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


FOTCM Member
FWIW, I'm kind of in the same boat as you, Pashalis. I'd rather read the discussion here, and the "pearls" people say they are finding in the book, than have to put up with the writing several members have described. When I have to do a special mental gymnastics to a) filter out the language, b) infer (project into?) what the author is saying instead of him/her expressing it clearly, well... I just think that's a bad writer. They may have good points, but I'd rather read a synopsis then.


The Living Force
FOTCM Member
FWIW, I'm kind of in the same boat as you, Pashalis. I'd rather read the discussion here, and the "pearls" people say they are finding in the book, than have to put up with the writing several members have described. When I have to do a special mental gymnastics to a) filter out the language, b) infer (project into?) what the author is saying instead of him/her expressing it clearly, well... I just think that's a bad writer. They may have good points, but I'd rather read a synopsis then.

I am about 2/3 through the first book, and as others have said, there were quite a few gems and Aha-moments, so in my opinion I think that reading the book is definitely not a waste of time. Sure he might come across as a bit crass sometimes, and the grammar is often atrocious, but very often he makes a point, and then some pages later, he relativizes this point and puts it into context (often from an evolutionary perspective). But at the end of the day, I imagine this book is probably more helpful to a male audience than to a female audience.

At least it made me understand one of the things that went wrong in my previous marriage, which up until now just didn’t make any sense. So to view relationships in terms of “alpha” and “beta” is helpful (even if a bit simplistic) in a contextual manner.


Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
This is good thread with excellent summaries provided so, thank you very much everyone. I think the books have some usefulness for general populace not acquainted with Gurdjieff and Castaneda material. I have read the "The Subtle Art of Not..." and can relate with the language used and targeted audience. Anyone not in control of their machine would most likely succumb to the biological drives. Those drives are necessary to propagate the species - another feature of the Intelligent Design I reckon.

The concept of finding the "ONE" is also a distraction in my view as it gets heavily exploited by the 4D STS forces. Men are generally more open to such exploitation due to "Knight in shining armour" syndrome. When I think of relationships, I generally categorise people into two groups - ones who are doing or are aware of the work and the rest who are not aware of the work or are largely asleep.

I have observed a lot of relationships in the latter category and all appeared to be a convenient lifestyle choice and emotional feeding arrangement due to internal (personal) and external (societal) factors. Men or Women will pick their partners driven by biological and financial needs however the duration of the marriage is dependent on how long the chosen lifestyle can be maintained. This could also provide the right catalyst for someone to wake up and start asking questions in which case such arrangement would be deemed beneficial until that point.

People who are involved in the work would be better off seeking partners who appreciate the work and are willing to understand their own mechanical nature. And this would require an honest effort from both sides which would lead them to become that "ONE" for each other anyways. Besides, everything is secondary to the "work" in my view.


FOTCM Member
This is the kind of stuff from Tomassi on Twitter that I just don't get, encouraging men to 'instill dread' in their wives

Understandably off putting. Maybe he meant to say desire instead of dread (well one can at least hope so!!). I’m still only early into the 1st book, and he does mention keeping the Mrs keen by retaining a bit of mystery about oneself so that keeps her desire levels up - if she hasn’t totally figured you out, it keeps her interested. Familiarity breeds contempt and all that. But yeah, that comment is just off. I’ll be more vigilant reading the rest of his material, but so far I have not come across any crap like his tweet above.


FOTCM Member
This is the kind of stuff from Tomassi on Twitter that I just don't get, encouraging men to 'instill dread' in their wives

If you stay on a very superficial level, that kind of advice - men should remain a bit 'mysterious'/'enigmatic' to keep the women's fire burning, women should stay fit so as to meet the 1 condition men demand: physical beauty/attractiveness (yes, that's what he says in one of his blog posts) - probably makes sense, in a shallow kind of way. I understand his target are young (somewhat inexperienced?) males (haven't read his book and don't intend to)? So I see where he's going with this and how it can encourage young men to be competitive, strong, self-assured etc. which in turns guarantees success with women.
But for people who are a bit more experienced/mature (either biologically or psychologically), that seemingly excessive focus on biological imperatives/physicallity/physical attraction and how to maintain the latter artificially through various techniques, sounds very shallow and lacking in substance. It might work to keep the relationship 'interesting' for a while, but if there's nothing deeper to it, it'll go down the drain soon enough.
Sure, we should all be aware that we're mostly driven by biological needs:deadhorse: – though those tend to naturally fade as people grow older and their sexual drive decreases and having 'been there, done that' more than once, they get tired of those kinds of games and superficial sex-based relationships – but for most normal people, I believe (or want to believe) there's also aspiration to something higher and emotionally deeper than that.


FOTCM Member
This is the kind of stuff from Tomassi on Twitter that I just don't get, encouraging men to 'instill dread' in their wives

Basically that means "stay fit and desirable to other women so she stays interested in you". In the same way, a woman who keeps herself physically attractive is far less likely to have a cheating husband. IOW, we may not be ruled by our biology, but if you can take advantage of it, why wouldn't you?

This is especially relevant in our glorious modern age where the default seems to be "letting oneself go", especially after establishing a relationship. It's like both parties think, "Well, I've got my man/woman, so I don't have to worry about looking good, feeling good, etc." His point is that this mindset is a bad idea.

Of course, I think most people ARE pretty much ruled by their biology, but then look at the current state of things. So, even if all he is saying is, "be ruled by your biology in a way that's better for everyone in the long run", then well... why not? We like to talk about not being ruled by it, but if we're brutally honest with ourselves, most of us still are to one extent or another - even as we convince ourselves with all sorts of narratives that it's something "higher" or "better" than that. Many people probably never will get out from under its influence, and it's probably a good idea to take that into account when trying to "fix" things.

I think he just loves to use phrases like "instill dread" just because it stirs things up, which is unfortunate because it's really offputting. It makes it sound like he's advocating terrorizing one's wife!
Last edited:


The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I come to this from an inexperienced point, being shy and growing up with influences like 'Beavis and Butthead'. So I never stepped into this game and basically played videogames instead. So it kind of feels like I was always jaded and considered myself early on in life as a 'MGTOW'. But I still carried the notion of a soul mate, especially due to New Age influences. I haven't read the book, but have skimmed a few of his blog posts quoted in this thread. I guess I'm reading this thread because: biology..

He is quite crass, and I find his blog posts a bit over the top, like a romance novel for men. But I'm pretty modest, so maybe that's why it's a bit off-putting.

On soul mates, considering past lives, surely there would be some souls you favor that would make for better relationships if you meet up again in life. But on a probabilistic level, you can take the sex you are attracted to and then find the age gap for that population that you will accept for a partner. And you keep splitting it down by certain criteria and interests and there will be 10 near perfect partners, and possibly one who is the best for you. But people can change so that can be temporal.

Again I have not much experience in this, so it sounds like he's using a different dictionary than me. But it seems like he's using a lot of words to say that men and women don't understand their selves and how to love eachother.

And that each is projecting the ideal partner onto the other and trying to control or mold the other person into that. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that programming affects this deeply. But I think it should be something simple. Clearly men and women were made for eachother and have been forming families for hundreds of thousands of years. I guess bad relationships just come down to food for the moon?

It seems as complex as math is for me. So I still have an aversion to this relationship business. So no wonder I didn't pursue this lesson plan. But with that I'm wondering, if you don't have plans to form a relationship, is this material still helpful, say in self-esteem or removing illusions?


FOTCM Member
While I admit that some of Tomassi's arguments are valid (though, to me, JB Peterson explains things way better, in a pedagogic way, and without resorting to crass language to make his points), at first I couldn't help being offended by his overall stance on women, men and relationships. Since being offended might be evidence that he struck home and revealed some uncomfortable truths, as a means of challenging my beliefs, I 'forced' myself to read more of his blog posts while trying to "forget" my condition as a woman, or at least trying to see things from a distance.
But still, even then, I can't help but find not only his vulgar language but his philosophy repulsive. Indeed, we're ruled by biological needs, women and men are wired differently, but what solutions does he propose to improve interpersonal relationships and 'fix' the mess we're in?
While Peterson advocates a return to the traditional ways - marriage, monogamy, commitment, ie Judeo christian moral values - Tomassi - while admitting that he respects Peterson greatly and finds his views on intersexual dynamics mostly accurate - just drags you down at the lowest possible level and tells you to wallow in it because… biology. Well, as the C's say, that's what got us into this mess in the first place, so I'm not sure going down that route as a means to counter radical feminism/the 'toxic masculinity' propaganda will lead to something other than more chaos and more entropy.
An example of his more than dubious stance (to me) is the spinning plates theory. First, I thought that by spinning plates he meant dating (not in the sense of having a physical relationship, but just getting to know) several prospective mates in order to sort out which one suits you the best, the aim being to find a (possibly) long time partner. Or, at the very least, a 'casual' but monogamous relationship - since I agree than most young people do need experience to learn what they want/don't want from a relationship, so I have no problem with that.
But it's not that. By spinning plates he means having sex with several (even multiple) women – he calls that "non exclusive relationships" – so that when one doesn't meet your criteria anymore or you're bored with her or whatever, you still have other "plates" in store, or you can replace that one with new ones. As a man, "you regain your power" because you're the one calling the shots/selecting your mates from a large pool.
He doesn't advocate covertly cheating or lying but honestly telling your sex partners that you're just interested in 'non exclusivity"/non commited relationship - translation: 'unlimited selfish sexual gratification with multiple partners' - a behaviour justified by the claim that "men are wired that way, so take the red pill, embrace it and become an Alpha'. (I'm not sure if he's also advocating spinning plates for women too… probably not.)

My critics will often take a binary stance in their arguments with this idea citing that “they could never be with more than one woman at a time out of respect for her” or “so I should just lie to her and see other girls on the side?” To which I’d argue that these are feminized social conventions that attempt to thwart a man’s options in order to establish women as the prime selectors in intersexual relations. If it can be conditioned into a boy/man to ‘feel bad’ about seeing more than one woman at a time, it only better serves the female-as-chooser dynamic. To be sure, women are naturally the filters for their own intimacies, but it is essentially men who do the sexual selection. These convention’s latent purpose are designed to put selection of intimacy on a conditional basis that favors women, and as long as men will internalize this women will have a pre-constructed social high-ground.

The way to circumvent this dynamic is brutal honesty and a commitment to truthful, non-exclusivity with the plates you’re spinning. If you keep your options above board and are honest with any one girl and yourself about your choice to be non-exclusive, you not only remove the teeth from this convention, but you also reinforce yourself as a man with options (or at least perceived options). Further, critics will offer “well gee, if I did that with any woman she’d push off and dump me” to which I’ll refute – not if you establish this honestly from the outset. Most guys who’ve swallowed the ‘female power’ convention are too afraid or to preconditioned to even consider this as an option for seeing women. Letting a woman know, or covertly perceive, that you wont be exclusive to her pushes your commodity level up and implies options and potential success she’ll compete with other women to be associated with.

Plate Theory is also, most definitely not, a license to be indiscriminate with women. Just because you can spin a plate doesn’t necessarily mean you should spin that plate. Some aren’t worth spinning and a man with options should have no reservation about letting one go for a better one or two. In fact a man ought to be more discriminating in this regard since it affords him the best available from the largest selection.

Since I don't want to sound prudish I might say: "why not, if that floats everyone's boat… were it not for the risk of spreading STD's that is posed by unlimited sex with multiple people…
So all in all, just as I find radical feminism/feminists repulsive, I find Tomasso's stance just as so, like a radical masculinist version of the former. It seems like 2 sides of the same coin to me, a case of "proposed remedy just as bad, or possibly worse than the disease it claims to cure". And a bad example to young men, judging by the comments to his articles which are seriously disturbing because from what I can see, any valid point that Tomassi makes about biology/evolution is taken by most of his readers as a justification to engage in amoral sexual conduct.
Tomassi seems to dismiss the comments of readers who say that he must have been seriously burned to have such a view on relationships. He claims he's only after the Truth (but not after meaning, which is what sets him apart from Peterson… because that's what you do after you find "the Truth" that counts, for people who want to lead a more STO life any anyway…). Still, you can't separate yourself from your own, personal experiences and indeed as he seems to have been burned, his views may somewhat be tainted by his past experiences.
Which might explain why he takes a dig at Peterson for advocating marriage and monogamy. For him, Peterson has fallen into the feminist/blue pill paradigm…ie the 'OneItis' theory, because JBP met his future wife when he was a kid and has lived a fulfilling relationship with her for years. He can't seem to accept that there are people - probably operating in higher octaves than him! - who can find fullfilment in monogamy, but perhapst that requires effort and sacrifice (on BOTH sides), which he dismisses conveniently as a "feminine dictate" imposed solely on men.
Incidently, Tomassi says he's been married for 16 years and hasn't cheated on his wife… yet, not because they made a commitment to to be faithful to each other, but because he has found no cause for cheating. Ie his wife has managed to retain his sexual interest (and vice versa), though she apparently would have no problem with him cheating on her. Well, if that floats their boat…

Anyway, as I was despairing to find a voice of reason (apart from Peterson) in the 'manosphere', I came upon this brilliant article, that to me successfully rebukes the radical red pill/game theory, and is in line with Peterson's views, which are far better than Tomassi's counter 'solutions' to radical feminism. The views expressed in this article are certainly colored by the writer's religious/christian bias, but I say it's still better than Tomassi's seemingly atheist/amoral stance.

It's a long article… if you don't have time to read the whole thing, just scroll down to the review of Eyes Wide Shut, which is spot on.

Eyes Wide Shut - Has Red Pill & Game philosophy destroyed morality in Millennial Men?

I guess I am just an old codger, or getting there. If you are a young'in of the Millennial variety, you may want to skip this article. (That's a trigger warning in case you missed it.) After some interesting exchanges on Twitter, I thought I would flesh out a little more clearly what I see as the biggest hurdle preventing The West from a return to true masculinity and patiarchy.

Sexual morality.

Now... I am not casting the first stone. I can't. I'm as guilty as the next man, especially in the 21st century. What I am doing though is issuing a warning. A warning neither Red Pill men nor feminists want to hear on either side of the culture war that is raging right now and... in hilarious irony... actually unites them and puts them on the same team.

Millennial men love to point the finger of blame at Boomers, GenX and feminism (even the greatest generation I am shocked to learn) for the state of Western society they are now 'forced' to navigate through.

Ok... message received.

Riddle me this young whipper snapper...

The Boomers did not invent hook-up culture. They had "free love"... and then promptly got married and set about bringing you into existence. More than just a couple of you as you are the next largest (and possibly larger) generation after the Boomers themselves. Some of you might retort that hook-up culture is a myth. Even if I will grant you this possibility... there is still no equivalent to "hook-up" in its cultural context to compare to your "free love" parents. Yes, your parents had sex before marriage... literally, cause they got married soon after. And you?

Gen X did not come up with the idea of a "-flick--buddy". We just wanted to not be judged for having sex with someone we loved and cared about BEFORE we got married. Did you miss it? We also intended to get married and start a family, that's why we were -flicking-g. We just saw no point in 'waiting' if that was the goal both sexes were striving for in the first place. Again you might say "Hey... it's the culture we are left with by you fuckers." Ok... how many GenX'ers do you find on TINDER? How many X'ers do you find writing articles on how to optimize your chances for getting a swipe and thus a quick -flick-? Maybe you are not having sex on TINDER like the horny minority of your cohorts... but you ARE on TINDER and you ARE now lamenting how LAME it has become.

Dear Millennial... if you don't like the culture you are living in... look in the mirror.

More and more I am no longer asking the question why I write, but instead a more existential one - why do I KEEP writing? Writing for an audience that it is becoming increasingly clear will never want to hear the message I have to convey.

I have come to realize that this blog might never gain that much popularity with my target demographic. The reason? I view life from a moral perspective, through a moral lens, and ask moral questions.

I'm a Gen X'er. What can I say? It's how I was raised. That said, I am seriously beginning to realize that a lot of Millennial men, in adopting Red Pill and Game philosophy for their life, might not be as firm or convinced as I am that approaching life from a moral perspective is even valid anymore.

What Einstein has to say in that simple quote about morality is precisely the sticking point I have, as a Gen X'er, and many older men have about the moral views of young people today. Our (i.e. us old guys) view that leading a moral life, of living rightly, virtuously, justly, truthfully, is the best life.

But if you (i.e. a Millennial) have never lived in that world.

If a moral world does not exist for you because you were not raised in one.

How do you even begin to talk to a young man about the importance of striving to live a moral life, let alone a sexually moral one?

Feminism, Game and Red Pill philosophy has shattered the matrix that is the western, romantic, Judeo-Christian view of women being all loyal, polite, kind, caring, honest, selfless, family-focused and, most importantly, not all that interested in sex.

And there is no going back.

The truth of female nature for any one who has swallowed the Red Pill and learned Game is simple to state and can be summarized thusly:

Women love sex!!!

The vast majority of them, especially the good looking ones.

On campuses around The West, there is now an active push by women to -flick- around and never even attempt to get into a committed relationship.

So what's a young, 20 something college guy to do? Seriously... I am not making light of the situation or being naive here.

Being Mr. Nice guy is clearly not going to get a girl today. In the more reserved and patriarchal past, you at least had a chance of finding a nice girl. Opposites attract, but we usually drift toward commonality and likeness 9 time out of 10. Since most people were nice back in the 50s, there were a lot more nice men and women to meet and make a go at love and family. That... is simply no longer the case in The West. Nice... is a four letter word now, for both sexes.

Add to this the renewed vigor of a rising, vocal and increasingly activist atheist movement globally that many young men are increasingly attracted to, it all adds up to only one possible conclusion.

Morality is not just obsolete now in The West.

Morality is dead.

Especially for the Millennial generation. Morality is not even a concept. It just simply does not exist in their world view.

When you look at the history of morality, you cannot separate it from religion and contemplation of God and a greater purpose/reason for Man's existence.

If God is dead... so too is morality.

Naturally... and I am deliberately dumbing down and simplifying Red Pill and Game philosophy so I ask for a little indulgence... this leads young men to believe and declare...

"-flick- IT! YOLO dude.​
No more Mr. Nice anything.​
I am THROUGH playing this morality game and letting anyone, let alone a God, tell me what I can or cannot do with my dick."​
Yet ironically... these same young men are increasingly angry, frustrated and downright disgusted by the sluts and whores they encounter in their lives.

And it is not just the men... the women are also angry and frustrated as The Atlantic learned in it's article Boy's On The Side.

The porn pic being passed around on the students’ cellphones at an Ivy League business-school party last fall was more prank than smut: a woman in a wool pom-pom hat giving a snowman with a snow penis a blow job.​
Snowblowing, it’s called, or snowman fellatio, terms everyone at this midweek happy hour seemed to know (except me). The men at the party flashed the snapshot at the women, and the women barely bothered to roll their eyes.​
These were not women’s-studies types, for sure; they were already several years out of college and proud veterans of the much maligned hookup culture that, over the past 15 years or so, has largely replaced dating on college campuses and beyond.​
One of the women had already seen the photo five times before her boyfriend showed it to her, so she just moved her pitcher of beer in front of his phone and kept on talking.​
He’d already suggested twice that night that they go to a strip club, and when their mutual friend asked if the two of them were getting married, he gave the friend the finger and made sure his girlfriend could see it, so she wouldn’t get any ideas about a forthcoming ring.​
She remained unfazed. She was used to his “juvenile thing,” she told me.​
Hanna Rosin - Boys On The Side - The Atlantic​
Again, for a Gen X'er and any Boomer watching young people act out their lives publically all over social media, this split mind, the schizophrenic life philosophies that one can so clearly see as incompatible in the practice of living life, is completely incomprehensible.

Of course, to a Millennial, I would suspect the reply would be "Yea... well... your just old and clearly don't know anything despite the years you have lived." I am not making this up. Over the past four years of my life, I have worked closely with a number of Millennials and this pretty much sums up their life philosophy when it comes to thinking about how us old-schoolers believe life should be lived.

The Christian morals of the 20th century are obsolete, dead. Your so-called moral values did nothing to prevent the shit world we now live in. Therefore, I am making up my own rules and the morality of them or not is none of your damn business.​
So screameth a Millennial​
On the one hand, both Millennial men and women are frustrated and actually HATE the current state of affairs between the genders.

Yet immediately on the flip side, none of them EVER want to go back to the traditional ways, to the ways of their parents and grandparents.

When I ask myself to dig deep into the psyche of a Millennial, to really try to understand what they mean by "traditional ways of their grandparents"... all I can really come up with is...

A moral way of life.

A way of life that says this is right, that is wrong.

Keep your dick in your pants. Save sex for marriage and commitment to one another.

Your grandmother will agree with this
— Wallace W. (@billwall86) November 17, 2017
I rest my case.

I just finished watching Eyes Wide Shut by Kubrick again for the 2nd time.

Stunning film.

One of the most intense and real moments in the film is dialogue between Tom and Nicole about the nature of women and sex.

Kubrick... gave us the most succinct, direct, intense and visceral lesson on the delusional naivety of Blue Pill thinking about women you will ever find on film.

It is an absolute shock to watch and I realize now why so many people who went to see Eyes Wide Shut came out of the theatre shrugging their shoulders and saying "What the hell was that all about?" They shrugged their shoulders BECAUSE it was an AMORAL film being played before a MORAL audience. I was all of 24 going on 25. Gays were simply "human beings deserving of respect to live their lives", not moral paragons and models for children that they are today. What westerners saw in EWS was a way of life - an amoral life - that was so completely alien to them, yet uncomfortably familiar (in its theme that the elites live differently than the masses), that no one could leave that theatre with a neutral view of the film. It raised a lot of questions. Questions The West is only now beginning to understand to be realities here-to-fore of a secret society and secret way of life... for SOME people.

Kubrick, as usual, was ahead of the times. This film's release in 1999 was just prior to the start of what would soon become known as pick-up-artist (PUA) techniques and the men that get together to practice getting better at getting laid - now known comprehensively as Game. As Kubrick's wife explains on the bluray extras, what Nicole does in that scene is proceed to burst Tom's love bubble. I.e. That women are all about security, loyalty, "love" and that sex - carnal, animal, anonymous - is simply not a part of the female's nature and make-up. What is also interesting is that for the rest of the film, it is Tom's character, THE MALE, that is trying to process this new view of women/sex. To try to find a way for himself to engage in it. To taste carnal, animal and primal raw sex. Just like his wife so intensely described to him.

No surprise, as a fully Blue Pill male who had the Red Pill FORCE FED on him, he has a hard time.

A hard time I suspect because, as many men who swallow the Red Pill for the first time and open their eyes, he just cannot believe how sexual the world of the feminine is.

Which brings us back to the main topic - morality and is it necessary in a Man's sexual life today.

Eyes Wide Shut is, ultimately, a moral story.

Not a story with a moral message.

A story that says MORALITY is the message.

You either have a MORAL society... or you have...

Like Marshal McLuhan's famous "the medium is the message", Kubirk is saying Man's purpose IS to wake up and lead a moral life. Especially once his eyes are opened to living without morality, the perils of which are made clear in the film. The real contrast and energy in the film is toward the end when Tom's character does what? He tries to do the right - i.e. moral - thing and is 'educated' it is in his best interests (his life) to simply stop and walk away. Walk away because... he is dealing with a kind of people who are 100% amoral and who would not blink an eye to kill him, and his whole family, to protect their secret society. Morality as theme explains why there is a Christmas tree in almost all the scenes where Tom Cruise is taking steps toward sin - the tree being a reminder of Christian moral truth and rules - that the core of human morality revolves around our attitude and actions toward sex and sexual relationships.

What I read over and over again on Red Pill and Game blogs is that our culture is -flicked- up. Women are amoral sluts and they are programmed to be that way by biology. Thus, young men need to change their tactics to get laid in accordance with what women want NOW and what they ACTUALLY RESPOND TO as sexual creatures.

And what women want now is... the r-selected, adventure sex, dark triad, -flick- ME HARD alpha male.

You k-selected, beta-boy, nice-guy, pro-civilization (i.e. provider) types?

Forget it.

You are NEVER getting laid in the 21st century if you even hint at coming across as wanting a relationship and being Mr. Provider who wants to fall in love. At least not by any woman who is not solely out to cage you in marriage after riding the cock-carousel.


Morality... at it's core... is about what is right and wrong.

But, we are not supposed to talk about the morality of Game.

To discuss a moral way to live one's life with the opposite sex that is optimal for not just one's own happiness, but the whole of society, for civilization is 'divisive' and 'counter productive.' One can discuss Game from a morally neutral point of view, to leave questions of God and Soul and Purpose out of the discussion. And for the purposes of getting laid, it is almost mandatory that one does so because if you allow those kinds of questions into your mind for even a second while laying down Game on a girl, it -flicks- up the whole vibe.

A quest for meaning... or a quest for morality? Is it not one and the same? Morality gives meaning to life. Without it... it's just spinning plates.

But I am curious...

Man... capital M.

Has he 'progressed' to the point where he can exist now without asking himself the most fundamental and basic questions about his existence?

What is right and wrong about how to live one's life, especially the core and powerful force of sexual relations with women that in many ways are Man's central pivot point and defining characteristic?

If so... I ask you this...

What kind of society do we get where no moral questions, what is right and wrong, are asked?

More importantly and to the point... who benefits from an amoral society where right and wrong are cast into the dustbin of history as outdated and irrelevant?

Can you say feminine imperative? I knew you could.

What is the nirvana state of bliss for feminine imperative's triumph in society?

That a woman should never be judged (i.e. morally) and there is no truth on the right (i.e. moral) way to live.

What does Rollo say should never be discussed about the Red Pill?


Is Rollo's Red Pill philosophy enabling the triumph of the feminine imperative by NOT asking moral questions about sex and gender relations?

Ooooops... did I just ask an uncomfortable and awkward question?

Let's just pretend that did not happen?

Eyes Wide Shut indeed.

Can you say feminine imperative? Son of a...


Red Pill.

Now "a new way forward."

What are we really talking about here?

We are talking about HOW we SHOULD live, about morality.

And very possibly a return to a more spiritual/religious creed by which both men and women will soon adopt as moral rules and guides to live their lives.

I truly believe THIS is what the sphere is currently engaged in, at the deeper level.

A return to moral truth in Man IS #upstreamTwitter in the Red Pill sphere.

This new moral searching is causing a shit storm and rightly so for some veterans of the Red Pill life philosophy. It should be obvious to these men WHY an amoral, no-meaning-to-life-but-what-you-make-it philosophy is so very quickly reaching its expiry date with the vast majority of men.

Some men... are beginning to figure out that spinning plates is accelerating the destruction of The West. After slaying pussy all they can, some men are asking a question of meaning... of purpose to it all and wondering where is it in the Red Pill.

There is no meaning, no joy, in the Red Pill because the Red Pill, at it's core, is amoral.

There is no meaning to life... without morality. This is the reason Rollo won't discuss meaning and attacks anyone who says the Red Pill should have a prescription for meaning. The second you begin to go down this road... spinning plates is seen for what it is... a shitty way to live your life that brings not just no meaning, but its polar opposite - depression, apathy and disillusion. Unless of course all you care about is getting your dick in some pussy. In that case... party on dudes!

Morality, as Socrates said, can't be the feminine imperative of "feels", but something true and real.

That meaning young men are searching for on #upstreamTwitter...

That morality young men are beginning to inquire into and find in the voice of Jordan Peterson... going to look a LOT like the old morality of their grandparents generation Millennials have been shitting on their entire lives, while also simultaneously looking back fondly on as when things were good and normal.

Either there is a right way to live, or "many ways" that are all "equally valid and true."

Rest of the article here.


FOTCM Member
Well put @Adaryn. You explained what was my issue with him but couldn't quite put it into words. I'm just not buying that acting like Tomassi suggests is beneficial to anyone other than a man who wants to find and sleep with as many women as possible. There may be nuggets of useful info, but a lot of it feels like pop psychology to me. He thinks he has insight into how women think, but it's unconvincing.


FOTCM Member
There is a distinction indeed to be made between understanding the machine, and what to do about it. There surely are some animal and societal impulses that influence people's behaviour and choices. That doesn't mean we should submit to those impulses without question.


FOTCM Member
Yeah, for all his promotion of Alpha male mentality and behaviour as true masculinity, Tomassi fails to see one of the flaws of the Red pill theory, as 'Maximus' (the writer of the article I quoted in my previous post) underlines here:

Rhett Butler was no saint. In fact, he is a fairly good example of the 'alpha male' the Red Pill says all men must now become if they wish to be seen as men. (Especially by women. Note again how important it is for the alpha male how women see him, not other men.)

Indeed! Though they like to call themselves Alpha, these guys mainly react to women's so-called biological imperatives… and adapt their 'pick up' strategies… in order to get women. All in all, to me, most of the RP promoters look like little boys who just crave women's attention (like Beta men) and are trying to pass as grown up men. All the while hating/despising women for it (for the most extremist ones, in any case)!

"It's been awhile since I watched Gone With The Wind, but if I am not mistaken, Rhett's strongest appeal to Scarlett was not his 'alphaness,' but his strength of character. A character of respect- for himself, for others - that allowed him to walk away without shedding even one tear from a woman, a relationship and a place that was all wrong for him."

I think he has a great point. It's not 'alphaness' but strength of character/impeccability (ie: knowing what's right and what's wrong, and choosing right even when wrong would be the most satisfying/gratifying/easy option) that makes a man a true Man. We have examples of that in Putin, Caesar or Peterson. That's what commands respect (love?) in both women and men.
Last edited:


FOTCM Member
Some men... are beginning to figure out that spinning plates is accelerating the destruction of The West. After slaying pussy all they can, some men are asking a question of meaning... of purpose to it all and wondering where is it in the Red Pill.

I think that article's a bit over the top, although I like the main point about the need for some kind of stabilizing "morality".

Obviously, if a bunch of average Joes read Tomassi's stuff and they have barely-functioning brains, that's not going to result in a good outcome for anyone because they'll miss the deeper problem. Tomassi's tweets turned me off to him at first. Then I read a review from... somebody, can't remember where... and that's when I decided to get the book and read it.

I don't necessarily think that everyone should read his stuff, but I do think that many people here would benefit from it. The people here - I hope - would read such a book and do what they should be doing anyway: weeding and thinking!

If the C's are correct that this whole rabid feminism thing is to destroy traditional masculinity (and feminity, because, well: duh!) then there will be no quick and easy solution. JBP isn't going to save us all. Much damage has already been done. It has really exercised my noggin over the past year especially. I find the whole situation inexpressibly depressing.

How does one even start to solve or mitigate a problem like that? Generally speaking, I don't really see us "fixing" anything, but I think sometimes we can act as a mitigating force. How do we even do that?!

Step 1 seems like it should be to understand what's going on, and that means that yes, we need to be able to read things in crass language without passing out or getting so offended that we can effectively do nothing. Most of the time, we react badly to such things because they serve to remind us of our own past mistakes. It can also be because of the, "butter wouldn't melt in my mouth" routine.

It's actually kind of funny, because in reading these books, I remembered something after Tomassi's incessant mentions of "spinning plates". Over the years, I had completely forgotten about all the "opportunities" I had to do exactly that. I didn't take any of them. After reading these books, I'm even more glad that I didn't... not because all women are nefarious biological money-grubbing she-devils, but rather because the whole thing is so UTTERLY RETARDED that it boggles my mind!!

When I look back over my life and what I know of, say, my parents' generation, the influence of these "anti traditional gender role" forces is so clear it's almost painful. Like someone mentioned about being able to see it in movies now, I can't unsee it. Apparently, it's been right in front of my nose, but I couldn't see it.

Now, I can't say that the same would be true for your average man out there. The thing about the quote above though... I don't know anyone who is busy "spinning plates", and I also know that those that claim to be on public forums and social media are most likely doing what goofballs usually do: lying through their teeth. So I'm not sure we can say that there is an epidemic of "Red Pill p-slayers" at this point...

If they've at least actually started to think instead of just going with the societal flow, then good for them. At one point, Tomassi actually says point blank that of all the people reading his book, chances are that almost none of them are gonna turn into super-duper plate-spinning Don Juans. Well, duh!

IOW, it seemed to me that he realized on a very practical level how human psychology works. If he tells everyone they're Superman, none of them will be able to fly, but they just might stand up for themselves or prevent some old lady from being mugged.

At the same time, how this whole thing proceeds in the longer term will depend on a lot of factors.

If Step 1 is understand the problem, and traditional masculinity is in jeopardy, then Step 2 should be: reboot men! I think JBP has a much better chance of doing this well, but there is also a large crowd that he's probably too intellectual for. They'll be going for guys like Tomassi. And frankly, JBP is just one guy. He can't fix everything.

At the very least, it's good to understand where RP peeps are coming from. Better yet, you might just learn a few useful things along the way.

Then again, who knows? Maybe I was just clueless in a certain sense, so I got something out of the reading, but most other people won't.

I think he has a great point. It's not 'alphaness' but strength of character (ie: knowing what's right and what's wrong, and choosing right even when wrong would be the most satisfying/gratifying/easy option) that makes a man a true Man.

There are a couple of section about what "alpha" means (to him) in the first book. He basically says that both the guy who's picking up women left and right and the guy who is a loving husband & father of high character can be alpha. They can also both be beta. It depends on the context and situation. IOW, it's a pretty meaningless term in the grand scheme of things.


Jedi Master
Sure, we should all be aware that we're mostly driven by biological needs:deadhorse: – though those tend to naturally fade as people grow older and their sexual drive decreases and having 'been there, done that' more than once, they get tired of those kinds of games and superficial sex-based relationships–but for most normal people, I believe (or want to believe) there's also aspiration to something higher and emotionally deeper than that.
"Most people", in all likelihood, are probably OPs, and for them due to their arguable lack of being without soul, substance, essence, depth etc. they would fundamentally have little-to-no protective 'buffers' in / within them against such 'hindbrain' impulses, their never seeking anything 'higher' than baseline survival and day-to-day living and working practices (which would play right into what seems to be hardcoded specific sub-processes of "The Predator's Mind"). (It seems that this is what he and others regularly encounter and unknowing write, Tweet etc. about.)

Tomassi's work helps bring light to some of those processes but the sexual 'solutions' offered are more or less very base, physical, and not of anything higher or deeper.
Top Bottom