The "Rational Male and Female"? - Biology and Programs in Relationships

[Neil]

I find this post rather interesting in context of the direction this thread has taken and some concurrent discussions that are going on.

It’s easy for us to forget that we are of the world, so if we change ourselves, we change the part of the world we’re responsible for. -And there’s that undeniable ripple, anchoring effect.

Reading through Neil’s selection from the Ra Materials a few posts back, I found myself intrigued by the passages which describe an endless conflict between STS and STO, where neither can seem to win, and both sides find themselves drained from the conflict, -and unable to reach a perfected version of themselves due to the actions/intentions required to prevent subsumption by the other side. -To be wholly STO, one must include actions such as becoming a slave to that energy which wishes to crush others under the boot heel, except that conflicts with the requirement to exist freely in order to serve properly. So there’s pushback, and you get this whole cyclone of intentions. -Which is such a powerful battle that its question resonates through all layers of reality, defining much of our daily lives here in 3D, -and certainly most of our dream-expression, (fiction) media.

I remember originally reading the esoteric theories and channeled material about how 3D is all about "The Choice" and how the higher level beings basically reduced the whole purpose of 3D to being able to make "The Choice." It was all an intriguing intellectual theory and seemed to make sense, but it has gotten rather interesting that the underlying currents behind many of the ideas rippling across the mass consciousness of humanity as portrayed on the internet fundamentally come down to STS vs STO. This whole situation with Tomassi and the degree to which one internalizes his mental landscape is like a tangibly observable manifestation of Ra's "thought-war." It is interesting to me how little middle ground remains in a lot of these situations; there is either extreme STS or extreme STO motivating a lot of these ideas and the planet seems to be forcing a polarization, just like the Cassiopaeans and Ra predicted. I wasn't really motivated to read the books because I saw the whole dynamic as some type of disease, though I couldn't quite put my finger on it, and I figured I would shut up until I found the motivation to gather more data. Laura getting involved in this thread really threw it into stark contrast.

That's true, but in the case where we have to pick one or the other to be 'weighted' towards, it seems a better option to be weighted towards "sparkly ideas" than towards the "it's all biology" because, in the end, it's a) NOT all biology and b) we are trying to gain a handle on biology rather than exploit it for our own ends. Dawkins is wrong on his overall thesis on evolution, but there genes ARE programmed ot be "selfish", and will be unless consciousness is brought to bear on them.

"We're all lying in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars". The gutter is known, safe and appealing, but the stars call to us. People can argue that it's best to stay in the gutter, it's what we're made of, where we belong, so just try and become king of it. Others say, yes, you're in the gutter, you're part of it and it is part of you, and you need to understand the gutter part of yourself to be able to free yourself from it and focus on the stars. *** End of excessive analogizing.

I think this is about as cogent and succinct of a synopsis of the essence of this discussion as you can get. In fact, I'm rather convinced that our physical bodies themselves are another manifestation of the war going on in 4D, where thoughts are projected as things, as described by Ra and now the Cassiopaeans in the latest session.

A: Recall that 4D is a realm where thought has the power to create. If a mind, and here we mean much more than you understand as mind, thinks about a structure or something that needs to be accomplished, it assembles itself, more or less. Then when the structure is sent back through the realm curtain, the "idea" is the attractor blueprint that draws to itself the matching elements from your reality and they proceed through the process of organic assembly. This occurs because even inanimate matter has a minimal level of matching consciousness.

We were told previously that our bodies were created by the Orion Union.

Q: (L) Well, then how did mankind come to be here?
A: Combination of factors. Numerous souls desired physical existence then was altered by three forces including principally Lizards through Grays, Nephalim and Orion union.
Q: (L) Tell us again who are the Nephilim?
A: Enforcers. Slaves of Orion. From Planet 3C, or 3rd star, 3rd planet.
Q: (L) You said the other night that the Nephalim came from some area around the constellation Scorpio, is that correct?
A: Originally seeded there but you were too.
[...]
Q: (L) Let's go back to the three forces. You said numerous souls desired physical existence. When the numerous souls did this, how did physical existence come to be?
A: First was apelike.
Q: (L) And then what happened? Did these apelike being just pop into the air? What did the souls do with these apelike beings?
A: Souls altered them by transfer.
Q: (L) Transfer of what?
A: Souls into seeded bodies. Orion Union was first into Neanderthal.
Q: (L) The Orion souls came into Neanderthal bodies?
A: No. Put humans there for incubation process.
Q: (L) Were altered ape embryos put back into ape females for gestation?
A: No. Souls only.
Q: (L) They put the souls into the ape bodies?
A: Close.
Q: (L) Did the soul's presence in the ape body cause its genetics and DNA to change?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) They entered into living creatures on this planet to experience 3 d reality and by entering in caused mutation?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Then were altered by Orion Union first.
A: They resemble you.
Q: (L) Who resembles us?
A: The Orions.
Q: (L) We haven't talked too much about the Orions...
A: Orion Union. There are others in Orion Community.
Q: (L) Are some of the Orions not good guys as we would term it?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Are some of them good guys?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) So, you are saying that the original creators or genetic engineers were Orions?
A: Close. The original engineers but not inhabitants.
Q: (L) Where did the souls come from that entered into the bodies on the planet earth? Were they in bodies on other planets before they came here?
A: Not this group.
Q: (L) Were they just floating around in the universe somewhere?
A: In union with the One. Have you heard the Super ancient legend of Lucifer, the Fallen Angel?
Q: (L) Who is Lucifer?
A: You. The human race.
Q: (L) Are the souls of individual humans the parts of a larger soul?
A: Yes. Close. The One. All who have fallen must learn "the hard way."

Another instance of manipulation:

Q: (L) The other night we were talking about the "Mark of Cain" and I lost part of the tape. I would like to go back over that a little bit more at this time. What was the true event behind the story of the "Mark of Cain?"
A: Advent of jealousy.
Q: (L) What occurred to allow jealousy to enter into human interaction?
A: Lizard takeover.
Q: (L) Wasn't the Lizard takeover an event that occurred at the time of the fall of Eden?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Was this story of Cain and Abel part of that takeover?
A: Symbolism of story.
Q: (L) This was symbolic of the Lizzie takeover, the advent of jealousy, and the attitude of brother against brother, is that correct?
A: Partly. The mark of Cain means the "jealousy factor" of change facilitated by Lizard takeover of earth's vibrational frequency. Knot on spine is physical residue of DNA restriction deliberately added by Lizards. See?
Q: (L) Okay, J** is going to move her hand up my back and you tell her when to stop at the "knot".
A: Okay.
Q: (L) You mean the occipital ridge?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) What was the configuration of the spine and skull prior to this addition?
A: Spine had no ridge there. Jealousy emanates from there, you can even feel it.
Q: (L) Do any of these emotions that we have talked about that were generated by DNA breakdown, were any of these related to what Carl Sagan discusses when he talks about the "Reptilian Brain"?
A: In a roundabout way.
Q: (L) Okay, at the time this "Mark of Cain" came about, were there other humans on the planet that did not have this configuration?
A: It was added to all simultaneously.
Q: (L) How did they physically go about performing this act? What was the mechanism of this event, the nuts and bolts of it?
A: Are you ready? DNA core is as yet undiscovered enzyme relating to carbon. Light waves were used to cancel the first ten factors of DNA by burning them off. At that point, a number of physical changes took place including knot at top of spine. Each of these is equally reflected in the ethereal.
Q: (L) Is that all?
A: No. But, do you need more?
Q: (L) Well, the question I do have is, how many people were there on the planet and did they have to take each one and do this individually?
A: Whoa.
Q: (L) How many people?
A: 6 billion.
Q: (T) That's 500 million more than there are now.
A: No, 200 million.
Q: (L) Okay, there were this many people on the planet, how did they effect this change on all of them?
A: Light wave alteration.
Q: (L) And light waves, actual light waves, affect DNA?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) What was the origin of the light waves?
A: Our center.
Q: (L) What is your center?
A: Our realm. STO.
Q: (L) So, how did the Lizzies use the light from the Service to Others realm...
A: They used sophisticated technology to interrupt light frequency waves.
Q: (L) Well, what I am getting out of this that you are saying from what you are not saying is that it was almost like,... well, was there a battle and you guys lost?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Is this the same battle that the Pleiadeans talk about?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Not to go off on a tangent, but I have only come into this recently, you are the Cassiopaeans?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Are you also the Pleiadeans?
A: No.
Q: (T) Are you connected to the Pleiadeans?
A: Yes and so are others.
Q: (T) You are all the family of light?
A: Yes. Exactly. You have been "doing your homework".
Q: (T) I'm trying to. Now, another force in what we term as the past, defeated you and used the power of the light in order to alter us in different ways, is this correct?
A: Yes. Now understand this: It is all part of natural grand cycle.
Q: (L) If this is all a part of a natural grand cycle, and correct me if I am wrong here, it almost seems as if you guys, the "good guys", and the other "bad" guys, that you just really kind of go at it just for fun, is that true?
A: No.
Q: (L) But you say it is a natural thing or part of a natural grand cycle. Is this natural grand cycle just part of the interaction between light and darkness which just simply must be?
A: Yes. We are at "front line" of universe's natural system of balance. That is where one rises to before reaching total union of "The One". 6th level.
Q: (L) Do you like being at 6th level?
A: Do you like being at 3rd level?
Q: (L) Frankly no, I don't. (T) If you answer the question by asking the question, and we know that we are striving to reach higher, does this mean there are more levels above 6th level?
A: Yes. One.
Q: (L) Is that union with the one?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Now, the battle you had with the other side...
A: Are having.
Q: (T) This battle goes on... do you have the light power back?
A: Never lost it, you did.
Q: (T) Okay, I guess that for us the Lizzies are the main force even though they have others on their side...
A: Yes.

This last quote seems to have to do with what 4D STS fears the most.

Q: (L) Okay, I'll shut up. Carry on TR. (T) I need all the help I can get. (L) It's a tough one. (T) This must tie into why the Lizards and other aliens keep telling people that they have given their consent for abduction and so forth. We were STO and now we are STS. (J) Yeah, right.
A: Yes, continue.
Q: (T) We are working with the analogy. The gold was an illusion. The gold was not what we perceived it to be. It was a temptation that was given to us as STO beings on 3rd density. The door was opened by the Lizards.
A: No temptation, it was always there. Remember Dorothy and the Ruby slippers?
Q: (T) Okay, we were STO at that time, before we stepped through. We didn't have to step through. (F) But, wait a minute now, they keep saying, correct me if I am wrong, every time TR says: "They tried to get us through..." (L) They said no... (F) It was always there. (J) Free will could not be abridged if you had not obliged. (T) They didn't do anything but open the door. The Lizards opened the door and let us decide whether we were going to go through or not. (J) I still think the key is that we obliged by stepping through the door... (T) By our stepping through this door that the Lizards conveniently provided for us without actually doing anything to us, just opening it and showing it to us...
A: Provided? ! ?
Q: (L) They didn't provide it... (J) It always existed... (T)It's always there.... (J) It's there now... (T) The Lizards...
A: Yes, think of the Ruby slippers. What did Glenda tell Dorothy???
Q: (J) You can always go home. (L) You have always had the power to go home...
A: Yes.
Q: (L) So, we always have the power to return to being STO? Even in 3rd density?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) How does a 3rd density STO being conduct their life?
A: Discover.
Q: (T) I want to go back to the analogy of the door. The door has always been there. The temptation has always been there... (J) Is there... (T) Has, is, will be... is always.
A: "When" you went for the gold, you said "Hello" to the Lizards and all that that implies.
Q: (T) Okay that was what I was trying to get at. You said that the Lizards or the forces of STS opened the door.
A: No. Shouldn't say opened. We said "opened" only to introduce you to the concept, so that you would understand.
Q: (L) So, let's let go of the part that somebody "opened" the door. (T) The door was always there and always open. I was just trying to work with the analogy. So, the concept is that, as STO beings we had the choice of either going for the gold or not. By going for the gold, we became STS beings because going for the gold was STS.
A: Yes.
Q: (T) And, in doing so, we ended up aligning ourselves with the 4th density Lizard Beings...
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Because they are 4th density beings and they have a lot more abilities than we at 3rd density...
A: You used to be aligned with 4th density STO.
Q: (T) And we were 3rd density STO. But, by going for the gold we aligned ourselves with 4th density STS.
A: Yes.
Q: (T) And by doing so we gave 4th density STS permission to do whatever they wish with us?
A: Close.
Q: (T) So, when they tell us that we gave them permission to abduct us, it is this they are referring to?
A: Close.

I wonder if this has anything to do with why some religious figures became obsessed with "sins of the flesh" and how the flesh always seems to be at odds with the spirit, where I don't see any reason why it has to be that way. Maybe some shamans in prehistorical times had knowledge that our bodies were created by 4D STS, and if left to their own devices they always serve as an attractor to lock one into that reality. A body that can love and form meaningful relationships is unnecessary to the design function of humanity. Why would 4D STS waste energy on unnecessary features which may in fact serve to undermine their control? In fact, a fickle humanity that is prone to lots of unnecessary strife probably provides better nourishment for them. This is the "secret" that most evolutionists of the intelligent design school cannot bear to face.

On the other hand, the souls retain some vestige of the "lost light" which can cause DNA alterations and that is what the STO beings plug into to remind us that "you can always go home." That is why STS fights so fervently to stamp out any inkling of something higher that does not fit into their materialist paradigm. If the pathway is ever discovered it could undo their intricately planned, hundred thousand year old plan. And this is the context in which I view this whole radical masculinism/radical feminism thing. These are just shockwaves from shells being fired in the thought-war. It really is surreal to watch the alien invasion going on in real time right under everyone's nose.

 

[Beau]

The whole Manosphere and Red Pill Community just seems like the male version of radical feminism. What are they teaching? Men are victims. Women have been abusing us for their benefit for too long. We all know what believing in victimhood narratives does to people. It's what turned me off from the start. I am not a damn victim. I lack knowledge of female psychology, I'm just ignorant. It seems like quite the irrational jump to blame women for my own ignorance.

 

[Adaryn]

Read a Twitter post by Tomassi yesterday where he proclaimed that a "hovering hand", meaning a man who puts his arm around a woman's shoulder and lets it hover, is a sure-tell sign of a "Beta". Talk about pathological nonsense! It's true that "by their fruits, you shall know them".

Indeed. You know who Tomassi reminds me of? Thomas Sheridan. SOTT published an article about him here.
To sum up: several years ago, this guy, Sheridan, jumped on the 'spread knowledge about psychopathy' bandwagon, and wrote a book about psychopaths and how to protect yourself from them.
While the book itself does contain valid/factual information about psychopathy (the best lies are always more palatable when wrapped between 2 truths, and after all, as pointed out by ScioAgapeOmnis, even psychopaths can publish 'valid information'), Sheridan subtly distorts the message until it becomes clear that something's not right: for ie, Sheridan claims that you can spot psychopaths by looking at external, physical clues such as "having a ring finger longer than an index finger, a receding hair line, heavy growth of facial and body hair, acne, and high cheekbones with a low brow ridge."
Sheridan: man going bald -> psychopath.
Tomassi: man leans on woman on picture - man puts his arm ('hover-hand' style) around a woman's shoulder -> AFC/submissive Beta who's been taken in by the 'feminine imperative'.

Also, look at some scans of Sheridan's posts on public forums, as published on the SOTT article linked above.
Notice the way he talks about women, the crass language… and the heavy focus on sex. Does it remind you of someone?

It points to the same pathological mindset, psychopathic frat boy mentality.

After investigating the matter, it finally came to light that this Sheridan was a sexual predator and a con artist who just found a niche (here, victims of psychos, many of them being women) to make money and entrap women.
Tomassi has found a different niche (embittered men and naive/ignorant/lost young men) and is surfing on the RP wave to make some cash by teaching men how to 'empower' themselves by using women. Unless it's not just about money and he actually does believe the nonsense that he promotes, which might be even worse.

 

[BobDylan]

Who said it was to be done covertly? Isn't the best way to learn everything about someone you like - what they are, what they want, what they need… - to simply talk to them, engage with them, or even talk to their friends to learn more about them? And yeah, observe them, but in the context of face-to-face interactions… That's how I understand it anyway. If anyone (hello, radical feminists?) finds THAT creepy and stalker-like, then I don't know what to say…

Very fair points and actually, one filled with a lot of common sense ! I was thinking usually as a guy, before you attempt to do something mildly challenging or that holds a high risk of embarrassment if it fails you attempt to learn as much about it as possible then go and do whatever it is you want to do. That way you feel 'prepared'.

So anyways, I was wondering what JP, Putin, Trump (to some extent) and some of these really successful red pillers have in common? Apart from being men and appealing to a large swathe of the male population.

If I was to strip away their occupations, I would say

- They demonstrate competence
- They demonstrate self control even when under great duress e.g. one of JP's great qualities is his interview skills when against a rabid feminist.
- They control the situation they are in i.e. they can influence and turn events to a certain extent e.g. JP disarming a rabid feminist and to a certain extent, turning them to his way of thinking.

In short they demonstrate a certain level of self mastery and control of challenging situations they might be in.

What's all the above? They are IDEAL masculine qualities (OSIT).

Now to the manosphere, take the PUA guy Joe mentioned, the ginger RSD fellow, when he is showing his students videos of himself in the field, what are they seeing? They are seeing a man (who supposedly is like them, i.e. just an average schmuck) go into a highly daunting situation, display great self mastery and control of the situation DESPITE tests he might and does get. On top of these, what are these young men seeing? They are seeing someone have a wonderful human social interaction ( a deep human need) where he is talking to 'beautiful' women competently (a subsect of the population these men can only dream of engaging socially in any meaningful and competent way), win their validation / approval by the fact they are captivated by him.

Contrast to the typical male who is attracted to the manosphere

- Not in control of themselves i.e. no self mastery - suffer from crippling shyness, crippling anxiety, mental blocks etc
- Not competent by evidence of the fact they can barely talk to a female i.e. represents 'failure' which strikes at the heart of 'ideal' masculinity which strives to gain competence and overcome challenges.
- Can barely control interactions with the opposite gender to an optimal degree (most guys in this area are not looking to sleep with as many women as possible, they are just looking to have a nice interaction without getting rejected or without the girl feeling uncomfortable - trust me that's about it, it's actually quite innocent when you think about it)

Bringing it all together, my hypothesis is the manosphere is growing in prominence because it's able to appeal to 'ideal' aspects of masculinity i.e. self mastery, competence, control (of situations) in addition, it's able to appeal to the need for deep, fun and meaningful social connections (which externally would look like what you'd see in a PUA video - a guy talking to some 'eligible' girls having fun, them having fun etc etc).

The men who watch / consume this are barely wounded (most have never had a relationship, another huge percentage are virgins, another sizeable percentage haven't even kissed a girl etc) as they just have not had experiences that would result in 'wounds'. I think what they lack the most is connection to what they perceive as 'ideal' masculinity and meaningful social interactions with eligible women (not even necessarily sexual interactions, just any meaningful interactions).

If these men had self mastery, competence and could handle difficult situations like JP, Putin or even that RSD fellow, do you think they'd be reading Tomassi? Do you think they'd be worried about getting a partner, dying alone, being virgins?

In short, I think the appeal of the manosphere with young men is that it appeals to qualities of 'ideal' masculinity which these young men are deprived off given the miseducation and emasculation of boys and young men in today's age.

The qualities of 'ideal' masculinity is the 'sugar' if you will that is then used to transmit and make palatable the other pathological elements as described in this message board.

Guys, I took some time to think about that, please don't say it's gibberish

 

[fabric]

The whole Manosphere and Red Pill Community just seems like the male version of radical feminism. What are they teaching? Men are victims. Women have been abusing us for their benefit for too long. We all know what believing in victimhood narratives does to people. It's what turned me off from the start. I am not a damn victim. I lack knowledge of female psychology, I'm just ignorant. It seems like quite the irrational jump to blame women for my own ignorance.

It sure does look like that! It’s quite interesting to see that the very same ‘victim’ game is being taught on both sides. For the so-called manosphere, that’s about the most un-manliest thing you can do. I’ve heard about the MGOTW and the that Red Pilled documentary that talked about men’s rights but other than that I never really looked that much into it.

Since reading the Rational Male I took some time to go through some of what’s out there and it pretty much looked like a guy's version of feminism. Maybe it didn’t start out so radicalized but in any case I think it got the same treatment feminism did in how it got so off-track from promoting real values.

Just like how feminism was supposed to ‘liberate women’ and improve their lives seems to really be more about power (it did arise from post-modern ideologies) the promise of ‘liberating men’ and the façade of ‘self-improvement’ also seems to be more about power. I don’t think there are many (if any) large social movements that can withstand the ponerogenic influences pervasive in our culture and eventually (if not outright present to begin with) succumb to them.

Interestingly in a recent session:

(Possibility of Being) I have a question about gender insanity and transgender stuff involving children and all this craziness. Is it something that will pass quickly like a fashion, or something that will affect the world for several generations?

A: It is more likely to cause tragedy and moralistic snapback.

It does seem that this movement was born out of a response to radical feminism's destructive influence on men and the positive aspects of masculinity. Add to that the nihilistic get-a-quick-fix culture that has surrounded many young (and old) men (and women) for the last 30 years and you have the perfect breeding ground for this type of attitude to take hold in the manosphere. Perhaps this could be a manifestation of such as mentioned above?

With so many without direction or meaning, along comes manosphere to become a surrogate father of sorts. Unfortunately he's not a very good one. While Peterson and perhaps a few others are a good counter balance to that (at least for now), I do wonder if that's going to be enough to counter this devil in disguise.

 

[Joe]

Basically, after reading some of his posts, I went off on a controlling women fantasy. And during that I had a very loud and pronounced left ear ring, as if to say, "Gotcha!" So that snapped me out of it and seemed to indicate the flavor of what he promotes.

That's an important point I think. I had a similar reaction when watching videos and reading articles on the topic (including Tomassi). There's a kind of weird attraction, it quickly become so compelling, but not in a good way, more like an addiction, you can almost feel yourself getting 'hooked' if you pay attention. That kind of experience is very useful to remember and use to alert yourself any time you feel something similar again.

 

[fabric]

In short, I think the appeal of the manosphere with young men is that it appeals to qualities of 'ideal' masculinity which these young men are deprived off given the miseducation and emasculation of boys and young men in today's age.

The qualities of 'ideal' masculinity is the 'sugar' if you will that is then used to transmit and make palatable the other pathological elements as described in this message board.

Guys, I took some time to think about that, please don't say it's gibberish

Not at all! I arrived at a similar conclusion. The problem is that it seems to be that a heavy component of it is focused on 'getting laid'. They say it's not about that but almost everything you see in there has that as the focal point - if not the medium - through which you practice this 'ideal masculinity' and 'hone your skills', which, apparently makes you a 'man' and women will love you etc etc. It's good sell, because hey, what guy out there doesn't want chicks to dig him?

 

[Joe]

Who said it was to be done covertly? Isn't the best way to learn everything about someone you like - what they are, what they want, what they need… - to simply talk to them, engage with them, or even talk to their friends to learn more about them? And yeah, observe them, but in the context of face-to-face interactions… That's how I understand it anyway. If anyone (hello, radical feminists?) finds THAT creepy and stalker-like, then I don't know what to say…

Yeah, the 'covert' aspect is paying attention, noticing things while in the person's company, what they say to others, how they react to things, what makes them happy, what makes them laugh etc. etc. There's nothing 'stalker' about that, it's simply paying attention to reality, in this case for the specific purpose of giving to another what they themselves have shown they like. And btw, it has bugger all to do with being an 'Alpha' or 'game'.

 

[Joe]

The men who watch / consume this are barely wounded (most have never had a relationship, another huge percentage are virgins, another sizeable percentage haven't even kissed a girl etc) as they just have not had experiences that would result in 'wounds'. I think what they lack the most is connection to what they perceive as 'ideal' masculinity and meaningful social interactions with eligible women (not even necessarily sexual interactions, just any meaningful interactions).

If these men had self mastery, competence and could handle difficult situations like JP, Putin or even that RSD fellow, do you think they'd be reading Tomassi? Do you think they'd be worried about getting a partner, dying alone, being virgins?

Well, that's a bit overly dramatic, but I get your point. First, not every person is, is going to be or should be Putin or JP. I won't include the autistic RSD idiot in that grouping for obvious reasons.

Second, one of the main points in Tomassi's books that seems to shock many men that read them is that cold hard evidence that the "feminist imperative" has swept Western culture over the last few decades and made "betas" of so many otherwise "Alpha" men. It's true that there is a feminist ideology at work in the West today - and Tomassi uses that truth to draw people in - but it has only created a relatively few "soyboys" who seem very happy in that role as radical feminist helpers. But the idea that feminist ideology is responsible for every man who is not an "Alpha" is obvious BS, because that presupposes that every man should be an "Alpha", which also implies that 'all men are the same', which, VERY interestingly, is EXACTLY what radical feminists say! So Tomassi et al are essentially helping to make true what radical feminists falsely claim about men! The VERY thing they claim to be fighting against!

Third, where there any "betas" in 1900? What about the 18th, 17th, 16th centuries? No "betas"? Obviously there were, but where was the feminism that created them (since only feminism creates 'non Alphas')? It didn't exist, at all, therefore, "betas" (and that's a ridiculous term, along with "Alpha") are part of the normal, non-hierarchical spectrum of the vast majority of the male population. So Tomassi's premise is massively flawed if not deliberately disingenuous.

Tomassi is offering young, inexperienced, anxious guys a fast track to being a "Navy Seal" after only one day of bootcamp. But even then the Navy Seal turns out to be a complete asshat, so who would want to be him anyway, and a lot of the young guys realise they never wanted to be in the army either.

If you're a young, nervous, introverted guy, what the hell are you doing trying to get your "game" on in the middle of a nightclub anyway? Is that REALLY your scene? What about the chess club or the book club or whatever? Or are all the women on the planet corralled into nightclubs? You know that image of the nerdy guy and girl getting together, what's wrong with that? Or should the nerdy guy really be an "Alpha male" getting all the "hot chicks" in town, and if he isn't, that means there's something horribly wrong with the universe? And who decides that? Rollo F***ING Tomassi?!?

If you go to a nightclub on your own or with nerdy friends and you bomb and hate it, it doesn't mean you're a failure, maybe it just means nightclubs aren't for you!

Men NEED to learn and grow through hard and difficult experiences from WHERE THEY ARE at, that is HOW they grow, PROPERLY. If Rollo F***ING Tomassi had his way, every man would be transformed into a mutant super Alpha Douche Bag primed to make a complete ass of himself by spouting inane nonsense to every women that crosses his path and go postal on them when they don't 'give up the sex like your s'posed to' - like some kind of genetic experiment gone horribly wrong.

I am glad that there are many different character and temperament types among men and women, it makes life and relationships more interesting, and provides valuable different perspectives and qualities that can be brought to problem solving.

 

[Andi]

So funny ..Rollo f***ing Tomassi ..or RFT for short.

 

[genero81]

Men NEED to learn and grow through hard and difficult experiences from WHERE THEY ARE at, that is HOW they grow, PROPERLY. If Rollo F***ING Tomassi had his way, every man would be transformed into a mutant super Alpha Douche bag primed to make a complete ass of himself by spouting inane nonsense to every women that crosses his path and go postal on them when they don't 'give up the sex like your s'posed to' - like some kind of genetic experiment gone horribly wrong.

I am glad that there are many different character and temperament types among men and women, it makes life and relationships more interesting, and provides valuable different perspectives and qualities that can be brought to problem solving.

Wow Joe! I love it when you get on a roll and tell it like it is.

 

[luc]

Wow Joe! I love it when you get on a roll and tell it like it is.

Agreed Mic-drop!

Others have mentioned the twisting influence people like RFT have on our minds - just to add one observation: reading about this kind of stuff has the effect on me that I think "I'm not man enough". I have enough experience to fall back on to keep this type of thought in check, but it's pretty dangerous. What if decent boys and men are beginning to think they're failures because they are not hyper-promiscuous and going on champagne buying spree in some cheap night club every weekend?

Actually, this kind of behavior is as stupid as it gets. I remember when I was a teen, an older guy (funnily a pretty disgusting exemplar of the male species) told me something wise: don't waste your time chasing women. It will only ruin you and waste your energy. He spoke from experience.

Chasing women is really a stupid pasttime. You could use your time to study interesting things, tinker, enjoy some fascinating hobbies, build your character and so on. Women will enter the picture eventually, sooner or later, no need to chase 'em. And who knows, maybe, because you didn't waste the first half of your life trying to seduce women, you might actually end up as a filthy-rich tech entrepreneur, a famous author or a grand chess-master. And then you will laugh at all those "cool guys" that got all the chicks at school and spent all their energy on ape-like girl-chasing.

 

[hlat]

This forum has included discussions about the evidence of nonmaterial reality, discarnate intelligences, UFOs, bigfoot, time travel, karmic debt, and reincarnation, so I was surprised to see thoughts that soulmates are not real.

For me, soulmates are very real. I knew I was going to marry my spouse within 6 weeks of our first date. It was so clear to me, as if everyone before were just caricatures, comics, cartoons.

I was surprised that this month old thread about a pick up artist has so many pages. It's a bit like going to a brothel for advice on commitment and marriage.

I guess the advice of staying a virgin or only having sex inside a committed relationship isn't going to sell a lot of books.

 

[Laura]

I think that everyone who has been reading/participating in this thread should most definitely read the "Darwin's Black Box" thread.

 

[Windmill knight]

The whole Manosphere and Red Pill Community just seems like the male version of radical feminism. What are they teaching? Men are victims. Women have been abusing us for their benefit for too long. We all know what believing in victimhood narratives does to people. It's what turned me off from the start. I am not a damn victim. I lack knowledge of female psychology, I'm just ignorant. It seems like quite the irrational jump to blame women for my own ignorance.

Amen brother! And on that note, if anyone has some good non-pathological sources (preferably books, as they tend to go deeper) to recommend regarding human male-female dynamics and biological/evolutionary programs regarding such interactions (particularly the feminine side of things), I for one would like to know. I feel that most of my life I was way too naive about this issue, and I still have gaps in my knowledge about it, which is why I was finding the Tomassi ideas interesting. I wasn't looking into becoming a 'PUA', nor did I believe that biology-evolution were the sole forces behind women's behavior, but I thought some of his concepts could fill gaps.

For example, Oxajil earlier recommended 'Intimate Relationships' by Miller and Perlman. Is it worth reading the whole book? Any other good ones out there?