[Leo]

I share the view of the anonymous comment above mine, but I will also mention this: it would be greatly appreciated if the rationale behind the rejection is provided, so that we can be aware of what we need to focus on improving. Not everyone seems to have a healthy sense of communication, and it would be preferable if we could maintain some honest two-way communication, and exercise consideration for one another’s well-being. Ignoring someone else is inappropriate, but informing them that you’re no longer interested, preferably including why, goes a very long way and leaves a much healthier impression of who you are and how you respect other persons in your community. If we can treat each other with some level of decency, then we can expect that to be contagious across our society and have it reciprocated with others we may connect with into the future.

[Anonymous]

I take rejection as a learning experience. Any interaction, be it with a man or a woman should be a chance to reflect on the energy we are putting out into the world. So many people are scared of even the most basic interactions that even putting yourself out there, to a degree, is progress in my opinion. None of us are perfect. I’ve been on this earth for 38 years and I haven’t stopped learning and I never will. I’m always asking myself what I can do to be better.

I would also put this out there to guys, are you treating women like people? Are you trying to relate? Are you genuinely interested in learning about who she is? If you’re not, you’re doing it wrong. You don’t need to treat a woman like a princess or property. Treat a woman like a person, someone you want to relate to, not drag into the bedroom the first chance you get. It goes a long way guys.

[AeonKnight]

@Pete

“No,theyre not just attracted to power. That’s far too cartoonish and simple an explanation, one that resonates with males who have little power.”

Power is all-encompassing, and the opposite of simplicity/cartoonish. Denying Might-is-Right is what men who have no power do, actually, because they need to try and change the rules of Nature in order to compete.

“Women have three things they concern themselves with: themselves, their babies, and anything that gets in the way of the first two.”

Exactly. All things which can only be preserved through power. Pretty basic shit here, mate.

“Once you realize that attraction to “power” isnt that at all, that its really a potential ability for them to afford complete focus on themselves, and or their babies if they have them, and protection from things that get in the way of themselves and or their babies.”

You said it twice but you haven’t listen to your own words for some reason. Power (and violence) are the foundations of all things, because they’re the last resort that can exist. Laws can only be enforced through power (the threat of violence), otherwise they’re just suggestions. Acting to protect is power. “Action”, full stop, is power.

“What women want is what they want, especially when they dont know what they want.”

Yeah, man, women truly are a mystery LOL if only evolutionary biology were literally the most objective thing ever…

[Anonymous]

No,theyre not just attracted to power. That’s far too cartoonish and simple an explanation, one that resonates with males who have little power.

Women have three things they concern themselves with: themselves, their babies, and anything that gets in the way of the first two.

Once you realize that attraction to “power” isnt that at all, that its really a potential ability for them to afford complete focus on themselves, and or their babies if they have them, and protection from things that get in the way of themselves and or their babies.

What women want is what they want, especially when they dont know what they want.

[A_Spartan_Speaks]

Attraction is a very individual thing so rejection is inevitable. I actually think that experiencing rejection, from time to time is a good thing as it keeps one humble. I’ve never had trouble attracting women and in my younger days I dated, had sex with some world famous, a-list, Hollywood actress/model types. But I have certainly faced my share of rejection. Looking back, I’m always amused by the fact I was rejected by two young women for being too short. It’s amusing to me because I’m 6’2/188cm but those women wanted really tall guys in the 6’4-6’5 range. But again, unlike the mgtow-incel-beta-bitch losers I never take rejection personally and I’ll never begrudge women having standards, and preferences. And Zeus knows I’ve rejected women over the years for my own reasons.

[Hunter]

So many words, yet in the end, might makes right. She rejects you because you lack sufficient power (over her).

[PrometheanFlame]

@Sonnenbaum

It sounds like you’re beginning to understand the alchemical axiom “as within, so without”. The world we experience as external is only a mirror of ourselves. We can’t see what isn’t within us.

Be careful with blocking out your emotions. I would advise against this. Our emotions have very important messages to tell us, but still use discretion when choosing who to share what with.

You describe yourself as a hermetic vessel who needs nothing, but are you being honest with yourself? How can we ever work towards what we desire if we never admit we have such desire to begin with?

[Anonymous]

I love your analysis, thank you for it.

To me I think of various thresholds or gates along networked paths of each persons energy field and between the two. I’ve recently been reading about human design (new age astrology interpretation) that seems to show pretty well a lot of what I’m referring to.

We have portions of ourselves that complete or are incompatable with others, or even irrelevant.

Its like when I’m out for a walk choosing the path I’d like to take based on the beauty, given 3 equally beautiful directions, I choose one because its a flavor that compliments what I’m tasting in me, when I introspect. Like as if path 1 was gold, 2 was diamonds, 3 was emeralds.. its not about inherent value its about whats in me, sympathetic vibration, resonance, music.

I think, in all honesty, I’ve been rejected earlier for being the too weak tree. Or for expressing enthusiasm too much, not being poker faced indifferent enough. I didn’t understand the game at all. You have to outlast the other persons insecurity and then sort of play catch with that dynamic, and you can cheat at the game by blocking out your emotions.

What I’m learning now is to combine friendly warmth with indifference, because I can’t stand the cold indifference. Instead its like I’m the hermetic vessel that needs nothing, and because actually don’t need the attention, I simply enjoy the exchange sincerely when it occurs, I can outlast the playing catch with insecurity without being detached from my heart.

I’ll let you know if it works toward an actual relationship, lol.

“You are unsanctioned research.”

[AeonKnight]

@Hunter

“Also, you are looking at the Classical world through the lens of Christianity.”

Yes, because being anti-faggotry is a Christian invention (and so is pointing out Jews try to re-write history), not a function of biological selection in societal stability. Just fucking lol.

For the people that need a breakdown on why faggotry can’t work as policy:

Greece: https://youtu.be/BNAT4ybsz_E

Rome: https://youtu.be/7QVh3kj7CjA

“I will conclude by reiterating that ‘she rejects you’ because you lack power relative to her, and I mean POWER in the most expansive sense of the word.”

Every sentence I write is in defence of “might is right” as a mechanism of physics, so there is no disagreement here.

[AeonKnight]

@Shaughnessy post #20189 and #20190

Perfect breakdown of the fake trads on this site.

[AeonKnight]

@Shaughnessy

Reply to post #20187:

“Ancillary response: All humans engaged in arranged marriages until eleven minutes ago because the tale of human evolution is one wherein the extreme “tournament” modality that female hypergamy brings about has gradually been defeated by the patriarchal impulse to impose restrictions upon female sexual agency via such measures as coverture, arranged marriages, effective monogamy, chastity until marriage, and a ban on remarriage, barring being widowed, and remarrying. The “tournament” to which evolutionary psychologists refer is the same as K strategy (favoring quality above equality / quantity).

Such tournamentism produces harems and incels, not stable families and stable societies. Curtailing female sexual agency prevents winner-take-all tournamentism from being victorious over mate guarding / paternity certainty. Silverbacks (Chads) aren’t “patriarchal”; they flout paternity certainty in favour of the winner-take-all strategy that unconstrained female hypergamy brings about, where only Chads reproduce. The high testosterone of those Chads does not correspond in any way with “patriarchy.” Patriarchy is the modality whereby family-oriented “beta” males unite against hypergamy, massacre the Chads, and prevent females from allowing the DNA of Chads from dominating the gene pool. Patriarchy is a low-testosterone phenomenon.

Low testosterone guarantees that the maximum number of males reproduce, and allows the maximum number of males to curtail female sexual agency, so that pair bonding can occur in the maximum number of instances, so that paternity certainty can be guaranteed to prevail the maximum number of times in any given population. When women are on birth control, which simulates pregnancy, they choose family men (“betas”) over cheating Chads (“alphas”), such that patriarchal males (monogamy-minded ones) can maximize the number of males which reproduce, so as to bring about greater paternity certainty.”

Correct. I don’t know what you’re going on about, or why you assumed I had a different position: I am just against forced marriages, not against enforcing paternity. The context of hypergamy in the discussion, if I remember correctly, was general rejection of feminised men in the dating market, not in favour of modern feminist standards of scaling to infinity.

“When women go off of the pill, they break off relationships with patriarchal mate-guarding / family-oriented / low testosterone males in favor of high testosterone cheating Chads, who hate monogamy, as, Under Her Eye, Chads have so many mating opportunities from hypergamous females, who flock to them, that they don’t really care much about such patriarchal prerogatives as mate guarding, which, at any rate, is impossible for Chads, inasmuch as it takes precisely one male at all times to effectively mate guard each female. Hence, silverbacks not only scoff at getting cheated on (which is no big deal to them), and not only scoff at cheating on females (which is no big deal to hypergamous females), but they couldn’t effectively mate guard if they tried.”

Agreed. I don’t know if you’re arguing for the pill here (most likely not), but will refrain from strawman-ing your position as you’ve done with mine.

“Altriciality, the extended care of children, is a function of mate guarding / patriarchy / pair bonding / monogamy, whereas precociality (the opposite of extended care of children; paternal abandonment) brings about polygyny, which is the same thing as tournamentism and hypergamy. Frigids (circumpolar patriarchal peoples) are dispositionally more altricial / K-strategic / patriarchal, whereas Torrids (cimcumequatorial hypergamous peoples) are dispositionally more precocial, meaning that they don’t know or care who their fathers are, meaning that children are raised to be conditioned by peers, not fathers, and meaning that females are permitted to destroy societies as a function of their own superlative influence.

Ergo, the male-dispositional patriarchal K strategic / altricial prerogative brings about civilization, high social trust, coverture, mate guarding, pair bonding, extended care of offspring, intelligence, domestication syndrome (from low testosterone), longevity, and other K-strategic (prosocial) outcomes, whereas the female-dispositional antipatriarchal r strategic / precocial prerogative brings about the end of civilization, low social trust, mass cuckoldry, polygyny, father absence, social pathologies, feminist outcomes, communist outcomes, what we should be calling “feralization syndrome” (from high testosterone), brevity, and other r-strategic (antisocial) outcomes.”

Yes.

“To say that “hypergamy and female choice are what creates Europeans, and trying to restrict it is an attempt to force reproduction by subpar males. Arranged marriages only lead to dysgenic populations like India and the Middle-East” is simply uneducated. A little education is a dangerous thing. Arranged marriages are a modality of patriarchy / pair bonding / mate guarding / longevity / altriciality / intelligence / civilization / high social trust / anticuckoldry / coverture / male supersedure of female sexual agency / male ownership of females. An absence of arranged marriages is evidence of the overthrow of pair bonding / mate guarding / paternity certainty / high social trust / monogamy, and all of the other benign qualities associated with the success of families and the best outcomes for children.”

Yes — if your problem is with minutiae, just ask and we can discuss that instead of a long rant attacking phantom positions: I believe that female choice should be father-vetted, not that society must bow to and take on the genetic and economic consequences of female whim.

“I tried to be gracious to you, and say that you “had a point.” albeit one that neglected a lot of valid counterpoints, but the truth is that you’re just an ignoramus who manifest an overdose of the Dunning-Kruger effect, such that, inasmuch as you’ve learned a little about evopsych, you presume that you have all of the answers, whereas you actually have almost none. You belong at the children’s table until you educate yourself enough to earn a chair at the adult table.”

I don’t know what post that was, I think that this is your first @ towards me, maybe I’ve missed it — can you post the # ? In any case, I don’t need the “graces” of anyone, only a direct reply to specifiic points that move the conversation forward. This is personal experience, but it seems older gentlemen on this site tend to strawman a lot and assume the other party is uneducated simply from general statements made in varying contexts, instead of actually engaging with the topic in a productive manner. I appreciate all that you’re posting, even if I already know/agree with it, simply for anyone that might come across it — that’s already fair enough help to other Whites; but ditch the edgy commentary, because you sound silly, and it just discourages readers due to the longer posts.

“Congratulations: You’ve exposed yourself as a misbegotten feminist, which is what “high-value males” do. “High value” is a proxy for both high testosterone and for a categorical rejection of paternity certainty, monogamy, and all benign K-strategic qualities. There are no “high value” patriarchal males, which means that there are no “high value males” who are good people. We only consider home-wrecking “high-value males” to be of high value because we live Under Her Eye, where everything good is inverted, and we esteem that which destroys society, rather than what produces and sustains it.”

Again, I don’t know why you’d assume I’m a feminist for thinking female instinct in mating choice should not be completely erased. I even agree with the rest of the sentence. Plus the yet another point I’ve never made that “high value = rejection of paternity”.

“The caveat, as mentioned in my previous post, is that ecological prefiguration is such that, since the onset of global race mixing, K strategy is being competitively selected against in a race to the bottom which favors hypergamy / precociality / father absence, social disintegration, White genocide, and other ugly prerogatives that women prefer, and bring about, when they find it possible to overthrow patriarchy. All of that is to say that ecologies now favor the disintegration of all that’s good and patriarchal, and the triumph of feminism, hypergamy, and all of the prerogatives that you, as a “high value male”, find to be excoriable.”

I remain in agreement and don’t know why I’d think otherwise. Maybe you misunderstood my use of hypergamy as policy rather than just referring to the instinct? I also never called myself a “high value male”, and, again, don’t disagree with the points made. I don’t even know who you’re arguing with at this point. We’re slowly drifting from strawman to slander lol.

“The sound money is now on playing ourselves, and on winning stupid prizes, because women got their way, and enslaved males, and ended monogamy, patriarchy, and all other good things. This was inevitable as soon as the Age of Discovery was inaugurated over 500 years ago by Henry the Navigator. Mixing together biosimilar r and K populations emergently erases K populations, and undermines the Frigid (circumpolar, patriarchal, low-testosterone) prerogative that’s been so benign for the past 2 million years in populations deriving from the ancestors of Denisovans and Neanderthals outside of Africa.

For 2 million years, K strategy produced greatness in non-African populations, but, as soon as K strategists began to share an information space and a reproductive habitat with Africans and other r strategists, all of that was sabotaged, and K strategy became maladaptive folly, and the family fell apart, and males lost all of their influence, and became cucks. Careful what you wish for, high-value male. High-value males are lowlifes. And they’re inheriting the Earth, and driving Europeans extinct, because women handed them power, and because they, being dispositionally antipatriarchal, accepted that power. More’s the pity.
How I love being such a low-value male, knowing that I stand for the best of qualities, and knowing that high-value males cannot. How I hate being a low-value male, now that it’s a bad investment, Under Her Eye, to be a good person.”

Yes, very good take on the universalisation of certain strategies especially. Almost no one talks about it.

“At least I’m not a cheating Chad lowlife. Society was better when patriarchy assured that all of the “high-value males” went missing if they tried to promote the hypergamous prerogatives of females over the benign prerogatives of low-value / patriarchal males, who value equality of opportunity to reproduce to the most number of males possible, rather than simply rendering most males useful idiots who get routinely cuckolded Under Her Eye, and who females conspire to ensure live terrible lives of quiet desperation, ignored and wrongfully vilified by evil harem members, including silverbacks and hypergamous females, and including “high-value” men like you. I’m categorically unimpressed by your high value, and by the ugly feminist prerogatives, such as hypergamy, that it champions.”

You are free to be unimpressed by a point I never made and a term I didn’t call myself — I can’t do anything about that.

“Nothing is more harmful to any person than female choice. This is the salient lesson of ecology, and it’s why Aeon’s feminist / hypergamous imperative is so harmful. Male choice (patriarchy / coverture / arranged marriage) for the win; female choice for the cuckolded loser.”

Finally, to clarify: I am not a feminist lol I even call out unconscious feminist behaviour as I see it here in order to help men, in my opinion. I don’t think hypergamy = good nor hypergamy = bad: it’s just a tool that exists to be used, and restrained, in one way or another.

Regards!

[AeonKnight]

@Ida

“Female replying:
Sometimes I won’t tell a guy why at all or at least the real reason why I am no longer into him because I think he could use this to trick the next women – to hide his true colors. But, that is usually only if I think he is not the type to be willing to grow or change.”

From the horse’s mouth 😉 Take note, men.

[AeonKnight]

@Shaughnessy

Thanks for the response.

“That was a great idea before the Columbian Exchange began, but, as I explain ad nauseam in the thread about whether men are getting dates on this website, all populations on Earth now select for rate strategy, such that qualitarianism is now the most rapid means by which populations can go extinct.”

I AM arguing for a K-strategy here, but to clarify: I am not arguing against the necessity of numbers for a successful group and that essentially only patriarchy (+ monogamy) are the main drivers of that.

“Moreover, hypergamy selects for extremely low genetic diversity in the Y chromosome, which is why it’s so shriveled and so prone to issues arising from monocropping, such as emergent vulnerability to pestilence.”

I have not seen studies comparing the genetic fitness gained from K pressure against the Y chromossome diversity in terms of disease, but I’d guess it would be at least equal since most animal species select for low male survivability and thus funneling of the Y variety. I’d need to think about it more.

“Moreover, patriarchy is an emergent property of an implicit desire to enforce paternity certainty, which is the default male prerogative, and one that females are evolved to thwart, partly through hypergamy. If you don’t care at all about about women cucking men at alarming rates, then you’re a feminist, and anti-patriarchal.”

I agree — I never argued against patriarchy, only against arranged/forced marriages that completely disregard female mating choice instincts.

“The default male prerogative, paternity certainty, is why pair bonding / mate guarding exists. If we stop fighting for monogamy / pair bonding / mate guarding / coverture / patriarchy, then (a) society becomes unstable because females are able to divide and conquer males by pitting incels against silverbacks, (b) this is terrible for society, as it leads to rampant fatherlessness and associated social perils, (c) this is terrible for society, as a small cadre of males–silverbacks–are incentivized to cheat serially and insouciantly.”

For all the pitfalls of monogamy in my opinion, I also agree. Modern society as a whole must be a balancing game of gender contentment and genetic health through some form of selection, but I don’t think leaving that selection 100% in the hands of a single gender is stable, since both sides vie for complete dominance.

“Women love to cheat, as they actively thwart the male salient dispositional prerogative of pair bonding / mate guarding / paternity certainty, and they love to select mates who their composite behavior, as a Sisterhood, pressures to cheat on females. Qualitarianism / hypergamy is a function of K strategy, whereas equalitarianism / paternity certainty is a function of r strategy. These two forces are allostatic, and, when the one opposes the other effectively, and vice versa, each strategy becomes hormetic (beneficial as a result of reciprocated allostatic attenuation, as a function of low dose dependency), rather than “toxic” in the evolutionary sense of that word. In other words, r and K are in eternal conflict, and one isn’t “better” than the other.”

Completely agree. Women recently had to evolve a dual mating strategy because of that balance.

“As an ecologist, I know the advantages and shortcomings of these opposing strategies, and your one-dimensional surmise is valid as a self-contained argument, but there’s a lot more to the story that you don’t seem to know or care anything about. Your comment, while accurate, is ignominiously incomplete and vicariously embarrassingly trite.”

I don’t know how you understood the opposite of what I said — I have never argued against patriarchy or even r-selection for that matter. In forum one tends to make general statements and then dive in deeper as required, since not every post can be an complete branching of all possibility, so chill.

[AeonKnight]

@Ralf

“However, my criticism has nothing to do with my personal feelings on the matter as you are suggesting – rather I am arguing that his behavior is objectively toxic, and thereby cautioning others against acting in this way.”

Using “toxic” outside of chemistry class is the mark of a lib, sorry to say.

“Because if some people disregard the interests of other people within their own society, then society will, as I believe, over time adopt these same selfish attitudes and behaviors – which is something I touched on in a different post on this forum – that your everyday behavior makes society either a little bit better, or a little bit worse, depending on what you do.”

No, society will adapt to whatever survival strategy is superior/more stable, as it is downstream from biology, not the other way around.

“in both cases his behavior is a net negative, and should be done differently.”

Modern men literally kill themselves from having their lives ruined by divorce, kids taken away, etc., as well as the entire Western civilisation in shambles due to the feminisation of standard thought, so I’ll let Nature show what’s a net negative.

“As someone who has studied human psychology and observed those who have genuine helped other people, I know for instance that genuine help consists to ~90% of asking questions and only ~10% giving actual advice, as one must thoroughly understand the situation the other person is in in order to give advice that is actually applicable.”

Oh, no, you mean the completely female-led psychology academia that diagnoses normal boys with disorders because they don’t behave like girls and then medicate them into compliance? The consensus that men need therapy if they don’t want to trade freedom for security and think the modern world is sick? Shit, my bad, bro! Maybe women are the ones who just need to vent and men need actual solutions to feel better and solve their problems, but that would imply we’re not equal, God fobid!

“In his case, he took sections from my profile and critiqued them without asking me whether I had even any issues with the purpose of the profile (that being attracting women) in the first place.”

Again, I am a free man that doesn’t permission to do what I want, even if the very concept might baffle you.

“Matter of fact, I don’t – ever since I wrote this profile, every single woman I was remotely interested in (and some I was not) sent me a like based on this profile.
So evidently, the profile is serving it’s purpose and is in no need of being changed, which also serves as evidence against his claims, since according to him, women should be put off by someone who writes such a profile.”

I got a like on my post, so I win: throw away all of evolutionary biology! Also, just out of curiosity: do you know what averages are? haha I

“Regarding your statements about experience – I’m not saying that this is of no value or anything of that sort.
What I’m saying is that it is wise to be very careful taking advice from someone who has not succeeded at what he is giving advice on, especially if that person is talking down to you in the process, as there is often an ulterior motive.”

“Talking down” whining again. Ulterior motive of…*checks notes*…”sharing data online”. Ok.

“Add to that his careless and abrasive behavior which, as I pointed out, is unlikely to be attractive to either men or women, as well as a negative influence on society as a whole, and I consider it likely that he is at the very least missing a lot, and as such I would not consider it a good idea to give much weight to his advice.”

Suum cuique (“May all get their due”).

“On a side note, I’m not sure why you are acting as if I had dismissed your advice about not being too emotionally available, let alone gotten “mad” about it, when at the time I openly stated that I would be considering it.”

It’s…because you are. You’re the only one that has not understood the point of the message, and is still bitching about me being a meany lol.

[AeonKnight]

@Ralf

“I think your analysis is flawed in many respects – most importantly starting with the fact that, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, you have no evidence that any of what you’re saying is true, since you’re just as much without a wife as the rest of us, yet you act as if what you’re saying is the fact of the matter, rather than mere theory.”

I have already answered this on post #20072:

Not being in a committed relationship and not being able to get women are two separate things: the former is dissatisfaction which choice, the latter the inability to understand them.

But I’ll add: my evidence is the monumental amount of dating site analytic data, as well as real-life applicability of all I have said — getting normie girls, as well as getting them pregnant/marrying them has never been easier than it is in the digital age. Reiterating: casual sex with sluts and finding a girl that is not a risk for marriage are two opposite things.

“Fundamentally, until there is any evidence, we’re all just theorizing, and all of our statements and arguments have the same, unknown truth value.
It’s easy enough to say things that ‘sound right’, but it’s a lot harder to say things that both sound right and are in line with reality.”

It sounds like you have neither the theorerical data nor the real-world experience, but even if it were a personal hypothesis, some have more weight than others haha.

“Having such a degree of certainty in one’s own beliefs without being able to back them up is a character flaw.”

Nothing I have stated is personal opinion, as I don’t give a fuck about that, all I care is data. Show me different numbers and I’ll adjust my position accordingly.

“And speaking of character flaws – if, as you did, you send a private message to a man, assuring him to not post your analysis publicly unless he agrees, only to then walk back on this and publicize it anyway, less than 24 hours later, is a dick move, and highly dishonorable.
I don’t think you deserve women to keep their word with you if you’re pulling shit like this.”

Yes, out of courtesy, I sent it to you first and asked if you’d be ok with me sharing my thoughts, and you did not reply for 2 days (not 24h), as I checked to make sure you had been online and had time to see the message, once again out of courtesy. Calling it a “dick move” and “dishonourable” is your own conjecture, and newsflash: I don’t nee your permission to do anything — asking you first if you were comfortable was extra nice and totally unnecessary as I am free to post whatever I want here regardless of the opinion of a faggot that can’t even answer back cause of shock. And women will also make their decisions without your “ok” lol.

“Which brings me to my next point – that being that it is clear based on your underhanded insults as well as general demeanor throughout your post that your primary desire wasn’t to help me or anyone else, but to show off and flex in front of other men. ”

Legit don’t know what you’re going on about. Obviously you took it personally, and not as data, like I’ve said. I’d be glad if someone did a break down like that of my mistakes and took the time to write me. If you thought that was a flex, that speaks more about an inferiority complex from your part stemming from somewhere deep down realising that what I said makes a lot of sense and trying to protect your fragile ego. I don’t even understand how sharing analytics can be a flex in the first place, but remember that I sent it to you privately first, not publicly, to which you chose not to reply.

““If you find all of this useless or offensive, I couldn’t possibly care less”
Those are not the words of a man who is acting in good faith.
Instead, those are the words of a poser who thinks he is above whom he’s talking to.”

No, this really just means that I am not interested in personal feelings, and that data is not personal in the first place. You thinking that it’s a personal attack, even after me straight up stating that it isn’t, just confirms that you have an emotional/feminine mindset, doesn’t it? Why would I wanna think I’m above some anon on the internet lol I don’t even know you.

“However, in spite of your posing, at the age of 31, which is 5 years older than me, you’re still just as much without a woman as I am, only less self-aware. ”

Just fucking lol. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

“And while in that selfsame spot, you have the arrogance to not only believe (without evidence) to be in possession of superior knowledge, but also talk down to other men who funnily enough are in a better position than you are, by virtue of being younger and thus having more time to correct any potential mistakes.”

Please, keep demonstrating just how little you know about women (and also men, in this case): it just reinforces every single point made so far.

“You aren’t the only one by far, but I have encountered a number of men whose personality is so abrasive, that even I as a man want to have nothing to do with them – and considering this, it is clear to me that the character of modern women is not the only reason for such men still being single, but some are simply too proud to look at what’s inside their own skulls before anything else.”

Interpreting impersonal discussions as aggression is what women do, for the millionth time.

“But fundamentally my intent with this post wasn’t to convince you of anything, since people like you tend to remain convinced of the validity of their own statements, regardless of any arguments others may make – rather my intent was to briefly defend myself against the underhanded attack against my character, coated in the false pretense of wanting to ‘help’, which you have made, as well as point out the toxic, bad faith nature of it.”

Irony metre going off-the-charts here lol.
As I’ve said, you can literally break down every hyperlogical point of gender dynamics to a beta and it’ll do absolutely nothing, so worry not, women! Haha

“Beyond that I’m not interested in engaging with your posts any further.”

Yes, please haha anything but repeat the obvious to some emotional fag that copes into oblivion with every word said! Cheers.

[Hunter]

@AeonKnight I fully understand what was being said. The fact that so much needs to be said on the subject, was one of the reasons for my comment. Also, you are looking at the Classical world through the lens of Christianity. I will conclude by reiterating that ‘she rejects you’ because you lack power relative to her, and I mean POWER in the most expansive sense of the word.

[Hunter]

@Administrator, I am referring to a historical nation well respected in Nationalist circles, a nation Hitler himself referred to as the first Volkstat: SPARTA. This nation viewed male-female relations as based in lust (eros) and important for the purposes of eugenic reproduction, while same-sex relations were for love. Am I promoting something merely by reporting historical fact? I am on this website to find wives. I have, however, come to the same conclusion as many men and women have throughout history, that friendship between men and women is nearly always a lost cause… the only exception being if there was always zero potential sexual interest between the two. This fact significantly complicates long-distance online dating.

[Anonymous]

@ralf

There’s no such thing as a “dick move.” That’s misandric language. Nobody would call it a “cunt move” because they’d get cancelled. Lesson: Under Her Eye, misandry is “great”, and misogyny is “evil.”

[Anonymous]

Heaven forbid that messages that women promote be “attacked”. To women, whatever questions their feminist narrative is an “attack,” and, ergo, “misogynistic.” Isn’t trying to wield social influence in order to suffocate agency and freedom an “Attack” on the male modality? Consistent much? Or just feminist?

[Anonymous]

@Mary

Typical reality-hating female wants to suffocate freedom of expression and curate what males can say so that females can be exculpated of culpability for whatever feminist message that they don’t want to be exposed to debate or critique. The trait called “agreeability” isn’t what people presume that it is. Agreeability is the desire to compel everyone to agree by force, which requires tyranny and censorship and groupthink. But women are just so “agreeable” (read “angelic”), whereas males are just so “disagreeable” (read “demonic”). Socialism is an agreeable modality; Freedom from censorship and tyranny is a disagreeable one. We know which modality women prefer, and it’s the one that enslaves people, and strips them of their “disagreeable” agency. But saying so makes me a “misogynist,” right? Are there even any (antisocial, disagreeable, freedom-loving, agency-loving) non-feminists on this whole website? Shame on you, Mary, for your attempt to shame the moderator into muffling what men have to say. I guess that that means that I won’t be marrying Mary, but I count that as a win.

[Anonymous]

Nothing is more harmful to any person than female choice. This is the salient lesson of ecology, and it’s why Aeon’s feminist / hypergamous imperative is so harmful. Male choice (patriarchy / coverture / arranged marriage) for the win; female choice for the cuckolded loser.

[Anonymous]

@Aeon

“hypergamy and female choice are what creates Europeans, and trying to restrict it is an attempt to force reproduction by subpar males. Arranged marriages only lead to dysgenic populations like India and the Middle-East.”

Ancillary response: All humans engaged in arranged marriages until eleven minutes ago because the tale of human evolution is one wherein the extreme “tournament” modality that female hypergamy brings about has gradually been defeated by the patriarchal impulse to impose restrictions upon female sexual agency via such measures as coverture, arranged marriages, effective monogamy, chastity until marriage, and a ban on remarriage, barring being widowed, and remarrying. The “tournament” to which evolutionary psychologists refer is the same as K strategy (favoring quality above equality / quantity).

Such tournamentism produces harems and incels, not stable families and stable societies. Curtailing female sexual agency prevents winner-take-all tournamentism from being victorious over mate guarding / paternity certainty. Silverbacks (Chads) aren’t “patriarchal”; they flout paternity certainty in favour of the winner-take-all strategy that unconstrained female hypergamy brings about, where only Chads reproduce. The high testosterone of those Chads does not correspond in any way with “patriarchy.” Patriarchy is the modality whereby family-oriented “beta” males unite against hypergamy, massacre the Chads, and prevent females from allowing the DNA of Chads from dominating the gene pool. Patriarchy is a low-testosterone phenomenon.

Low testosterone guarantees that the maximum number of males reproduce, and allows the maximum number of males to curtail female sexual agency, so that pair bonding can occur in the maximum number of instances, so that paternity certainty can be guaranteed to prevail the maximum number of times in any given population. When women are on birth control, which simulates pregnancy, they choose family men (“betas”) over cheating Chads (“alphas”), such that patriarchal males (monogamy-minded ones) can maximize the number of males which reproduce, so as to bring about greater paternity certainty.

When women go off of the pill, they break off relationships with patriarchal mate-guarding / family-oriented / low testosterone males in favor of high testosterone cheating Chads, who hate monogamy, as, Under Her Eye, Chads have so many mating opportunities from hypergamous females, who flock to them, that they don’t really care much about such patriarchal prerogatives as mate guarding, which, at any rate, is impossible for Chads, inasmuch as it takes precisely one male at all times to effectively mate guard each female. Hence, silverbacks not only scoff at getting cheated on (which is no big deal to them), and not only scoff at cheating on females (which is no big deal to hypergamous females), but they couldn’t effectively mate guard if they tried.

Altriciality, the extended care of children, is a function of mate guarding / patriarchy / pair bonding / monogamy, whereas precociality (the opposite of extended care of children; paternal abandonment) brings about polygyny, which is the same thing as tournamentism and hypergamy. Frigids (circumpolar patriarchal peoples) are dispositionally more altricial / K-strategic / patriarchal, whereas Torrids (cimcumequatorial hypergamous peoples) are dispositionally more precocial, meaning that they don’t know or care who their fathers are, meaning that children are raised to be conditioned by peers, not fathers, and meaning that females are permitted to destroy societies as a function of their own superlative influence.

Ergo, the male-dispositional patriarchal K strategic / altricial prerogative brings about civilization, high social trust, coverture, mate guarding, pair bonding, extended care of offspring, intelligence, domestication syndrome (from low testosterone), longevity, and other K-strategic (prosocial) outcomes, whereas the female-dispositional antipatriarchal r strategic / precocial prerogative brings about the end of civilization, low social trust, mass cuckoldry, polygyny, father absence, social pathologies, feminist outcomes, communist outcomes, what we should be calling “feralization syndrome” (from high testosterone), brevity, and other r-strategic (antisocial) outcomes.

To say that “hypergamy and female choice are what creates Europeans, and trying to restrict it is an attempt to force reproduction by subpar males. Arranged marriages only lead to dysgenic populations like India and the Middle-East” is simply uneducated. A little education is a dangerous thing. Arranged marriages are a modality of patriarchy / pair bonding / mate guarding / longevity / altriciality / intelligence / civilization / high social trust / anticuckoldry / coverture / male supersedure of female sexual agency / male ownership of females. An absence of arranged marriages is evidence of the overthrow of pair bonding / mate guarding / paternity certainty / high social trust / monogamy, and all of the other benign qualities associated with the success of families and the best outcomes for children.

I tried to be gracious to you, and say that you “had a point.” albeit one that neglected a lot of valid counterpoints, but the truth is that you’re just an ignoramus who manifest an overdose of the Dunning-Kruger effect, such that, inasmuch as you’ve learned a little about evopsych, you presume that you have all of the answers, whereas you actually have almost none. You belong at the children’s table until you educate yourself enough to earn a chair at the adult table. Favoring hypergamy is favoring the worst possible social outcomes for society, notwithstanding the fact that it “selects for quality.” Selecting for “quality” by means of unconstrained female agency / hypergamy necessarily selects against all patriarchal prerogatives, which are all good for society, European and otherwise.

Congratulations: You’ve exposed yourself as a misbegotten feminist, which is what “high-value males” do. “High value” is a proxy for both high testosterone and for a categorical rejection of paternity certainty, monogamy, and all benign K-strategic qualities. There are no “high value” patriarchal males, which means that there are no “high value males” who are good people. We only consider home-wrecking “high-value males” to be of high value because we live Under Her Eye, where everything good is inverted, and we esteem that which destroys society, rather than what produces and sustains it.

The caveat, as mentioned in my previous post, is that ecological prefiguration is such that, since the onset of global race mixing, K strategy is being competitively selected against in a race to the bottom which favors hypergamy / precociality / father absence, social disintegration, White genocide, and other ugly prerogatives that women prefer, and bring about, when they find it possible to overthrow patriarchy. All of that is to say that ecologies now favor the disintegration of all that’s good and patriarchal, and the triumph of feminism, hypergamy, and all of the prerogatives that you, as a “high value male”, find to be excoriable.

The sound money is now on playing ourselves, and on winning stupid prizes, because women got their way, and enslaved males, and ended monogamy, patriarchy, and all other good things. This was inevitable as soon as the Age of Discovery was inaugurated over 500 years ago by Henry the Navigator. Mixing together biosimilar r and K populations emergently erases K populations, and undermines the Frigid (circumpolar, patriarchal, low-testosterone) prerogative that’s been so benign for the past 2 million years in populations deriving from the ancestors of Denisovans and Neanderthals outside of Africa.

For 2 million years, K strategy produced greatness in non-African populations, but, as soon as K strategists began to share an information space and a reproductive habitat with Africans and other r strategists, all of that was sabotaged, and K strategy became maladaptive folly, and the family fell apart, and males lost all of their influence, and became cucks. Careful what you wish for, high-value male. High-value males are lowlifes. And they’re inheriting the Earth, and driving Europeans extinct, because women handed them power, and because they, being dispositionally antipatriarchal, accepted that power. More’s the pity.
How I love being such a low-value male, knowing that I stand for the best of qualities, and knowing that high-value males cannot. How I hate being a low-value male, now that it’s a bad investment, Under Her Eye, to be a good person.

At least I’m not a cheating Chad lowlife. Society was better when patriarchy assured that all of the “high-value males” went missing if they tried to promote the hypergamous prerogatives of females over the benign prerogatives of low-value / patriarchal males, who value equality of opportunity to reproduce to the most number of males possible, rather than simply rendering most males useful idiots who get routinely cuckolded Under Her Eye, and who females conspire to ensure live terrible lives of quiet desperation, ignored and wrongfully vilified by evil harem members, including silverbacks and hypergamous females, and including “high-value” men like you. I’m categorically unimpressed by your high value, and by the ugly feminist prerogatives, such as hypergamy, that it champions.

[Administrator]

Why should I? These posts reveal the members’ opinions and character, which is important for us all to understand. Your post, for example, reveals that you wish to challenge my integrity. The question here is: why would you like to harm me or the site?

[Anonymous]

@Administrator: why you dont delete all messages attacking white women? You agree with these views?

[Administrator]

@Wynn ‘Sometimes’ sounds like many breakups. If I were a man, this piece of information would not be encouraging. We cannot change people, and we do not want to be changed either. Just be loved for who we are. It’s time for market research, asking ourselves how we can grow and improve to become a lovable partner for our man and make him trust us and commit to us. Let’s forget perfection; it does not exist.

[Administrator]

@Awakened_Beauty  What benefit do you see in denigrating a man verbally? This is neither helpful nor kind. We need kind and supportive women more than ever. Try it.

[Anonymous]

@PrometheanFlame

This woman just went on a long tirade in which she repeatedly insulted you for no apparent reason, yet your response is to call this an ‘interesting take’?

If a man had walked up to you, punched you and called you a retard out of the blue, would your response have been the same?

It appears that you are being far too diplomatic, considering her actions.

Having dealt with a lot of hostility from many different people over the years, I can tell you that the best approach is usually to ignore such ramblings, or if it is well reasoned enough to potentially hurt your reputation, to briefly respond, defend yourself and go on the offensive afterwards.

Because if you don’t either ignore them or strike back, then there is no drawback to these sorts of people for behaving like this, hence they will have no incentive not to do it again.

And to answer your question:
No, it is not possible to make a medical diagnosis based on a few forum posts.

It seems clear to me that this woman is irrational, unhinged and incapable/unwilling to control her emotions, so ignoring her nonsensical statements is likely the best course of action.

Add to that that she is 37, has most likely hit the wall, and still calls herself a ‘beauty’, and this turns into all but a certainty.

Which is in line with my experience when dealing with older women – that they’re on average just as arrogant as their younger counterparts, just with added bitterness.

[Ida]

Female replying:
Sometimes I won’t tell a guy why at all or at least the real reason why I am no longer into him because I think he could use this to trick the next women – to hide his true colors. But, that is usually only if I think he is not the type to be willing to grow or change.

[PrometheanFlame]

@Awakened_Beauty

Interesting take. Would you mind telling me what specifically you disagree with? If you disagree, please cite what you disagree with and why. I kindly ask that you keep the ad hominem attacks (or any other logical fallacy for that matter) to yourself, however. If you continue in that direction, I will simply block you. Please also refrain from attempts at defamation and slander. I won’t be asking a second time. Nothing I have said is enough to make any sort of valid medical diagnosis and even if it was, using someone’s medical diagnosis to attack them with is a bit low, wouldn’t you agree?

You are a qualified mental health professional able to accurately diagnose complex personality disorders via internet forums? Where did you get your PhD?

You wouldn’t be the first psychotic cluster B person whose tried to accuse ME of “being the narcissist”. I’ve seen this bit before and it’s actually getting quite tiresome. Why do you feel the need to attempt to tear me down by calling me names and suggesting I need mental health treatment? You do realize that’s textbook cluster B behavior, right? I do hope you’ve been using that resource you are so fond of suggesting to everyone, not that personality disorders are really even treatable.

[Anonymous]

@Administrator

Weird comment: “White women were never able to take away the power from white men.” White women took power from White men the moment that White men decided not to oppose female suffrage, such that females could form a permanent electoral majority in all White countries that’s unassailable because women, being more agreeable, are considerably more likely to vote, and because, in the Eurosphere, they always comprise of more voting age people than exists in the voting age male population. White males gave White females a permanent veto over White males.

@Aeon

“hypergamy and female choice are what creates Europeans, and trying to restrict it is an attempt to force reproduction by subpar males. Arranged marriages only lead to dysgenic populations like India and the Middle-East.”

Response: Hypergamy selects for qualitarianism, and its lack selects for equalitarianism (a rejection of qualitarianism), just as you say. But it rejects half of the male population. Moreover, if you knew anything relevant about r/K selection theory, then you’d know that selection for qualitarianism is selection for K-strategic males over r-strategic ones. That was a great idea before the Columbian Exchange began, but, as I explain ad nauseam in the thread about whether men are getting dates on this website, all populations on Earth now select for rate strategy, such that qualitarianism is now the most rapid means by which populations can go extinct. Moreover, hypergamy selects for extremely low genetic diversity in the Y chromosome, which is why it’s so shriveled and so prone to issues arising from monocropping, such as emergent vulnerability to pestilence.

Moreover, patriarchy is an emergent property of an implicit desire to enforce paternity certainty, which is the default male prerogative, and one that females are evolved to thwart, partly through hypergamy. If you don’t care at all about about women cucking men at alarming rates, then you’re a feminist, and anti-patriarchal. The default male prerogative, paternity certainty, is why pair bonding / mate guarding exists. If we stop fighting for monogamy / pair bonding / mate guarding / coverture / patriarchy, then (a) society becomes unstable because females are able to divide and conquer males by pitting incels against silverbacks, (b) this is terrible for society, as it leads to rampant fatherlessness and associated social perils, (c) this is terrible for society, as a small cadre of males–silverbacks–are incentivized to cheat serially and insouciantly.

Women love to cheat, as they actively thwart the male salient dispositional prerogative of pair bonding / mate guarding / paternity certainty, and they love to select mates who their composite behavior, as a Sisterhood, pressures to cheat on females. Qualitarianism / hypergamy is a function of K strategy, whereas equalitarianism / paternity certainty is a function of r strategy. These two forces are allostatic, and, when the one opposes the other effectively, and vice versa, each strategy becomes hormetic (beneficial as a result of reciprocated allostatic attenuation, as a function of low dose dependency), rather than “toxic” in the evolutionary sense of that word. In other words, r and K are in eternal conflict, and one isn’t “better” than the other.

The ultimate victory of either r or K would necessarily cause an inevitable extinction event, not that r or K can “win.” They’re too stable, as evolved antipodean forces, to defeat one another. Ultimately, both r and K offer advantages and disadvantages that render one or the other of them more beneficial at any given time, and in any given population, under any given set of ambients. But, because all polities in the world are now convergent, due to race mixing, all polities are in a race towards rate strategy (as I discuss in said thread), such that K strategy is now the least effective, ergo the least moral, prerogative to favor, inasmuch as it’s less conducive to the survival of lineages than is rate strategy, due to the higher completed fertility of rate strategists. As an ecologist, I know the advantages and shortcomings of these opposing strategies, and your one-dimensional surmise is valid as a self-contained argument, but there’s a lot more to the story that you don’t seem to know or care anything about. Your comment, while accurate, is ignominiously incomplete and vicariously embarrassingly trite.

[Anonymous]

@Promethean

No. People should hit the gym. But, if all men increase the number of times that they hit the gym equally, then, because of hypergamy, female hypergamous mating choices would ensure that the same silverbacks would all still get all of the women, completely independently of how fit the male population is. Only the restoration of patriarchy can end the tyranny of female hypergamy. It’s true that, if men who don’t get any women start going to the gym a lot while men who currently get all of the women simultaneously hit the gym less often, then female hypergamy will tend to select different mating partners for all of the women to congeal around, but nothing about a change in the pattern of which males hit the gym will cause women to become less hypergamous. Your comment is facile.

[Dude]

@Ralf

I think I’m missing something in this whole conversation – but I don’t have time to read the lengthy posts from top to bottom.

Ralf, I looked at your profile in the past, and I thought it was good. I know mine could use work. I was thinking about analyzing yours and seeing what I can do with mine, to be honest. I guess I’m not surprised to hear it is yielding the desired response for you.

I guess I have an aside train of thought. You are more in the philosophy field? That suggests you are more in the direction of language and likewise than average. By contrast, I may be the opposite. People like me are required by societies to function. However, people like me may not be as able to present as nice an advertising front end. Further, how does a society properly reward ability even if that ability doesn’t translate into well crafted diction? In this case, reward is meant in the biological sense. A thought I’ve had for a while…

[Anonymous]

@PrometheanFlame

Yes, he did indeed ask me for permission to post his analysis, but he did not wait for my response, and posted it publicly about 19 hours after his initial message.

However, my criticism has nothing to do with my personal feelings on the matter as you are suggesting – rather I am arguing that his behavior is objectively toxic, and thereby cautioning others against acting in this way.

Because if some people disregard the interests of other people within their own society, then society will, as I believe, over time adopt these same selfish attitudes and behaviors – which is something I touched on in a different post on this forum – that your everyday behavior makes society either a little bit better, or a little bit worse, depending on what you do.

And it is readily apparent to me based on the way he acted, that he either had no intent to help anyone, or that he intended to help, but has no idea on how to do so, and instead ended up being unnecessarily aggressive, as well as sloppy in his understanding of the issue(s) at hand – in both cases his behavior is a net negative, and should be done differently.

As someone who has studied human psychology and observed those who have genuine helped other people, I know for instance that genuine help consists to ~90% of asking questions and only ~10% giving actual advice, as one must thoroughly understand the situation the other person is in in order to give advice that is actually applicable.

In his case, he took sections from my profile and critiqued them without asking me whether I had even any issues with the purpose of the profile (that being attracting women) in the first place.

Matter of fact, I don’t – ever since I wrote this profile, every single woman I was remotely interested in (and some I was not) sent me a like based on this profile.
So evidently, the profile is serving it’s purpose and is in no need of being changed, which also serves as evidence against his claims, since according to him, women should be put off by someone who writes such a profile.

As such, his criticisms are pointless at best, and make others, in this case myself, unjustly look bad at worst.

And this flaw of jumping to conclusions without understanding the situation stretches across the entirety of his analysis, which renders it of questionable value, hence my significant criticism.

Regarding your statements about experience – I’m not saying that this is of no value or anything of that sort.
What I’m saying is that it is wise to be very careful taking advice from someone who has not succeeded at what he is giving advice on, especially if that person is talking down to you in the process, as there is often an ulterior motive.

Add to that his careless and abrasive behavior which, as I pointed out, is unlikely to be attractive to either men or women, as well as a negative influence on society as a whole, and I consider it likely that he is at the very least missing a lot, and as such I would not consider it a good idea to give much weight to his advice.

On a side note, I’m not sure why you are acting as if I had dismissed your advice about not being too emotionally available, let alone gotten “mad” about it, when at the time I openly stated that I would be considering it.

[PrometheanFlame]

@Ralf

Did AeonKnight ask your permission to post his analysis? You said no and he still did? If that’s the case then I can understand why you’d be upset by this.

There was some good analysis in there from what I could see, though. Not that I agree with 100% of what was said. My advice would be to try to not take it personally and extract whatever valuable information you can from it. Don’t let your ego get in the way of receiving feedback, even if it’s abrasive. I don’t think AeonKnight was genuinely out to hurt you. It seems he was really trying to help. Perhaps he posted it here so that others could benefit from the analysis as well. Not to put you on blast. None of us here are perfect.

There was some good points about negotiating desire as opposed to making it happen organically. Respect shouldn’t be negotiated or asked for, except under certain circumstances, either.

I get it, most of us men aren’t here because we already are married to the woman of our dreams. That doesn’t mean some of us haven’t been married before or have experience with women in relationships.

I’ve had many relationships with women, including several longterm ones. I’ve made a lot of mistakes along the way. I wasn’t really taught how to relate to women properly. Female psychology had remained an absolute mystery until just a few years ago when I really started researching it. I had to figure it out on my own the hard way for the most part- trial and error. We mostly have to figure it out the hard way, but if we are humble enough to seek advice and knowledge, and use discernment with what we find, you can get the lesson without having to live the mistake.

Being so open emotionally can be a turnoff for women when not done correctly, but you can’t get mad at me or anyone else for that. There are things about women’s nature at a primal level that are beyond even their own control. Same for men. In an already healthy, stable, romantic relationship with some degree of commitment established, being open emotionally like that can be beneficial and lead to deeper intimacy.

[Anonymous]

@AeonKnight

I think your analysis is flawed in many respects – most importantly starting with the fact that, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, you have no evidence that any of what you’re saying is true, since you’re just as much without a wife as the rest of us, yet you act as if what you’re saying is the fact of the matter, rather than mere theory.

Fundamentally, until there is any evidence, we’re all just theorizing, and all of our statements and arguments have the same, unknown truth value.
It’s easy enough to say things that ‘sound right’, but it’s a lot harder to say things that both sound right and are in line with reality.

Having such a degree of certainty in one’s own beliefs without being able to back them up is a character flaw.

And speaking of character flaws – if, as you did, you send a private message to a man, assuring him to not post your analysis publicly unless he agrees, only to then walk back on this and publicize it anyway, less than 24 hours later, is a dick move, and highly dishonorable.
I don’t think you deserve women to keep their word with you if you’re pulling shit like this.

Which brings me to my next point – that being that it is clear based on your underhanded insults as well as general demeanor throughout your post that your primary desire wasn’t to help me or anyone else, but to show off and flex in front of other men.

“If you find all of this useless or offensive, I couldn’t possibly care less”
Those are not the words of a man who is acting in good faith.
Instead, those are the words of a poser who thinks he is above whom he’s talking to.

However, in spite of your posing, at the age of 31, which is 5 years older than me, you’re still just as much without a woman as I am, only less self-aware.

And while in that selfsame spot, you have the arrogance to not only believe (without evidence) to be in possession of superior knowledge, but also talk down to other men who funnily enough are in a better position than you are, by virtue of being younger and thus having more time to correct any potential mistakes.

You aren’t the only one by far, but I have encountered a number of men whose personality is so abrasive, that even I as a man want to have nothing to do with them – and considering this, it is clear to me that the character of modern women is not the only reason for such men still being single, but some are simply too proud to look at what’s inside their own skulls before anything else.

But fundamentally my intent with this post wasn’t to convince you of anything, since people like you tend to remain convinced of the validity of their own statements, regardless of any arguments others may make – rather my intent was to briefly defend myself against the underhanded attack against my character, coated in the false pretense of wanting to ‘help’, which you have made, as well as point out the toxic, bad faith nature of it.

Beyond that I’m not interested in engaging with your posts any further.

[PrometheanFlame]

@AeonKnight

You’re on point. Great analysis, insight and advice. No coddling. Just the facts. Outstanding.

[AeonKnight]

@Hunter Then you have understood absolutely nothing of what’s been said (unless you’re making a joke). Also, this meme of homosexual Greeks is historical revisionism by Jews, and Greeks despised any sort of faggotry, which was mostly found inside enclaves of degenerate elites, like it is today.

If @Administrator can assess a political situation more rationally than the men here, that speaks volumes to the state of modern manhood and why our enemies can currently do whatever in our societies.

@Shaughnessy While I agree that genetic trumps everything in terms of value and that building yourself up can only happen on an already existing foundation/potential, hypergamy and female choice are what creates Europeans, and trying to restrict it is an attempt to force reproduction by subpar males. Arranged marriages only lead to dysgenic populations like India and the Middle-East.

[Administrator]

@Shaughnessy White women were never able to take away the power from white men; they were given these privileges by the white man’s enemies, who, through lies, deception, and infiltration, now run Western societies. Kick out the enemies, let white women experience the dangers of diversity, and the natural order will fall back into place.

@Hunter Are you promoting bisexuality?

@Lux et veritas This is the way to go. Muscular men always have more choices. Assertive character helps to form women with potential. White Men need to take back what is theirs.

[Hunter]

Reading this thread I can’t help but think that maybe the (officially bisexual) Spartans were right to view women as being for reproduction and the satiation of lust, while men were for love…

[PrometheanFlame]

@Lux Et Veritas

Yeah, that’s pretty much the takeaway.

The other thing I see so common is attachment to outcome. Just because you start training and self-improving that doesn’t automatically guarantee you your dream girl. Women will test you to see if you’re for real, never forget that. It’s not just to f*** with you when they do it, either. It has a purpose, and it’s actually useful to men to help them grow and become better men if they know how to use this valuable resource. Example: (Woman):”Oh, you’ve been hitting the gym? What are you insecure about yourself you need muscles to show off to feel good about yourself?” CLASSIC shit test. How do you respond? She’s asking you if YOU are sure of what you’re doing. That’s all that matters. Her opinion is irrelevant. All she wants to know is if you are strong, unwavering, dedicated, on your purpose. If a woman can jab you off your purpose with little tests like that, then she has every right to be turned off because it shows that you’re weak.

@Shaughnessy

Sounds like an excuse to not hit the gym.

[Anonymous]

“Build yourself up” is a white pill cope. Evopsych says that “building yourself up” is like being funny: a man is only funny to women if he’s already attractive, jacked, rich, sociable, or some combination of these. If “just trying harder” worked, then it would be evidence that hypergamy had magically been overcome. Price’s law says that, Under Her Eye, only a small portion of men will get with women, so “building yourself up” is just trying to be among the small number of males who females would ever get involved with. Instead, repeal feminism, and replace it with monogamy/patriarchy, so that hypergamy can be defeated, so that “building yourself up” will win you a mate though assortition. Don’t expect women to voluntarily cede power back to males simply on account of women destroying society. They’d rather burn patriarchy to the ground than accept criticism, and accept that they should not be wielding power. Don’t be a white-pilled copium addict. Men who “build themselves up” tend to end up as reproductively successful as rich wine aunts.

[Anonymous]

Shout out to Hoe_math! And the Whatever podcast, except that the host brings on silverback scum, who love to tell other men to just “get white pilled” and run through women, as if evolutionary psychology weren’t even a thing.

[Lux Et Veritas]

Build yourself up, train with fury.

Meditate to quell the weakness and integrate your dark side- find a creative outlet as well.

When your testosterone increases, and you eat clean food, your solar energies will whine forth.

Do not spend time explaining yourself, move on with the Olympian spirit.

We are at war, act according- train. Then you will see her, she will see you (she always makes herself available if interested) and move. It is ingrained into us- only through chemical and psychological warfare have these talents been lost- so fight back.

Train your body to force testosterone, and meditate to weaken the grip of the negative feminine qualities that have overtaken your masculine mind.

o/

[AeonKnight]

My analysis on some of this:

”She shared my disdain for ghosting, and we both agreed to never do such a thing to each other, but rather openly discuss any concerns we might have, especially if any of us ever wanted our contact to end. ”

Women want honesty, but they never want full disclosure: there are no more mysteries. Her imagination is your best friend.

You’re also placing yourself as an equal by means of an agreement (not what men mean by it, but that’s how women interpret it). Women have no sense of honour as we understand it (they honour their feelings, not duty), much less with a man that has put himself as her equal, which to a female mind means a totally inferior man that doesn’t understand his role (that he should be superior to her, no matter how much they deny that it’s what they truly desire). A guarantee that you’ll ”be there” is repulsive since it indicates low value – both socially and genetically -, like you have no other/better options and no purpose greater than her (totally illogical from a man’s point of view, but again, that’s how women see it).

”Additionally I learned more about the importance of tact and timing when dealing with the emotions of others, as well as how to manage my own emotions better, especially that of affection which I had to work very hard to keep under control when dealing with her.”

She sensed that you could barely contain your liking for her, no matter how much you tried to hide it. The best scenario, unfortunately (if you’re applying only male morality to the dynamic), is to not like her that much/like her less than she likes you — it doesn’t mean hating women or thinking less of womanhood, but just realising that no woman is special, much less ”the one”; there are good ones and not-so-good ones, but no single ”one”. Guys usually interpret that as having to be cold with women and even sometimes end up resenting female nature as ”evil” or ”dishonourable” — that is incorrect: the correct path in life is to love women for what they are, not for what you wished they were. Women WANT to look UP to a man, otherwise they cannot respect him, and that logically necessitates that you are above her. They have a complementary role to ours and thus a completely different morality and worldview. We are NOT equal, we just have different roles. Men are romantics pretending to be pragmatists and women are pragmatists pretending to be romantics. They are the eugenicists, we are the eugenic product of that selection, so in that sense we become superior in most aspects, be it cognitive or physical, but one role doesn’t survive without the other.

”After I did so, she thanked me and invited me to share my own experience of this conflict, which I did.”

Being emotionally open with women is how they make men rat on themselves as beta. They might even consciously think that they want men to be open emotionally, but Nature disagrees and Nature is undefeated — it just absolutely kills desire entirely. The only time where it’s okay to share a ”concern” or a ”fear” you have as a man is when it actually comes from a position of power/authority, and the sharing makes you seem even greater or magnanimous.

From your bio: ”Though I am still willing to put my heart out there for anyone who may wish to connect with me, even after having myself been hurt many times – I think it’s worth going through this pain to eventually find your soulmate.”

1. Open emotionality; 2. Evidence of past rejection (women gauge a man’s value socially, e.g.: social approval by other women); 3. Soulmate bullshit again. It’s like an adoption ad for a puppy.

“– unfortunately all too often people are unable or unwilling to consider the thoughts and feelings of others, and hence it is no surprise to me how messed up modern relationships have become.”

That’s not it. Society doesn’t function anymore because men have abandoned their role, not because of “feelings”. The answer to feminism is not MORE feminism. Women are actually fixing society by rejecting emotional men more than ever and at best making them beta providers.

”I am an assertive and firm man in public, but very gentle and kindhearted in private”

Beauty and the beast 101: they want the guy that doesn’t take shit in public and isn’t agreeable/a pushover, and that *only she* can ”tame”, but that’s not physically possible and only female fantasy. Also SAYING it exposes you as a poser, both for women and for society in general.

”I believe in resolving personal conflicts through gentleness, consideration and dialogue on both sides – not through screaming matches.”

The opposite of being understanding is not having screaming matches — it’s just to neutrally disagree and stand by your principles. And the opposite of disagreeableness is not disrespect, just to clarify. You sound overly gentle by your descriptions and emphasis on ”kindness”. You can be respectable and kind and not be a pushover.

”This helps me resolve conflicts with kindness, respect, and without resorting to hurtful criticisms – and also to assist those who have been treated harshly and traumatized by our profoundly sick society to understand the reason for, and overcome their suffering.”

Disagreeing and presenting an objective assessment/counterargument (if that’s what you mean) is not criticism. And even criticism is not a bad thing, only for emotional people that treat it as personal and not as data (unless of course it’s spiteful or in bad faith).

”As you may be able to imagine, the artist/philosopher package comes with some amount of financial instability, so if that is a deal breaker to you, then you’re not the woman for me, I’m sorry – I’m looking for someone who cares about who I am, not what I have, and I will do the same.”

All women have a right to demand resource stability from their man. Just because they do, it doesn’t mean they are superficial (the survival of their kids is anything but superficial) and don’t care about ”who you are”, whatever that means. You might even find this girl somewhere, but a woman that doesn’t care about her survival and security is defective. Everything about us is who we are, and especially men, who operate in the realm of action, of doing, the dealing with the tests of the Universe, what we do and what we achieve IS who we are — what other measure could possibly exist? Even for women that is the case, so how are you, as a man, exempt from it and demanding judgement from what’s in the deepest recesses of your soul? To clarify: money doesn’t make you better as a person nor does it alleviate flaws in other areas (although for some modern women it does, unfortunately), but expecting women not to care about security is like expecting men not to care about fertility. Delusional modern expectations aside, it’s part of the basics a woman gets to ask for.

”I’m looking for true love, and in an ideal world I would be a lifelong partner of the right woman – one who is always by her side to enjoy the good times with her and ready to help her through any hardship she may encounter.”

Soulmate bullshit once again. You should guard your family from any and all danger, but it sounds like you’re swearing love unconditionally, which you should have understood by now is bad to say the least.

”I would want her to feel supported, loved and adored, as I would like the same”

Just don’t adore her more than she adores you. ”Treat her like a celebrity and she’ll treat you like a fan”, as the saying goes.

”-I do ask for basic respect, I don’t appreciate it when people are flaky and don’t honor our agreements, as I am always diligent in making sure to adhere to them.”

You don’t negotiate boundaries: you enforce them — with women especially.

”-It would be great if you were similarly affectionate and kindhearted as I am, as otherwise I’d have the concern that the relationship could end up being one-sided when it comes to the care and attention being paid to the other.”

You’re negotiating desire here, instead of making it happen organically. Desire simply cannot be negotiated or previously agreed upon.

”-Ghosting is a vile form of emotional abuse in which one person minimizes his/her own pain of facing the situation by maximizing it for the other – it makes it a lot harder for victims to trust others and extend affection again – so I would ask you to refrain from such acts, and instead openly talk about your concerns, which I’m happy to hear.”

A mixture of pleading for boundaries and then trying to negotiate desire/an interaction.

”Regarding the relationship with her father, I do have some limited information on that – which is that her family was abusive, and she appeared to have to find her own way around life as a result”

Regardless of that, nothing she did indicates particular trauma and she’s not ”broken” — it is completely normal behaviour from a woman shit-testing a man.

If you find all of this useless or offensive, I couldn’t possibly care less — I just spotted things I could clarify to help another White man, and my conscience is clear.

Like I have prevously stated in my post, it would behoove you to first understand the evolutionary reason behind human behaviour before diving into metaphysical archetypes, as the chances of your emotive/feminine (mis)understanding of reality bleeding into it and making things even more confusing is extremely high, and from there only psychological copes can keep you afloat.

The sort of qualities you display (honesty to a fault, openness, understanding, etc.) are valued between men, not between men and women. Hypergamy doesn’t care. Nature doesn’t care. Gender dynamics, the game we must play, is not good or evil nor anything else, it just is.

[AeonKnight]

Not being in a committed relationship and not being able to get women are two separate things: the former is dissatisfaction which choice, the latter the inability to understand them.

[Anonymous]

Once again, I want to thank you for your time and consideration.

The arguments made by you as well as other members of this site are certainly worth considering, and I will take them into account as I continue to try out different approaches to find out whichever one is best/most healthy.

However, there is one thing I do want to add before taking my leave on this subject for now.
Which is that while many of us here may be highly intelligent, in the end we have no evidence that what we’re arguing on gender relations is in line with reality, on account of all of us still being single.

As a result I would caution against unwarranted confidence in our theories on this subject, and encourage curiosity and carefulness in it’s place.

Because right now it appears that this could end up being the deaf leading the blind at best, or the blind leading the deaf at worst.

[PrometheanFlame]

@Ralf

Ah, I see. When you say you were “getting ready to take matters further in a few days” are you saying that you were going to ask her out on a date to meet in person? And then you got into an argument and were fighting before you even met.

It’s so hard to get to know someone online. It’s not impossible, but there are limits. Profiles and messages can be highly curated and not give an accurate representation of a person, or what they’re like in person. All the important details, including compatibility can only be discovered in a one-on-one interaction.

It’s true that women and men alike could perceive someone who is over-giving emotionally or otherwise as weak or suspicious. When people are nice to me for no reason, I think nothing of it in normal situations, as manners are to be expected. But when people start going out of their way for no reason and bending over backwards, it can raise flags, such as: why is this person being so nice to me? What do they want in exchange for all this?

It’s a natural response to feel obligated to give something in return when receiving something for free. Salesmen know this very well and use it to their advantage. It’s true- nothing is free. Most gifts have strings attached unless it’s from someone who TRULY does love you. The Gebo If you were giving her all kind of emotional support prior to any form of commitment or investment on her part, it could seem like you’re giving yourself away for free. What were you hoping to get in return?

In my opinion, we should only give ourselves away so freely to people who have proven themselves worthy of the investment of our time and energy: loved ones, close friends, committed partner, trustworthy acquaintances, etc.. It’s a matter of self-respect and making the best use of our resources. Sounds like you’ve got a lot to give and that’s good. Don’t squander it, though, your emotional investment is a valuable asset. Men invest more than just money into women: time, emotions, physical effort. That’s why vetting is so important before investing in a woman.

Look at all the best investors, stock brokers and crypto traders in the world. How do they invest? Do they simply pile their money into the first thing that looks good at first glance without a plan? No, they vet extensively first. Emotional currency should be treated the same. Make wiser investments and have a plan, and your losses will be less.

My advice: don’t give yourself away so easily. Make her earn what you have to offer. Let her demonstrate that she is worthy of your investment before you provide her with that type of support. Women love it when the man makes them work for it, it drives them crazy. Don’t be a simp! You’re better than that, man. It’s okay and I’m not insulting you but if I had to be completely blunt it sounds like you: 1) Waited way too long to try to arrange a date. Remember most “getting to know you” should be done in person. 2) You were giving away precious emotional resources to someone who hasn’t demonstrated loyalty or trustworthiness. Again, I’m not trying to cut you down, but that’s how I see it. I know because I’ve had to work on the same issues and am still working on them. Anyway, hope it helps.

[Anonymous]

@PrometheanFlame

I appreciate your consideration and advice, thank you.

To answer your questions:
We had been exchanging messages for a few weeks, and I was getting ready to take matters further a few days later, if the ghosting had not occurred.

You are correct – we had promised that we would not ghost each other, and discuss any break of contact before it occurs.

When it comes to what I have learned from it, the question becomes whether you mean the entirety of my interactions with her or the ghosting itself.
If the former, then the answer is: a lot; too much to describe concisely.
It was an opportunity to test my social skills which I had been building up for many years, during which to my delight it seemed that I was most of the way there, judging by her (very) positive responses to my words.
Additionally I learned more about the importance of tact and timing when dealing with the emotions of others, as well as how to manage my own emotions better, especially that of affection which I had to work very hard to keep under control when dealing with her.

If on the other hand you meant the ghosting itself – while I did think about the matter for a number of days after the fact, I could not find any significant wrongdoing on my part, only some minor changes here and there, which may have not had much impact regardless.
The most major aspect which may have been correctable, is the one I mentioned in my previous post – that my unusually large amount of emotional availability and gentleness when dealing with her may have given her the impression that I was a weakling/beta, thus lessening her interest in me and perhaps even stoking the bad aspects of her character which ended up expressing themselves.

Also, just to clarify – when I remarked on how I needed to ‘study the matter in greater detail’, I did not mean this particular situation, but rather my experiences with women in general, both before as well as since this incident, to figure out what the relationship between men and women ought to look like.

This particular instance I only dwelled on for a few days, until I had completed my analysis of what happened.

I think your analysis of modern women’s sense of responsibility is on point, in fact some time ago I had a conversation with a woman whom I was not romantically interested in, who outright told me that women will generally do that which is most emotionally expedient to them, regardless of the consequences this has for others.

Regarding the relationship with her father, I do have some limited information on that – which is that her family was abusive, and she appeared to have to find her own way around life as a result – her story is similar to my own in this regard.
I invited her to share more about her situation and allow me to give some advice, considering my skillset, but she wanted to wait until we knew each other better, a decision which I respected.

[PrometheanFlame]

@Ralf

Was this someone you were dating, or just exchanging messages with?

You both agreed to not ghost eachother, and if you wanted to break contact, that it would be discussed openly?

Sounds like a classic bait-and-switch to me. Sorry to hear it man, but a valuable learning experience. What have you learned from it?

Honestly, I wouldn’t worry about it too much. If you try to figure it out without her telling you with full transparency, you could drive yourself crazy. Women change their minds all the time and not even they are aware of why most the time, so if you ask they wouldn’t be able to give an insightful answer anyway. Lack of accountability is now the new standard for Western women, so very few feel obligated to hold up any kind of agreement they’ve made, even those who are “on our side”. It changes the minute they want it to, and they don’t feel they have to justify it to anyone or be held accountable by anyone, especially a man. Makes me wonder what her relationship is like with her father. Who in her life is holding her accountable for her actions? I have my guesses.

Thanks for sharing your experience.

[Anonymous]

Since you asked others to share their experiences with rejection, I will go ahead and do so, even though my experience doesn’t generally fit the pattern of the woman rejecting the man which you have described.

In my own experience I am mostly the one doing the rejecting, rather than being rejected – likely due to the fact that I studied the human mind and thus know what the prerequisites for a functional relationship are, what character traits are required, which flaws are fixable and which ones aren’t, and so on…

As a result, there have been a number of women who have shown interest in me, but whom I considered to not be relationship material due to some (to me) obvious red flags they exhibited (which is something I touched on in a different topic on this forum).

Though, there was one instance which could be considered a ‘rejection’ on the woman’s part, which I will share as well.

Not too long ago I met a woman who initially seemed to be of great character – she appeared to be empathetic, considerate, and have a healthy (non-inflated) sense of self-worth – truly rare characteristics for a modern European woman in my experience.

We discussed a variety of different topics, she conducted herself well and took interest in the matters we discussed, as did I.

She shared my disdain for ghosting, and we both agreed to never do such a thing to each other, but rather openly discuss any concerns we might have, especially if any of us ever wanted our contact to end.

At one point we got into a minor conflict, which she voluntarily took most of the blame for, and I decided in my usual empathetic manner to listen to what she was dealing with at the time and provide emotional support in the process.
After I did so, she thanked me and invited me to share my own experience of this conflict, which I did.

Once I had done so, I waited for her response, though it appeared to take an unusually long time… so I investigated… and found out that she had ghosted me.

As a result I was left guessing why she didn’t want to talk to me anymore, though in any case I was now certain that her initial caring demeanor was merely a facade and she was not of good character after all, as otherwise she would not have done the one thing we both agreed was terrible and incredibly hurtful.

With regards to the cause, it is certainly possible that she was a fake, though based on her long and detailed messages, as well as the consistency between them, I would consider this option less likely.

It is also possible that my kind and caring nature is off-putting to women, and that they expect less empathy and more of a strict response to them exhibiting their flaws, which – if true – would mean that I have to reserve my caring approach for (high quality) men only, who have been comparatively receptive to it, while for women I would need to show less empathy, and be less concerned with the issues they’re facing.

Or maybe I did nothing wrong at all, and it was merely the woman whose bad character brought about this situation.

Though fundamentally I don’t know, and I will need to study the matter in greater detail to find out the right approach to women.

[PrometheanFlame]

@WillOfEuropa

Lol @ “Hoe_math”, I’ll check it out.

The cultivation of masculine energy is what my original post was trying to stress. It’s vital.

[Anonymous]

Hoe_math makes relationships very easy to understand. Check him out. You may be getting rejected because you don’t meet the masculine energy needed. https://youtu.be/n4aMiAesXjE?si=Z1O_enjmEkqNM6wY

[PrometheanFlame]

@WelshmanNorman

How is being well-read a problem? You don’t think that strong, beautiful, Aryan women value intelligence or knowledge? The best of them certainly do. It’s one of the things that defines us. It doesn’t make us undesirable, at least not to those who matter or should be considered for a wife. White folk have never been the lowest of any kind of pole, that’s silly. Just because other people hate us for whatever reason (they make up some new reason every day) doesn’t mean we’re on the bottom of some social hierarchy. Thing is, we don’t have to play their game by their rules, and we shouldn’t. So why accept the enemy narrative that we’re “the lowest on the totem pole”. I’m sorry if you feel that way, but only our actions can define where we rank in any sort of hierarchy that has relevance. Listening to jews and blacks talk about how much they hate us all the time probably isn’t healthy, either. It can break a person down over time. When I hear it from them, I realize how sad and pathetic they truly are and just laugh. Their words are as weak and empty as they are, so why let it bother you? That’s what they want. Don’t give it to them.

[Anonymous]

Too many women are on antidepressants, too many are on birth control. Unnatural conditions lead to unnatural behaviour. Birth control makes women prefer different men, and also prevent a woman from producing the “bonding-hormones” during coitus. From what I can tell from some of the posts that are on this forum, there are some very well read men and that is the problem. We are undesirable to women because women are hypergamous and the white man is the lowest on the totem pole right now. Its unnatural and will ultimate implode but how much damage will it do in the mean time.

[PrometheanFlame]

@AeonKnight

I agree that evolutionary biology and psychology are important to study, but one must use discretion when considering the source. I’ve found “Jungtoliveby” (youtube and website) to be on the right track with laying it out in terms of the genomic/biological self, instinctual drives, anima/animus, relating, complexes, archetypes and the issues faced by the modern, Western world.

The “gynocracy” has become the cultural embodiment and manifestation of the proverbial “shit test”. It’s playing out on a much larger scale now and men are being tested as a whole, and so are women. I’m not here to shame or bash female nature, quite the opposite. I adore the feminine. Cowards fear women and from that place of fear seek to control them with force, but it’s not the type of force that elicits genuine love and adoration from the women they seek to control. All the greatest poets and heroes throughout the centuries had one thing in common: their adoration for the feminine. It can make or break a man. A weak man cannot withstand the absorptive nature of her and is thereby consumed, destroyed, reduced to a husk. The masculine adept is instead empowered by her, making him stronger, giving fertile soil for his seeds to grow, literally and figuratively.

A woman will submit for the right man, and in a way that brings her bliss like she’s never known, and all women yearn for this bliss. When they can’t achieve it, you get things like the mass hysterics of neo-feminists, marching in the streets acting out. Those marches are massive shit tests! The ‘worthy’ men are not set off balance by such displays and it’s at such extremes that the dross is separated from the gold. Consider what we’re going through collectively as a type of crucible event. Not everyone is going to make it, but that’s the point. The genome will continue one way or the other, with or without them, and many women are self-selecting themselves out of the gene pool by choosing to not have children. So be it. The genome does not care. The healthy women connected to instinct will adapt and overcome the propaganda- their instincts will be fulfilled and they will birth the future generations. The hysteria comes from women who have fought hard to suppress their instincts, and it’s a battle they cannot win. The instinctive pressure will still be there.

The mind can be tricked, but instincts cannot. They are primal forces within us that propel us to fulfillment. That’s why pickup artists are able to arrange a stream of one-night stands, they know how to trick the mind; but if she stays around long enough, she will eventually discover if he is genuine or not. Most pickup artists I’ve observed are little more than charlatans with a bit of skill in applied psychology and neuro-linguistics. Women are wired at a primal level to detect the authenticity of a man, and she has many ways of eliciting responses to allow him to reveal what’s inside him. Only a man insecure in what’s inside him should feel the need to devise ways to trick a woman into sleeping with him. Again, you can trick the mind but the instincts will not go away; although they can be temporarily placated through things like promiscuity, pron and artificial achievement via video games. Since these things never truly fulfill instinct, they have to keep doing them and that is how addictions form.

So what is the solution? A return to instinct by paying attention to them first and then to go about fulfilling them. Easier said than done, I know, but the solution isn’t a quick fix or without struggle. Those willing to struggle in this quest are the most distinguished, successful and happy overall. Compared to a man who is content with temporary placations of the driving forces that can make him great, and unwilling to struggle. For women, they must honor their feminine instincts and be willing to hold off for the right man who has proven himself worthy of continuing the species with. When she finds him, she will feel protected, relaxed and liberated in an authentic way. The path to liberation is through embracing our instincts and allowing them to guide our path forward. No good comes from denying them, because they are part of who we are. Of course, the Christianized West is rife with dogmatic propaganda and ‘values’ that invite us to view instinct as something evil, something to be controlled, repressed and seldom discussed. No wonder the West has gotten itself in such a mess- it’s members are actively at war against their own biological nature! There will be a conclusion to all this, and which way it goes is ultimately up to the individual. If the collective decision is made to ignore instinct, it will only continue to get worse and absolute enslavement is not out of the realm of possibility. Either way, the West is in for a wild ride.

[AeonKnight]

@PrometheanFlame I don’t have any major disagreements here, but I think it’s easier and most practical for men to first understand evolutionary biology/psychology and how that downstreams into gender dynamics. A woman’s greatest existential fear is for a man to actually study and learn this, because in a way it’s frauding their reproductive strategy of testing for innate/instinctual alpha-ness, but from personal experience I know that you can’t turn a beta into an alpha, you can only make flourish potential that was already there (which was also stunted by modern gynocentrism in the first place). For most men today it’ll come as a shock just to what degree female standards of thinking have become the norm in most societies, not just ours; one simple example is associating “humanity” to things such as universal altruism, or even straight up cuckoldry like marrying a single mum or raising another man’s child, as if you become less of a human by not bowing 100% to a female reproductive strategy that is already on steroids, like living completely free from any sort of consequence: the “correct” way for a human to be is the way a woman is; the “correct” morality is female morality. It’s ideal to strengthen your position on truth by tying it back to an understanding of its metaphysics, but I think you can only do it once the physical is clear. The most basic place to start if female behaviour just baffles you would be to read The Rational Male series by Rollo Tomassi.

@A_Spartan_Speaks That was hilarious, man, thanks for the laugh.

@Hunter All correct points worth keeping in mind.

[Hunter]

Why she rejects you? Simple, women are attracted to power, or the ‘appearance’ of power, first and foremost. White men have only been collectively losing power relative to women and non-Whites since the defeat of the Third Reich. It used to be, that women wanted a more ‘womanly’ man—a gentle-man—since, such a man, would be more likely to be friendly and kind to her… but this only exists/existed in societies where women are/were treated as minors or property. This dynamic, still exists to some degree, in places like Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Chivalry is dead, at least, in the West, since women are no longer treated as the ‘property’ of men—traditionally a woman’s father, husband, or closest male relative would be her ‘owner’ or guardian. Women (and non-Whites) are not only legal equals to White men, but in many ways they are now legal superiors. This means, that to compete, a White man basically has to be a ‘smooth criminal’ or be born to power (this includes physical ‘power’ like height). Unless White men retake the West by force, White women will, in ever greater numbers, betray their race, and those few lucky ‘Alpha’ White men will be more and more isolated, and eventually they too shall fall. Unfortunately due to the competitive nature of White men, they are unlikely to support each-other, especially since such behavior is often labeled ‘gay.’ Being labeled ‘gay’ or feminine kills your chances with most women. Meanwhile, the opposite is true for women, most men find women ‘making-out’ erotic. Realistically, a serious pro-White movement has to offer loyal supporters access to women and reproduction. In fact, almost all armies, historically, have motivated their soldiers by offering them the fruits of conquest, women first among them. This the way of this world, I don’t have to like it, and I don’t.

[A_Spartan_Speaks]

For some strange reason I was once rejected by a young woman after I told her, that to understand me, she needed to read the Turner Diaries.

[PrometheanFlame]

The purpose of this post is to provide stimulating material to contemplate and create productive conversation/feedback. I am interested in the responses from both men and women, but wish to encourage the women specifically to also share their experience and perspective related to this topic.

We can all agree that the experience of being rejected is painful, and we have all had some type of rejection in our life, man or woman. There can be much confusion and hurt feelings about it, especially when we don’t understand why it is happening. While the context of the rejection focused on here is of the woman rejecting the man, rejection can happen in either direction. Often times, it seems less painful to not ask the ‘why?’ because the answer could reveal some weakness or shortcoming within ourselves that we would rather avoid or deny confronting; however, this is not productive to one’s self-development.

It is in the spirit of self-development, healing and awareness that I bring this topic forward. Much like death, it is a topic most would rather just not think about for too long. Interestingly, the experience of being rejected can almost feel like a death. Phrases like “it kills me”, “she tore my heart out” and “how could she be so cruel to reject me like this? I love her!” all can be related to how it feels when one is experiencing rejection.

So the question is: “Why does she reject me?” To understand this, we must first understand the nature of man and woman. I will use two analogies to illustrate this. The first is the serpent and the sun. The nature of the woman is like a serpent, it cannot produce it’s own warmth and is dependent on the rays of the sun (man) to warm her. She seeks the nurturing, warming rays of the sun and if she cannot achieve it directly, she will absorb it through the rocks which have been warmed by it. Snakes can be found basking in the sun, absorbing it’s energy, and the same is true for the way women seek (consciously or unconsciously) to bask and absorb the solar energy that a man generates naturally. So the man is like the sun, producing warmth and light.

If the man does not cultivate his masculine/solar energy (through neglect, laziness or apathy) or does not direct it properly (wasting it via pron, video games, fruitless endeavours that do not strengthen him or his skills, etc.), the woman goes unnourished and left cold, but still desirous of solar warmth. That coldness is then reflected back to the man in the form of rejection in it’s various forms: criticism, ‘cutting him down’, making irrational demands, giving the silent treatment, rejecting sexual advances, infidelity, etc.. She will still seek the sun and be left feeling insecure and unfulfilled if she does not receive proper nourishment from if. She can get it through the father, masculine family members, friends, acquaintances, mentors, teachers, etc. so she is not limited to the romantic partner or spouse where she can bask in the sun. The primary context here is between romantic interests and couples, though. A woman who is receiving strong nourishment from her father or brother, for example, may not feel as desperate for a man compared to a woman who is not. This is also why the father-daughter relationship is so vital for the child. An absent or uncultivated father leaves his daughter open to predation, making her a suitable target for various cults whose leader often targets such vulnerable women specifically. The manipulative cult leader is aware of such vulnerabilities in women and exploits them without her knowledge. He pretends to be the sun, offering nourishment and salvation from the cold, but his light is deceptive and alluring. Many women fall prey to this with nefarious gurus but don’t understand why. Now you do: the nefarious guru or cult leader exploits the absence of the sun and offers to be that source for her. Men are also ensnared by cults in this way, too, when they fail to be source of their own light and seek it externally.

Because the woman can only reflect back to him what he puts into her, the response a man receives is proportional to the quality of masculine/solar energy he projects. Even if he is financially destitute or not particularly handsome, a man who has properly cultivated himself can receive the admiration and attraction from many women. It is common that if you ask a woman why she is attracted to a particular man, she won’t be able to give an answer beyond the surface because the real reason for the attraction is often as mysterious to her as it is to him. This is because the attraction takes place in the subconscious realm. She can feel it when a man has and can give her what she desires. The confusion arises in the conscious mind when it tries to justify the feeling, but the emotional response is pre-rational and does not require logic; however, there is a logical answer when we look beneath the surface to see what is happening.

The second analogy is that of the vine and the tree. The vine is the woman and the tree is the man. The vine crawls around on the ground, seeking a stable foundation for it to ascend and bear it’s weight where it can reach the top and bask in the sun. If the tree is immature or weak, the vine will overtake the tree, weighing it down back the ground and killing it- both fail to achieve their purpose. The tree may die, but the vine will continue seeking a stable foundation. If it finds a strong, mature tree with deep roots, the vine will ascend unto the heavens upon it’s consort (the tree) and achieve ultimate fulfillment and bliss. The tree (man) becomes enlightened during this process as well. So the tree must be strong, mature and have deep roots in order to bare the vine. In this process, both the tree and the vine achieve fulfilment of their nature and the result is divine bliss, union and enlightenment- what everyone is after.

Rejection can take place at any stage of the relationship: during the initial approach, at any time during the courtship and at any time during the marriage. Even if the wife is deeply committed to her marriage and her husband, rejection can still occur. Men are often bewildered when rejected by a woman, especially when he has a strong attraction for her. But a mirror can only reflect back the image projected onto it, and a blank canvas can only be turned into a work of art by the painter’s brush- the quality of the final piece is determined by the artist, not the canvas. Both are appropriate analogies when trying to understand the masculine and feminine dynamic. If the painter is unskilled, unfocused and deplete of inspiration, the end result will be of low quality. Should the painter then blame the canvas for not producing a beautiful masterpiece? Little growth or personal insight could be achieved if he did so. But what if his canvas is blemished or marred? He mends and restores it, and continues to create a masterpiece with it.

Whatever a woman (not just romantic interest, but any woman) gives to a man is a gift, the gift of self-reflection. What the man chooses to do with it is up to him, but to throw it away because he doesn’t like it is to waste a valuable opportunity and resource. This is not to say that men are responsible for what women do, but insight can be gleaned by observing their reactions. The feminine is passive, absorbing and reactive after all. This can be seen explicitly in the act of lovemaking when the female partner is very feminine and the male partner is very masculine: she awaits his touch and responds to every move, eager to receive him, and he is in ecstacy to affect her with his generative force, to have a willing receptacle to receive and contain his essence.

As for when things aren’t ideal in the masculine/feminine dynamic at large within a culture or society, one example would be the modern feminist movement: streets full of angry, bitter, often vengeful women who have developed a deep-seated mistrust and hatred of men. These women are responding to the lack of masculine vitality and are starved for the rays of the sun like a snake who has only known winter and longs for summer. Among the mass of feminists, you will not find among them women who are solarly nourished or women who are as the vine basking in the sun atop the branches of a strong tree. You will not find their bitter words of condemnation on the lips of the serpent absorbing nourishment from the sun on the cliffside at mid-day. So what is one to do when a man finds the women in his life have become cold and condemning towards him, rejecting him? The answer is not one-size-fits-all and must be considered case-by-case.

As to the answers of why she rejects you (if you’re a man) or why you reject him (if you’re a woman), I leave that to the individual, but I hope you have gained some insight in this article to help you find the answer.

Please do share your personal experiences regarding rejection. Why do you feel you rejected them? Why do you feel they rejected you? What insight can be gained from it? Please also share any added analogies to the masculine/feminine dynamic, there are so many and I love hearing ones I haven’t heard! Please do share any feedback about my analysis of the masculine/feminine dynamic as well. I am open to criticism and opposing views, so even if you disagree with what I’ve said, please explain what you disagree with and why. I can handle the criticism, but please do try to be insightful. If you think it’s stupid or that I’m wrong, please elaborate instead of just hurling insults. Thank you for reading and participating!

[Author]

Posts