hypocritical to aid in the cuckoldry that so many of us abhor. Rather, if we are to be virtuous, justice and kindness dictate that we inform the poor bastard of the situation and help him if we can. I would hope that he would do the same for me. Otherwise we are accomplices by omission to this cuckoldry
[permanently deleted]
weird. did i accidentally PM you instead of comment?
Anyway, yeah we do mostly agree. but i think there is a bit of a nuanced difference. Hardly worth going into on reddit though, unless you want to.
But i think the important part where we differ is our respective TL;DR sections. It seems to me, unless i've misunderstood you, your interpretation of virtue only extends to people you care about, friends, family, etc. but someone outside of that like "that schmuck's hoe three towns over" doesn't meet that extension so she can be smashed with a clear conscience.
I've taken the idea of preference to those who are close to us to mean differing in favor of them during times of conflict. Like i might feel weakly obliged to help a stranger on the side of the road whose car broke down, but i would be strongly obliged to help my friend in the same situation.
As for the hypothetical thirsty skank a couple towns over and her unwitting blue pill schmuck, I don't think that principle much applies. If you ask me, we would be acting hugely unjustly and callously toward his misfortune if we allowed this stranger to be abused by his wife or girlfriend (definitely a deficiency of justice and kindness and debatably courage as well). And I think if we knew about this abuse by said chick, we would be just as responsible or perhaps partially responsible (honestly, i'm not sure which) for the continued cuckoldry.
so, to answer your question, i think there is where we have something of a contradiction.
Good stance. One thing I think the machiavellians get wrong is they aren't as clever as they think they are. They screw up. People notice their behavior and avoid or ostracize them.
A simple moral code like be nice to strangers and be honest with your friends protects you from this.
That's the biggest thing I've noticed about The 48 Laws of Power. The average unclever guy trying to follow them will only focus on a particular handful and will end up coming off as a selfish aloof unpredictable asshole. This can work if you running a business producing an in demand product but to the average guy you're just going to become a person that everyone dislikes and tries to avoid dealing with.
There are a lot of good nuggets in the 48 ("Infection: avoid the unhappy and the unlucky", "Do Not Offend the Wrong Person"), but most people skip straight to the ones that deliver incentives.
Selfish behavior must be cunning to be successful. "Morality" exists as a framework of social interaction; overt violation results in ostracization from the tribe. There are plenty of sociopaths in prison.
Law 38: Think as you like, but behave like others.
That said, whether you apply the Laws is a personal choice. However, there is no "opting out" of having them used against you, so educating yourself to them and understanding when they are being applied against you is crucial.
A lot can come from watching the actions one takes over the words they speak. Something that confused me my whole life is that "professionals" in various fields have always tried to seem right, even when my own, proven, personal experiences proved to me otherwise. This usually applies to people who say there's only one correct way to do something. It caused me a lot of grief to be surrounded by people who think that because they read something in the paper it must be true. It's caused me much more grief to not understand that pretty much everyone thinks that way about certain things in their life.
Luckily I learned that watching their actions gives them away eventually, for better or worse.
It's partly that the less clever Machiavellians are more visible, since being less clever means you're more error-prone and worse at hiding your intentions. Then there are the clever ones, who you'll never realize are Machiavellians until it's too late, if ever.
Edit: downvote away for whatever reason, but I strongly advise not to underestimate Machiavellians or their numbers. I don't consider myself one BTW.
[permanently deleted]
Great video. Thank you for posting that.
[permanently deleted]
Ecclesiastes 1:18 is my life verse.
I just watched that, I'll have to watch it multiple times to fully grasp it though.
The video does not rule out morality being subjective. It simply states that you cannot derive new moral principles from a subjective standing.
Actually it does claim that they are objective and that, in some ideologies, some of these moral principles are given greater weight than others, but they all come from an objective set of principles of right and wrong.
He gave some good examples, like:
Love & respect for parents vs. love for children
Caring for one's family vs. caring for strangers
Keeping one's word vs. providing assistance to poorer people
He gives examples of how some societies, by putting far more value on one principle, while trashing the other, were led to a worse outcome, because they chose to subjectively redefine morality and pick which principles they preferred. Whereas if they had chosen to apply all the moral principles, instead of favoring one over the other, they would have been better off.
So in essence, morality is that which is objectively good for human society, and going against it by favoring certain moral principles strongly while rejecting others, leads to the destruction of said society.
If you chose to accept the law of inertia while simultaneously rejecting the law of gravity, in order to justify jumping across the grand canyon, you would fail and fall to your death. The case made here for morality is essentially the same. Moral principles are an objective reality, that if rejected, will predictably result in the failure of society.
Somewhere around the 4 minute mark he says something like 'And In my view, damns our souls"
That was enough for me, I closed the video. It's a religious argument, no matter how its wrapped.
I'm an atheist but the video made perfect sense and had a very well reasoned philosophical argument. To cast it aside over something so trivial would be a classic genetic fallacy.
I agree there's no reason to apply morality consistently in all situations. Being moral and honorable at all times is a hindrance. It severely limits the options available to you. You just have to realize you're being immoral and accept that fact, not rationalize it away. For example, I would never act immorally towards my close friends because I care for and respect them. However, if I'm in a business negotiation I'm not going to avoid making unfalsifiable bluffs in order to close a deal because I have a moral obligation to be 100% honest.
Being an honorable and moral person is commendable, and I appreciate the company of people who are that way, but unfortunately it will often hold you back in the world. I admit that I have a double standard. I want to be able to get away with immorality but do not want others to be able to.
I like to treat trust and respect as a gradient rather than a black and white thing. I will respect some random guy on the street enough that I'm not going to push him down because he's standing in my way, for example. He's a human being and deserves that much respect. When I'm driving, I don't mow over pedestrians. It's not because I fear the punishment, but I respect the lives of these people that I don't want to be responsible for harm coming to them. I also have no problems helping people with no expectation of reward, such as if someone is broken down in a parking lot and I have jumper cables and can help them get on their way. It requires no real sacrifice of my time other than a few minutes, and I want to live in a society where I could receive that type of assistance from others if I needed it.
That being said, if I was told that I had to choose between the death of my son and the death of the entire populace of India (and I have close friends from there) I'd not hesitate to save my son's life. I respect the lives of my children more than even my own, and definitely more than society or strangers.
Trust is different though. To me, respect is generally given as a default and lost by the person, trust is something that must be earned over time and maintained. There is nobody that I trust fully, but there are a few people I trust fairly well. Trust is one of the most precious things you can have in someone, so it should be reluctantly given to others.
I think it was Augustinus who compared The Church to a gang of apes.
I'm a former atheist, now Christian. I've found a church where the girls are feminine, and the boys are masculine. It's the same with us. You don't act like us, you don't get privileges. If you're a Judas, you're gone. But if you're loyal and do what's expected of you, we make sure you're kept alive and healthy. Our gang is growing.
Good luck with yours, Marcus.
That's just being smart and is similar to the way I operate. Treat those who you wish to receive the same sort of respect from in a similar method. If the man on the street was useful to you or of benefit then you would extended your hand to him as well. This is how we weigh relationships beyond those outside of our family or lifelong friends etc. Cost benefit analysis when it comes to all new relationships is the best way to go if you value your time.
Morality has no meaning outside of a religion or a moral ideology. The concept of good and evil have to be given by an external, supreme authority which cannot be proven nor disproven to be false. Good and evil therefore, like God, are axiomatic. Without a "law giver", as you have observed, one is forced to rely on subjective morality: how people "feel" about something. The best that can then be achieved is to established some sort of democratic morality, i.e. say that what is Good is what most people would deem good, and what is Evil is what most people deem evil. That's essentially the stance of the Golden Rule. But the Golden Rule tells us something else about a moral system.
There needs to be a consensus. Societies that function under a unified (often religious) moral code work because everyone agrees on the code. Since it is externally established, individual feelings do not come into play. What you've observed is what happens when everybody relies on their own code: you cannot predict the behavior of others, and need to set up additional guards to protect yourself.
Some might say that everyone believes in things like "don't kill your neighbor", and since it came from different religions, it must be the Truth, so there is an alternative to subjective and religious morality. I see it simply as evidence of social evolution: this rule is conducive to effective societies, while a rule such as "everyone for themselves" would work in the opposite way. But that's an easy one, what about abortion, capital punishment, or sleeping with a stranger's wife? There is no way to determine with objectivity if those are permissible, except within the context of a (religious) moral framework.
Ultimately, for an effective moral code, you need 3 elements:
I disagree. At its very foundation, a moral code is nothing more than a 'you do/don't do this, I will/won't do the same, and we both benefit' applied on a large scale. You don't murder me, I don't murder you. You don't steal from me, I don't steal from you. You be honest, I will as well. And then we both benefit.
In this sense it's highly rational and there isn't a need for any higher authority to impose these values on us. In fact we have an inborn understanding of these matters. But then, naturally, emotionally, we speak of it in terms of right and wrong, good or evil. Religion simply wrote these down and then started to act as if they had the exclusive rights to morality.
I guess you could consider the law to be the consensus today.
The law is just a partial substitute. Its goal is to punish and prevent only the most damaging instances of bad behavior. So the law is a consensus of what evil needs to be punished, not entirely what is good and what is evil. Furthermore, not everything that is illegal is evil. Render to Caesar what is Caesar's. And finally, laws change. If what is evil can change, then we come back to a subjective stance of morality.
Great fucking piece... And this is precisely why we need strong, moral men to band together. Not be separated and alone. For the moral man who stands alone, dies alone.
Nothing in the world can topple a group of strong, capable men who do nothing but look out and trust each other.
Women and other immoral men want to break this apart... i fucking say stay together like superglue..
I recently joined a men's team, and this is what the team is all about. Helping each other become better men and hold each other accountable.
Such teams are very powerful, and it's disappointing they aren't mentioned on this reddit.
Because they're invariably invaded by fuck-boys who aren't strong enough to stand on their own, so they become especially useless to the group.
It's like an atom that starts out with a positive charge - 2 protons, 1 neutron, 1 electron. For every 1 proton, you're picking up 3-4
fuckboyselectrons, and fucking up the ratios. The entire thing becomes useless - it may as well be full of women, religious leaders, police officers, LGBQTGIFs, and everything else because you're all just wasting time anyway.There's always a weak link. Always. And once you don't demand that the weak link steps up to the plate and contributes at everyone else's level - then you've contaminated the whole group, and set the bar lower, and it's only going to sink from there. If this isn't the case in your group, congrats, you're truly a beacon of light in an endless sea of fuckery.
Yeah yeah, we get it. So you don't value teamwork. It seems you'd rather go back to the laws of nature where the strong prey on the weak. Well let me tell you this: it is teamwork -strong men working together under a moral code- that allowed a structure of society to exist in the first place. A sense of morality is the glue that holds larger groups of people together.
It was teamwork that allowed us to advance as a species, teamwork that gave us todays astounding medical technology, teamwork that allowed us to fly across the atlantic. And it was teamwork that led to technology for food preservation, teamwork that allowed us to shape nature to our liking. Teamwork allowed humans to thrive.
If you want to distance yourself from all that, by all means have fun living in your little hut in the jungle. You seem to have no idea what you take for granted.
"bro"
"....bro"
fist bumps
Edit: to the sticking out for each other, I've seen some good women and bad women so I'll reserve that generalization for another time.
The question is, stay together because you're too weak separately to stand alone? Or because it's the actual best thing to do?
If me and 3 TRPers started a hypothetical business and each put in 25%....and it was me with most of the expertise, coming up with the best ideas, etc....you bet your fucking ass I would push for complete control over the company. No fucking question. And I would build whatever alliance it took, take whatever legal actions I needed, exploit any loophole i could find to make it so. As soon as the weakest fucker slipped, I'd buy him out and tell him to kick rocks. He can come back as the janitor and clean the toilets.
"Moral"....what? WTF is Morality in 2015? "Morality" in 2015 is code for Being a Bitch. Let's not kid ourselves. Let's not speak in codes. The only things that truly matter are Legal and Financial repercussions. "Social"? The whole fucking point of TRP is to social-proof yourself, so you have constant cycles and waves of women and bros tripping over themselves to do you favors while you don't do shit for them but make them feel good. When one or the other get mad because you did X, or didn't do enough Y--you dread game them like all the rest, and they either fall in line or kick their feet.
If I'm not breaking the law, then fuck you. If you're not breaking the law, and you fuck me, I'm going to fuck you back. Then after we fuck each other, maybe I can understand the wavelength you operate on and we can work together.
But jut you can't trust a man who would never dream to fuck you over. That's a weak ass bitch right there.
Go and read the piece again.. there is nothing beta about refusing to play the game. If you recognize it, and stick to your morals, then better for you. That is a conscious decision you make.
Not everyone is looking purely at incentives..
There are some men who value kinship and integrity over fucking someone over to make a quick buck..
Perfect example is the disgraced Lance Armstrong.. He brought his entire team to glory sure, but at what cost? His reputation, along with his entire team is tarnished forever.. everyone remembers the cheat.
Fuck guys who are like that. These guys are one button away from self-destruction.. I've taken a conscious effort to disassociate myself from men who have fucked someone over for personal gain. Coz if they fucked another over, chances are, they'll fuck you over too.
And just like RP. Those mach men have no power over you if you don't play their game.. The power is always with the person who can walk away. The power is always with the person who has options. And what better way to gain options than having dependable allies.
Trust is built. Yes, there's always an inherent risk. But if you are strong and capable, trusting someone is straightforward. If they misuse the trust and burn the bridge, you'll survive.
That's what mach men cannot deal with. They aren't strong and capable in themselves. So theyll resort to underhanded tactics in order to get what they want.. it's weakness personified.
I have to pause right there - because stuff like this is exactly the problem. There's this fake, fairy-tale belief that fucking someone over ONLY EVER leads to a quick buck and not a long one. Last I checked, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs both fucked MULTIPLE PEOPLE over during their rise, and they didn't just make "a quick buck", they made BILLIONS! Jobs would still be alive today if he wasn't up his own ass so much. Gates is, and through giving billions away, is viewed as one of the greatest philanthropists on the planet........by everyone except the people he fucked over. Small price to pay though, right?
Now you're really making a muh feelz argument. You forget to mention the part where most of his entire team, entire other teams, the cycling community as a WHOLE had cheats everywhere, on every level. They were just stupid enough to get caught, while he never did.
No they aren't one button away, and even if they were, so are you, we're all human; they DO HAVE power over you whether you accept it or not; and that last point is just fuckin' stupid.
What you're talking about is long-term quasi-exclusive partnerships, with women or with your bros, as opposed to....let me guess.... "short term" "fake friendships" where you "fuck people over" for "a quick buck". Nowhere in your black-white theory is there a middle ground for medium-term alliances where you MUTUALLY use people, as they use you, but more often than not, you get more use from them than they get out of you.
If someone is a billionaire, you only need a little bit of their juice to get the rub. If they're a fucking bum ass loser you went to high school with, they need you infinitely more than you need them, no matter how "dependable" they are. These people are not all on the same level. You seem to be treating them as though they are, and I don't agree with that. Nobody agrees with that. Not Sun Tzu. Not Socrates. Nobody. Except fucking Gandhi and blue pill pussy philosophers like that.
See above, dude. You're totally lost. Nexting a friend is no different than nexting a bitch - they become too much of a burden to keep around, so you tell them to kick rocks, until they can come back and provide more value. If you're worse off without losers around you, then you have serious problems. Serious, serious problems, and you're in no position to be talking about "weakness" or "Red Pill" or any other topic other than how you have failed as a man, and how you can climb out of the hole.
Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are hardly the first names that come to mind for a mach villian character..
They truly believed in collaboration, a cause larger than themselves, big picture thinking and long term envisioning..
If there was collateral, so be it. The higher you climb, the harder your decisions have impact. And no human is 100% morally correct. That being said, I think it's clear to see they are good guys and for them, it wasnt about the money or incentives.. for them, it was about changing the course of human history. A noble and worthy cause. No mach villain with purely incentives in mind can ever achieve such feats. For this, you need willing followers. Bill Gates and Jobs had plenty.
Lance was 100% all about himself. He thought he was invincible and could get away with it.. it's why he came back. And that brought his downfall. his own self destructive, 100% pure incentive nature is what ultimately screwd him over.
Caesar, Napoleon and Borgia are other mach villains that comes to mind. You known what they all have in common? Their downfall was created solely themselves. When you have no allies, you are fucked.
So stick with your pov.. If you believe fucking a married woman or your best friends wife. Realize there are consequences of those actions. You screw someone over, the natural reaction is creating a foe.
As for the rest of your trope, go fuck yourself.. you have no clue about me. Only a clueless fuckhead would try to make a debate personal. Keep it objectively or gtfo..
This is straight retardation. It really is. Your entire post is backwards as fuck, and your emotional immaturity is on full display. "I don't like something? It's evil, bad, can't be redeemed, doomed, broken, will go to shit. I like something? It's great, wonderful, will always be perfect, can't ever degrade."
In your hypocritical mind, it's perfectly acceptable for Gates/Jobs to steal code and software from other people, force them out of the industry, and make billions of dollars off their innovation..........but for a cyclist to inject dope, into his own body, of his own accord, for his own performance benefits, to win acclaim for himself..........somehow he's the villian.
L M A O
So it's OK to fuck the next man over, as long as you're only stealing his software and ruining his career; it's NOT ok to simply bang his wife after a night of drinking.
Are you getting paid for this shit or something? Getting paid to piss me off by saying dumb shit that doesn't compute? I really can't think of any other theories that make sense. You can't possibly be this stupid. It's literally not possible. But you're absolutely fucking convinced that even if you have a 2-7 offsuit, you can come through and knock me off a pair of aces.
It's not happening. You have zero chance. And that's because truth isn't on your side - only emotions and feelz and other Blue Pill garbage.
No. As a man who you can easily call immoral, I don't give a fuck what you do. I don't give a fuck about breaking anything apart or about your morals. If I'm passing you on the street, you are no different from the guy I just passed moments ago. Maybe he would fuck my wife and you wouldn't, but I don't know that therefore I don't care. If she wants to, I'm going to fuck your wife. I won't go out of my way to game her, but if she's coming onto me strong and I want to, I'm going to. Because I don't know you from Sam, and if you play odds Sam is probably a dick anyway.
Maybe there is a universal, objective morality. If there is, no one is acting like it. Put a group of 10 men together and you will have 15 different moral codes, because some of them will even change with circumstances. Principles are just shortcuts so you don't have to consider each situation individually.
Please, come and fuck my wife . Hahahaha.... I believe you discount the fact that some women will reject a guy just because "they don't like sex". TBH, I can't get an erection to fuck my wife after she said that. I tried Viagra, still dead. I can f. other women, no problem.
We need more posts like this on TRP, if anything TRP is an encyclopedia but its not definitive, nor is it an instruction manual on how to be alpha. its up to you to reach your potential as an alpha, which means the best version you could be, through that energy you become self sustainable hence why you see things differently now because your vision is not clouded with bp bs anymore.
You give the best advice. Love your website.
Thanks for the support. Much love.
I wont bang married women, because that kind of woman that cheats with me will cheat on me. Those kind of women are sociopaths. They will tell lies to men to get what they want, and will treat you great while you are their escapism from their marriage, but they will eventually try and escape you too.
Married women are in my world, off the market. The risks and drama associated with them does not make it worth it for me. Sex is not worth all that drama, and it goes against abundance mentality for me personally since selfishness is a trait that I find unattractive.
I would rather fuck a loyal 5 than a cheating 10.
Thank you for setting it straight.
I've been ostracized for having principles before. Good to know some people on here understand having principles does NOT equal weak blue pill characteristics.
You can have principles but no one needs to hear about them unless they serve a purpose. If you say "hey don't fuck her because that's wrong" then that is a waste of everyones time. If you say "don't fuck that girl because she knows your wife and that could end badly" then that is solid advice. Morality and principles need not be discussed on here unless someone asks.
Although you are technically right... In this sub we first and foremost discuss what you CAN do. Stating how the world works and how you can act in it. This is the amoral side of things. But it is easy to mistake this for something that you also SHOULD do. This is where moral matters come into play. Morality is what keeps a society healthy and whether you like it or not, we are all part of that society and dependent on it. People advocating going rogue and dropping any sense of responsibility altogether, those are the ones truly wasting our time.
I think it's good we are able to share our values, our principles as well. It can lead to valuable insights. How to get what you want without screwing other people over. That doesn't mean you have to follow them of course.
If you provide reasons why or explain the outcomes of certain actions in a meaningful way then you will get at the very least a healthy discussion. So next time you wanna post why something is the right thing to do post why it is beneficial or how it is helpful. Again no one needs a lecture on morality or at least wants one from you. They do want knowledge that can help them though.
Yes it does. You are deluding yourself if you believe otherwise.
TRP is based in and designed on social proof.....as in, socially-proofing yourself. If you provide value to your friend group, they'll understand if you flake now and again, as long as you make it up to them. If your friends/whoever doesn't like that you're bedding married women - that's their problem.
It's YOUR responsibility to provide so much value to the group that they have no choice but to accept your behavior. If you can't do that, and they're threatening to ostracize you, then it's probably because you're a weak ass bitch in general - not because of X or Y behavior.
But it is weak ass blue pill shit. You can't avoid it. Avoiding perfectly legal, non-resource intensive actions because you fear what others will think? How can that be anything other than Blue Pill sperglord behavior?
Should have clarified:
Ostracized not by my friends, but by people who have no problems bedding other men/women who are already in relationships.
My friends are my friends because they value my time and my contributions to their lives. They typically share the same principles as I do.
Conforming just to fit in from fear of being ostracized is weak ass blue pill shit.
This is probably one of the best and most helpful posts I've seen in a while. I previously even before encountering the redpill started the debate of morality and it's uses. After encountering the redpill I begin to justify/rationalize immorality with being amoral. But after seeing a different perspective I can separate the two a bit better.
This should definitely be on the sidebar. It will also help with facilitating better arguments from multiple perspectives with respect for both sides of the same coin.
I get the feeling if we keep discussing this TRP is going to become not just a place of learning about masculinity and the theory around women and mating, but likewise a place to debate the ethical application of what we come to learn. Perhaps this is the natural progression of TRP as a philosophy. Time will tell.
Although that sounds great. I hope not. Because then people will try to impose their ethic standards on other people and I think trp will then split into two groups. Debating morals/ethics in mass is similar to debating religion. Due to the extreme subjective nature of the topic/interpretation of it.
Instead I hope people are aware that personal ethics are on a spectrum and that there is no ethics/moral standard of TRP. Just facts. You must apply your own personal Code of conduct.
Seems like you understood my post. I agree with this.
[permanently deleted]
A better way to put it is nobody is clever enough to operate off of calculations. You need good general rules. Being nice to others and honest with your friends is just a good idea because when you screw up a lie and get caught it goes horribly.
How much better is it going to go if everyone considers you the elite, unflinching supreme gentleman, and you have a moment of weakness? When your entire image is based upon not making any mistakes or having any enemies.....what do you do then? The house of cards comes crashing down - such that you were ever anywhere near as legendary in the real world as you were in your own mind.
You can't trust a man who doesn't swear. And you also can't trust a man who doesn't make minor fuck-ups, or screw over the occasional person now and again. I'm a great tipper but if you piss me off, I will tip you $0 even if I know you deserve more. I have to do it. I'll spaz out on you in a way that's not equivalent to what you're giving me, and leave you saying "WTF happened to Danny, is he OK?" I need that rush every now and again--just not as big of a rush as some truly dark triad types need.
I will only say that I have waited a long time for this article. You have my gratitude.
I have a pretty simple rule when it comes to other guy's girls.
Unless you think the guy is a complete dick who doesn't deserve her, don't do it.
My attitude is, if another guy were in that situation with my girlfriend, only his respect for me would stop him. An asshole wouldn't care.
Maybe that's a bit of circular reasoning, but that's my rule and I've stuck to it.
From a logical point of view, the woman is not an object that belongs to a man. She can fuck whoever she wants to. Second, it's not like fucking her will use up anything that is in limited amount. The man will not wear out the woman's vagina, so to speak. I stand for free love, jealousy is really a base emotion.
I am a bit confused though, if you say trust is a commodity and relationships fall apart without it, and you ALSO say that all women are untrustworthy and "immoral", then how on earth are you planning to have functional relationships with any female individuals on the planet?
By imposing male moral values upon them, as we have done for milennia. If we fail to do so and let animal instincts rule, that will be the end of society.
I thought all of our desires stem from animal instincts, including the desire to be seen as "successful", being socially accepted, and possibly even most importantly the desire to be seen attractive by females.
But as the primary drive behind all actions is survival (which also including obeying basic laws so others won't punch you to death), society hasn't exactly come to an end yet.
I guess you could see everything as an animal instinct that way. True. Allow me to be more specific then. When I was talking about letting animal instincts rule, I meant following immediate incentives without long term thought. You could argue we have evolved a higher rational 'long term thinking' instinct which can supress our (lower instinct) urges for short term gains, in favour of the bigger picture. Morality can only exist if we are able to supress these urges by means of rational thinking. Also, this morality has cristallized into the laws you speak of.
For women however this 'higher instinct' isn't the modus operandi. If women are cut loose from the control of men they tend to act based on short term thinking only. If women are thus allowed to take control of society the benefits of long term thinking will largely be forfeit. Some will argue this is already in a far stage of happening. I won't go that far myself, but things are definitly heading in the wrong direction.
....yes, "wrong direction" indeed. The cause being gender segregation causing people to believe that the other sex is inherently inferior - both rabid feminazis and whoever thinks female humans are incapable of rational thought alike...
As devil's advocate, I could easily make the argument that the only reason for why males delude themselves into creating and studying the 'science' of TRP is because they - as subhuman creatures incapable of logic and driven by sexual desire and lust - desperately want to be slaves to women, seeking the means to be accepted by them as "sexually desirable".
...I think I'll just stick to my idea that people should be judged based on their individual behavior and intelligence rather than stereotypes based on sex - and with that, I think I'll just walk away and hope you'll find a female whom you'll be able to respect enough to realize how wrong you were to assume that every single female individual on the planet is an irrational animalistic subhuman degenerate.
I agree with you more than you might realize.
First off, I said it isn't their default modus, I never said women aren't capable of rational thought. As a group, they swing more to the short thinking (immoral) behaviour. This is also I think what OP meant when he said women are immoral. Having said that, I have met plenty of women who were great rational thinkers. They just throw it overboard easier in favour of emotions. There are exceptions to every generalisation of course. I admit some here fail to realise this.
As for your second paragraph, I will have to disagree strongly though. Men (in general, you get it by now) need sex in order to live a happy life, I think we can agree on that. But that doesn't mean it is our main drive, nor does it mean we make ourselves slaves to pussy this way. That all depends on how much you're willing to sacrifice for it, and the RP take on that is: sacrifice little to nothing. So much for that argument.
I would agree with you that we should judge people based on their individual behaviour. But that isn't the point of TRP. The point of TRP is to provide information about how the majority of women function as to help us interact with them. This is why the generalisations are necessary.
Lastly, fortunately you don't have to hope for me, I found an exceptional one. That doesn't mean I like to see power handed to women in general.
it's hard for me to describe it, but reading this article gives me a bit of peace, in a way. thank you.
Personally I've found principles to be very useful to have. Someone who stands for nothing is often weakening themselves from the inside. Principles are the only thing you cannot lose. That's why religious nuts are so full of bravery and conviction.
This is a great post, just like most of yours. I have a friend that reads redpill, and he doesnt seem to understand that just like everything else on the internet and in life, you have to approach red pill topics with critical thinking. Read them and think, "does this work towards my goals? Will it achieve them the way I want?" And "is this actually good advice or just something written by a man stuck in the anger phase that will screw me over in the long run" (I had some experience with that last one). It is what it is.
Actually, it is what you make of it.
I write in the way I do to try and make people think. Most people just want the answers though, they don't want to think.
Those who do want to think are rewarded with a mind expanding experience. They will introspect and will make whatever amendments they deem necessary. If those amendments enhance them, they will internalise them.
I like to look at what will build the strongest version of myself. I'm in college, so gaming on married women just isn't a possibility right now, but if it were, I'd imagine I have a lot better things to do than ruin some family. It's not useful, it's not impressive, it's not a remarkable feat of skill, it's terrifying (if I get caught, what if the guy has a gun), and it could turn out vastly worse for me (she gets caught and calls rape).
There comes a point where valuing empathy is important as well - having values that are self-made are important, but not when they're vague moral terms like "justice." Well what the hell is justice? Philosophers and lawyers have been debating that since the ancients thought of te concept. Moralities and laws are often societal norms. It's important to follow them to a degree just out of awareness that te risk for breaking them is huge. (Selling drugs = large amounts of jail time, for example, even though there's nothing inherently "wrong" about selling drugs).
Nietzsche talked a lot about forming your own values, and I don't think he was talking about moral ones - and if he was then he was useless. Nietzsche (who I see a lotof you quoting, which is why I bring him up) spoke about values that had nothing to do wit metaphysics. The idea of "the good" or "the justice" is some weird spiritual mumbo jumbo that can't be discovered. When Nietzsche said "live on your own values" not only was he saying to decondition yourself from society, but also from mental trappings. For example: I value freedom - not in the vague metaphysical sense, but in the sense that I like being able to walk wherever I want to - therefor, I follow the law to the best of my ability because jail would suck. I value things I enjoy like being powerful, constantly growing, and pursuing success in my career. I have specific meanings for these terms. I want to constantly be improving in the activities I like so that I may make money, feel fulfilled, and contribute to society. I do not value justice or "the good" because that is for the weak. If you need to ask "Does the universe approve of this action? Is it good?" then you're not thinking for yourself, you're judging your actions based on what you THINK is some universal truth. And for what reason? So the universe will judge you positively? If you're religious, I can see why you would think like this, but I can't see why you'd be religious. Agree to disagree on that one though, I suppose.
Values based on weird metaphysical terms are unsustainable. You can not live by "being good." And why would you want to? I don't want to be a paragon of moral excellence. Jesus was that, and supposedly you need to be the son of God just to get close to pulling it off, so why fucking bother? I want to be the BEST version of myself. Me at my PEAK performance, contribution, abilities, etc. That is attainable, and it is specific to me and my values. Morality is a trap, and it's not something that people in a scientific era should be concerned with.
If you are concerned with morality, the most moral thing to do is to kill yourself to prevent your existence from furthering overpopulation, your carbon footprint, and your money from going to companies that use child labor. Morality is life denying. The "good man" is the dead man, and that's why Jesus is our best example of him.
Evaluate everyone to discern their nature rather than assume.
Is someone an Individualist? Well, then he might betray you.
Are you certain someone desires to successfully reproduce and win the Darwin Contest for perpetuating his DNA? Well, then he's probably thinking longer term (he seeks the betterment of his offspring) so you expect him to be more likely to be a team player.
Red Pill is filled with many Individualists who have lost all hope of passing on DNA in a healthy family structure and so you have to expect some extreme stuff here.
We talk of Providers these days like that's normal, but through most of the last few hundred years men were Owners. Men owned women... no discussion... no debate. Abandon your maiden name thy woman as you become my property and I keep your offspring if you choose to leave and become an Old Maid.
Men are faced with an unnatural condition because of the Feminist State so we are behaving in unnatural ways as a reaction.
If times were different and men were simply Owners and not Providers the Red Pill wouldn't exist and we would not even be thinking about this stuff.
Owner and provider aren't really mutually exclusive. Husband's historically owned woman in much the same way that parents own their children. I honestly don't like saying men owned women, that seems to buy into the whole feminist narrative of women being treated like slaves. I think ward is a much better term. Men were charged with protecting ,providing and disciplining for their family, as well as representing them in the larger community. The issue is that men have been stripped of their ability to run their households. Because being a ward requires you to provide as well as it requires you to keep order. So all men can really do these days is provide, which is only have of what's expected out of them.
I say Owned because it triggers the instinct of man.
Don't backpedal... keep the power in the word. The spell of the Matrix is broken because all it takes is the substitution of the word Provider with Owner and it becomes like a bolt of lightning through your soul.
Assert Truth through Power. Use it.
It should also be noted that, just as the 'Individualist' is more likely to betray you - the 'Groupist' (?) is more likely to be a dullard, to rely on consensus, to use bullying techniques instead of reason/logic, etc - overall, to not benefit you nearly as much as a like-minded self-sufficient man who doesn't surround himself with sycophants.
There's a risk/reward on both sides. It's like being a business owner, and hiring someone else who has owned their own business before. They're likely to work their ass off, learn everything they can as quick as possible, one-up everyone, out-sell everyone, etc....but there's always going to be that risk that they'll leave your company and try to start a competing business.
You raise an interesting point there. Personally, I believe that no human can be the possession of another human. I cannot endorse slavery under any circumstance. (white on black, man on woman). Thus, if I reject the idea that a white man can own a black man, I must also reject the idea that a man can own a woman, otherwise I would be a hypocrite. From this, I can derive the idea that the woman can do anything she wants with her body, married or not. There are many different situations where the woman doesn't get what she wants at home. The same with the man. However, the sex drive is so strong, that no amount of artificial morality can stop it. Also, consider Nietzsche's will to power. Everyone strives to be at the top, and that reflects in sexuality. The topic of children should be carefully considered. We are at the point where having children can be planned. No child should come into the world by accident - only to wanting and loving parents. Thus, we can dissociate sex from procreation. Everybody will be much happier.
All hierarchy is power. Once you wake up to power you understand that equality doesn't exist and has never existed.
Red Pill is an enlightenment philosophy that reawakens your ability to see power and that requires an honest look at Captain (60%) to Firstmate (40%) relationships.
If you've ever watched the TV show Shark Tank you get a hint of how power works. The percentage of Ownership defines your relationship in anything from business to personal. The entity with over 50% ownership has the "controlling interest".
Women have this weird quirk in that their sexual function fails when they have a male partner who they see as 50% or below. They get no Tingles.
60% / 40% is considered ideal because that's enough of a buffer to prevent Shit Tests which occur when things are 50% / 50%.
One assumption I have to take issue with is how morality = weak, less success, less money, less less less. Being moral is more more more. You develop better and deeper relationships, both in business and in bed. With trust you leverage these relationships and can plan for a better future, invest, or do other long term plans. You can't easily do long term plans with someone who'll screw you the second it becomes profitable. You then develop a reputation that precedes you and can use this reputation as a currency. You can surround yourself with other moral people,spareing up time from mate guarding or worrying or not giving a fuck and suffering from the cons of a cheating spouse (infant fidelity, branch swinging/ divorce, stds, etc.)
Don't undervalue the worth of a good reputation. Words get out you're a cheat in one aspect of life, it makes it harder to be hired in other aspects. Being immoral may help in the short run but recognize what's being given up.
This is bullshit and you know it. It kills you that your fairy tale just isn't true.
Being "moral" necessarily means doing less than you are legally allowed to do, for fear you aren't as awesome as you think you are and can't easily replace butthurt friends and women. The most "moral" thing to do is take a pay cut so your employees can all get raises. The most "moral" thing to do is only bed women you are 100% sure are single and childless. That's dumb as fuck and a good way to get fucked more often than not, no matter how much you're deluding yourself that you're a supreme gentleman with a loving soft harem and no enemies and "Wow isn't he just so great?"
If i'm starting a company, I'm not looking for fucking stupid asshole college graduates. They can eat a dick, they don't know shit. My first act is to try to pilfer as many goddamned professionals as I can - workers already in "exclusive" "relationships" with their employers. Does that not sound immoral enough to you? How about we sweeten it by me saying I either hire them on the spot with no notice, or they can fuck off? How "moral" is it to hire someone away with no notice? Not my problem. I gave them the choice - I offered to adjust the compensation level accordingly - they made the decision.
I think a lot of you guys are confusing breaking the law with your false sense of immorality. If I just walk up to someone I don't like and punch them in the face, that's assault and battery, and I'm a dumbass dipshit for doing it and deserve to go jail. If I go to a bar, and some married woman is slutting it up, who the fuck cares if she blows me in the bathroom? You? "Society"? Give me a break. Despite all the horror stories, even you don't believe that society cares about each and every single woman equally - especially a cheating whore wife.
You guys are killing me, man. You've been told, and told, and told, and told 1000 times that 1) none of this shit is black and white, and 2) there is no fairy-tale ending. And yet you still fucking insist that 1) there's the immoral way, and then there's the OMG such TRP way, and 2) that if you don't follow the OMG way, you're doomed to a life of failure and broken relationships and financial ruin.
What the actual fuck.
I completely disagree. Morality is the word we've given to a system that has developed to allow us to focus on long term gains and the inherent benefits of cooperation over competition. Nothing more. It is the system that allowed our ancestors to approach each other in the jungle, when for all they knew the other human was dangerous, and cooperate to make civilization. If you want to spurn the long term gains of cooperation, go ahead, but don't be surprised when you're passed up
edit: It's not about morality. It's about utility. We've "evolved" morality to allow us to maximize gains. Hope that clarifies my argument.
No, it doesn't, because you're still spouting fairy-tale shit that ignores the reality of the world we live in. People don't go to Morals School to become Moralists; they go to Law School to become Lawyers. In this world, morality is only non-negotiable to the point where an action becomes illegal. Period.
The bullshit you are pushing aims to add an unending lists of things you don't appreciate (boo hoo, muh feelings) to the unofficial moral code--and then to push that unofficial moral code as the Only Single Moral Code, and you're full of crap. You know it. You can't point me to one fucking website, one Wikipedia list, with an all-encompassing or even mostly-encompassing list of "Moral" behaviors. You can't fucking do it. Because such a list doesn't exist.
"Right". "Wrong". "Moral". It's all fuckery. We start from what is LEGAL, and work from there. LEGAL or NOT? Resource-intensive, or not? Is the risk worth the reward, or not? Only after about 15 of these steps, do we approach any kind of need to ask ourselves if something is "moral" or not - and that's if we even still care by then.
Fucking a guy's wife - legal.
Paying to fuck a guy's wife - legal, but resource-intensive
Paying to fuck a guy's wife, oh and she has herpes - legal, resource intensive, and risk not worth the reward.
Do you understand? What else do I need to clarify here? You're spouting these generalities and "Society believes X" without any backing or examples whatsoever. I can't argue with shape-shifters, dude. Take a stand. Stop relying on buzzwords to make your argument for you.
I've been reading from top to bottom a lot of your replies and your replies for the most part are that of one of the guys that Illimitable man was talking about. You're spouting off about how there is only legal no moral... Right, you don't actually believe that shit do you. Here's an example: me and you are best friends growing up. I fuck your mom. Everything I did was legal, so we're good right? No, every dude I know and every dude you know would want to fight me then and there. There is at least a sense of a moral code whether you want to acknowledge it or whether it's written or not.
You obviously didn't read close enough, because I dived head first into gray area. And all that shit just flew right the fuck over your head, because you're only able to read what you want to read, and you ignore the rest.
I just got done goddamned covering this
The risk of fucking your friend's wife is clearly not worth the reward. Bang some 40/50-something for....what exactly? 80% of the reason you'd ever do it is specifically to piss him off, with the knowledge that he'll find out and you won't be friends afterward.
100x more likely is that I pick up someone's wife at a bar, and her husband comes through the next week or whatever and picks a fight with not just me, but the whole crew. That's a chance some people are willing to take. That's a chance that some people don't mind if their friends take.
You do not speak for every single group of friends in the United States, and you're smoking fucking crack if you think you are The One who has discovered the Universal Moral Code. You haven't. You're just another sack of shit like the rest of us. If i were you, I wouldn't waste my time finding people to feel morally superior to - I'd use that energy instead to make myself better.
What fairy tale am I arguing? What law am I arguing? I'm happy to discuss the ethics of bringing in the state and men with guns to enforce the tiniest of laws broken but that's for another day. I'm arguing self interest in the long run; emphasis long run
People go to law school to become lawyers not moralists, true. By going to 3 years of law school and four years of college, they trust that in 7 years they will be employable. The banks trust in 7 years they can get their loan money paid back. Trust allows an 18 year old whose personality isn't even close to settling in or maturing make these long term decisions that improve them in the long run. You don't pay that back lots of legal things happen but plenty of moral things happen such as your credit score going up in smoke. You no longer have the option for a lot of other long term plans such as buying a house or car or other education not in full. Or short term loans for a business. The credit score whack isn't a legal decision it's a moral one. And maybe not even self interested. Why do they care if a competitor get stiffed by this guy with a future loan? But they want to know in the future who's a deadbeat and want others to report who's a deadbeat, so a credit score mark and bad reputation is made, for the long run. I agree we start from risk vs reward. I'm arguing morality is what allows us to comprehend long term and and is a system for calculating that. It's increased reward, minimized risk, and allies time to become a factor whereas without morals we'd be focused on the here and now.
I cannot present a list with all morals ever as morals vary by culture and time. I can recommend a book that examines the physiology and biochemistry of morality, the Evo Bio roots, and how this is a system that independently developed in all cultures and in a few fish and birds (these non humans tend to be monogamous surprisingly enough leading me to think morality evolved as a side effect of something that was supposed to keep dad involved in raising resource intensive children and/or R vs k selection but that's just wild speculation at this point). I can also point to empiricism and how most societies have a version of the golden rule and how we feel bad when doing certain actions. Or Rousseau and the social contract who basically applies these arguments to legitimate government and how it can make people better off than being in the jungle in anarchy. Much of the specific actions are cultural though. In some cultures its fine to have sex with married men or woman or poly is the go to. What matters is keeping ones reputation in ones culture for the long term benefits that brings.
Your credit score is not a listing of your moral obligations; it's a list of the debts that companies have a LEGAL RIGHT to expect you to repay. The entire point of the credit report isn't some kind of moral punishment/reward; it's a number that determines the likelihood you'll pay back your debt obligations as per your original contract without the guarantor needing to waste unnecessary resources - like lawsuits or collections - forcing you to pay. It's about as statistical as it gets. Absolutely nothing about it is "moral", and I have no clue how you are so off base about it.
As I told the other random bro - there's more than just short-term and long-term, and moral and immoral, and good and evil. Your side of this argument has this infatuation with things like karma, and "make a quick buck", and blah blah, and everything all has to fit in the same puzzle or it doesn't work. My side doesn't suffer that same consequence because it's not based on emotion, and cooperation, and shaming. It's based on the fucking TRUTH of the matter.
And the TRUTH of the matter is that this entire argument is a poison pill, threatening to split this entire community in half. The drug community has "legalize only weed, or legalize everything?" - The Gay community has "Are we content with civil unions with equal rights to marriage, or do we want the right to the word marriage itself?" - and now we're dealing with this.
If you Unicorn-seekers get your way, it won't be long until we'll start seeing posts about "Oh, you're 50 years old and you go after 18 year old virgins? That's creepy, bro" and all this other fuckery. Men will be shamed for anything and everything the Liberal agenda craves - for not paying their employees more, for not paying enough taxes, for being in their 40s and not settling down, and on and on.
I mean, come on, it's so blatantly transparent. You're going to play the game, for the next few years or decades, and when it's time to settle down...maybe once you're a little older, in a little worse shape, not as full of vigor...you STILL want to be able to find your unicorn, and it kills you that it's possible your unicorn will go slink away with the first Thundercock she runs into who doesn't give a fuck about you or your inflexible morals.
The reason "evil" is attractive is because it gives you short term rewards in exchange for long term consequences.
Doing the right thing is the path of righteousness because you forego immediate success in exchange for greater rewards in the future.
Honesty, discipline, ethics are all virtuous and people who abide by these codes come out ahead in the long run.
Tit-for-tat is the winning strategy in game theory. I believe a similar policy in ethics would be most optimal.
[permanently deleted]
Randomized computer simulations of user inputted strategies put against one another, spanning many rounds
[permanently deleted]
The issue is that the society has largely eliminated long term consequences. People are expected to switch companies every few years to get ahead. People move around a lot more and maintain relationships for shorter periods of time. Screwing over your coworkers is a better strategy when you are only going to be with the company for a few years anyway.
I completely agree with your post. This is relevant:
http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-5-so-much-depends-on-reputation.html
I think moderation is the key to all aspects of life. It is the path I intend to follow. Let's look at it in this context. The problem with morality and immorality is at extremes it has no purpose, no end goal. If you live an immoral life, with no reasoning behind it, you become a slave to your natural instincts. You ruin others lives for acute instances of pleasure. On the flip side, if you live a purely moral life (in an imperfect world), you achieve nothing tangible because your tenants forbid it. I think the most reasonable conclusion (especially in an imperfect world), is to live a balanced life using morality as a base to protect yourself from self-destruction, and immorality when it is required to pursue a goal crucial to your legacy.
Logic and understanding is the key. Let's look at a few examples.
Example: Laying with your neighbors wife. You have two choices here. You can lay with her immorally for a sense of pleasure, or you can abstain. The problem is not in which you choose, but the reasoning behind it. Are you having sex with her for pleasure? If so, this is probably a bad choice as eventually your conscious will get the better of you and you could destroy her husbands life. He may also retaliate. In addition, you will be no better than the people you hate. But what if you're an American spy overseas? What if she has information you need crucial to your countries security and your job? Laying with her may be immoral, but it is likely the right decision given the circumstances.
Most of us will never be spies but the example holds. Sometimes wrong decisions must be made for the right reasons.
Example: Having sex with your ex. Let's say you break up with your ex and a few months/years down the road she approaches you and wants to have casual sex. You decline. You made the "moral decision". But what is the reasoning behind it? Did you do it out of a feeling of self superiority? "I'm better than her and she must pay"? While you made the moral decision, the reasoning behind it is cowardliness and false confidence. But what if you decline because you know sleeping with her would cause old feelings to come out? What if you're doing it out of self protection? Or fear of rape accusations? Then the "moral decision was the right decision".
These are two examples where the moral or immoral choice only becomes apparent based on the circumstances behind it. Sometimes we need to make the "bad decision" to further our goals. And sometimes we need to make the "right decision" to protect ourselves.
EDIT: phrasing
I agree with your assessment here. This is how one with moral principles, but is not idiotically a slave to such principles operates.
Why do you support gaylubeoil if he is basically the extreme opposite of what you are preaching?
I have love for everyone who tries to help men, whether we have the same stance on morality, or not. Differences aside, he is still a red piller. If he's helping men, he deserves support. If he's not, he won't have it. Simple.
This was a good read and aligns with how I take the stuff I read here. I'm not a hardcore redpiller but a lot of what I read has merit. There are many ideas here that do not take into account a broad spectrum of variables and tend to be a bit naive. There are also many ideas here that are very rational approaches and strip away outside influences, hence the name TRP. I apply what I find of worth to myself and nothing more. Many people here take it as a religion and that defeats the whole thought process.
Unfortunately idiots don't want to think for themselves, they want to be told how to think and follow someone.
[permanently deleted]
the ammount of upvotes you're getting contrasts sharply with the replies in this thread berating you. Personally I like very much that people like you have this vision, I've always admired your posts.
This is a great version of a post I wanted to write, thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it. I enjoyed writing it.
Great post, and I agree with everything you've written. Red Pill truths are undeniably true when interpreted in moderation, without extremism, however just because its true does not mean you have to violate your own moral codes in order to achieve success. If you do, then you are an immoral person. Just like stealing money from a ton of old people by being a scam artist might make you rich (which is a form of success), doing it is immoral. I am a moral person, and my morals outweigh simple success. Sometimes you do have to be immoral because the benefit gained is greater than the harm inflicted, in these situations you must simply have good judgement. Sometimess the greater good is whats most important.
I try to convey this same idea in many of my posts on this forum. Morality is important, but whats more important than simpleton morality is the end goal. Sometimes you have to break moral codes in order to achieve a greater good. Sometimes it is better to lie, cheat, steal because the long term benefit is greater than the short term cost.
Example: Juan steals medicine for his mother Bertha who cannot afford it, because without it she would suffer.
Example: Patel the Indian farmer values the life of the chicken and the cow, but he values his own well being and that of his fellow humans more than the animals. He believes that animal protein is an important part of the natural human diet. Therefore he supports the murder of the cow and chicken for the benefit of himself, his family, and his fellow humans.
Example: Peggy Sue cheats on her beta husband with DonJuan thundercock, resulting in children of superior genetics who grow up to become stronger and more successful in the world than if she had reproduced with her weak beta provider husband.
Example: Sam lies about his age on tinder and ends up meeting Elizabeth who falls in love with him, but who had set her age filter much lower and would never have even seen his profile had he been honest.
Morality is important, but the greater good is more important. You need to have the ability to weigh benefit vs damage inflicted when decided to do something immoral. If the benefit is significantly greater than the harm inflicted then breaking your moral code might be the right thing to do for that particular situation. Even a paladin kills in the name of justice.
I just read your comment and it seems pretty similar to mine. I agree. Sometimes the choice comes down to the circumstances.
And what is your prize or reasoning for being this morally principled person?
You said that people who are constantly out for themselves end up alone, but this is false. The immoral prosper all the time. It's true that some get caught and lose, but it's also true that the moral are penalized for it all the time in this world.
And both the moral and immoral wind up dead in the grave. Why should anyone care about reducing suffering and pain in this world, in this society that does not care about anyone? Because you get a good tingly feeling? And what of the man who has determined that such a tingly feeling is not worth it anymore?
You make good posts but you also appear to me to be conflicted in some sense. You write about dark triad and power, yet also bring up moral and principle consistencies. This is not the first time I've seen you write about this, and it makes me wonder if you're actually a highly moral, or even religious person, deep down, but are struggling to reconcile this with this brutal world we live in, or are dealing with some kind of cognitive dissonance. Or maybe I am projecting ;)
Either way, short of an actual divine authority, you're not accountable to anyone. They're all going to be dead anyways in a hundred years, why not use all the tools at your disposal to level mountains and destroy the weak to make this vapor of life we have enjoyable for the short duration it is? In the end, it counts for nothing, and I think being called a shitty person by a dead man walking is nothing.
Edit: The golden rule is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (Matthew 7:12). There is no indication that you will be reciprocated for doing good unto others. The incentive there is not to get favor from man - as we all know man will not always reciprocate - but rather to get favor from God, despite how man treats you. In other words, you're doing it unto God, not man.
Just want to add my 2 cents here, I believe that the Golden Rule predates the writing of the Bible, and, as I am not religious, I don't believe that the Bible is the word of God, however, it does put on paper an ancient concept of tribalism, in that, if we are to succeed in the face of the forces of nature or other tribes, we should be united (as a tribe or extended family), and it also acknowledges the fact that we are not strong at all times, however, we are still valuable to the tribe, so this is, I think, a type of group self-preservation.
Somewhat religious talking here.
I understand the game exists. I understand the treatment I give others will not be reciprocated in any way. I've been Blue Pilled screwed by this before.
TRP principles allowed me to understand the game. But I'd much rather burn at stake than see myself become the epitome of a male manwhore exuding false Alpha Fuck characteristics due to internal weakness (which ironically was what home wrecked my last relationship along with my misconceptions of women, love, and the game in general).
You said why not milk life for all it has to offer because we'll all end up dead. This is true. Money, women, sex. Why not?- because the principles I hold dear and live by are worth more to me than physical/materialistic instant gratification . I find more satisfaction in being the best I can be while sticking with my principles than milking the world. Doesn't this encompass some aspects of being Alpha? Strong willed and unyielding to the desires of women? Commanding authority while constantly self improving? Character development in the morally purest sense is worth more to me than getting pussy. I'm not deluded into thinking the game doesn't exist. But I make compromises (what op said about giving up certain aspects to keep living with these moral principles) to co-exist with the game.
"In the end it counts for nothing" - As a guy who has principles, I think it does count for something. Which is why I still stick by them. If you aren't religious or don't have a set of beliefs you live by then I'm not going to force you to understand this.
You take our "tingly" sensations we get as fleeting feelings. If I stuck by my principles purely for "tingly" sensations, I wouldn't have lasted long enough to even be here. I'd drop it as soon as I found out what being purely immorally Alpha could give me. That "tingly" sensation isn't what drives me to stick to my principles and morals. Its much more complex than that.
You yourself seem conflicted. You have a complete understanding of how people should live- milk the world before you die because we're all ending up there anyways. Its almost bitter. You question why men live by principles and morals and codes of honor, but you also have a complete understanding of why we do it- unto God. Perhaps this really is a projection to op o.O
And seeing as you're quoting Matthew without actually taking a stance on it:
Matthew 10:16 "“Behold, I am sending you like sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves."
That's exactly how I'm going to co-exist with the game while going by my principles. Easy pussy and instant gratification is fun. But to me its a very small percentage in the grand scheme of things. There are better and greater things to do.
Edit: my moral principles are NOT driven by the fact that my religion teaches life after death. I personally don't believe in it at the moment. To do so for reward is no different in trying to milk the world before we die.
I think moral behavior is commendable, respectable, and extremely important for society to function properly.
With that said, adhering strictly to moral behavior is an example of a captured agent. Your behavior is serving the good of society and the community at the possible sacrifice of the individual. The definition of Alpha is really irrelevant to the individual who wishes to maximize his fulfillment. If he wishes to be a beacon of righteousness and that fulfills him, he may do so, being fulfilled in upholding the foundation of society. However, he must be aware of the fact he is serving society and not only himself.
There is no right or wrong here. Right and wrong are human conceptions. It is only a choice of whose interests one chooses to serve. Most choose to serve society, and thank goodness, or else we would not have society at all! It is no wonder moral action is held in such high regard. By serving only the individual, one essentially takes advantage of others who choose to sacrifice themselves in service of society. However, does the individual take advantage of other society serving individuals or does he take advantage of the moral framework which creates society?
Again, there is no right or wrong. Only who you choose to serve.
It is not like you serve society 100%. That would be foolish. Everybody serves society in one way or another, more or less, just by existing. You don't have to fall into the trap of all-or-nothing trap.
I think I understand exactly where you're coming from here. I was raised in a Christian family and eventually stopped believing all but the bits about morality. I think it was because the moral systems in many religions are actually pretty good. Denying instant gratification for long-term happiness for not only yourself but your family after you and stuff like that. Those concepts actually make really good sense logically speaking. Cultivate a life you can live comfortably in. I think this is what most people subconsciously go for if they're intelligent. It is much more difficult for people to live comfortably when they're in the company of immoral dark triad fucks that just pretend to be their friends for self gain. Those ideas are so appealing for a reason. They help us shame those people out of social groups they don't deserve to be in. All it takes is one selfish prick to ruin the morale and cohesion of a group.
[permanently deleted]
You are correct, so I probably should have phrased my sentence differently.
All the time, immoral people are prospering (but not all immoral people).
I agree they might not be the majority.
My point is that bad behavior will not always get punished in this world. I don't think justice actually exists here. Here on TRP people bring up "The Wall", and what is really going on there many times is a hope for justice to find its way against these shitty women and their bad behavior, but that doesn't always happen. Sometimes these women prosper until the end of their lives.
Might is right in this world, and if you can get ahead with immorality, why shouldn't you? The OP points out that immoral people are basically being dishonest by hiding behind some veil of amorality, when they know their actions are immoral, but why would this immoral person suddenly decide to be honest on this point when in fact he has been getting ahead, dodging damage to his reputation, by spinning his own immorality as anything but?
Assuming that behaving moraly, as opposed to immorally, goes against self-interest is not true. In fact, it is in many situations the optimal strategy. It is in your best interest to cooperate with people, making moral behaviour as selfish as Machiavellian behaviour.
The key is to adapt the strategy to your environment.
A lot of people here are fucked up. They don't realise that you can have a good life being moral, too. They equate morality with weakness because they are jaded, have a poverty mindset, and think they have to fuck everyone over to "get theirs."
The wisest Machiavellian knows when it's in his interest to be moral, and when he needs to ignore his morals. When it is wise to be immoral, and when indulging such immorality will result in a net negative.
The more stupid among us just think "evil is supreme" and disdain anyone who doesn't fit their idea of superiority. Which, in a nutshell, is being a psychopathic cunt.
[permanently deleted]
I'm with you, Oversia. If a woman wants to fuck another man, she'll find a way. Somewhere in the sidebar there's even a description of the extreme lengths to which a woman will go, including hiding in a broom closet (or something of that nature) in order to fuck a desirable alpha, without considering the consequences.
As a man, I get pissed off because women are never held accountable for their actions. Yet, after swallowing the pill, i'm aware I can't do anything about this. Instead we must understand their nature and adapt ourselves.
Yet I'm being told that I may be an immoral piece of shit if I fuck another man's girlfriend?
The female is to blame here. Its in our nature to want to fuck as many women as possible. We're the gatekeepers to commitment and women are the gatekeepers of sex.
If women want to fuck up their lives, so be it. But I'm held responsible for morality? If we never tried to fuck another man's significant other, then our species would die.
I don't understand when I should be trying to be moral when it comes to women. In the other areas of my life, I am content with the state of my morality. I treat my business partners well and I live a life where I attempt to add value to the lives of my friends and family. Yet, when it comes to women, my morality doesnt necessarily translate over.
Just because I lack morality when deciding to fuck another man's girlfriends, doesn't mean I'm immoral in other aspects of my life.
There is an unspoken rule in TRP forums : "Never blame women for their hypergamous tendencies." If a woman branch-swings, it's the man's fault for not showing enough value.
In the words of Dante Nero "If anything goes wrong it’s always your fault"
That's empowering in the sense that I'm always the one responsible if a woman decides to leave me. This means that if ive got my shit together, I'll always be in control of the relationship and she should never leave.
So you're telling me that even if my value is higher than hers, she will never cheat, ever? Or is there always an exception to this unspoken rule?
Im just having difficulties coming to terms that they re never at fault and never accountable.
[permanently deleted]
[permanently deleted]
I guess I interpreted it differently. I think he is saying know the difference between immoral and amoral. Find where in that spectrum you want to be and maybe you need to be in society and live that life. In essence be yourself.
You are correct. I'm not bothered by what the guys above are saying. They'll still read my shit.
I get shit when I do dark triad posts from moralists, too.
You will never please everybody. Don't try to. Please yourself.
Wow, man, you just gave me an epiphany. So what you're saying that the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would like them to do unto yourself) is basically bullshit because it assumes that all men are equal. Obviously we can observe in nature how a man is stronger and another man is weaker. But that is only a snapshot in time. Yes, a man can be stronger at one point, but he can become weak due to disease, accident or just plain age. And that is what society is all about, a bunch of rules that extend in time, from generation to generation. (excuse me, I'm just blabbering)
Exactly. I feel like this was posted a month and 17 days late, and that our "Lol jk" is coming any time now.
I have a very high thresh-hold for what is and isn't immoral. Simply gaming and bedding a taken woman does not cross that. Now, if I were to, say, doctor a goddamned video/pictures of her husband showing him kissing another woman, and then use those fake pictures to convince her to sleep with me; or send a friend to buy a bunch of drinks for him at a bar, then send a prostitute his way, etc etc - then yes, even if I didn't break any laws, that's immoral as fuck, and cheap.
Blackmail, breaking the law, intimidation, entrapment, all stuff I won't touch. But 1v1? I'm 360noscoping that ass, married or otherwise.
I think you are picking this apart in an incorrect manner.
You are correct this women should you choose not to fuck her will eventually likely do it with another man. This does not absolve you of doing an immoral act. If there was never an opportunity for this women to cheat then she would not cheat. This is not realistic though and at the end of the day this women is likely to find a vessel for her act.
Would I fuck another dudes GF or wife. 100%. Does this mean I acted immorally. 100%. This is the point he is attempting to make. Just because she would've done it anyways doesn't absolve you of the action. Take mental credit for what you've done and either accept and move on or hamster it away.
You kinda missed the point. Or at least what i gleaned from this despite my own person thinking somewhat differently from the author.
Very well said. It certainly has bothered me when someone says, 'RedPill is completely amoral, so if you have moral objections to actions like knowingly sleeping with another guy's wife, you are bluepill' which is pretty much what I read recently; calling a guy 'bluepill' if they don't agree with you is exactly like feminists calling people 'misogynist' if they don't agree.
I completely agree that Redpill is first and foremost a collection of empirically-derived information about the behaviours of men and women - and information is amoral; it is either true or false, no more. It also advocates advice for men to improve their lot, such as lifting, dread game, etc. Actions can have moral dimensions, but I don't see this here, it is just fine. But to go from that to saying that everybody is out for themselves, it is dog-eat-dog, so read 48 Laws and live by that - no. I read 48 Laws, and some of them are worth practising, some are more a warning of what unscrupulous people will do, so be on your guard.
Knowing AWALT, it is not immoral to avoid marriage, nor to spin plates if those women are aware that this is the relationship they have. It is not immoral to exercise your right to walk away from a relationship, nor to tailor your interactions to achieve greater success (handling shit tests, eg), if you are not doing malice to the other person in so doing.
RedPill is not a morality play, what you do with the information is up to you and your own moral code. But really, who do you look up to, who are your heroes? Machiavelli, Cesare Borgia? Or Marcus Aurelius, George Washington, Admiral Nelson, Spartacus?
Yes, as a community we have to check ourselves before we wreck ourselves. Luckily the old users and the mods are pretty good at distinguishing between different moral principles and someone who is hopelessly blue pill. We may not always get it right, but we will most of the time. As much as we want to keep out blue pill idiots and shills, we must also endeavour to retain balance within our own philosophy. When some people interpret it in one way, and others in another way, it creates separatism. That's how religions get sects like catholicism, protestants, etc. We have MGTOWs, PUAs, Husbands and all kinds here under the RP banner.
We have people of different moralities here. No morality is supreme. It simply is what it is. Judging other people's morality or trying to label them as "other" for having different moral principles is unwise and not conducive. This is a big difference between the guy who doesn't understand and rejects TRP philosophy as a whole, and the guy who understands TRP but doesn't think that necessitates he has to become a psychopath to make full use of it.
We must be able to discern that difference. To distinguish a blue pill troll/idiot from a man who gets the game but has certain principles he adheres to. If this community completely agreed with itself, it would be boring and innovation would suffer. In light of that, the moral diversity is a good thing in my opinion.
In summary: All's fair in love and war
I was getting a massive influx of followers today and I was wondering why. Its because of this shoutout so thanks. I uploaded a couple of video to my twitter check them out.
She has the power to decide if she wants to cheat.
If its not me she's cheating with it will be someone else. I have no mercy for her boyfriend its his fault she even thinks about cheating.
The only time I won't fuck another mans girl is if the boyfriend is part of my social circle.
This also makes me think of these videos. Check out this guy's youtube videos. Pretty motivating stuff to say the least.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps4hAQ_Fp5k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z4Kft47kBM
Thank you for this great post. Swallowing the red pill is a really confusing process and after having overcome the denial phase, one can find themselves in a position to question all of their values (out of frustration resulting from a shattered perception of reality), and I think you provided a clear picture of what the red pill really is. This subreddit is not only about what you HAVE to do as a man once you know the rules of the game, but also about what decisions you can make once you know these rules to become the man you want to be. That is the true alpha attitude : shaping up your personality despite the social pressures.
Great post. The quality of your writing has gone up tremendously. You don't overuse big words like you used to. Everything is extremely clear and fluent. Keep scribbling.
The people who make "shit business partners" fail to realize that they have to guard their reputations. That is the practical dimension to being a moral person. They understand this unconsciously, so they try at great cost to themselves to redefine what it means to have a "good reputation." That's basically what liberalism and religion is.
You are bang on the money here. Bang on. You understand the benefits of being a person who adheres to moral principles when he can afford to, but is not a slave to such things when another tries to exploit said principles.
TRP has and will always be a salad bar. Take what you want and leave the rest. Thanks for the good read.
There is a great deal of ethical inconsistency in your post.
One minute you're berrating utilitarian ethics ("doesn't matter, had sex")
The next minute you're criticizing master/slave ethics as a "metaphysical perspective."
Followed quickly by more hedonist/utilitarian bashing “I have no commitment to that other guy, I don’t even know him, so if his girl wants my dick, I’m going to press that.”
Then you rave about virtue or "the principle" of a choice as if that will save you after basically saying
"Most people who advocate for immoral behaviour don’t even have the conviction to call what they’re advocating for immoral. They know it’s immoral"
In short
So you're preaching a deontological ethics with a kind of moral duty but advocating virtue ethics.
There's a lot of potential here but I think if you're going to write on ethics you should do some reading on ethics.
I agree with this statement.
[permanently deleted]
Do you think having morals is good? Don't you have morals?
[permanently deleted]
So clearly you don't believe in any action as necessarily good or bad based on a moral duty. But that doesn't actually resolve the problem of ethics in society. here is Dr. Sadler on Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics teaching it much better than I can.
[permanently deleted]
But how am I going to hamster away my responsibility for the consequences of my choices if people see right through me when I trot out the "Herp derp TRP is amoral!" line?
I object to morality even being discussed in the context of TRP. It's like discussing morality in the context of being a Star Wars fan: "Let us examine whether you can still act morally even though you love George Lucas' entire oeuvre." Such a topic would be irrelevant and pointless, just like it is here.
To be Red Pill is to acknowledge women have a certain nature, and how as a man we might reconcile ourselves to it -- TRP is not a platform for a discussion of how to be "moral." It also seems to concede intellectual frame and ground to the standard feminist objections to TRP, you know, like that we should feel ashamed for some reason for merely understanding what AWALT or the Hamster is.
Great post. Society is full of people who don't trust men. Guy's who nail skanks are evil "users" while guys who give everything for a woman's love are apparently also evil. Talking to a woman who just broke up will be suspected of trying to abuse her emotional distress or have otherwise ulterior motives. Some feminists even question whether they should publicize information about rape reporting rates because they think it'll give otherwise decent men ideas. Bogus stats of violence against women, cultural Eliot Rogers, and one in five run rampant. Society just doesn't trust men with information or with women.
The red pill is a place that simply decides to trust men. We map out the game and say "If you do this, this will happen" and then we leave it up to men to make their own decision. Just because we disagree with a decision doesn't make it wrong. That guy's a free agent and probably has some reasons for what he does. We don't trust men to make a decision we agree with, we trust them to make a decision that fits their own considerations.
IMO, this is a mediocre post.
1) you create a false dichotomy between the "amoral" hypocrite and the "justice"-based guy. The reality is that everyone on earth has very strong hypocritical feelings regarding the golden rule; it's just that a select few are able to consciously recognize this hypocrisy, and the only logical step after doing that is to internalize amorality. Moreover, a single individual will often vary wildly between these extremes as a function of time and environment.
2)"These people, the "amoral bandwagon" as I call them, like to prioritise incentive over justice. These people make shit friends and business partners.""
Firstly, putting incentive above all else is what creates a successful businessman.
Secondly, just because you are very pro self-interest, it doesn't mean you're incapable of developing a close friendship. Our biology is built in a way such that we tend to give a shit about people we know.
3) You should have also mentioned race. Everything you write about is discouraged by heterogeneous societies, and promoted by homogeneous ones. People treat strangers a lot better if they know that they're related to them.
Capitalism is far from a problem for men. Socialist alternatives focus on redistribution of income from men to women, while men have no limit to their power to thrive in the unconstrained free market.
Appreciate the post. This is something I think about almost daily. I was raised by my father to have a very strong sense of honor. All good it did him, he died early. Lately, I've realized that it is simply a self imposed handicap in the current society, nothing more. West is falling apart, and it a huge scramble for people to tear a piece out of a dying beast. Kill or be killed. It is a giant prisoner dilemma. In an ideal world, we would all collaborate, in an idea world communism works, but we do not live in it. I held out longer than most, trying to do the right thing, but you can only kick a friendly dog so much before it start tearing shit up. So now, I'm slowly, growing more psychopathic, just trying to survive. But i do not enjoy it. Every day I ponder, is this the day I blow my brains out? A few of my friends did. Seems like there are only 2 options for me. And it seems like the only people that survive are the ones that actually enjoy this shit. Maybe I can learn to enjoy being immoral.
You will find your balance eventually. It's a matter of being immoral when necessary, but having principles when you can afford to. The twist comes with being able to successfully analyse when it is safe to adhere to principle, and when it is not.
What a fantastic piece. Thanks to /u/IllimitableMan for posting this, because you've at least changed the way I'll look at morality. The level of abstraction makes it likely hard to comprehend for many, but the people who will respond to it most will be those with the capacity for high (or very low) moral reasoning anyway.
The post essentially outlines that a sense of justice and similar principles is a burden: it limits the actions you can take. It is important to note that while your actions are limited (in terms of selection), the rewards for actions conducive to justice could be the same as those conducive to immorality. We'll never know the complete consequences of either side, so the best we can do is go with whatever our innate sense tells us to, which can automatically weigh if your biological strengths are enough to carry the burdens of morality or not. I'd like to say that whichever side triumphs is the one superior, but after humans have existed this long and neither side triumphs, it makes more sense that there is an equilibrium.
An astute observation I concur with. Morality is a taboo. It inspires the most emotional as well as the most intellectual to come forth.
Maybe you are right. I had this kind of argument 2 days ago while i was at a party. It was 4am and i was quite drunk, so i shouldn't have had it anyway, but it finished with me being called "morally wrong", since i have no problem with dating/fucking girls who are in a relationship. At least if they aren't together with friends of mine. I asked them to tell me why they cannot do it (in their words) and thought they are weak, but yeah, they just have their morals as i have mine. Reading your post made me realize that i just got defensive because i thought i have to declare my opinions valid. There is no point in it. There is only one thing to add: While i wouldn't want my girl to get fucked by another man, i wouldn't make a big deal out of it for the guy(s). It is between her and me, independent of the other guy knowing about me or not. I try not to be a hypocrit. I'm quite conform with /u/MarcusArgentius points too.
edit:words and grammar
I read this with a "Dog eat dog" mentality.
Knowing that "life eats life", "dog eats dog" is no longer a mentality, just another thing that we do.
Great read. I would argue against your interpretation of Neitche. In Beyond Good and Evil he goes into great depth on the moral perceptions of man, an oversimplification of the master morality would lead the unprepared to believe their ability can overcome the consequences of immoral actions. In the modern context this brlief is the incarnation of Nitche's last man, a pleasure seeking idiot, but a confident idiot. The idea of the master morality forging principles beyond the subjective chains of "good" and "evil" are cemented in motivations beyond the scope of that primitive foundation, and sure as shit beyond getting your dick wet.
The common moral framework that, until very recently, ubiquitous in the West is centered around the advancement of society as a whole. It's cooperative game theory where participants agree to a mutually beneficial strategy for best outcomes. This social contract IS civilization. A self interested person can take a dominate strategy at others expense in legal circumstances. In a culturally homogenous environment, this person's behaviour is deemed immoral and he/she suffers from a loss of reputation, avoidence, and eventually exclusion. When thus framework breaks down, everyone is forced to adopt a protective strategy at considerable cost, both direct cost and opportunity cost. Civil discource has lost its enforcement mechanism and the multi-cult reigns supreme. Unless and until there is a dramatic shift nothing is going to change.
At an individual level however, ingroup reputation is still paramount. Shit behaviour is still shit behaviour, it'll catch up to you in unexpected ways.
I was going to post something similar, but since you described it all so great, there is no need, but since i believe we were both motivated by the same thread, or rather its comments ill leave my 2c.
People should really start to tread TRP as a library and not the absolute truth. I believe it was rollo who said, that he does not want rollo clones all over the world and so does the redpill. It doesnt exist for the sole purpose that you should absorb all its knowledge, but rather to find your own path on the jurney and apply only the knowledge, that has value on your path. There is no perfect alpha behaviur and i am sure there never will be. But it bothers me, that some of you completely ignore superb ideas, great posts and knowledge, just because OP said one sentence that doesnt adapt to your moral standarts. Instead of absorbing the part of the post that has value for you, you go and rant into the comment section what a dick OP is, because he has the wrong standarts.
This wonderfull place exists to help you, if you want to give life changing advice on morality and shit, r/relationship is always looking for new white knighty femen with high morality. I myself have standards, they are not the greatest, but im not going to go and fuck my neighburs wife. But do i feel the urge to tell you its wrong if you do it? She is a whore after all... NO! And you know why? It does not contribute any value to the point that is usually being made in this kind of posts.
This is a place that has the potencial to save your life, change your life and much much more. Thread it and the contributors that try to help you with the respect they deserve, take what is of value for you and leave the books that are not interesting for your life style on the shelve. Its a library of great knowledge, but just as any other library in this world, you have to use it right, to get the best books (in this case knowlege and life changing theory) out of it.
It has less to do with capitalism and more to do with neoliberal ideas spread by jews who have always viewed gentiles as fair game.
It's easier to exploit a group of people that has lost religious morals and believes in a "greed is good", "dog eat dog" world than it is to exploit a group of truly religious people that stand up for their fellow men and play their part in enforcing moral standards to varying degrees.
Psychopaths and sociopaths will always be around as a genetic variation, but groups bound by strong moral concepts are much more resilient to them.
TRP needed this. Honestly. You changed your rep, this was needed.
I needed this right now. Thank you.
I understand why the mods are against replies that focus solely on a person's morality. getting bogged down in moral debate detracts from actual analysis.
this post is essential, though, because it clarifies what is meant by "redpill is amoral." i think many people, especially when they first start reading redpill, get the impression that if they want to implement redpill, they have to be amoral themselves. repdill thus filters out these men because they can't allow themselves to be amoral--doing so would go against, you know, their morals. as a result people who are more naturally down with amorality are more likely to embrace redpill. thus, the overall perspective expressed here heavily leans toward the amoral type.
obviously this post resonates with men who were having this internal debate about sacrificing their morality. now they see that they don't have to. this is leading to an influx of people of this mindest, which i think is a good thing because it balances the "trp is amoral so i can be amoral" mindset. the more perspectives represented, the better the redpill analysis will become.
that being said, debating morality is not related to actual red-pill analysis. it's unnecessary to comment on whether you think a given action is moral or amoral and it ultimately detracts from discussion. people can have morals and be redpill. people can be amoral and be redpill. repill is amoral--it doesn't care if a person is moral or amoral.
I feel as though there's a TL,DR missing here. Here's my take on "morality."
Don't live with a chick unless you're married. They're a mess and they'll ruin your life.
Don't get married.
Don't care one way or the other whether or not you cheated on your girlfriend because it's not a damn crime and since you're not married there is ZERO penalty. In fact, it's not "cheating" at all. It's just something she made up to try and control you. Do you cheat on your favorite pair of pants when you wear other pants? No. It's called "doing some other things."
I don't think it's got a damn thing to do with morality more than it has to do with common sense and what can you live with. You are ALWAYS going to have male acquaintances who have gf's that are down to FUCK you behind the dude's back. You are ALWAYS going to be challenged as to whether this is a good idea or bad idea. You are ALWAYS going to know some "weird dude" who wants you to help tag team his chick. You are ALWAYS going to be challenged as to whether this is a good idea or bad idea.
Most of your "morality" depends on where you are going in life and where you want to go in life. People always complain that chicks aren't terribly moral, well that's true, but women really don't go anywhere in life. Most chicks don't have direction, they just happen upon things and happen upon circumstances. They go through life coping and dealing with all sorts of shit because they're sensitive and they FEEL everything ad nauseam. Men don't feel as much so men can have direction. Goals set and goals met. Your male morality, sad to say, is probably more of an afterthought than a priority. It is based on meeting your goals and having male friends you can live with and benefit from. Obviously if you fuck over a male friend, you risk setting yourself back. If you fuck over a male acquaintance there may be "surprise" setbacks you don't know about - or not. It's all risks.
You'll have a lot more clarity if you just de-friend every single woman in your life. You will notice that maybe only 1 in 100 women-you're-not-having-sex-with can do something for you, like book your rock 'n roll band at a particular club, and she's probably FAT AS HELL. I encourage you to take the red pill regarding your male friendships as well. Every dude you're friends with needs to provide some kind of value to you, and if he doesn't you should kick him to the curb.
You can view life as a party where people just arrive, hang out, do nothing, drink until they get sick - OR - you can make up your mind that your time here is short, there's shit you want to do, and you're going to figure out how to get from point A to point B and throw ANYBODY under the bus who doesn't help you get there.
This post is spot on. Love it.
As someone who has been on this bandwagon before, thank you. I needed my amoral ass pointed out to me.
No. It is a description of an action or a series of actions that go against a moral code. It works (gets results) some of the time and fails some of the time. So you fuck 10 different wives and number 10 has a freak husband with a shotgun and your address. Its said that Chargers HOF QB Dan Fouts missed a game because he was shot in the shoulder by some enraged husband. The Grand Jury in that case came to no conclusion on that one. So there are upsides and downsides to following morality or ignoring it. TRP logic appears to be silent on the question of whether one should or should not follow morality.
I will admit I have not pressed on some married women who were hot and ready to go. Not sure why. It seemed like the move at the time.
Completely wrong. Amorality is exactly what is described. What is amoral is the knowledge of how things work. You can use that knowledge within a moral framework (use holding frame and dread to improve your relationship with your wife/LTR) or you can use that knowledge within an immoral framework (seduce other men's wives, as you've suggested).
Because the knowledge of what works and what doesn't is amoral. What you do with that knowledge is up to you. TRP remains successful by being a knowledge base rather than a movement. We are here to tell you what works and what doesn't. We are not here to tell you what to do and as such it remains a philosophy rather than becoming an ideology.
Fucking exactly. The information "TRP" is what is amoral. One's actions, however related, are still separate from the information, and the information does not automatically constitute an excuse for the actions, despite the wishes of some here to the contrary.
If one wishes to act solely on short term gratification, hey great, go for it. But if one tries to sell the rest of us shit while calling it ice cream, and then get butt hurt when people see it for what it is, it just makes one look like a hypocrite.
People need to learn to own their shit.
I have no problem telling men what they should do, because I'm not a pussy and I believe my way of looking at things is most likely better than theirs.
I also think a lot of imbeciles call ways of acting 'amoral' or 'immoral' simply because the principles aren't universal. I think paying someone to beat up a guy who's starting a competing business is the right thing to do. If he tried to hire someone to beat me up, I think that is the wrong thing to do. He is not within my moral circle. Maturity is realizing that your moral circle doesn't have to include everything and that 'double standards' are a-o-k.
Whether or not an action is immoral is not an indicator of whether it would "work" or not. There are two definitions of amoral:
adjective 1. not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral. 2. having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person.
There are many, many actions that are both stupid and immoral. Some are smart and immoral. You could selfishly risk the lives of everyone in a bank to rob it at gunpoint. Is that smart? 99% of the time it is stupid because they are going to catch you pretty often.
The idea that immorality is an indicator that an action is going to be utilitarian is just dumb. There are plenty of immoral actions which are stupid and will get you killed. There are moral actions that will get you killed or disadvantage you seriously.
There are even different moralities. For example, in Judaism it is not moral to eat shellfish. Everyone else says its ok.
All of this focus on "dark triad" personalities and the like is a red herring. Many sociopaths get caught in crime. Its stupid to act sociopathically when the vast majority of society opposes it and has created defenses (laws, judges, police, the ability of police to kill resisting suspects).
Whether you want to follow morality or not is your call. But it might be a dumb move depending on the situation. Fucking a jealous guy's wife in the bathroom at the gun range while you guys are all there shooting is amoral and dumb.
There is this foolish belief that following morality means that you are unaware of how things work. Not true. You are choosing to follow the rules because you have been trained that way. The fact that you can choose not to follow rules does not mean you understand the world better than others.
A little FR to demostrate. I'm 46. A few weeks back I was at the bar and I ran into a friend with two chick friends visiting from out of state. I started talking to the ugly one and she was into me. She was unmarried. The super-hottie 40 year old was married. She got interested in me. I got everyone back to my place and my fully-stocked bar cart and started hitting on the hottie and dancing with her. She was really, really into me. Tried to get her to stay and the best friend kept trying to change the music away from dancing music because my hands were on her married best friends hips and she was loving it. ASD of course kicks in, she's not going to fuck me when her best friend who is close friends with her husband was right there. What I did was amoral. You are not supposed to be getting close to another man's wife with sexual intent and encourage her sexual response.
Yet it did not disadvantage me. So what if it doesn't work? Beta hubby is not flying across the country to get me. He's not going to find out, if he does, they don't know my last name and my buddy isn't going to give up my name or address. A different situation than the gun range example.
I would like to think that if a married woman gives herself to you, it is not immoral to take her at that point, but if you make a point of taking on only married women, that may create a problem.
I mostly stay away from other dude's women because of the potential shitstorm. The saying is to never stick your dick in crazy. If she's got a man and is still down to fuck, chances are significantly higher that there's some crazy in there.
All women are crazy, so if you go by that argument, you'd stay celibate.
It's an idiom, not a categorical maxim. You're missing the nuance.
[permanently deleted]
5-second philosophy lesson:
Suppose you and a good cross-section of the society are plucked by a genie out of the world, and you all get to see the world playing out beneath you. You spend a lifetime doing so, learning seeing every variation and circumstance. Every turn of bad luck. Every life destroyed before it even starts by psychological trauma. Every hero, every villain, every martyr, every saint.
He then makes a deal with the group: "Now that you have seen the world from this perspective, and no one else has, I'm going to give you an unprecedented opportunity. You now all get to now change the rules (by majority rule, say). You can create any sense of justice you like in the world. Here's the catch though: when I put you back into this world, you have no idea who you will be. You could be homeless parapalegic. You could be a CEO, prisoner, soldier, grandmother, or infant, or rockstar, or doctor, or just some schlub working at McDonald's."
The rules you come up with are, collectively, justice.
For more reading, consider John Rawls' A Theory Of Justice. If you just want to read about the thought experiment, it's called "Veil of Ignorance".
Applied to the OP, here's the question:
If you didn't know whether you'd be the cuckolded or the cuckholder, would you allow adultery to be completely moral and just? Remember, you also don't know whether you are smart or dumb, attractive or ugly, tall or short, confident or shy.
I don't like morals. They are too subjective, warm and fuzzy. I like ethics Ethics are more clinical. Ethics are a system, morals spring from feelings.
Ever heard of something called a moral system?
Ethics and morals are the same thing.
Amoral, Immoral, Moral, Unmoral, Undermoral, Overmoral blablabla. You can repeat nifty words a billion times but it's still complete horseshit.
/u/IllimitableMan: If you violate someone else's rights because there is incentive for you (stealing, adultery etc) that's bad.
This is what the entire post rests upon, the fact that you have moral code which rests upon ancient Bro-Knighting principles as honor between men, bro's before ho's, being upright as a man and everyone else is supposed to be feel really really guilty for not adhering to that level of excellence.
I have a moral code, but it's one which is a lot different from yours, and yours is different from the mainstream SJW's code. You might call it immoral, but I don't give a shit since that opinion is purely based on your subjective perspective.
Would I steal a million from someone else if there were no repercussions: Fuck Yes
Will I fuck a horny woman regardless if she's single/married/mother/grandmother or whatever: Fuck Yes.
Do I expect anyone else to do the same to me if given the chance: Fuck Yes
Will I give a flying fuck if that doesn't correspond with someone else's perception of a moral code: No.
So, Christian men should go according to Turning the Other Cheek Rule: If some dude fucks your wife in the pussy, beg him to fuck her in the ass, also.
Your problem is you're driven by the golden rule as if it were the only moral principle. I have recently come to abandon it because it's just an immature and simple answer to a very complicated question. The golden rule is an attempt to deny the reality of how we perceive the world. We humans naturally divide the world into an "inside" (good) and and "outside" (bad). We create physical barriers that restate this divide (like castle walls, bedroom doors, the Great Wall of China), and verbal barriers (hero/terrorist, flattery/creeping, success/failure). All of these concepts are dependent on making an ego-boundary between what you identify with vs. what you do not identify with. The reason why the golden rule fails as a moral principle is because it suggests that everyone is on the inside of the ego divide. This is an extremely wimpy and non-confrontational way to live.
A lot of the actions that you're trying to describe as someone being falsely amoral and his actions as factually immoral are the result of that man making a division between who's on the inside vs who's on the outside in a way differently from how you do. I think it's much more ballsy to make commitments in your life that imply competition. It's more manly to determine whose success is your failure and vice versa. Your tirade here suggesting that everyone who doesn't want to lift everyone up is being self-deceptively immoral is just a suggestion that competition is bad. Competition is masculinity, and it's the one saving force to keep us all from becoming androgynous blobs.
The more you're willing to fight for things that others are willing to fight for, the more masculine and the better your life. You're complaining that sometimes men win fights that make the other guy feel bad because he lost some stuff that was important to him. Yes. That's right. And the only shit worth fighting for is the stuff that people think is important to them. And it's through those contests of will that hierarchy and status are determined. And it's only weak-willed, spineless men who fear where they'd fall in the hierarchy that treat those kind of status-determining competitions as evil.
That whole post reeks of what Nietzsche calls 'slave morality.' And the fact that it's coming from a common poster on this sub leads other weaklings to want to rally around their fear and act like it's admissible. It's not.
Edit: Was this too manly?
The problem may not be with you. :-)
I've upvoted you. Not going to give a point by point reply though.
Fine, however, we can't be strong 100% in life. When you are a baby, you are weak. A man like Conan the Barbarian would squish you like a grape. When you are old and frail, again, you are weak. The power of the Golden Rule comes into play in defending and protecting you in the context of society, for it's very own perpetuation. It is group self-preservation.
Earlier today I visited your site and read the dark triad post, I scored low on the syko and average at the rest. It got me wondering wtf am I supposed to do, and I came to the same conclusion you wrote here. This couldn't be more appropriate time for me to have seen this. Thanks, and it's great to see another man being eloquent and verse in game.
All can meet women and fuck without becoming psychopaths, that needs to be repeated on this site, so young guys dont fuck their lives up.
Even from a utilitarian perspective, the social contract theory of justice makes pretty good sense if you don't want to contribute to a society that encourages betrayal and corruption. It may have short term benefits for key people but I can't recall an instance where it benefitted the society as a whole in the long term. It is a mark of maturity to be able to restrain your drive for short term pleasure seeking in order to cultivate long term success. This applies to ethics as well I think.
Quality post. It's definitely worth mentioning that having personal standards doesn't equate to being beta.
I don't have time to see if someone else suggested this, but I believe this post should be on the side bar. It's a great wrap up to all the information over there. The icing on the cake if you will. So, official sidebar request.
the best sexual strategy is amoral period. Acting with morals is like tying one hand behind your back because your opponent chooses to do the same. One of you will untie their hands and throttle the other when they start to lose. It is blue Pill to act with morals, because Red pillers don't care about others emotions, and put ourselves above others. Also how is fucking some ones wife amoral they make the choice to do it why are you shifting the blame you didn't marry him.
I have to disagree. Men are inherently valuable. that's the key message of NMMNG. You can choose to go along with the cultural messages we are getting now, but that would be an error, because we decide if we are to be valuable.
Well I've decided I'm god and you should all treat me as such.
... Not working quite well, is it?
You don't get to decide your value to others. Others decide it. Society dictates that women are human beings while men are human doings. This is life, we just gotta live with it.
Why should you care what others think? That is the pure essence of betahood. Caring about other's opinions.
Because no man is an island. You still care what others think, you just don't let it rule you.
you can use it to your advantage, but buying into other's valuation frames is fatal.
I declare my house worth $1 trillion dollars! I demand a purchase!
Nothing has inherent value. Both sentences are dumb.
Nothing has any value, in that arrangement. Literally the universe will never care. Say you are Genghis Khan and you are the direct forebear of 1 in 200 men on Earth. Do you have more value than me? Says who? Eventually the sun will burn out. Eventually every place humans fly to will be destroyed in a big crunch or suffer energy death through entropy. There will be a time when there will be zero human descendants living. So it matters not from the objective standpoint whatever we do. It is pointless, unless you are into that Jesus stuff. So then, why should you not value yourself above all others and not buy into the idea that men are worthless. It is in your own subjective benefit to do so and there is no subjective benefit to you to not value yourself.
Well, you're making an implicit statement that only eternal things are valuable. And that's just a hang-up of Christian/Platonic metaphysics in our culture.
It's okay to say things are valuable, but you don't have to go the extra step and say they are "inherently" valuable. Value comes from a decision and an act of will. Whenever a person tries to act like value is just in the world, that person is trying to not take responsibility for the values that they themselves are positing - treating that which is created as though it were discovered. I think men should relentless assert their values. Not because they're describing things as they objectively are, but as they existentially might be. Asserting yourself is the first step to competition, and competition is the home of the will.
I'm actually not making that statement at all. I'm saying all value is subjective and that from a subjective standpoint, the only position to take is that we ourselves are inherently valuable as men. That is the default position in NMMNG and the correct one.
But you still trip up on the subjective/objective issue here. There is no "existential" basis for value. None. Every value you choose to measure is your choice, the Universe makes no choices. It merely exists and we decide what is valued.
Dr. Glover used the words "inherently" to state that what the worst excesses of feminism and toxic mothers have taken from us should not be the basis of our value because it harms us. I agree with that. What he means is that the opinions of others should not matter and it should be our decision to value ourselves because we deserve it to ourselves.
I don't think you know what 'existential' means. Existentialism is the view that there are no values that are not the result of acts of will, and that nothing has authority unless you grant it. Furthermore, that the only orders within which things/acts come to have value are existential orders. And thing can only have value by being caught up in an order. And since everything can only have value in an order, and orders are all optional, nothing can be "inherently valuable," because that would imply that something has value independent of an order.
You, as a man, want to impose an order on nature. That is your will. But that order is not how things have to be. Things could be another way. And because you want things to be a certain way, that allows you to make judgments about things/acts on the basis of whether or not they help or hinder the optional order you'd like to see structuring being.
Don't kid yourself. Male value is earned through knowledge and hard work. Even if you are tall, good looking, and intelligent; few women will be attracted to you if you are of low status, live with your mom, have poor hygiene, and an out of shape body. Men have to earn their value.
Women on the other hand, have to earn some of their value as well by learning how to maximize their beauty and seduction. For the most part however, most of their sexual value is given to them from natural youth, beauty, and fertility. Also, low value women have far higher value on the sexual marketplace than low value men. Fat and disgusting women have no trouble getting laid, but geeky nerd beta losers can't get laid if their life depended on it.
Choosing to value yourself based on whether or not women value you is stepping directly into their frame. Its the reverse of RP, which says we do the things we do for our own purposes. If you are not in their frame and instead maintain your own, they will flock to you. I literally write down every day how my value is NOT determined by whether or not women are attracted to me. The result? They are.
When you spoke of value I thought you were referring to SMV. As humans, we are all valuable both men and women.
I agree. We should raise our SMV, but we should not discredit ourselves if it isn't 10. We should always credit ourselves and then rationally attempt to raise our SMV because it is in our interest.
It seems that lack of trust plays a huge role in preventing apt moral precept from being extended to the wider society.
I've always been intrigued by sci-fi stories that figure mind readers into the plot, whereby treachery was transparent from the get-go of a relationship or interaction.
Does transparency favor extended morality?
One of the biggest issues I had with the redpill was determining where my values were rightly placed and where they needed to be more amoral. Finding the line is something I still struggle to get right, as I have been taking my time so as to not over-correct.
Why is it seen as acceptable to fuck over a stranger, but not your close friend? You're a stranger to people too... would you be okay with them fucking you over? Wouldn't society be a much better place if you treated everyone like a friend? It's easy golden rule shit..
[permanently deleted]
Is that you, Gloria Steinem?
I take it you didn't actually read what OP wrote and only looked at the title.
In a way, it does have to do with her choice to fuck another. If a guy morally thinks having too much ambition is wrong and the woman wants an ambitious man she will find a man who fits her vision.
I mean hell if this statement was completely true then it would be pointless to have this subreddit in the first place since it wouldn't matter what we do. But yes in some cases women will cheat because they just don't want to be tied down to one man. However, if a woman cheats more often than not it is because of your morals towards women and yes this includes on wining and dining them because you put them on a pedestal and treat them like delicate creatures.
This kind of falls in line with how women rationalize cheating or stealing another woman's significant other. Although, I do agree with you on how sex is amoral. I guess the thing that not only conflicts with me but other men here is the "moral high-ground". I want to say that no this is wrong and we should be better and not fuck another man's girl knowingly but she consented to it and as a result and it isn't wrong.
I guess we could always blame hypergamy.
We are reward machines. Morality is a bargaining tool, a way we can psychologically reward ourselves for having self-restraint, for gesturing towards altruism. If someone finds more reward for being killed by an axe-wielding psycho than for killing him in self-defense, because they find "fighting" immoral -- such a person might have more utility and reward for martyring themselves than for harming another person. An extreme case, yes, but not far from what many "moral" people do and rationalize as just action.
Far better is to examine sociology, to determine the kind of action you can take that minimizes your selfish footprint without allowing others to step on you, and this is what many TRPers are in fact trying to do. My blue pill friend recently relayed a story to me of how he'll spend time with a woman, go over to her house to watch movies, grab dinner, play cards, talk about life, fix stuff for her, sleep at her house, but not fuck her -- because "she's been hurt too many times when a friendship turned into a relationship," and he doesn't want to put her in that position. For my buddy, he's getting a psychic charge from feeling like a gentleman, for having self-restraint, for being moral, but in reality he's misreading the fact that he's being exploited and used by this woman who is getting his time and energy for free.
Morality is about our relationship with other people in the context of our personal desires. TRP recognizes that women often want men to treat them immorally, they prove this repeatedly with how they reward men, with what kind of men get pussy. You can choose to be "moral" and pass up on what women want, but you are deluding yourself in the process, and thus decidedly bluepill.
Good post IM. I won't fuck a married woman, due to the risk of her having children and me being the cause of said breakup of the family unit. I never bought into 'if it's not me it'll be someone else' because while that is true, at least it doesn't have to be me.
On the other hand if its just boyfriend and girlfriend and the dude has no connection to me or my social circle then I have no qualms over banging his girl. Simply because just because the boyfriend had her first due to whatever circumstances, it doesn't automatically entitle him to keep her if he's not up to standard.