RS McCain on The 21 Convention.

RS McCain has published his report on The 21 Convention at The American Spectator, titled Red Pills and Red Hats.

President Donald Trump “represents the return of the patriarchy,” popular fitness entrepreneur Elliott Hulse declared at this weekend’s 21 Convention, a gathering of so-called “red pill” men dedicated to revitalizing masculine influence in society. A muscular New York native and father of four with nearly 800,000 YouTube subscribers, Hulse gave an impassioned presentation entitled “Defending Marriage in a Degenerate Culture.” Marriage and fatherhood were the focus of this, the 16th such conference organized by Anthony Johnson’s 21 Studios, billed as “The World’s Ultimate Event for Fathers.”

While most of these guys are Trump supporters, the “red pill” is not about politics in the usual sense. The phrase, borrowed from the 1999 film The Matrix, refers to seeing through socially accepted illusions to understand the brutal truths of human nature. A major popularizer of this concept as applied to male-female relationships is Rollo Tomassi, author of the 2013 book The Rational Male and its sequels. Tomassi was introduced at the 21 Convention as the “godfather” of the red-pill community. “A lot of men are finding the red pill because they’re looking for answers,” Tomassi said during an on-stage discussion with popular Tulsa radio talk-show host Pat Campbell. Often the experience of divorce or the break-up of a romantic relationship leads men to discovering the online community known as the “manosphere,” where Tomassi’s books about “intersexual dynamics” are widely read. Campbell says he’s heard from men who say their lives were quite literally saved by reading The Rational Male. “They were ready to end it all, zero out,” Campbell told me, describing men — typically in their 40s — who were devastated by divorce. . . .

This entry was posted in Robert Stacy McCain, The American Spectator. Bookmark the permalink.

150 Responses to RS McCain on The 21 Convention.

  1. feministhater says:

    Just $1999. Why not just be honest and call it $2000.

  2. tteclod says:

    Gym hulk culture isn’t a rejection of feminist hypergamy: it’s a surrender.

  3. AnonS says:

    Red Pill and PUA has been shifting to MGTOW. Mainly because the previous generation in Rollo has assumed values from their upbringing that they don’t always realize.

    To Rollo, genuine desire from a women is the highest good. He tries to be secular but still brings in a value hierarchy that has men interact with women. Question that assumption and there is no reason for men to have anything to do with women, aka MGTOW.

    The true reason will always remain in religion, of having marriage to shape eternal human souls in children.

  4. Emperor Constantine says:

    This is an excellent piece by RSM.

    Balanced, objective, sympathetic.

    It helps explain the Red Pill Community to normies in the Tradcon sphere.

    I kind of agree with Rian Stone though: the Red Pill lens is the right one, but the community itself needs some time to mature before it really hits the mainstream.

    RSM’s piece is a good step towards helping the mainstream understand the Red Pill.

  5. Anon says:

    The 21 Convention itself is purple-pill, not red pill.

    It will be interesting to see if RS McCain finally gets jolted out of his blue-pill norms, or yet again recoils back and doubles down on standard blue pill tradcon fare, with a heaping of attacking only the most freakish of trigglypuff feminists in order to cover for his general blue-pilledness.

  6. dragnet says:

    President Donald Trump “represents the return of the patriarchy”

    Honestly not sure how anyone could seriously believe this. That said, the 21 Convention has mostly proven itself to be an oasis of red-pill sanity in a purple-pill desert and I will try to attend next year

  7. Tanturn says:

    “President Donald Trump “represents the return of the patriarchy,””

    How? What’s he actually done for men who aren’t millionaires?

  8. 7817 says:

    Gym hulk culture isn’t a rejection of feminist hypergamy: it’s a surrender.

    If you’re so worried about what women want that you try to not do anything they like, women are in your head even more than the gym bros.

  9. pb says:

    The 21 Convention was purple before as Anthony Johnson admits, but it has had red pill speakers for the past 3-3 years now, and completely switched over in the last 2.

    As for “gym hulk” — I bet more of the men attending are into functional fitness, which is praiseworthy for a man, than just bodybuilding.

  10. Keith says:

    I don’t think red pill will ever go mainstream. The mainstream media will just pick it apart and then try to paint the whole as a evil. Anything that puts female natural behavior in a bad light will be under reported. Or they will try to politicize it like this guy McCain just did. I mean what the hell does the president or Republicans have to do with pill. Enter sexual dynamics doesn’t care what color your hat is

  11. Flat Lander says:

    If the event is as political as presented, nevertrumpers and liberal men will reject the Red Pill lens and brand as another piece of the other camp’s propaganda.

    Rollo has long insisted on TRP being a praxeology, not an ideology. It looks that 21 Con is becoming a political platform coopting the TRP.

    Sad and unnecessary.

  12. Rudolph says:

    Isn’t the fundamental difficulty with the return of The Patriarchy that the hypergamous cat won’t be going back in the bag? Alpha lays/Beta pays is in the DNA. There won’t cease being some form of our present open hypergamy. It may get dialed back. There might be a collapse (and I’m not really sure that doesn’t turn into warlords with harems.) But we’re not going to see women skipping college and getting married by twenty-three or right out of high school.

  13. Robert What? says:

    I thought Trump was a red pill alpha, but since he has handed over all his power to co-President Kushner, I don’t know anymore.

  14. Adam says:

    It will be interesting to see if RS McCain finally gets jolted out of his blue-pill norms, or yet again recoils back and doubles down on standard blue pill tradcon fare, with a heaping of attacking only the most freakish of trigglypuff feminists in order to cover for his general blue-pilledness.

    McCain is on his own red pill journey, as we all are. Some of the stuff that he is writing now would have been unthinkable to him 2 or 3 years ago. His own exposure to these ideas has had a definite effect on him. And when you consider that he is a Boomer and for most of his life has been a mainstream journalist, well, the article that he has written on the 21 convention is quite extraordinary.

  15. Il Deplorevolissimo says:

    @Rudolph

    Hypergamy was more open, not less, under the Patriarchy since the husband’s status was essentially the wife’s status. The reason it was not toxic is because men had legal rights, not the least of which was a court system and society that took a dim view to players and cheating women. That is what we don’t have today, and that is why hypergamy is a problem. It would be just as bad if men could safely dump a middle age wife without any legal consequence in the form of alimony or child support.

  16. tteclod says:

    “If you’re so worried about what women want that you try to not do anything they like, women are in your head even more than the gym bros.”

    I have my wife.

  17. SirHamster says:

    If the event is as political as presented, nevertrumpers and liberal men will reject the Red Pill lens and brand as another piece of the other camp’s propaganda.

    It’s not very political as presented.

    Who cares whether Never Trumpers and liberal men reject the Red Pill? The truth behind the Red Pill is not a brand, and if anyone wants to blind themselves, this is a world where one can choose not to hear and not to see.

  18. I’ll just leave this here for the inevitable MGTOW Moralist haters who predictably start bleating every time a 21 Convention is happening:
    https://therationalmale.com/2015/04/17/dancing-monkeys/

  19. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Tanturn,

    How? What’s he (POTUS Trump) actually done for men who aren’t millionaires?

    Time for red pills from an economics standpoint.

    Millionaires do NOT labor in the fields. You might find a farmer in Iowa worth a million+ bucks driving a John Deer combine harvesting 1000 acres of corn from his fields but that is just operating a machine (that does ALL THE WORK) that cost him $150,000. That is not hard or laborious. That is “tit.” That said, if you are a millionaire and you own 1000 acres growing lettuce in San Bernardino California, you want cheap labor. You want illegal aliens (sorry, “undocumented immigrants”) competing with the locals to keep the pay low. Or (most likely) you want illegal aliens to be plentiful because the locals simply will NOT harvest lettuce, period. In that sense, declaring a state of emergency on the border to secure funds for wall construction is NOT in the interest of millionaires.

    Millionaires are not worried about illegals taking their jobs. No one is sneaking over the border from Mexico to get to the Bay Area and take a job away from a US citizen to write code for Google for “half the price.” No, Google, Yahoo, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, they are just importing India to accomplish that (and I really wish POTUS Trump would put the whammy on that.) That said, the President’s actions have caused a great disturbance in the Economic Force. The price of manual labor went measurably UP (for the first time in decades) this past week for no other reason than a pure shortage of illegals. All the Sunday morning talk shows were “crying” about this yesterday, I know I watched them. That hasn’t happened maybe in ANY of our working careers. And the people who will benefit the most from that cost uptick? The people who benefit the most are the poorest and neediest of our working class, the hardest working people. They love the President even if millionaires (who are now forced to pay for that uptick) increasingly hate him.

    Free trade is also a wonderful thing for millionaires. Millionaires LOVE to buy cheap imported crap. Anything they can buy from Apple (that was made in China and NOT Youngstown Ohio) is going to be half the price that they would have had to pay if it was a unionized US citizen that was making it. Our President has gotten us out of the trade deals that harm our neediest, poorest, most vulnerable citizens. It harms them because it was their “well formed jobs” that were exported to Beijing. That annihilated their communities. Trad-cons like Kevin Williamson at National Review says that we just need to send these people U-Hauls and send them all to North Dakota to work in the Bakkan oil fields. In many cases (mostly family cases) they can’t move. So POTUS Trump harming free trade can only benefit them because they want to make the shit instead of buy it. How far can you stretch that disability check anyway?

    I wanted the POTUS to do so much MORE for our neediest workers. And there is more he can do. Where is the Wall Mr President? Build it sir, our patience is at its end. Lets go. But he is the only President we have had in the last 4 or 5 decades that actually gave a damn about our hardest working people.

  20. 7817 says:

    Reality isn’t political, so the red pill isn’t political except the same people trying to fight reality through politics will end up fighting the red pill.

  21. 7817 says:

    McCain is on his own red pill journey, as we all are. Some of the stuff that he is writing now would have been unthinkable to him 2 or 3 years ago. His own exposure to these ideas has had a definite effect on him.

    Indeed. I’m encouraged that he decided to attend and promote any part of the manosphere. Most boomers just amog. My respect to RS McCain.

  22. John James R says:

    Don’t wait on the mainstream media to ever give the RP a fair showing when even on supposed RP sites, a significant amount of guys will run AMOG game by gainsaying many of the espoused tenets.

  23. John James R says:

    Also, where is any mention of how FAAATTTT our women have become? It all starts (and ends) with the AmeriFats.

  24. PokeSalad says:

    Gym hulk culture isn’t a rejection of feminist hypergamy: it’s a surrender.

    One of the dumbest posts I’ve seen here, and I’ve seen a lot.

  25. feeriker says:

    President Donald Trump “represents the return of the patriarchy”

    Honestly not sure how anyone could seriously believe this.

    He’s the closest thing we have to that, which probably tells you how hopeless the competition is in comparison.

  26. feeriker says:

    McCain is on his own red pill journey, as we all are. Some of the stuff that he is writing now would have been unthinkable to him 2 or 3 years ago. His own exposure to these ideas has had a definite effect on him. And when you consider that he is a Boomer and for most of his life has been a mainstream journalist, well, the article that he has written on the 21 convention is quite extraordinary.

    As with just about any other man who hasn’t proved himself hopeless over the long run, I’m absolutely willing to give RSM the benefit of the doubt.

  27. Anchorman says:

    The Red Pill movement, specifically this blog, Rollo’s, and to a lesser extent Vox’s alpha game blog pulled me from a frivorce tailspin.

    I was fully immersed in Marriage 1.0 narratives and when my marriage hit the skids, I went the “Fireproof” way in one shade or another.

    The blogs snapped me out of that fog and forever changed how I view this world.

    More importantly, it changed how I planned on raising my children.

    The Red Pill doesn’t need to go mainstream to change lives.

  28. Frank K says:

    He’s the closest thing we have to that, which probably tells you how hopeless the competition is in comparison.

    Indeed. Our Embassies fly the rainbow flag during “Pride Month”, some even light up the embassy at night with the rainbow flag colors; and he hasn’t lifted a finger to keep mentally ill men out of the ladies room. I guess that’s “Patriarchy, 2019 Edition.”

  29. Frank K says:

    ^^ But yeah, it could be worse.We could be living under “Madame President’s” nightmare.

  30. Asaph says:

    Agreed. The manosphere (more specifically MGTOW and Red Pill Aware) shouldn’t go mainstream for another good decade or so. It needs time to develop. MGTOW will be around a decade old this year, Red Pill aware is around the same.

  31. Asaph says:

    One good thing he did manage to do is change the definition of domestic violence. He reversed the Obama era BS definition.

  32. Asaph says:

    Hypergamy isnt inherently bad. However, where it doesn’t become bad is when it isnt under control. Just like the Male dominance instinct.

  33. Emperor Constantine says:

    @Adam

    “And when you consider that he is a Boomer and for most of his life has been a mainstream journalist, well, the article that he has written on the 21 convention is quite extraordinary.”

    Right on. This is a huge step forward. Many thanks to RSM.

  34. thedeti says:

    As with just about any other man who hasn’t proved himself hopeless over the long run, I’m absolutely willing to give RSM the benefit of the doubt.

    Scott wrote something here a few weeks ago that resonated with me. In reference to his Red Pill awakening and describing it to Mychael or others, he said he told them words to the effect of “I’ve seen some things I can’t unsee.” In other words, I can’t ignore what’s right in front of me. I can’t ignore what I’m seeing. I can’t dismiss it, explain it, or downplay it. My kids need to know this stuff.

  35. BillyS says:

    Nevertrumpers will reject anything sane Flat, as will men who support progressive idiocy. They cannot be won to anything with value.

  36. feeriker says:

    I remember someone mentioning that Rollo offered to pay for Bayly Sr. and Jr. to attend the 21 Convention, but that they declined his offer. Does anyone know if either one of them have offered any explanation for why they declined?

  37. Anonymous Reader says:

    I remember someone mentioning that Rollo offered to pay for Bayly Sr. and Jr. to attend the 21 Convention, but that they declined his offer. Does anyone know if either one of them have offered any explanation for why they declined?

    If I remember right, Rollo offered via Twitter, and the Bayly Twitter account replied “No, thanks”. That was it. Nothing more has been said.

  38. Nick Mgtow says:

  39. BillyS says:

    No one is sneaking over the border from Mexico to get to the Bay Area and take a job away from a US citizen to write code for Google for “half the price.”

    No, they have plenty of H1B Indians (dot, not feather) who will do that.

  40. BillyS says:

    Trump isn’t perfect, but his miles better than any alternative. Quit expecting perfection. How many Republicans (even Saint Reagan) pushed back much at all?

  41. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Billy,

    How many Republicans (even Saint Reagan) pushed back much at all?

    None. POTUS Trump is much better than POTUS Reagan (God Rest his soul) on Reagan’s best day. No way was the Gipper sophisticated enough to understand how ruinous his 1986 “amnesty” was simply because Tip O’Neal and the democrats never actually had any real intention of enforcing it being a “one time shot.” That was all just meaningless rhetoric.

    Reagan was concerned about 3 things, and 3 things only: communism, taxes, and inflation. That’s it. That was his 8 years in office. Trump is concerned with much more than that. And none of Trump’s concerns are the least bit important to selfish millionaires who have no use for fly-over country (or the people who choose to live there.)

  42. Scott says:

    If you’re motivated to map out some changes after the convention, I’m just saying…

  43. feministhater says:

    IBB, watch that video above. See if you can see the option of younger marriage appear even once… just once…

    LOL! No, instead, freezing your eggs is the best they can come up with.

  44. feministhater says:

    Not Scott’s video obviously….

  45. innocentbystanderboston says:

    fh,

    LOL! No, instead, freezing your eggs is the best they can come up with.

    I don’t have any experience with egg freezing. In-Vitro, yes. But not egg freezing.

    A very good friend of mine, his wife went and divorced him because he refused to take a second mortgage on the home that he paid for to give her money for In-vitro-fertilization. He already owned the home before they got married and he married her (I think she was 43 when they got married) and they tried for a year and to no avail. Well she felt she was entitled to children and she told him about In-Vitro and said that he could just borrow against their house and that he had to do that for her because she was entitled to “a traditional Jewish marriage” (whatever that is.) Well, he would have none of it so she got a lawyer and got out of the marriage. Fortunately (for him) his was not a community property state so she wasn’t entitled to any part of the house. He had that before they got married. Learned some important lessons. I never asked him but I am not even sure if he even wanted to be a dad.

    A woman’s desire to have babies is at least as great as a man’s desire to fuck her brains out. I do believe that God (in His infinite wisdom) has enough foresight to balance our hormones and body chemistry for that ying and yang. Where we get into problems with the balance of God’s plan (and have to go and create whole dark, insidious industries, like “egg freezing”) is the feminism. Feminism literally turns everything it touches, to shit. This is a perfect example. There would be no need for any of this if women married younger (when men want to marry them.)

  46. feeriker says:

    Well she felt she was entitled to children and she told him about In-Vitro and said that he could just borrow against their house and that he had to do that for her because she was entitled to “a traditional Jewish marriage” (whatever that is.)

    You had me sympathizing with the guy up until I read the bolded part. VERY stupid on his part to marry THAT.

  47. I still don’t know what it is.

  48. Anonymous Reader says:

    Well written and fair article by R.S. McCain, the plethora of links in it is a real bonus.

  49. Jake says:

    I believe they craft a golem together and roll dice to decide on a name and gender for it. This is their traditional Jewish child marriage. It is also allowed to turn off light switches in case they haven’t invested in kosher light switches.

    I haven’t read the talmud, so i can’t be sure.

  50. Anon says:

    McCain is on his own red pill journey, as we all are. Some of the stuff that he is writing now would have been unthinkable to him 2 or 3 years ago.

    We shall see. He has come to the edge of redpilledness many times before, only to recoil back in horror and double down on ultra blue pill tradcon sermonizing. He still thinks that :

    a) Republican women are strongly against feminism and actively fighting it,
    b) Voting Republican is a strong action against feminism,
    c) Nothing about current divorce and child custody laws is inherently unjust
    d) It is the fault of men that women are not marrying at age 21 anymore.

    Until I see strong and consistent rejection of these views of his, I am not going to think he is migrating in a red-pill direction.

  51. cshort says:

    @ibb

    Traditional Jewish marriage reminds me of a joke one of my college professors liked to tell.

    Why do Jewish men die before their wifes?
    Because they want to.

    Yes, he was Jewish.

  52. Jay Fink says:

    Gym hulk culture isn’t a rejection of feminist hypergamy: it’s a surrender.

    Couldn’t agree more. Note pre-feminism hardly any men had that steroid induced muscular build. I saw recent pictures of Russian nighlife and was in total awe of how non-muscular the men were. They weren’t fat, they were just normal.

  53. Anonymous Reader says:

    tteclod
    Gym hulk culture isn’t a rejection of feminist hypergamy: it’s a surrender.

    Jay Fink
    Couldn’t agree more. Note pre-feminism hardly any men had that steroid induced muscular build.

    Both comments are a category error.
    Men should maintain fitness for their own health, both physical and mental.

  54. Tanturn says:

    @innocentbystanderboston

    Everything you said about the millionaires wanting immigration, the millionaires wanting trade, the millionaires hating Trump, that’s all correct. And yet he gave them a massive tax cut. If you really want to oppose them, consider a vote for Andrew Yang. He won’t build the wall, but neither will Trump.

  55. John James R. says:

    Anon,

    I agree. I would have to see a huge change of direction from McCain to have any interest in him. I actually don’t care enough to watch for it. He tried to stay journalistically neutral here but his loathing for ‘beta males’ (80% of men?) came through anyway. “Pathetic” “losers.” He just can’t hide it. He will always be the classic trad-con AMOG, so proud to have maintained his wife’s head-patting approval for SO MANY YEARS. RS “Be like me” McCain. He even celebrated his great marriage and lovely bride the other day for the umpteenth time. It’s what he’s about. He’s totally missing the part about how he inspires no envy at all while indirectly trying to. He successfully navigated the feminine imperative and loves to subtly crow about it under the cloak of general social critique; also shaming all the guys who failed to navigate the feminine imperative. What he will never understand is that red pill men are learning to recognize and live under their own, masculine imperatives and no longer respond to the feminine imperative life course at all. “But, but, my BRIDE!!”

  56. Spike says:

    More men are going Red Pill. That’s good news for them and for civilization as a whole.More power to them.
    Just about the only thing I don’t like about the article is that Trump ”represents the return of the Patriarchy”. Culture has been assaulted for decades now, and the election of a single president won’t change a culture. Even if Trump can get a quarter of his agenda through, it will take much more time to settle and / or wind back the effects of the Sexual / Divorce / Homosexual Revolutions.

    That said, at least Trump says what he thinks, isn’t a spineless pushover and has forced a wedge between the public and the elite-owned media. It is no surprise that men voted for trump disproportionally and Christians more disproportionally still.

    In short, it’s good for the political scene. But what about the ecclesiastical scene, where rainbow flags bedeck communion altars, Reverend Dorothy and Very Reverend Lorraine give us sermons about welcoming refugees who came to our countries via criminal syndicates all the while telling us that the biggest virtue we could have is to persecute sportsmen who tweet Biblical verses?

    https://au.sports.yahoo.com/hell-awaits-israel-folau-unleashes-another-controversial-instagram-post-102250205.html

  57. PokeSalad says:

    I saw recent pictures of Russian nighlife

    Clearly, that is conclusive evidence for the final word on the topic. Well done, sir

  58. BillyS says:

    IBB, do you like Romney less now? He was (is?) a nevertrumper and opposes many of the things Trump accomplished.

  59. Tanturn,

    Everything you said about the millionaires wanting immigration, the millionaires wanting trade, the millionaires hating Trump, that’s all correct. And yet he gave them a massive tax cut. If you really want to oppose them, consider a vote for Andrew Yang. He won’t build the wall, but neither will Trump.

    The wealthiest people did not get a tax cut. The wealthiest US citizens saw their federal income taxes INCREASE under Trump (dramatically, actually.) And you know why? Because the wealthiest US citizens do NOT live in Texas, Nevada, or Florida!

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-07/salt-cap-comes-back-to-haunt-as-key-gop-tax-writers-lose-bids

    Doubling the married deduction from $12,000 to $24,000 (or whatever it was) to constitute a “federal-income-tax-cut” for the wealthy is NOTHING if you live in the State of California, New York, Massachusetts, Virginia, Connecticut, New Jersey, or any other high-tax-state and you are paying over $30,000 in State and Local Taxes. And in New York and California, paying $15,000 or more (just in property tax) every year is so common its not even newsworthy. I mean, a 40 year old, 3 bedroom, 2 bath raised ranch, anywhere on Long Island, you are looking at $18,000 a year in property taxes, easy.

    Prior to 2018, the wealthiest US citizens could deduct 100% of ALL their State and Local Taxes from their Federal Income tax. That included a 100% deduction for all their annual property taxes. Now, they are capped at $10,000 a year! The blue states that voted for HRC, their residents were “targeted” with this new federal income tax bill. It cost Trump the House or Representatives because the very few Republican congressmen that lived in those states, they lost their re-election bids. Their wealthier constituents simply so no reason to come out and vote for them with such an increase in taxes.

    The tax bill “appeared” to be a tax cut for the rich. But in reality, it was a tax increase. Its just that we can’t perceive it that way because no one (other than the IRS) is going to be able to gather ALL the data on all the citizens who’s returns were altered the most by the SALT cap.

  60. IBB, do you like Romney less now? He was (is?) a nevertrumper and opposes many of the things Trump accomplished.

    I still like Romney, but like him much less. He should be smart enough to understand what the President is trying to do and he needs to stop getting in the way. But he is acting pretty dumb. I think he might be “butt hurt” that Trump has no spot for him in his administration.

  61. Jay Fink says:

    Anonymous Reader,

    A lot of men don’t work out for health. They do it to project dominance and to get love and approval from society. Especially those who do roids….they want to be loved so badly. They are such people pleasers that they will do something so extreme and unnatural. The irony is some modify themselves to such a degree that they end up looking like monsters and scare many people off.

  62. Anonymous Reader says:

    Jay Fink
    A lot of men don’t work out for health.

    Not All Men Are Like That.

  63. Anon says:

    Prior to 2018, the wealthiest US citizens could deduct 100% of ALL their State and Local Taxes from their Federal Income tax. That included a 100% deduction for all their annual property taxes. Now, they are capped at $10,000 a year!

    There should be no deduction at all. The fact that it was fully deductible at all was a travesty (and a testament to how weak/duplicitous the GOPe was). A state or city should not have the huge subsidy from the Federal Govt. that such a deduction represents. The phenomenon of deep blue metros creating local socialism on the back of Federal taxpayers of the other ~42 states might not have happened to nearly the same extent if not for this. At least it might partially be reversed now.

    It should be zero, but at least it is now capped to $10,000.

  64. 7817 says:

    A lot of men don’t work out for health.

    How could you possibly know all their motivations?

    Why in the world do you care?

    Roids or not, schwarzenegger has done some cool things.

  65. Oscar says:

    @ Tanturn says:

    What’s he [Pres Trump] actually done for men who aren’t millionaires?

    He helped make this possible.

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/31/trump-economy-blue-collar-wages-rise-faster-than-white-collar/

    Salaries for college graduate Americans are growing much slower than for Americans who are working in transportation, restaurants, services, construction, and sales, according to federal data.

    Average pay grew 3.0 percent in the 12 months up to December, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. However, employees in the broad “management, professional, and related” category gained only 2.5 percent.

    But there was a 4.2 percent rise in wages for “sales and related” employees, a 3.7 percent rise for “production, transportation, and material moving” workers, a 3.4 percent rise for “trade, transportation, and utilities” workers, and a 4.1 gain for “leisure and hospitality” workers.

    As well as this.

    https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/2018-saw-largest-increase-manufacturing-jobs-21-years

    The U.S. economy added 284,000 manufacturing jobs in 2018, according to the employment report released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That is the largest increase in manufacturing jobs in the United States in 21 years.

    The last time the United States increased manufacturing employment by more than 284,000 jobs in one year was in 1997, when the economy added 304,000 manufacturing jobs.

    Not too shabby.

  66. Anon,

    There should be no deduction at all.

    (nodding in agreement, reluctantly)

    Yeah. You are probably right. And you are right for the reasons you gave. There probably shouldn’t be any SALT deduction. But as you said, getting it down to a $10,000 is better than no cap.

  67. Anon says:

    An avid gym-goer who just wants to look good is a loooooooong way from a roided-up monster aiming for a WWE career with the full knowledge that he will die by age 50.

    I can’t believe there are supposed ‘red pill’ men arguing against basic self-improvement. The world has too few people focused on self-improvement, not too many.

  68. Oscar says:

    @ Anon

    I can’t believe there are supposed ‘red pill’ men arguing against basic self-improvement. The world has too few people focused on self-improvement, not too many.

    Envy is a powerful motivator.

  69. Expat Philo says:

    Self improvement for it’s own sake, to be a better man, is red pill.

    Self improvement to land a girl is blue.

    Not that complicated, though determining which men are doing which is unknowable.

  70. Expat Philo says:

    Edit: “unknowable” should be “beyond anyone but themselves”.

  71. John James R. says:

    Being too lazy to work out repurposed as an AMOG indicator. The hamster is not for females only.

  72. OKRickety says:

    I remember someone mentioning that Rollo offered to pay for Bayly Sr. and Jr. to attend the 21 Convention, but that they declined his offer.

    It’s easier to suppose you know it all than to seriously and carefully consider other possibilities.

    I think that also applies to some of the more vocal commenters here.

  73. Tanturn says:

    “The tax bill “appeared” to be a tax cut for the rich. But in reality, it was a tax increase.”

    Really? He had to disguise it at as tax cut for the rich, because that’s what the people want? If it was a tax increase for the rich, they’d have told us so. You talk a lot about federal income tax, look at corporate taxes, which fell much faster. The really wealthy get most of their income from capital, not labor.

    It can be conforting to live in fantasy, but if you do so you marginalize yourself. You have to live in reality, and the reality is that Trump is not a populist, no matter how much you wish he were one.

  74. 7817 says:

    What about when your wife says “no” and she’s right? If you as a husband don’t recognize when her “no” is right, this inability to know yourself and acknowledge your own failure is part of the reason your wife says “no” at other times when she should say “yes.”…

    This is often the case with wives appealing the decisions of their husbands. The wives are more righteous. Note this carefully and admit it when your time has come. Humble yourself. Listen to this helpmate God has given you. Repent. Don’t choose hardness of heart and justify it by any appeal to God’s Order of Creation…

    Our final example is Sapphira who failed to say “no” to her husband, and thus came to be a very bad example for Christian wives. Scripture records Ananias had the agreement of his wife in his plans to lie about the selling price of their property and its relationship to what they gave to the church…

    From https://warhornmedia.com/2019/05/06/marriage-8-when-your-dear-wife-says-no-e/

  75. 7817 says:

    If I remember right Rollo invited the sound of sanity guys to the 21 convention.

  76. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Tanturn,

    Really? He had to disguise it at as tax cut for the rich, because that’s what the people want? If it was a tax increase for the rich, they’d have told us so. You talk a lot about federal income tax, look at corporate taxes, which fell much faster. The really wealthy get most of their income from capital, not labor.

    It is not the President’s job (any President’s job) to create bill and tax legislation. It is only his job to sign that bill into law or veto.

    The Legislature had to disguise this as a tax cut for the rich. And some of the richer people (in the low tax states) did get a tax cut. But for the ones who live where the majority of the wealthier people WANT to live (to be around more of their people) the $10,000 cap on SALT was a tax increase. And that is the only reason why POTUS Trump signed it because he knew they would pay more and he had no problem with that.

    Getting wealthy from capital and NOT labor is the way things are supposed to happen in a capitalist society. That is the system working as designed. Getting wealth from capital demonstrated two very special, rare, human characteristics: responsibility and delayed gratification.

    Ideally, we should ALL own capital. Obviously some people would own vastly more than others, but there should be the desire on the part of all US citizens to save and accumulate wealth. When I was younger (building and saving for my own future) I assumed that all people were doing what I was doing. The older I get, the more and more I find that this was NOT the case.

  77. Morpheus says:

    “Self improvement for it’s own sake, to be a better man, is red pill.

    Self improvement to land a girl is blue.”

    This is a stupid, reductionist, binary view. One can have multiple motivations…. I’m an avid weight trainer and do it for multiple reasons, building a fit healthy body is one, my personal philosophy ties strength training to masculinity, and well yeah having a body more attractive to women is part of it too. I started weight training at 21…I’m 45 now… I started it at 21 “to get girls” but you aren’t going to keep it up for decades if you don’t have other more core motivations.

  78. feeriker says:

    7817 says:
    May 7, 2019 at 10:29 am

    If you feel the urge to vomit, could you please do so outside? Thank you.

  79. Anonymous Reader says:

    @OKrickety
    As I stated up the thread, Rollo offered comped admission to the 21 convention to Bayly via twitter. The Bayly Twitter account replied “No, thanks”. Meanwhile, RS McCain went and covered it for AmSpectator.

    The contrast between Bayly and RS McCain is pretty obvious, isn’t it?

    @7817
    Man, Bayly just can’t control himself, can he? What comes after “double down” and “triple down”? Dig that hole deeper? Sheesh.

    Perhaps I’ll buy a hardback copy of Deep Strength’s book and mail it to Clearnote…except I doubt anyone there would deign to read it. “Not from Our Cult, nope”…

  80. Article seemed fair, although it could have been stronger just listing some of the horrifying statistics on the frivorce industry. I agree with comments that the focus on politics is a distraction.

    I wouldn’t put any hope in a political solution to what is a spiritual crisis: women are refusing to submit to God’s moral order. Is it any wonder that the most Blue of Bluehairs are vicious anti-Christian bigots? Or that the Christian heretics have to twist the Bible into a pretzel to avoid the clear command of male headship? The best we can do politically is reign in the worst of ClownWorld as they turn this culture into a perverse circus.

    Some men will find some pearls among the muck, but they’re going to find it difficult to maintain frame and maintain their authority as *every* bit of culture begins to unify in their SJW message–especially if they have a family. For a view of the future, just look at the pure insanity coming out of the UK and Canada right now…. We’re next.

    Building strong and wise men is a very good thing. But, none of us are going to weather the future storms effectively without a community. I hope that is at least one of the lessons from the convention–the power of male community. And, I hope with Dalrock’s work exposing the heresy of chivalry & churchianity, we can focus on rebuilding our Churches.

  81. PokeSalad says:

    The irony is some modify themselves to such a degree that they end up looking like monsters and scare many people off.

    You should shut off your keyboard, go away, and find a safe space before you embarrass yourself any further.

  82. Gunner Q says:

    From linked article:
    “Feminists never acknowledge how common it is for bad women — selfish, dishonest, and cruel — to wreck the lives of well-meaning men who naïvely trust them. While elite universities now expect male students to silently endure feminist lectures about “toxic masculinity,” nothing is said on campus to warn young men about the perils of toxic women. In this sense, the 21 Convention and the “manosphere” in general function as an alternative education system, teaching men how to navigate the treacherous waters of the dating scene.”

    A little MRA-ish but he’s on the way. Let’s see if he coughs up the Red Pill when the implications of this education set in.

    “When Hulse hailed Trump as the symbol of this shift, his pronouncement was met with applause. Red pills, red hats — it’s probably not a coincidence.”

    Correct. There’s no separating the politics of sex from the politics of government. Welfare does not correct bad behavior, it corrects the consequences of bad behavior. Beta Bucks is dead because no Beta has more money than Uncle Sam, so the welfare state frees women to whore with the bad boys and stick the taxpayer with the bill.

    Ordinary men won’t be sexy again until unmarried women face, nay, endure the consequences of spurning Mister Food ‘N Shelter.

  83. tteclod says:

    Sure, if a man is young, he can – and should – get fit and stay that way as long into old age as he can manage. If a man is old, he can do what he can to fix past mistakes. And, yes, there’s a lot to be said for “hitting the gym,” but I’m not talking about fitness, or self-improvement, or any of that. What I’m describing is gym-bro culture: this vain and self-glorifying pursuit of visually-pleasing physique. Fitness – in the sense of maintaining fitness to do physical (and mental) work to pursue a righteous goal – is praiseworthy. But “fitness” in the sense of pursuing a body meant to attract attention aligns very closely with the efforts women make to attract attention of all types.

    For what it’s worth, I think the new army fitness test is a good measure of what I want to result from my fitness regimen. And, yes, that will require that I “lift.”

    But the Army isn’t doing an oiled-up assessment of my muscles while I’m wearing a Speedo.

  84. 7817 says:

    weaker than tteclod= wimps not lifting.

    tteclod=perfecto.

    stronger than tteclod=wimps lifting for chicks.

    Got it.

  85. Anonymous Reader says:

    What I’m describing is gym-bro culture: this vain and self-glorifying pursuit of visually-pleasing physique

    Ok. Who’s doing that here, or at McCain’s, or at the 21 Convention?

  86. PokeSalad says:

    I can’t believe there are supposed ‘red pill’ men arguing against basic self-improvement.

    He’s not red-pill. If he’s even a man at all, he’s a little p*ssy. He needs to go find a saucer of milk.

  87. John James R says:

    tteclod is has found a new AMOG angle. Very subtle, so I have to applaud. You see, any guy who takes ANY step to improve himself has now classified himself as less than a natural AMOG. TTeclod has his wife’s approval even, EVEN, with his whiskey belly and chicken legs. What a stud. Didn’t have to do anything. What a natural. All the guys working out are just inherently lesser try-hards.

  88. PokeSalad says:

    For what it’s worth, I think the new army fitness test is a good measure of what I want to result from my fitness regimen. And, yes, that will require that I “lift.”

    Are you in the Army? Is that your claim now? Tread cautiously, here…..

  89. John James R says:

    Also, my deadlift is at about 4 bills right now, weighing 185. At what point do I go from praiseworthy, righteous exercise to self-glorifying vanity? Is it when I deadlift 415? I’ve decided to go back to doing my old shuttle sprints too. I need the heartwork and want to drop to about 178. If my bodyfat goes from 16% down to 12% am I then vain or is it still praiseworthy fitness?

    I guess I fail to see the difference between working out hard and working out hard.

  90. PokeSalad says:

    Also, my deadlift is at about 4 bills right now, weighing 185. At what point do I go from praiseworthy, righteous exercise to self-glorifying vanity?

    Post a vid.

  91. Anon says:

    What I’m describing is gym-bro culture: this vain and self-glorifying pursuit of visually-pleasing physique

    A person who says this probably approves of the ‘fat acceptance’ movement that some women are trying to market.

  92. John James R says:

    @pokesalad,

    A vid of me on the scale at 185 or a vid of me deadlifting 4 bills?

  93. Scott says:

    As much as everyone liked to crap on the APFT, I actually found it to be a pretty good barometer of what kind of shape I was in as, a snapshot of that paricular moment.

    I could tell, based on my weight and other factors what score I was going to acheive within a point or two. I only maxed it or made it on to the extended scale when I was in peak physical condition.

  94. A very interesting discussion here! The connection between the red-pill community and physical fitness is obvious enough, and I’m surprised to see anyone call this “blue pill.”

  95. Also, I see some commenters criticizing me in ways that are entirely alien to anything I can comprehend. I’m a journalist — a storyteller, a bard — and not an ideologue. Someone’s going to have to clue me in on how, from a “red pill” perspective, it is wrong to use the description “loser” in proximity to “Beta” male. Perhaps this is a matter of semantics, or maybe it’s the case that some guys think it is somehow unfair that Beta males are losing? But this is akin to social-justice arguments, which should have nothing to do with an objective understanding of human behavior.

    Furthermore, being disparaged on generational grounds as a Baby Boomer ignores the fact that, as the father of six children — including four sons — I have had been highly motivated to observe and analyze the contemporary mating rituals, and I’ve already got four grandchildren (certainly just a fraction of the eventual total) who will be coming of age after 2030, when it would be unlikely that I’ll still be around to share my advice. So I care very much about the problems of younger generations, and do not write from a perspective of solipsistic obliviousness.

  96. James says:

    Robert Stacy McCain says:
    Also, I see some commenters criticizing me in ways that are entirely alien to anything I can comprehend. I’m a journalist — a storyteller, a bard — and not an ideologue. Someone’s going to have to clue me in on how, from a “red pill” perspective, it is wrong to use the description “loser” in proximity to “Beta” male.

    Actually, the comments have been overwhelmingly complimentary toward your article. The few critical commenters, IMO, are ideological purists–generally, they’re men who fully subscribe to manosphere ideas and are impatient with mainstream writers who don’t already “buy in” to these ideas. And regarding the guy who complained about your use of “beta males,” I think he inferred a meaning that wasn’t there. I didn’t read that part of the article as your making a value judgment against betas.

    Anyway, Dalrock obviously appreciates your writing, as do I, and I’m sure many others here. So please don’t take the odd criticism personally.

  97. 7817 says:

    RS McCain:

    Certain commenters take things to extremes. I try not to take them to seriously. The manosphere makes it necessary to develop a thick skin, sometimes just for dealing with other men flailing around trying to come to terms with all this stuff.

  98. 7817 says:

    Heartiste’s description of the comment section as a lunch room food fight is remarkably apt, but for all the craziness, I still benefited from it, especially at the beginning.

    If nothing else you learn to filter through wildly opposing views pretty fast.

  99. John James R says:

    McCain,

    You’re a classic beta. You don’t know that about yourself? Loser (right?)

  100. Anon says:

    Dear RS McCain,

    The reason you are often criticized was stated by me in this very thread. But I will repeat it again as you did not address it.

    You are not really against the female imperative and resultant misandry. You also go to great lengths to avoid facing how much ‘conservatives’ have done to propagate misandry and strengthen feminism. Among your writings, it is apparent that you believe :

    a) Republican women are strongly against feminism and actively fighting it,
    b) Voting Republican is a strong action against feminism,
    c) Nothing about current divorce and child custody laws is inherently unjust
    d) It is the fault of men that women are not marrying at age 21 anymore.

    Attacking some screechy bluehaired freaks does nothing to expose the vast damage that ‘conservatives’ have done to the traditional family and male incentive structures, and how ‘conservatives’ are quite willing to jettison any and all of their supposed principles (personal responsibility, matching power with accountability, ‘incentives matter’, and ‘force wealth redistribution is bad’) when the prospect of groveling to women and punishing men presents itself. When a ‘conservatives’ senses a chance to appear ‘chivalrous’, they fall over each other to out-left the leftists.

    Keeping it simple, if you don’t think that current divorce laws make it far to risky for men to enter a marriage contract these days, you really have no clue about how different the landscape of today is from the 1970s.

  101. chronoblip says:

    “…TRP being a praxeology…”

    Diagnosis without prescription. Nothing changes so the customers will be back.

    No harm in parting fools of their money, right?

  102. Anonymous Reader says:

    @chronoblip

    It is not clear if you lack knowledge, or are merely trolling for flames.
    Perhaps if you could define “praxology” we would know more.

  103. innocentbystanderboston says:

    RS McCain,

    I’m a journalist — a storyteller, a bard — and not an ideologue. Someone’s going to have to clue me in on how, from a “red pill” perspective, it is wrong to use the description “loser” in proximity to “Beta” male.

    I feel like Linus in the 1965 Christmas Pageant tv special when he said “Sure Charlie Brown, I’ll tell you what Christmas is all about. Lights Please.”

    When you are a man born some combination of tall, attractive, athletically gifted, highly intelligent, (or maybe the combination of all 4) then things are going to come much easier for you with regards to charm, social confidence, education, money (and earning power), charisma, and authoritativeness. With your tangible, objective, birth assets, you will have an entirely easy time acquiring more subjective lifestyle assets that makes one alpha. You will have far less trouble getting respect not just from your male peers but (most importantly) women.

    But what is you are not tall? What if you are just butt ugly? What is you are not tall, butt ugly, clumsy, slow, and (worst of all) not bright? What if your IQ hovers around the lower part of the mean at 94 or so? You think you are going to have an easy time with acquiring charm, social confidence, education, money (and earning power), charisma, and authoritativeness? No you will not. By virtue of your penalties at birth, you may be relegated to beta male.

    Just because a man is short, is he a loser? Just because a man is ugly, is he a loser? Just because he has limited cognitive ability to look at things logically, does that make him a loser? Imagine would he would be able to give to be tall, attractive, or intelligent? Imagine how different a beta male’s life would be like if he had been given a couple (or even just one) of the four advantages that both Clint Eastwood and Burt Reynolds had for almost all their lives?

    You don’t have to be tall to be able to read the Bible and follow God’s laws. You don’t have to be attractive to read the Bible and follow God’s laws. You don’t have to be athletically gifted to read the Bible and follow God’s laws. You don’t even have to be a brainiac to read and understand the Bible and follow God’s laws. You could be an exceptional Christian male and be beta (or gamma, or omega, or whatever) but would that make you a loser? Your way it would. And that is why you are wrong.

  104. innocentbystanderboston says:

    And don’t get me wrong RS McCain, I like your writing. Most of us here like it. But to call a beta male a loser? Meh. No don’t do that. There is only so much people can control.

  105. feeriker says:

    I’m a journalist — a storyteller, a bard — and not an ideologue.

    So, you’re just a “raconteur” who has no point of view, perspective, thoughts, or opinions of his own?

    Sorry, not buying it. I don’t know where you think THAT will sell, but it sure won’t sell in these parts.

  106. emery says:

    “Someone’s going to have to clue me in on how, from a “red pill” perspective, it is wrong to use the description “loser” in proximity to “Beta” male. Perhaps this is a matter of semantics, or maybe it’s the case that some guys think it is somehow unfair that Beta males are losing? But this is akin to social-justice arguments, which should have nothing to do with an objective understanding of human behavior.”

    The reason you are being slammed, and rightfully so, is that your framing of men as binary ‘winners vs losers’ is the female way of framing the entire gender. Women only see men as men they want to fuck or losers whose seed to avoid. When men, patriarchy, controls the worldview there is a hierarchy where the spoils go to the higher levels but in return they have a responsibility to care for those below them. A chief may be above the infantryman or janitor, but he would never call him a ‘loser’. A queen would gladly brand the nose off a female lessor just because she was prettier. The monogamous system was part of the way the patriarchy tried to include all members – even your ‘loser’ type could reasonably have a wife and child.

    PUA uses the alpha/beta dynamic because men are trying to navigate a female-controlled system and that system only processes the date of alpha vs beta. Most men hate that system and reject its premises. Your casual assumption of it as your primary perspective shows how much you are still in agreement with the female system.

  107. Anon says:

    RS McCain,

    Someone’s going to have to clue me in on how, from a “red pill” perspective, it is wrong to use the description “loser” in proximity to “Beta” male.

    At least 80-85% of males are beta males (or lower).

    More importantly, beta males tend to be the ones who keep the roads paved, the lights on, and invent all this wonderful technology.

    Alpha males can be titans of business, but can just as equally be bartenders, broke musicians, or even violent thugs or serial killers. I bet you don’t have the courage to even investigate why serial killers get love letters from thousands of women, and no, not just women who vote Democrat either, but Republican-voting normal-looking women that you would consider paragons of virtue.

    And yes, you yourself are a Beta male. That you reproduced does not change that much. If you were dating as a young many today in 2019, you would not have a clue. There is much your children don’t tell you, precisely because they know you can’t relate.

  108. Anon says:

    I repeat, the reason that people here rightfully slam RS McCain is not because ‘beta males are losing’ but because you think :

    a) Republican women are strongly against feminism and actively fighting it,
    b) Voting Republican is a strong action against feminism,
    c) Nothing about current divorce and child custody laws is inherently unjust
    d) It is the fault of men that women are not marrying at age 21 anymore.

    I post this for a third time as it is important to expose how RS McCain is deliberately avoiding these points.

  109. 7817 says:

    Good article JRob.

    Look, there are guys peripheral to the manosphere that can come in and recognize the truth of it, even if they don’t become the next Rollo Tomassi or Black Label Logic, or Dalrock.

    The key is, when they are faced with the truth, do they turn away, or do they acknowledge it? RSMcCain says plainly that he acknowledges it, and he even talked about some of the unsavory aspects. He recognizes that the world is changed.

    That’s why I will gladly give him credit, what he’s done is hard to do, but from his own account he understands the importance of standing by friends. I would argue in our current circumstances, friends are those that acknowledge the truth. This is why someone like McCain is worth respect. As a useful contrast, the Warhorn Media folks could not even tell the truth about Dalrock and the Red Pill after doing the research necessary for two long podcasts.

    Robert Stacy McCain attended the 21 Convention and has written positively about it. The Warhorn Media folks would not even attend. The contrast is beneficial to make, and if you’re going to beat up on a guy because he was able to navigate life successfully, and now acknowledges things aren’t what they once were, you’re crazy. He’s done as much as I would ask of anyone of his generation: admit things are different than they were in the past, and point young men towards truth that will give them a chance to succeed.

  110. Anonymous Reader says:

    @JRob thanks for the link. I see that RS McCain uses Disqus for comments…no.

    He’s making progress, but what a mess of Boomertalk. Bogart? Bacall? Movies from 70 years ago? Fleetwood Mac, a band from 40 years ago that’s only heard on “All Oldies All The Time” playlists? It’s all intended to help, but men under 30 might not quite see the connection between those stories and what they can/can’t do. Because it isn’t 1975 anymore. In fact, it’s not even 1995 anymore. I imagine a lot of Boomers didn’t pay attention to their parents back in 1970 as they talked about Glen Miller and “the war”, right?

    I wonder, has RS McCain ever heard of #MeToo? Have his sons told him what the mandatory “men are evil harassers and rapists” orientation for first year college students is like?

    Good to see Dalrock mentioned in the comments favorably.

  111. BillyS says:

    emery,

    Being red pilled doesn’t mean you have to been an a hole. It may be appropriate to slam enablers (white knights and such), but calling all you dislike losers is just playing AMOG.

  112. Frank K says:

    He’s making progress, but what a mess of Boomertalk. Bogart? Bacall? Movies from 70 years ago?

    Agreed.

    An anecdote: Some millennials object to movies like Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure, because of “language” (the word “fag” is used as a put down). Imagine how alien Bogart must seem to them. Even to old me a vintage Gary Cooper flick like The Pride of the Yankees feels like a time capsule, something I cannot personally relate to other than as a historical documentary,

  113. John James R says:

    To me, McCain uses social critique almost solely to lionize himself and his life. It’s very transparent. Even his vitriol towards betas is a ham-fisted proclamation of his own perceived alpha status. He’s not. He’s a beta provider, non-lifter, so consider him a ‘pathetic loser.’

    He is such a typical tradcon in so many ways that I guess it’s at least kind of funny to watch. But the sad thing is that a tradcon like him carries water for feminists so effectively (the majority of males are bad and need to do better. Women are either flawless or beyond critique) that his efforts are very much in the negative. He just needs to get out of the way and go spend time with his extraordinary children and grandchildren.

  114. vandicus says:

    Regarding definitions of alpha and beta. They are not related to the animal kingdom or hierarchy. A beta in the animal world is pretty similar to the alpha, after all, the beta is second in command. Rollo has a great post about some dude who is alpha but essentially a beach bum.

    Things that make a person alpha:
    Dark triad personality traits
    Obvious confidence(especially to an extreme degree)
    Open disregard for others, especially women and authority

    Things that have nothing to do with being alpha:
    Money
    Leadership roles in work
    Respect from other men

    To be absolutely clear, alpha has to do with what is naturally attractive to women. Not what men respect or admire, nor hierarchies. It is solely relevant in regards to women.

  115. vandicus says:

    Unwarranted self confidence and disregard for authority manifests mostly in stupid people who lack impulse control. Which is why most alphas are in jail.

    It is objectively not smart to disregard the law(subject to caveats but you know what I’m talking about). It is however very alpha(sexy to women).

  116. 7817 says:

    To be absolutely clear, alpha has to do with what is naturally attractive to women. Not what men respect or admire, nor hierarchies. It is solely relevant in regards to women.

    This is a good discussion to have, because men like Michael Foster like to try to redefine alpha to mean the traits that they would like for men to have, but that’s clearly not correct, and just confuses people about what alpha is.

    That being said, to think of alpha only as what attracts women is a good limit to focus on for someone first becoming aware of the Red Pill, but at some point, it’s good to understand that part of alpha is beyond that.
    Women aren’t everything.

    Case in point: I know a young man that is alpha in just the way you describe. He knows how to excite women, young or old, just by talking to them. He is good socially. But he does not have the other drives that an alpha usually does, such as leadership where he works.

    But he is definitely one kind of alpha, and is worth watching and learning from in the areas where he excels.

  117. 7817 says:

    Alpha as in the manosphere is such a nebulous term that it is difficult to really pin down a good description of all of it. It definitely exists, but it’s almost a “You know it when you see it” kind of thing.

    Early on in the manosphere I did a lot of digging trying to get a handle on the concept, but it is almost a spiritual thing, sort of an essence, as it were. Chivalry has so corrupted the concept of manliness that it is hard to discern between the chivalry corrupted and classic ideas of masculinity, but I would argue the alpha concept is something akin to the platonic ideal of Man, a man either built up to or distilled down to the essence of what Man IS, separate from any demands of service or expectation put on him, an untameable force for good or ill, not consenting to be harnessed by society’s expectations, but always keeping at least a portion of himself apart and unexplored by others. My opinion is that obedience to Christianity has nothing to do with alpha, but is in a different category.

  118. Anonymous Reader says:

    7817
    Alpha as in the manosphere is such a nebulous term that it is difficult to really pin down a good description of all of it

    It’s always good for an endless argument, sometimes with extra helpings of AMOGing, butthurt, No True Christian, etc. “What is Game” pretty much leads to the same place. Bogging down in definitional arguments, or exception cases, or a zillion other details that miss the point.

    Yet these things exist, and can be seen all around us. Some men have command presence – there are academies that teach it. Some men have women attracted to them, and there are explainable, testable, repeatable reasons for that.

    But. The symbol is not the referent. The map is not the ground in front of me.

    Here, I’ll let Bruce Lee explain some of it. Hey, it’s not only for the Boomers…

  119. 7817 says:

    But. The symbol is not the referent. The map is not the ground in front of me.

    Right, and maybe my thinking about things in that way is a useless rabbit hole.

  120. Anon says:

    To me, McCain uses social critique almost solely to lionize himself and his life. It’s very transparent. Even his vitriol towards betas is a ham-fisted proclamation of his own perceived alpha status. He’s not. He’s a beta provider, non-lifter, so consider him a ‘pathetic loser.’

    He is such a typical tradcon in so many ways that I guess it’s at least kind of funny to watch. But the sad thing is that a tradcon like him carries water for feminists so effectively (the majority of males are bad and need to do better. Women are either flawless or beyond critique) that his efforts are very much in the negative. He just needs to get out of the way and go spend time with his extraordinary children and grandchildren.

    +1

    We will never, ever see him concede that the divorce laws are inherently unfair, and most men ground up by them somehow did not deserve it. So he rejects one of the most central principles of the androsphere.

    If you ever point out that Republicans/Conservatives have in fact worsened many aspects of misandry and family destruction, you will never, ever get one iota of agreement from him. ‘Feminism’ is mutually exclusive with ‘Republican’ in his mind.

  121. vandicus says:

    Most alphas are not leaders anymore than betas are. The terminology is inherently confusing because it has taken on cultural connotations. Everyone understands that alpha means leader in the animal kingdom, less people remember that beta means next in line to be leader, so in that context the beta is typically very similar to the alpha. Which is why the animal kingdom/scientific meaning is inappropriate.

    Desire for leadership or having leadership roles is not inherently alpha or beta.

    There are things besides what I listed that are alpha or beta related, but most traits, characteristics, and behaviors are neither(not that they fall in some other category but they are neutral).

    Seeking an alpha lifestyle of course would require adding on to it, but that’ll vary depending on who’s doing the speaking. If you take alpha to mean good and beta to mean bad, of course the meaning will vary depending on one’s views regarding good and bad.

  122. Novaseeker says:

    There’s “alpha” and “beta” in general terms and then there’s “alpha” and “beta” as came to be used in the manosphere/TRP/PUA circles. The latter is quite different from the former, and leads to some confusion. In fact, other terms could have been picked to describe what is meant, but as it was these were the terms picked.

    In the latter usage, the terms refer exclusively to this: is the person one of the men whom women will have sex with “for fun” or “for desire” regardless of whatever else he has going on, or is he one of the men whom women will have sex with as part of a “package” (i.e., relationship context) which is entered into based largely on what else he has going on. That is what “alpha” and “beta” mean in the context of the manosphere/TRP/PUA circles.

    This usage of the terms describe basically two sets of men, because women, when they evaluate men sexually, put men in one of three general buckets: (1) men whom they would like to have sex with, period, (2) men whom they might have sex with as part of a relationship in the proper context/timing/etc., and (3) men who are completely off the radar sexually and relationship-wise. The third category is largely ignored in the alpha/beta taxonomy because it is the incel class which is basically frozen out of sex/relationships with women in any case.

    Interestingly, when I was growing up back in the late medieval period, a popular bar game for women was called “fuck/marry/kill”. What they would do is look around the room and identify which men fit into each category. This was of course a bar game among women to facilitate laughter and so on over drinks, but the core truth of it lies very close to the manosphere taxonomy. In fact one could rename what the manosphere refers to as “alphas” to “desire fuck guys”, could rename “betas” to “relationship fuck guys” and could rename incels to “sexually dead guys”. Different taxonomy, same concept — but in any case, it has zip/nada/zilch to do with being a “leader of the pack” or any such thing. It’s all about where women place you in their own eyes sexually in terms of what context they will have sex with you (any/relationship/none).

  123. Dalrock says:

    @Novaseeker

    There’s “alpha” and “beta” in general terms and then there’s “alpha” and “beta” as came to be used in the manosphere/TRP/PUA circles. The latter is quite different from the former, and leads to some confusion. In fact, other terms could have been picked to describe what is meant, but as it was these were the terms picked.

    This is true, as Heartiste explained way back in 2007 in Defining the Alpha Male.

    But there is another layer to this, and that is the very strong association nearly everyone has between virtue and sexy in men. This goes back at least to the 12th century and the teaching of chivalry/courtly love. From the rules of love in De Amore (1184-86):

    18. Moral integrity alone makes one worthy of love.

    This has been fully folded into modern Christian thinking, which is why we have pastors teaching that a wife’s sexual attraction for her husband is God’s way of communicating whether he is pleased with the man.

  124. Novaseeker says:

    This has been fully folded into modern Christian thinking, which is why we have pastors teaching that a wife’s sexual attraction for her husband is God’s way of communicating whether he is pleased with the man.

    Yes there is an odd thing going on there, and it likely stems from chivalry and its false premises. It seems coupled with a very strong desire to overlook actual reality when it comes to women. It reminds me of Mark Driscoll castigating the relatively few men in the congregation(s) for the fact that the young women there were not married (and not the fact that most of those young women were fornicating, voluntarily and happily, with men who are often non-believers or at the very least non-attenders). It’s all a make-believe world really.

  125. Opus says:

    In the old stories the Prince or Count would to ascertain whether the woman was interested in him for himself or whether she was merely interested in his money and position disguise himself as a Student (I am looking at you Meghan Markle). I once used to play the same game and on meeting a young woman invent some low grade occupation and watch with amusement the change in her demeanour when as would soon become clear I was teasing – and in the days when such persons were not two a penny – in fact of the learned profession. I would also on occasion reverse the process when (and probably the worse for wear from alcohol) reveal when asked exactly what I did for a living. I would then have great amusement in being told that ‘no, your not that’ or anything like it. Hahahahahaha.

    I suppose I will never know, although I suspect, not, whether any woman ever saw me as sexually desirable in itself, hence the deceit and gaming for the purpose of seduction. Game is however necessary for even the most sexually desirable males will fall at the first hurdle is their image fails to match their persona. In the words of one of Elvis’ lesser known songs “Tell her yes in so many ways but never ever say it”. Bonus points for anyone who can name the song and the film from which it comes.

  126. Joe says:

    Reminds me of this…

  127. 7817 says:

    Different taxonomy, same concept — but in any case, it has zip/nada/zilch to do with being a “leader of the pack” or any such thing.

    It’s not that simple. Even according to Jim Donald of Jim’s blog, the man in charge is more attractive to women, and he goes so far as to say that Vox Day is blue pilled concerning women, so he is no tradcon.

    That’s part of why it is so hard to get definitive answers about this. There is >some< carryover between the male intrasexual hierarchy and and what arouses women, but it's not a clear line.

  128. BillyS says:

    I am not sure who this Jim is, but his blog is not very compelling. I skimmed a few things quickly, but didn’t get drawn in.

    Why does he think VoxDay is blue pill?

  129. 7817 says:

    Read his posts on women and cads. He’s compelling on those subjects.

    He didn’t elaborate on his opinion of Vox; he likes his other work but says his advice about women is not good.

    It’s not my opinion, I try to learn from anyone I can

  130. Novaseeker says:

    It’s not that simple. Even according to Jim Donald of Jim’s blog, the man in charge is more attractive to women, and he goes so far as to say that Vox Day is blue pilled concerning women, so he is no tradcon.

    Fine for Jim, but he’s simply not following manosphere taxonomy. That’s fine, he has his own taxonomy — okay. Vox does as well. I was simply pointing out the way that these words are used in the manosphere, generally (everyone knows Vox has his own taxonomy).

    In terms of substance, my own observation, contra Jim’s (as expressed for example here: https://blog.jim.com/culture/reacton-101-the-reactionary-red-pill-on-women/ ) is that men being in charge at the office is not in itself sexy unless the men have a certain personality type, and that in fact there are plenty of men in offices who are “in charge” (guys I’ve worked with my whole career) who are bad with women and are not getting any traction with women. They are having sex, with their wives, because they are betas, and betas get relationship sex. The guys in the office who get desire sex have not in my personal observation over about 30 years of exposure in the corporate world been the guys who are in charge, it’s the guys who meet the other definition of “alpha”, from the sex perspective, in terms of being the kind of guys who have the presence/charm/looks combo that makes women desire to have sex with them, even outside of a relationship.

    I mean, surely you also know plenty of execs and lawyers and other men “in charge” of other men, maybe even of lots of other men, who are in shape and not bad looking but who are not getting traction with women. That’s as common as the leaves on the trees in DC at least.

  131. 7817 says:

    men being in charge at the office is not in itself sexy unless the men have a certain personality type,

    Yeah I have no disagreement with you, but other people whose opinions I value do disagree. Just trying to figure it out better myself.

    If your view is correct, no wonder the tradcons hate the manosphere so much. Your description of alpha and beta completely separates any “redeeming” qualities of an alpha that a tradcon could co-opt.

    It makes arousal completely separate from any masculine attributes that are “Good for society.”

  132. Opus says:

    I agree with Novaseeker, in fact i would probably go further and say that most men in positions of authority in offices are horribly blue-pill and just hopeless with the opposite sex – at least that has been my observation and I say that as someone who has often been on the receiving end of their jealousy. Even fit handsome men are often seen by women as nothing more than kindly uncles.

  133. Anonymous Reader says:

    7817
    Even according to Jim Donald of Jim’s blog, the man in charge is more attractive to women,

    Superficial generalization, easily disproved. .
    Example: Elon Musk is in charge of SpaceX and Tesla. What’s his record with women?

    There are many other such examples, around all of us. So, hah.

  134. Anonymous Reader says:

    7817
    If your view is correct, no wonder the tradcons hate the manosphere so much. Your description of alpha and beta completely separates any “redeeming” qualities of an alpha that a tradcon could co-opt.

    Traditional Conservatives write about the world as they believe it ought to be.
    Critical parts of the manosphere write about the world as they can see it is.

    Bonus: a lot of TradCons cannot separate description from proscription.

  135. Novaseeker says:

    Yeah I have no disagreement with you, but other people whose opinions I value do disagree. Just trying to figure it out better myself.

    Yep it makes sense. I guess I’d also recommend validating what you see people writing about with your own experiences and observations of what you see going on around you in your own context. Anecdotal information is not data, of course, but because there are not any (and will not be any) statistically relevant sets of data on these kinds of things, they are for now an important source of confirmation or otherwise for all of us still.

  136. Lost Patrol says:

    It makes arousal completely separate from any masculine attributes that are “Good for society.”

    It really does. “Chemistry”, which is still around as an attraction term, has no regard for society at all. Not a consideration. Does not cross the scope.

    Most of my first hand observation would be of military commanders, some of whom literally commanded thousands of men, to include in time of war; that then went home to be used like a rented mule by their wives and daughters. Rollo has referred to these men as Blue Pill Alphas.

    Many men do what these commanders say, even at risk of life and limb, but women often enough remain unimpressed. The commander may be useful for social climbing and validation, but that does not mean he knows anything about desire sex.

  137. Anonymous Reader says:

    7817
    Yeah I have no disagreement with you, but other people whose opinions I value do disagree. Just trying to figure it out better myself.

    Elon Musk has a high skill level when it comes to hiring aerospace engineers: the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy show that clearly. He’s been divorced twice…so his opinion on women in that realm is notably lacking in evidence of competence.

    Novaseeker
    Yep it makes sense. I guess I’d also recommend validating what you see people writing about with your own experiences and observations of what you see going on around you in your own context.

    In this area of knowledge, empiricism rules. Take what some man says about social relations and test it. Test it by observation, just as Novaseeker says. Then test it by experimentation.

    Read and view and observe all these ways of relating, but only take what works. The “standard model of women” that all men have been taught in the West for a couple of generations is a Fail.

  138. Novaseeker says:

    He’s been divorced twice

    @AR —

    Indeed, but it’s worse than this. He’s actually been divorced three times, and two of those were from the same woman(!), whom he married twice.

    And his follow-up act was to get involved with Amber Heard, a beautiful woman but a venomous maneater if there ever was one and obviously bad news to anyone looking for more than a ONS.

    He can draw pretty women, no problem — he is charming, reasonably good looking and in shape, brilliant in intelligence and loaded, and he is also a public figure. He can’t keep them, though, and his choices in women are determined by what his various buffers can pull rather than what his actual sexual alpha-ness can sustain. He’s quite obviously too driven by ego sexually. Elon would be much better off if he just did his thing and let the women come to him — he would get a better woman that way than by chasing actresses like Talulah Riley (the one who divorced him twice) and Amber Heard.

  139. 7817 says:

    Arousal being completely separate from male leadership could be a pretty big help to your average guy.

    Nova, how do you deal with the question of amog, if there is no relationship between male status and female arousal?

  140. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker

    In terms of substance, my own observation, contra Jim’s (as expressed for example here: https://blog.jim.com/culture/reacton-101-the-reactionary-red-pill-on-women/ ) is that men being in charge at the office is not in itself sexy unless the men have a certain personality type, and that in fact there are plenty of men in offices who are “in charge” (guys I’ve worked with my whole career) who are bad with women and are not getting any traction with women.

    That was tl;dr for me. He needs an editor. No way I’m wading through the comments.

    Jim’s describing himself as “reactionary”. Perhaps that is why his writing style is sort of like Mencius Moldbug (Curtis Yarvin). This is not a compliment.

    In any event, there’s a definite “ought” buried in his opining about women, or perhaps he doesn’t really understand what gold-diggers really are. Because his claims do not match observable reality.

    “Women are wonderful”, “Women are more moral”, “women are more godly”, etc. is sort of like the ancient terra-centric model of the solar system. In order to explain the exceptions to the rules, ever more convoluted explanations (epicycles) must be invented. The Glasses are like the heliocentric model plus Kepler’s elliptical orbits – observations can be explained, predictions can be made and verified.

  141. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Novaseeker
    Hey, I left the search engine details of Elon Musk’s romantic life as an exercise for the student! You went and broke the curve…

    Anyway, in that vein all one has to do is look at Jeff Bezos. Richest man on the planet, obviously supplementing with Testosterone, cheating on his wife with a 40-something former carousel rider…this is “business alpha” foolishness in action. I won’t be surprised if he marries her and winds up divorced by her as well. Bezos seems real proud of his intelligence…

  142. 7817 says:

    Just remembered Dalrock and Jim had a run in.

    Not trying to stir anything up Dalrock, feel free to delete my comments referencing Jim and his site if you wish.

  143. Novaseeker says:

    Nova, how do you deal with the question of amog, if there is no relationship between male status and female arousal?

    AMOG is context-specific. So a CO can AMOG an underling, or a boss in a corporate context, but the relevant arousal AMOG has to do with sexual display around women. If there is a sexual context, and there is a competition between men, the AMOG will win it. But he won’t win it because he is the “work AMOG”, as in being “the boss”, he will win it because he is the “sexual AMOG”, due to looks/charm/presence in the specific context that is sexualized (that is any context where there is flirting/banter/sexualization happening).

  144. Anonymous Reader says:

    7817
    https://blog.jim.com/culture/all-women-are-like-that/

    Pretty one dimensional analysis. Looks like a recovering Beta AFC. Possibly somewhat autistic…

    To align the crude, cruel, simplistic, vicious, and brutal female perception of the male status hierarchy with the subtle, complex, multidimensional, and nuanced reality of the male status hierarchy as actually organized by males, we need to legalize and socially support domestic discipline by taxpaying husbands and fathers, also husbands and fathers that are members of the military, the police, rentacops, and mercenaries.

    …because this shows utter cluelessness about reality in the US. Even as sarcastic humor it is just foolish.

    General Butt Naked, LOL.

  145. 7817 says:

    AMOG is context-specific

    Right, makes sense. I was thinking one dimensionally.

    So the chemistry level is basically subtext underneath everything else.

  146. Hugh Mann says:

    Power is an aphrodisiac in itself, as Henry Kissinger (who looked like a frog) pointed out. Situational alpha. The boss’s employees (male and female) will always laugh at his jokes.
    There’s different types of alphatude, it’s not either/or. The guy I know who’s been most successful with women over a long life is 5’6″ and not at all ripped, but he’s one of those people who can make friends in ten minutes flat, a natural.

  147. Pingback: Moon Day Review – Crack and the Red Pill | Σ Frame

Comments are closed.