The Three R’s: Romanticisation, Realisation & Responsibility [TRP X-Post]

This article is an extended version of my gilded post on TRP from the other day.

Full article:

http://illimitablemen.com/2014/08/17/the-three-rs-romanticisation-realisation-responsibility/

Excerpt:

The red pill community and more generally speaking the manosphere have something of a love-hate relationship with women. I don’t love women as a collective, but seeing them for what they are to the bare bones I have learnt to accept them. In the rare instances they occur I can appreciate the minority of well-raised women that’ll contribute positively to my life. I can see how men are idealistic romantics that need/crave a woman in their life to “have a kind of connection they can’t have with another man,” but by the by, women are nothing to be lauded or worshipped. Western women in general are just shitty people. Red pill men have all the reason in the world to hate women when it’s made painfully clear how they operate and how much bullshit they manage to get away with. As unpopular as that notion is, it is far from unjustified. Being hateful however is merely cathartic, not constructive. Long-term catharsis is a sign that you are stuck in the bitter phase in your understanding of women, rather than progressing onward to accepting their limitations whilst simultaneously self-actualising.

Being continuously angry will not help you improve yourself. For the sake of your own mental health, you have to look past the flaws of modern women by being extremely selective with which ones you’ll reward with relational commitment. Ultimately, you must employ RP strategies to hold frame and maintain dominance with women who do manage to make the grade. It is in this way that you can learn to enjoy their positive attributes whilst mitigating their negatives, and if necessary subsequently drop them like hot shit when they cross the line. Which of course many, if not almost all, will at some point.

[–]swallowthisthrowaway4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IllimitableMan14 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"Love" as it is best understood is inherently blue-pill. It is an ideal based upon a lie that needs an entire culture to support the lie for it to function. Men romanticise women out of idealism, but without enough power/masculinity to maintain the ideal (or as in the days of old, a society that socially pressures women to maintain the monogamous wishes of man, in spite of his attractiveness or SMV) the ideal collapses and we end up with a lot of short term relationships, hook-ups and general hedonism. In the face of freedom and the absence of order, there is little incentive for people to create families and thus delude themselves to culturally enforce the concept of love as a truism when in reality, it is an idealism. I think "love" as men expect to be loved from their woman is only enforceable in a society that culturally pressures women to conform to monogamy, be chaste, concentrate on cultivating their feminine energy and most importantly of all, suppress their hypergamy.

Women are not naturally loyal, they are pragmatic opportunists. Men are the romantics who project their desires on women creating institutions such as the church to try and reign them in creating the ultimate hypergamous authority - God. Even in such a society, the loyalty and love of your woman would be a facsimile. Women are incapable of loving us in the way we desire that they would (past sex, spiritually speaking) but it takes culture to create love and loyalty anything close to what a man expects in a female partner, with some strength, integrity, power, wisdom and vitality on his part. Women don't fall in love in the sacrificial way that we do, they simply feel lust/get tingles/form attachment to a man's power. That's the cold reality.

You ask a difficult question and I fear there is no definitive answer. At least, not one that is fathomable. "What is love?" is like asking "Where does the universe come from?" they are philosophical musings which remain unsolved for the duration of human existence, and men smarter than I with far less intellectual resources than I could not solve the complexity that such a question presents. In the shadow of men far greater than I, I too cannot definitively answer this question. The first and second paragraph of this post is my abstract rationalisation of the love paradigm and is the best answer I can give without being irrefutably correct.

[–]chakravanti930 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No. Love is not some difficult abstract. Love is something you do. If someone feels you do that then that's what love feels like.

Unconditional love is the kind of thing you give your son. It looks more like sparta and child abuse when its true than chivalry and romance.

A person can have both conditional love and unconditional love. God helps those who help themselves. To be Godlike and fatherly is to conditionalize the kind of love that helps you when you want to be helped.

Otherwise, it's basically just being a dick because nothing teaches a child to be competent than having someone who wont destroy you for failure and will foregive your mistakes as long as you learn from them.

The romanticized ideal of "a kind of love you can't have with a man" is absolutely horseshit because that relationship with a women exists purely to make a point to a man.

There are men, children, and children who make children. Children who make children aren't really all that rare. About %50 of thepopulation.

Children who become men, not just boys, but the ones with real potentional to rule their worlds must be pitted against each other in the most cruel and destructive ways.

This is a limited pool. Society is inherently feminine and AFBB applies. "Candidates" are %20 of the male population (%10). They spend most of their lives trying to kill each other. The ones that don't get themselves killed will probably be best fit to keep society alive too.

Within that context and that few people love can be more than it is with children because it is capable of offering something children never can: criticism.

Proof of intelligence outside ones own mind. otherwise you can have faith that reality isn't just some solipsist simulation but it will never be more than that.

It might be conditional but that's what we learned. Anything worth having is worth kicking ass for.

Unconditional love is for women and children. It's the shit you write off. It's a one way street thing. Because she's incapable of ascending to objective reality the way a man can (without foregoing the whole "having children" part of "being a woman").

The idea that a woman can provide unconditional love is irrational. She wouldn't be a woman and you'de be just a child. Not even the kind that stands apart from other children as being creators of more children or a promising investment into a candidate.

[–]IllimitableMan7 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You confuse conditional love (eros - attraction) with agape (spiritual love - "loving you for you" - unconditional.) Love is poorly defined in English so it's better to look at the 4 greek types of love to discuss love.

Basically, to be really succinct: our society tells us women will love us with agape (blue pill romanticism), but women are only capable of eros and philia towards men (red pill reality.) Men are capable of both eros and agape towards a woman depending on his level of investment, and if he does not find her sexually attractive: philia. Women you plate = you love them with eros. Women you want to provide for = you love them with agape. The ugly woman you help out = you love her with philia. How you love your mother is an overlap of storge and agape. Women can give their children agape but they can only give their men eros and philia. Philia is when she sees you as a friend. Combined with eros it's a friend she wants to fuck. If she loses attraction all that remains is philia, but her love is never unconditional (agape.) Men will lose eros for women when their beauty fades, but they will retain both philia and agape. This is what is meant by "women cannot love men in the way that men want to be loved."

With children, that's mostly agape mixed with storge. It is completely independent of eros. When a woman cheats her man because she doesn't "find her man attractive anymore" but doesn't want to lose him, she's lost eros but feels philia. When a man cheats on his woman because he doesn't "find his woman attractive anymore" but doesn't want to lose her, he's lost eros but retains agape/philia.

In part, this also explains why a man cheating on a woman may not spell disaster, but when a woman cheats on a man the strongest source of her love is extinguished and you end up being abandoned or a cuck in the friend zone.

The intensity/hierarchy of love is something like this: Agape > Eros > Philia > Storge

[–]jsl28373 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Bullshit flying out of my head:

Highly relevant:

I may be open to defining love as both sides giving each other what they need. With full awareness that "need" is a very, very deep rabbit hole that is dirtier than what is politically correct to say in public or on the Internet without massive downvotes and pointless flamewars, and simultaneously more complex/spiritual/spooky than the "doesn't matter, had sex" crowd is intellectually willing to grapple with (although "doesn't matter, had sex" remains paramount, goddammit).

I believe Disney love is a thing but the spiritual compatibility it demands is fulfilled only in the minority of [ingenopathic] (http://www.koanicsoul.com/blog/2012/06/14/psychopathy-female-fidelity-and-the-introvert/) men and women, and even then, hypergamy may be atrophied in ingenopathic women but the female need for domination probably remains unabated. For the rest of the population spinning plates is a better investment, and more congruent with their (less touchy-feely) biopsych profiles anyways.

The flipside of the coin is that ingenopathic men who demand high spiritual affinity may be willing to let slide some degree of r-selected [genewarped] (http://www.koanicsoul.com/blog/2014/08/21/fight-the-genewarp/) 'inhuman animal' whorishness in their woman, assuming she is hot enough, and that he can make her sexual heat burn to a sufficient degree, using his alpha mojo.

The 'Fate' in Romeo & Juliet and the arrow of Cupid may simply be an arrow of genetic compatibility; that could be all there is, assuming that humans are meat robots; or if we believe in supranatural nirvanas or holographic universes or quantum karmic voodoo, or even temporary Souls<sup>TM</sup> with a product expiry date running on CPUs of meat, then sure, spiritual compatibility as well.

The dangerous tendency of bluepillers is their tendency to shunt all potentially sabotaging (sabotaging to the masculine imperative) vaginal acts into the abstract landfill of spiritual love and forgiveness.

Title	The Three R’s: Romanticisation, Realisation & Responsibility [TRP X-Post]
Author	IllimitableMan
Upvotes	13
Comments	5
Date	August 17, 2014 6:02 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/AlreadyRed
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/alreadyred/comments/2dtcjy/the-three-rs-romanticisation-realisation-/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/AlreadyRed/the-three-rs-romanticisation-realisation.1628881 https://theredarchive.com/post/1628881

Comments