Miscellaneous Feeds

Instinct, Emotion and Reason

The Rational Man - Thu, 04/12/2018 - 00:02

Before I dig in here today I want to give credit where it’s due. I was inspired to consider what I’m about to go into here by a quick-hit Tweet from Illimitable Man. I didn’t bookmark it so I apologize for not linking it here today, but the general gist of it was about the mental processes humans go through when we’re presented with environmental stimuli that demands interpretation and a behavioral response. I considered this process quite a bit while I was studying behavioral psychology – Instinct, Emotion and Reason (or rationality if you prefer) – and I’m almost embarrassed that I haven’t covered this in terms of a Red Pill perspective in over 600 essays now.

The idea is fairly simple; when we are prompted by environmental (and sometimes internal) stimuli human beings process this information using three psychological mechanisms – our primal instincts, our emotional interpretations and our rational (reason) facilities. I’m not sure these processes get their proper due in Red Pill theory today.  I’ve detailed all of these processes individually for years on this blog, but generally they were outlined in the context of whatever topic I was focusing on. In this essay I’m going to elaborate on these aspects individually. Later, as part of this series, I’ll explore how they act in concert for our overall cognitive process, and then how they influence intersexual and intersocial dynamics. I think this is a useful exercise because a lot of foundational Red Pill ideas stem from these processes as well as the social conventions and interpretive priorities the Feminine Imperative relies on today.

For sake of clarity I am going to use a few behavioral psych terms like stimuli in this essay. This isn’t to throw $10 words at you, it’s just easier to elaborate on these processes with abstract terms. For example, when I use stimuli I mean any physical, environmental or cognitive prompt that our conscious or unconscious mind demands an interpretation, processing of and response to. That can be a wide variety of things so, stimuli serves as a general term.

Lastly, the following here is my interpretation of these processes. While a lot of this will align pretty well with established theories, this is my take on them and not some official, settled science of facts. If you think I’m full of shit please tell me why, this is still a work in progress for me.


Instinct seems like the easiest of these processes to understand, but it’s really the cognitive aspect that’s most misunderstood, marginalized and often demonized. The reason for this is because our instincts reside in our subconscious (hindbrain) processing of stimuli. When I refer to men or women’s evolved mental firmware in my essays it’s our instinctual process that I’m referring to. These are the unlearned, inborn aspects of our human nature that influence the other processes and remain largely in our subconscious. Our instinctual processing is a direct result of our evolution. It evolved as a vitally necessary aspect of our cognitive processing in that it aided in our ability to survive in, and adapt to, a chaotic, primal environment when food was scarce, predators and rivals wanted us dead, and reproductive opportunities and raising a child to a survivable age were at a premium.

There are a lot of examples of our instinct level processing and each instinctual response triggers more complex processing up the cognitive chain through emotion and reason. If we were presented with a dangerous stimuli (a sabertooth tiger) our instinctual process triggers a fight or flight response physically in our bodies (adrenaline release). Needless to say this was an evolved adaptation that served our species well and was passed along genetically as part of our mental firmware. I’m going to use some simplistic examples here but, if you really want to dig into our preloaded mental firmware and how we developed it I would suggest looking into the earlier works of Dr. Steven Pinker and The Red Queen by Matt Ridley (I’ll post links in the comments).

Another example is human beings’ innate fear (reservations at least) of snakes and spiders – poisonous animals that looked easy to kill, but could kill humans without warning. That’s an example of relatively beneficial firmware, but the reason instinct gets a bad rep is due to the instincts that once were beneficial to us individually, but are less beneficial to us socially. Greed and gluttony were very practical, instinctually motivated behaviors that stemmed from a need to survive in a time when resources were scarce. Today greed is (mostly) seen as anti-social and a compulsion to overeat in a time when food is abundant is why we presently have an obesity epidemic.

Those are easily understood examples, but where things get more complex is in how our instinctual process influences the other processes (emotion and reason). Instinct gets demonized because in our ‘enlightened‘ era we like to believe that instinct is more trouble than it is beneficial. Most of that is due to a belief that our other processes are superior to (or at least should supersede) our instincts. Most of what we call sin or immoral behavior is motivated by the instinctual process. In fact, the only time our instinctual awareness and reactions are really credited with anything positive is when it gets us out of some life threatening situation or it leads to some prosocial outcome. For instance, the male instinct to protect women by putting ourselves between them and danger; that’s an instinct and resultant behavior (seemingly altruistic male self-sacrifice) that gets a lot of praise in our feminine-primary social order. However, for the most part, we tend to judge ‘baser instincts’ as a net negative.

The truth about the instinctual process is that none of our other processes function at full efficiency without it. Today, as a result of our feminine-primary acculturation, we want to relegate instinct’s influence to something “we’ve evolved beyond”. The popular consensus is we’ve raised ourselves above base instincts by either acknowledging the importance of the emotional process or that rationality and the self-control based on it immunizes us from its influence. Not only are these belief foolish and hubristic, they’re provably untrue. When it comes to concepts like the ‘selfish gene‘ and the physical differences in the evolved instinctual processes of men and women, it becomes necessary for a social order based on blank-slate equalism to demonize and marginalize the influence of, and behaviors attributed to, instinct.

The survival benefits and behaviors that make up the instinctual process were so necessary that they had to become part of our unconscious species firmware. Because the instinctual process is part of our animalistic hindbrain mental subroutines it’s something we have little or no direct control over until its effect is brought (often forced) into our conscious awareness. As such, and because we prefer to think of ourselves as emotional and rational beings, we tend to think of the influence of instinct as something we either have or need to have mastery over, and to a large extent this mastery makes sense. The truth is that instinct is an aspect of ourselves that needs to be controlled as well as embraced depending on circumstances.


From an evolutionary perspective, the emotional process of interpreting stimuli is a mechanism of how our brains and biochemistry interact to affect our moods, demeanor and ’emotionality’ in response to both instinctual cues and the raw information of stimuli itself. Furthermore, the emotional process can also be influenced and/or modified by the rational process. I’m trying to be concise here, but our emotional response to information/stimuli is very much an evolved dynamic with latent purposes and practical functionalities. I’m making this distinction here because for millennia we’ve raised the effects of emotion to a mythical, metaphysical, importance.

While emotion often has immediate effects on us, emotion also has long term effect with regard to the stimuli it processes. There are dozens of definitions of emotions and there’s no way I’m going to lay them all out for you here. However, popular psychology asserts that there are as many as ten and as few as six base emotions:

  • Anger.
  • Disgust.
  • Fear.
  • Happiness.
  • Sadness.
  • Surprise.

Sometimes Contempt is added to this list. If these seem overly simplistic they are, again, abstracts to build more complex emotions on (some paleo-researchers insist there are only four base emotions across our evolved ethno-histories). For our purposes these base emotions will serve to show the connections between the instinctual process which prompts them and the rational process that modifies and sometimes informs them.

Each of these emotional responses is prompted by how our senses, brain and then instinctual process interprets a stimuli. Again, using our sabertooth tiger example, the instinctual process determines imminent danger and triggers a synaptic and hormonal response to that danger. As a result of that instinctual process an emotional process and response is triggered – likely fear (flight in most cases), but sometimes anger (fight).

Another example: you see an arousing woman (stimuli) at a party who is displaying behavioral cues and environmental indicators of interest (IOIs). Your instinctual process determines a high potential for a reproductive opportunity. From there the emotional process kicks in: hormones and dopamine (and not a small testosterone spike) that your instinctual process triggered flushes your system and serves as the basis for your emotional process to form an emotional response to the same stimuli. If it all passes the smell test that response (hopefully) will be happiness (and a little surprise mixed in).

There is a visceral biochemical interrelation between emotion and the stimuli/instinct relation that prompts the reaction. Adrenaline is one easy example, another is oxytocin or the “love hormone”. This is a bit of a mischaracterization of the hormone. Oxytocin induces feelings of trust and comfort and is thought to be a significant factor in human’s forming pair bonds and parental investments. There’s a lot more to oxytocin’s implications to our evolution than that, but for now lets look at how our biology influences the emotional process.

We proceed from stimuli to an instinctual response. If there is nothing mitigating that response (such as a rationally learned buffer to mitigate it) the next step in the chain is a biological reaction to that instinct – such as dumping adrenaline into our bloodstream or a post-orgasm flush of oxytocin after sex. From there the emotional process picks up the interpretation of this information as prompted by the cocktail of chemicals moving through our bloodstream and affecting our mental and physical interpretation of that stimuli. That biochemical factor prompts one, or a combination, of the base emotions listed above.

From there more complex emotions (feelings) and combinations thereof begin to form an emotional interpretation and response. This emotional response can be anything from a fast, reflexive one to a more nuanced and contemplative one. Furthermore, this emotional interpretation and response can also be modified by our rational mental process as well as our gendered capacity to process emotions. One thing to bear in mind about our emotional process is that it can imprint its interpretations into our ‘hard memory’ – sometimes so significantly that the memory of that stimuli can re-trigger that physical and emotional response.

Gender-modified interpretation of our emotion process is an important aspect to consider in Red Pill praxeology and one I’ll be elaborating on in the next part of this series. Until recently the accepted ‘science‘ about our emotional process has been based on a blank-slate equalist approach to emotion. In fact we still suffer from the outdated presumptions of academia that both men and women process emotion in the same manner, and, in theory, ought to be expected to have an equal capacity to interpret, respond and express emotion. In light of new technology and new research in a variety of interrelated disciplines we know this is old presumption is patently untrue. Men and women have different mental hardware and are born with different mental firmware. Both sexes interpret and process emotion in gender-specific manners.

I’ll be getting into the personal and social implications that the legacy of this (deliberate) misunderstanding presents in the next essay. For now it’s important to consider that human beings have an innate predisposition to elevate the emotional process above instinct and reason. Likely this is due the to the survival dependency we had on our feelings in our evolutionary past. In a time when we lacked the greater rational facilities and information we’ve developed in our more recent past, depending on and learning from emotion, and the latent purposes it serves, was a species-beneficial system. We depended on our emotions to guide our behaviors (long and short term) for us more in our prehistory when we lacked the more developed rational process we take for granted now. Emotions served latent evolutionary purposes for us in our prehistory and today are still overly emphasized – often to metaphysical attributes – as superior to reason. More on this soon.


The final piece of our interpretive process is reason, or rationality (I’ll use these interchangeably). Ironically, for all of the social preconceptions that our emotions have made us “more evolved” above instinct, it is our rational process that has evolved us above both instinct and emotion. From and evolutionary standpoint our rational process is a relatively recent development; pushing us past the limitations of instinct and emotion. The definition of rationality is the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic. It is the quality of being able to think sensibly or logically and being endowed with the capacity to reason.

Biologically it’s postulated that our larger brains allowed us to develop a capacity for reason, but that doesn’t mean other animals lack the same facility, it’s just that the rational process is less developed (some would say less environmentally necessary) in those animals by order of degree. Dogs, for example, rely primarily on the instinctual process and the mental (vestigial) firmware they’re born with to solve most of their existential/environmental problems. That doesn’t mean that they lack the ability to learn and form novel (adaptive) behaviors using a rudimentary form of logic. Animals can be taught things, but their capacity to form novel ideas and behaviors is limited to their cognitive abilities. Humans, being the apex species on the planet, had the leisure to take the time necessary to evolve a capacity for logic and as such the rational process developed in us.

Of all our interpretive processes reason is the one that takes the longest to function. Our rational process forms our interpretation of stimuli based on information dissociated from the interpretations of instinct and emotion. Reason requires (accurate) knowledge derived from learning and experience, but there is also an improvisational element to the process.

Before I get too far in the weeds here I need to make a distinction; what I’m outlining is the rational mental process we employ to interpret and interact with stimuli, not rationality, the concept of reason or rationalism. That’s important because it’s all too easy to get lost in philosophical implications of reason when we look at the process of how we come to it.

As mentioned above, the rational process modifies the instinctual and emotional processes. Example, in high school, in drivers ed class, we’re taught to turn into a skid rather than turn with the skid. When we’re driving and we find ourselves in a skid our instinctive impulse is to slam on the the breaks and/or, worse still, to turn with the skid. Our self-preservation instincts tells us to do this, but all it does is make a precarious situation worse. However, when we’re taught, and we practice, not hitting the brakes and not turning into the skid, we make this our default reaction and we avoid disaster. This is the rational process interpreting a stimuli and forming a novel behavior that modifies the interpretation of the instinctual process.

The limitation of the rational process is in its necessity to take time to interpret information and develop a new apparatus. Where instinct and emotion are intimately linked with our biological hardware and psychological firmware, the rational process is dissociated from them in the same immediacy. Instinct and emotion are processes that evolved from a survival-need for fast interpretation and reaction. The rational process requires time, repetition and the right biological structures to be effective. Human beings are remarkably fast learners (even with complex challenges), but the learning that the rational process leads to is slow in comparison to instinct and emotion – which are essentially preloaded firmware in humans.

The rational process deals with the nuts and bolts of what we can understand of our reality. From there it can modify the other processes or it can serve to interpret stimuli on its own.

In the next part of this series I’ll be exploring how these cognitive processes interact and cooperate and conflict with each other. I will also consider the gendered advantages and disadvantages these processes represent to our individual experiences as men and women and the influence they play in intersexual and intersocial dynamics.

Categories: Miscellaneous Blogs

HackMoor 2018/03/29 Looking South to See Gorignak

Furiously Eclectic People - Wed, 04/04/2018 - 01:23

Second attempt at this post, first attempt seems to have disappeared.

Games are (usually) on Thursday nights sometime after 6:30PM at World's Best Comics, 9714 Warwick Blvd Newport News, Virginia 23601.

We had a Spinach and Chicken pizza with fresh lumps of Mozzarella.

There is an image attachment to this post that the email version didn't get, at map of this level that they have explored so far. Due to black and white format, areas of shadow not explored are indistinguishable from solid walls.



I deemed we did not have sufficient Players for a quorum, so we played another three Player session of Rail Baron. This time the two losers from the last game outplayed the winner from the previous game.

On the side however, I asked the Player running Aerys to conceptualize the room they were in. She decided to look to the opening to the South and met a strange creature made out of earth and rock. It wasn't hostile, and started to talk to Aerys in unintelligible sounds. At which point I suggested a comprehend languages spell may be in order.

For the sake of the story I named the creature Gorignak, the rock monster from Galaxy Quest. (The module gives it a different name but I think this is better.)






Grok the Dwarf, a third level WitchRanger (Battlemage subclass of Magic User).
Aerys, an Elvariel, a Fingersmith (Thief class).
Baronet Huang - a Master of the West Wind of the Stone Tiger Order, (Monk class).
Numrendir - a human Conjurist (a Conjuror, Magic User subclass)
Junkbot Jackson - a human Tracker/Friar (a Ranger 5th and Cleric 6th level).

Baronetess Honda - a Human Datai Samurai, Steward of Catan (formerly Temple of the Frog)
Gnomex, a Gnome Adept of Geardal Ironhand (Cleric class.)
Tanzen - a Fae-Born first level Exciter. (Fourth level Invoker, a Magic User subclass).
Fundisha - a half-Elf Swordsperson/Tout (Fighter and Infiltrator, a Thief subclass).

Gerry Castagere, human Fingersmith, (Thief class) and ever loving devotee of Elefus, abandoned to the Blood Cult in the City of Brass on the Plane of Fire.

Felipe the Dwarf, a third level Sigil (Chosen One subclass of Cleric).
Jacko, an Albino Dork Elf, a Master Espion (Infiltrator, subclass of Thief).
Serena 2.0 - First Level Battle Mage Second (a Protege of Jacko).
Sir Weasel, human Guild Soldier, Warlock, & Champion (Thief, Magic User, & Fighter classes) he stayed back in BlackMoor.
- and nine Pilgrim henchmen of various levels. (They wear hoodies.)
Slade Wilson - Dwarven Professional (a Bounty Hunter, Fighter subclass) Left behind at Catan.





This is also posted on three forums, and a blog.

Tracy Johnson
Ye Olde Fashioned Text Games at:



image_blog: tweetbutton: 
Categories: Miscellaneous Blogs

Life at 50

The Rational Man - Tue, 04/03/2018 - 01:23

So, I was arguing with myself as to whether I ought to post something here on my 50th birthday, which is today. I read through a few other notable guys in the manosphere and they all have something like 30 Lessons at 30 and 40 Rules for 40 or something like that. Not to take anything away from them, but for the most part lists like this are basic aphorisms that are certainly wisdom, but are things you can probably be 20 and think “Hmmm, yeah, okay,…”

That said I had considered just enjoying my short break from the blog (two weeks is as long as I’ve gone in six and a half years) and relaxing today, but I’m fifty today and I’d be lying if I said I haven’t been doing some life assessment for the past 4 months or so. 50 lessons at 50 might get a little tedious to read so I’ll just let my readers in on what I’ve been considering lately and what I think have been a few or the more important lessons I’ve learned in the last 50 years. I’m not exactly a stream of consciousness style writer, but I’m going to be a little more loose and open with this. Don’t worry, I’ll get back to meat & potatoes posts next week.

In the six and a half years I’ve been blogging, and the 7 more I’ve been writing in the ‘sphere, I’ve done my best not to inject my personal life into what I write about unless it’s directly related to a topic and serves as a decent illustration for some purpose. There’s a few I can think of, but like I said, they’re usually to highlight a point. Hell, for the first five years of this blog and all of my time writing at SoSuave I did my best to stay anonymous and kept my nondescript face out of the public sphere. And it’s anonymity where I’m going to start.

When I began writing on the SoSuave forums I had already learned the hard way how easy it is to have your livelihood taken away from you by vindictive and juvenile minds who simply want to have some power beyond the cubicles they live in. I was working for a liquor importer and I’d put together a fantastic co-branding arrangement with an X-sports organization and one of our proprietary brands. I’d worked on the promo work and all the creative for almost two years and all of it got flushed down the toilet by one email alleging that one guy from the organization had used a racial slur (during a charity event no less). The allegations were false, I went to great lengths to prove it false, but the damage was done. The C.O.O. who was entirely unfamiliar with the organization, the social circle or the event pulled the plug.

Two years work building the association was gone in the space of 2 hours and one anonymous email because it was simpler to pull the plug than it was to have to explain why it was all the vindictiveness of some kid on the internet who had a beef with some guy who rode a motorcycle. That taught me a lesson that I’ve used a lot in my writing – stay anonymous as possible, because all the years of hard work I’ve invested into this blog, my books, the audio books, my talks now and my public persona can be lost in the course of a day. I’m far more anti-fragile these days. My work is on my terms, which also took a very long time to establish to my liking, but even still I understand how truly fragile my own and so many other men’s lives really are with respect to maintaining it.

I don’t really like that term, “anti-fragile” is like a badge of honor self-made guys like to attach to that other term “entrepreneur”. Not to take anything away from them, but everyone is fragile to some degree. If the social justice zeitgeist of this era can’t destroy you financially, they’ll happily destroy your marriage, your family, the things you love to do and the company you keep. We live in an era when the politics of personal destruction are easily enacted with a few emails and a viral tweet.

So I did my best to stay anonymous as Rollo Tomassi. Even when I became more anti-fragile I understood that if some hater couldn’t get me fired they would come after my daughter, my wife, my dogs, my extended family, etc. without any fore or afterthought. That’s kind of changing for me now. I’ve got three books under my belt (yes, there’s a fourth I’m working on too) and after doing really only two in-person talks it became clear that I needed to be more accessible.

The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine and Positive Masculinity are my dents in the universe. At 50 now I can see that these books and my writing, my ideas and the dots I’ve connected, courtesy of the men who’ve offered there experiences to the whole, will be my legacy in this life. That legacy is dependent on Amazon publishing and printing my work, WordPress hosting my blog, Audible accepting my audio books and Twitter and YouTube providing their platforms from which I can spread those ideas. Everyone is fragile. My plans for the future and ensuring these ideas live involves making them less dependent on this fragility.

I make the least amount of royalties on my printed books, but they are what I hope men will buy the most because it’s the least fragile way of spreading and discussing the ‘dangerous thought’ that is the Red Pill in intersexual dynamics. It’s a very strange and humbling thought to think that my grand and great-grandchildren might read my words in the future. It’s also really humbling to know that I’ve helped other men change and improve their lives; sometimes saved their lives. I have trouble describing what it feels like to have a guy you just met pour his heart out to you like he’s known you for years and tells you if it wasn’t for what you wrote, if it hadn’t been for me reaching him with these ideas he’d be dead. It kind of give you that weird chill you get when you see someone else get hurt and you can’t do anything to help.

But I did help. I can actually say that my work has positively impacted the lives of other men (and women) and likely the course of their lives and their families’ lives, and the whole causality thing kind of unravels from there. It’s what I’d always hoped I could do. As most readers know, a lot of what prompted my writing was the suicide of my brother-in-law and another good friend back in 2003. I’d been writing in what would become the ‘sphere since 2001, but these deaths were what moved me to try to help other men more directly.

I’ve done really well for myself. That’s a statement of fact, though it sounds like I’m glossing myself. I still see a lot of guys I used to know who, back in the day, I was almost certain we’re going to go places and do big things. With the exception of maybe two, every one of them has fallen short of what I used to think they’d accomplish. A lot of them were the inspirations for posts about changing the direction of your life to better facilitate a woman’s plans for her own life. People hate it when other people compare lives. The standard line is “well if they’re happy who are you to judge?” or else it’s “we all find happiness in our own ways” or something suitably ambiguous. It’s one of those things we say so as not to appear judgmental. But everyone of us makes comparisons about a great many thing. There’s not a woman on planet earth who doesn’t compare herself, her quality of life and the man she’s married with her sister’s.

I could give a shit about what these guys have done with their lives up to age fifty, but I do think we need to take assessments of how our lives have turned out. It’s natural for us to want to measure our achievements, but at my age all that does now is make me realize how stupid I was when I thought so much more of other people and not enough of myself then. We shouldn’t compare ourselves with anyone else, I got that, but we should compare ourselves with what we believe is our personal potential. I’ve still got a lot to do before they put me in the ground, but I think I’ve done okay up to now with respect to my potential. If anything I don’t think I gave my potential enough credit when I was younger. Maybe we all do that?

I’m kind of scared of the future in a way. My Dad died from Alzheimers/Dementia just shy of his 73rd birthday in 2010. He had early onset too, so he started forgetting things at about 64. At least thats when it became apparent to everyone. That’s my worst fear today, but it’s also whats driving me now. In the autobiography of Steve Jobs it was obvious to everyone that once he acknowledged he was going to die early he started pushing the limits of what he wanted to get done before he went out. Consequently we got all of these great innovations in a relatively short time. Look at Apple’s “innovations” today. *I’ve only ever used Macs, even when they weren’t cool.

I’ve done far better for myself than my father ever did. Again, that’s not a ‘slay-the-father’ sentiment it’s just fact. My dad didn’t have the same potential though. And I still have more potential to fulfill. This has become more pressing for me recently and not just because of the fear of dying early – and yes, I do fear death, but mostly because I see it as a cessation of potential to do more. I genuinely have a mental list of things I need to do that I’ve only really become aware of since I started this blog and became an author and matured into the 40-50 year old Rollo Tomassi. Don’t think of that as a bucket list of some experiences to be had before death, rather, think of it as a ‘to do’ list that I need to accomplish before I go out. And that ‘to do’ list only became apparent to me in the last 7 years.

I know what I need to do now. It kind of sucks that a purpose to life might be something you only realize later in life. I’m sure it happens sooner for some guys, but for me it was necessary to live through the experiences that made me before I could know it. I’m still an artist in my essence, and I get edgy if I’m unable to create something new every day. Seriously, I’ve been like this since I was a child. I have a need to create, even if it’s just something simple, every day. That need has carried over into every aspect of my life and career. And really, the books are products of that need, but there’s a lot more, a purpose to the works themselves and that’s what my life has been about since I began the blog and the books and my persona.

I am Rollo Tomassi now. Don’t worry, I’m not legally changing my name. At first it was a clever online handle for me, and my real name is so white-bread generic it almost serves as a form of anonymity. Now it is me, and I’m okay with that.

Having said all of that, I’m considering a kind of semi-retirement from my primary career in the liquor and gaming promo business and applying myself more to writing and speaking. I’m already kind of doing this now since reaching a state of being financially anti-fragile. I’ll never fully retire from my brands so long as I have ownership percentages and creative decisions will need to be made. I’m not sure how this is going to look, but I find myself wanting to apply more of myself to writing, speaking, maybe doing some kind of podcast or terrestrial radio show. I feel like I need to do this now with my 50s ahead of me and more potential to do good in the world with what I have and the time I hope I have left.

In the comments today I was hoping to see what my peers thought of all this. I hope it’s not to navel gazy.

Categories: Miscellaneous Blogs

Volume 6 - Raiders of Gor

Furiously Eclectic People - Sat, 03/31/2018 - 17:19

This book started pretty slow, but turned into a swashbuckling-action-oriented feast! It was reminiscent of the first book and I really enjoyed it for the most part. I find in almost all of the Gor books I start out a bit bored while they set the story up, then get hooked when the meat of it starts.

The final battle scene description made my eyes glaze over a bit, it could be because I'd taken a break from the Gor series so I had forgotten what certain terms meant. I skimmed through the in depth ship descriptions because I wanted to get back to the action. (And because honestly...I didn't care, it's a boat...move on). Tying the women to the front of the boats was equally barbaric and beautiful to imagine, their faces twisted in fright, their bodies on display. I'd like to see a painting of that.

Character-wise I liked Telima alot, the switch-a-roo at the start was interesting, and the scene where she and the other girls dance around their captive tied to the pole made me smile. It was good to see some payback coming to the males. As for the main character, I did tire of his angst after a while, he needed a good smack upside the bottom to smarten him up. I think I still don't understand how he can be so angsty for lost loves and then get more women and then get angsty about them, it's like he punishes himself constantly. Get a hold of yourself man!

I enjoyed learning about the workings of Port Kar from the political system all the way down to the how they handle slaves. I pictured it as a floating (though not described as such) pirate city full of all types of booty. A book focused solely on the day-to-day workings of Port Kar featuring minor characters would be very intriguing I think.

Captive of Gor is next, I'm hoping it'll be just as action-packed. (or more, more would be good!)

Categories: Miscellaneous Blogs

[XCOM2-Spoilers] Vigilo Confido (Easy-Ironman)

Furiously Eclectic People - Thu, 03/29/2018 - 20:10

I blow the time to restablish contact with the Western U.S. after the game tells me I can't. Vigilo Confido!

I gain three potential target sites. Eastern U.S. to counter the Alien Cypher dark event to gain a scientist; New Mexico to counter the Alloy Padding dark event to gain a Grenadier; Western U.S. to counter a hidden event to gain 84 Intel. The last being the only one that isn't labelled Easy. I take it.

Operation Spider Tomb
Moderate Difficulty
84 Intel Reward
Protect the Device just outside Vancouver

Cast of Depravity:
Leftenant Schneider "Sheriff" a Sniper
Knight Number 5 "Tinderbox" a Spark
Leftenant Neptune "Sailor" a Scout
Sergeant Uranus "Sailor" a Hacker
Sergeant Klein "Clydsdale" a guy who blows stuff up [Shaken]

We stir Klein around a bit before getting him off the Skyranger.

Moving in we see a Viper and a Lancer. One basic setup later and Clydsedale uses supressing fire on the Viper which isn't effective. Everyone but Tinderbox and Uranus miss but those two down the Viper. Neptune gets Lanced by the ADVENT stooge and neutralizes him.

Uranus considers penetrating the ADVENT security but finds it too tight and backs out. Tinderbox aggros a Lancer and Officer while Uranus injuress the Officer as it gets under the covers.

The ADVENT stoolies centre their frustrations on Tinderbox after he misses the Officer. Tinderbox get's marked and shot by the Officer. As the Lancer breaks for Tinderbox, Klein jumps up and misses completely while Sheriff gets a pistol hit on him before he Lances Tinderbox.

Klein moves up and reloads. Tinderbox turns his back on the Lancer and rushes the Officer who screams at the Lancer to intercept but it's fruitless as the Officer is torn to shreds by the Spark.

Uranus gets a little inappropriate (won't repeat what she said) and reams the Lancer.

We mess around and reload while inching toward the target. Some ADVENT move in on us and everyone but Tinderbox fires wide.

Klein tramples the Viper, Sheriff ticks off a Trooper that's flanking him so Neptune slips up and takes care of his problem which ends the mission. Excellent.


Klein is promoted to Leftenant and takes Heavy Ordnance over Holo-Targeting. He won't listen anyway; he just likes to blow stuff up and make horse jokes. This mission sees him recovered from his "Shaken" status.

Low on Power and Comms in my base. Despite needing a Proving Ground still, I build more Comms and start clearing space for more rooms. With only two Engineers, I can't do much. I finally research magnetic weapons.

The Dark Event ADVENT Alloy Padding completes and they launch a retaliation strike against our resistance by targeting civilians. Let's save some lives people!

Operation Flying Dawn with Cpl Kazanova, Cpl Hamilton, Hijack, Tinderbox and Sheriff.

With a mixture of arrogance and apprehension, we hit the gound.

Our first encounter near two civilians is a Super Trooper and a Muton. A grenade and some shots take them out. We hear shots in the diatnce and a Human cry the cry of death.

A choice always has to be made in these types of missions whether to rescue civilians or eliminate threats. I save 9/13 civilians in 5 turns and eliminated 7/7 enemy targets, with only one soldier wounded from a Muton counterattack.


Operation Righteous Dawn
Hack the workstation on CP rail, Edmonton.

Lt. Clydesdale (Grenadier), Cv Tinderbox (Spark), Lt Neptune (Ranger), Sg Uranus (Specialist), Sg Cyborg (Sharpshooter)

Time to get this resistance back on track.

With complete confidence we all run forward. We don't expect this to be wheely hard anyway. After a bit we see a Mec and Officer and realize we only have 6 turns to get to the objective.

I setup and launch a grenade into the two but they run the other way and no one but Tinderbox can see them; he rails against the Officer, sending him crashing to the ground. Uranus sends Aid Protocol to Tinder and the Mec hides in a car. Tinder blows up the whole car and Neptune finishes the Mec off.

We meet heavy resistance with a couple Sectoids, Vipers, and Troopers. Tinder gets in the middle to draw fire but Neptune takes a critical hit and gets poisoned.

Neptune gets swatted hard and her caboose goes to the railyard in the sky. Uranus screams, steels herself and rushes for the target network access.

Success. Good but not great. By Neptune's beard, we lost one. In Neptune's honour, Specialist Uranus takes the Field Medic skill which would have come in handy.

KIA Leftenant Sailor Neptune; 6 Missions, 15 Kills, a Ranger.


Operation Buried Shadow
Raid the ADVENT Train

Number 5 "Tinderbox" a Spark
Haruku "Sailor" Uranus a Specialist
Dmitri "Rocket Red" Pushkin a Grenadier
Markus "Clydesdale" Klein a Grenadier
Deric "Efreeti" Blackstone a Ranger

We see a mechanical turret and Uranus decides to hack it with only 30% chance to control and succeeds! Unfortunately, even with success, it means we lose concealment and are now being hunted.

A couple Mutons, Shieldbearer, Viper, and two heavy turrets. The hacked turret does most of the work for us. Tinderbox burns the rest but.. but... the mission isn't over?

Another Shieldbearer and Officer sneaking around. The Grenadiers make short work of them.

Flawless victory in six turns.


Operation Shattered Witch
Neutralize target in ADVENT vehicle.

Leftenants Cyborg and Sailor take Sergeant Efreeti and Corporal Pushkin along with Cavalier Tinderbox along for the ride.

Soooo, I failed a Hack with nobody in Overwatch and a Ruler Muton Beserker along with some ADVENT soldier attacked. We panicked and Pushkin killed the VIP, Tinderbox dropped the Beserker AND Pushkin to the lower floor with a blast.....

The Beserker flees through a gate, Efreeti misses with his blade. Many reinforcements come.

We use tactics like blowing up floors so bad guys take falling damage and land within grenade radius of other bad guys. We flee.

It's considered a mission success but I'm pretty disappointed in myself for shooting the VIP instead of the Ruler. It was purely a lack of attention to detail. I get far too cocky on Easy mode.


Operation Blood Knife

Destroy alien facility

My name is Stephen. I'm a Ranger for the XCOM project. This will be my fifth mission. I don't know the rest of the crew on this one but they seem to have a bond. Apparently my predecessor was involed with our Specialist and something pretty brutal happened to her.
On the flight into action I examine the cool throwing axes they equiped me with. They're odd but far better than the sword I used to have.

(Grenadier Cpt Clydesdale, Spark Vanguard Tinderbox, Specialist Lt Uranus-gravely wounded planting explosives, Sharpshooter Lt Sheriff-wounded) Stephen Hamilton, Sgt Ranger 16 kills.

"Apparently I WAS better than Neptune."

image_blog: tweetbutton: 
Categories: Miscellaneous Blogs

HackMoor 2018/03/22 Down to Level Ten

Furiously Eclectic People - Wed, 03/28/2018 - 03:12

Games are (usually) on Thursday nights sometime after 6:30PM at World's Best Comics, 9714 Warwick Blvd Newport News, Virginia 23601.

Back to the usual, a meat-lovers pizza with the pepperoni removed and Philly-cheese steak substituted.

​PART 1.


The party had just accepted the surrender of the surviving two of four Goblins. They were about to attack Goblin El Jefe inside the next room when they were annoyed by the Priestess of Id raising up the Goblin dead and healing the surviving Goblin's wounds.

"Tsk tsk, we can't leave just a mess like THAT around," she said, "it will bring down property values, and show up on Neighborhood Watch reports. Besides, our new Order of the Lawful Good aspect of Id needs new converts, don't they?"

As she thus spoke her eyes glowed again blue, the four Goblins nodded in agreement.

Cheerily the Goblin guards opened the double doors to the next room, introducing "Sir Huang, Baronet of Catan!" (formerly Temple of the Frog and environs. I should have also added he was announced in the manner of Helga, in "'Allo 'Allo".)

The party interrupted El Jefe's evening meal, consisting of very large flies, served on a platter by relatively cute goblin wenches. (Now why the flies just don't fly away? My guess is they're just too fat to fly.) The wings were pulled off just before El Jefe ate them, a Goblin delicacy.

As they come in El Jefe says "WELCOME Sir Huang!", as his eyes glow a bright azure. In another pleasantry he addresses the Priestess of Id, "Greetings your Holiness, how long has it been, a week? What can I do for you all?"

Gnomex, getting to the point whispers to Sir Huang about directions to the next level down.

Therfore Huang as if prompted, asks: "Which way down to the next level?"

"No problem Sir!" says El Jefe, "My guards will see you down."

"Former guards." Interrupts the Priestess. "They just joined the new Lawful Good Order of the Temple of ID."

"No matter." says El Jefe, "We're Goblins, we'll make more!" As he grabs one of the Goblin show girls and winks.

As they leave, a good-bye shout is heard from El Jefe's hall, "For the glory of ID!"

"For the glory of ID!" Replied the former Goblin guards.

So the Party is accompanied by the Cultists (the High Priestess, a few other priests and guards) You can almost say they follow the Party out of morbid curiosity. Thus, avoiding most of the pitfalls of Level Nine, the party is led past a few twists and turns and reach trap door in a nondescript room. They take the steps going down.

GM's Note: I must have missed something, as my eyes on the map wandered. When I put them on leve ten, I accidentally shifted the party a bit and they found themselves in a hallway with a door. I can rectify that next session or just leave them where they are. In any case it was just a door in the hallway.

With a bloody greasy door handle.

The party detected no traps, notwithstanding they didn't want to touch the bloody door handle. (Which is strangely odd, considering the wild abandon the Players grab pizza slices with unwashen hands.) So they asked the new Goblin members of the Lawful Good Holy Order of ID to do it.

After they opened the door, as if it sadness could ever overcome Goblins, they burst into tears. Inside were a baker's dozen dead Goblins. All friends and acquaintances.

They vowed revenge.

As if on cue, what came strolling down the hall but the biggest baddest Orc the party had ever seen, wearing a banded mail and a large floppy hat with a feather, circa late 16th century.

Omitting most details, a challenge was issued, centered on Aerys for some reason (probably as the new Grand Master of the LG Order of ID,) and was answered. Since Aerys was female, Huang was designated as her Champion. (Or was it Gnomex? I've had a couple beers as of this writing.) In any case the Orc was defeated and the Goblin rage was assuaged as it were.






Grok the Dwarf, a third level ​WitchRanger​ (Battlemage subclass of Magic User).
Aerys, an Elvariel, a Fingersmith (Thief class).
Baronet Huang - a Master of the West Wind of the Stone Tiger Order, (Monk class).
Numrendir - a human Conjurist (a Conjuror, Magic User subclass)
Junkbot Jackson - a human Tracker/Friar (a Ranger 5th and Cleric 6th level).

Baronetess Honda - a Human Datai Samurai, Steward of Catan (formerly Temple of the Frog)
Gnomex, a Gnome ​Adept​ of Geardal Ironhand (Cleric class.)
Tanzen - a Fae-Born first level Exciter. (Fourth level Invoker, a Magic User subclass).
Fundisha - a half-Elf Swordsperson/Tout (Fighter and Infiltrator, a Thief subclass).

Gerry Castagere, human Fingersmith, (Thief class) and ever loving devotee of Elefus, abandoned to the Blood Cult in the City of Brass on the Plane of Fire.

​Felipe the Dwarf, a third level Sigil (Chosen One subclass of Cleric).
​Jacko, an Albino Dork Elf, a Master Espion (Infiltrator, subclass of Thief).
Serena 2.0 - First Level Battle Mage​ Second​ (a Protege of Jacko). ​
Sir Weasel, human Guild Soldier, Warlock, & Champion (Thief, Magic User, & Fighter classes) he stayed back in BlackMoor.
- and nine Pilgrim henchmen of various levels. (They wear hoodies.)
Slade Wilson - Dwarven Professional (a Bounty Hunter, Fighter subclass) Left behind at Catan.





This is also posted on three forums, and a blog.


Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:



Categories: Miscellaneous Blogs

HackMoor 2018/03/15 BlackMoor Dungeon - The Cleric of Id

Furiously Eclectic People - Wed, 03/21/2018 - 01:52

Games are (usually) on Thursday nights sometime after 6:30PM at World's Best Comics, 9714 Warwick Blvd Newport News, Virginia 23601.

We had two large pizzas, one Pepperoni, one Chicken. After many weeks, we had a session of HackMaster.

​PART 1.


The party took some respite from their endeavors by accepting the hospitality of the Cultists of ID, memorizing spells, healing, sleep, et. al. During this period one character mentioned their spell book contained a dearth of spells. So I suggested the player take some initiative and steal them from another character. I amended that to include friendly borrowing, if another character agreed. So there was some die rolling involved, as players invoked some "Write" spells to copy spells from each others spell books. As I also told them there is a chance of failure, they can attempt again when they gain another level. It was as if that was a harbinger of fate, as one Player kept rolling ones and twos on their attempts, we even tried using a new die after every bad roll.

This evolution probably took a day or two, since the each spell Written takes one hour per spell level pass or fail. Their hosts were rather nice about the party taking their time. The non-magic users were easily entertained and an alliance was made.

Aerys made the first move towards an alliance, or at least an association. First the Cultists "alignment" was ascertained.

While this is usually a social faux pas, the Cultists made no dissembling. The Cultists Priestess, the significance of her position apparently obvious by her glowing blue eyes when she spoke, (like a G'aould from Stargate): "We're Evil," she said, "but at least we're honest about it."

The party pondered this, finally Aerys came up with a rejoinder: "Do you have any Neutral or Good Chapters of your Religion? If not, can we start one?"

"I don't see why not," she said, "we're always looking for new members. This could be an interesting method to expand our franchise."

So the deal was struck. I proffered the Player a briefing on the Religion of ID (to be delivered later), as I had previously said the Characters had been given the pamphlets and tracts anyway.

After this the Party, accompanied by the Cultists, went out exploring level Nine. Although it should be obvious dear reader, the Cultists were quite familiar with parts of this level. They went along to see what the party would do.

They went North then turned Southwest to see the staircase they came down before. Seeing nothing, they turned into a short hallway going Northwest that ended in a heavy door. Eventually breaking it down as it took more than one attempt, they found a small ten foot by ten foot square room with a door on each wall (including the one they came in). Within it was a large statue of a Goblin with various "offerings" placed around it. Specifically, some flasks with unknown fluids (one ceramic, three glass), a jar filled with blood, a silver goblet filled with cheap ale, two moldy pieces of bread, some moldy cheese, several teeth and bones, a gold signet ring, an empty scroll case, a crushed holy symbol of an unidentified diety, three decomposed headless chickens, the head of a female elf. various silver and copper coins, a vial of ink, a quill, and a scorched wizard's spell book. Since they had just gone through that process of transcribing spells, they simply stowed it, and anything else of value.

After successfully desecrating whatever intent these offerings were by taking them, the party made a exited the chamber by the easily opened (from the inside) door opposite the way they came. Coming to a "T" intersection they turned left, passed some corridors came within view of the aforesaid staircase and turned left again to find themselves outside one of the side doors to the same statue room.

Forcing this door open, they went past the statue through the other side and came out to another "T" intersection. Turning left they came to a door on their right, and checked to see if it was locked. It was, and they attempted to unlock it or force it I forget which as it didn't matter. One of the Characters, (probably Numrendir), at this point noticed that a mere 10 further was a wide open corridor at a 135 degree angle relative to their current corridor and decided to peek around it.

What he or she saw where a pair of Goblins aiming their arrows at the back side of the door the rest of the party was attempting to open. Whoever it launched a Phantasmal Fireball and hit for beau coup hit poitnts. 3 out of 4 Goblins failed their saving throw (there were 2 other Goblins around the corner), but they all survived. The two visible Goblins did a mere right face and let loose their arrows back at Numrendir for 11 hit points.

At this point Grok cast a Sidewinder Fireball (Factor 2) and downed a couple of the Goblins. One of the Goblins had charged Numrendir but Grok was ready to meet him on the second round and struck with his Short Sword (being a Battle Mage) and rolled a critical hit. (Using my cheesy system, he scored triple max hits, dropping the Goblin.

These Goblins were a bit difficult to take down, apparently they were Sixth Level Fighter Goblins.

In any case the surviving two Goblins failed their Morale Check and offered the location of their boss, just through the next door down the hall.






Grok the Dwarf, a third level ​WitchRanger​ (Battlemage subclass of Magic User).
Aerys, an Elvariel, a Fingersmith (Thief class).
Baronet Huang - a Master of the West Wind of the Stone Tiger Order, (Monk class).
Numrendir - a human Conjurist (a Conjuror, Magic User subclass)
Junkbot Jackson - a human Tracker/Friar (a Ranger 5th and Cleric 6th level).

Baronetess Honda - a Human Datai Samurai, Steward of Catan (formerly Temple of the Frog)
Gnomex, a Gnome ​Adept​ of Geardal Ironhand (Cleric class.)
Tanzen - a Fae-Born first level Exciter. (Fourth level Invoker, a Magic User subclass).
Fundisha - a half-Elf Swordsperson/Tout (Fighter and Infiltrator, a Thief subclass).

Gerry Castagere, human Fingersmith, (Thief class) and ever loving devotee of Elefus, abandoned to the Blood Cult in the City of Brass on the Plane of Fire.

​Felipe the Dwarf, a third level Sigil (Chosen One subclass of Cleric).
​Jacko, an Albino Dork Elf, a Master Espion (Infiltrator, subclass of Thief).
Serena 2.0 - First Level Battle Mage​ Second​ (a Protege of Jacko). ​
Sir Weasel, human Guild Soldier, Warlock, & Champion (Thief, Magic User, & Fighter classes) he stayed back in BlackMoor.
- and nine Pilgrim henchmen of various levels. (They wear hoodies.)
Slade Wilson - Dwarven Professional (a Bounty Hunter, Fighter subclass) Left behind at Catan.





This is also posted on three forums, and a blog.


Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:



Categories: Miscellaneous Blogs

[XCOM2-Spoilers] die Pause für die Beförderung

Furiously Eclectic People - Tue, 03/20/2018 - 16:11

After the mission i realize that I forgot to do my previous promotion so Sheriff takes Quickdraw (firing pistol first doesn't end turn) and I really don't know if it's better than Death From Above; Neptune takes Run and Gun (take action after dashing); Jones takes Deadeye (lower Aim to improve damage) simply because I always take Lightning Hands and want to see if Deadeye will ever come in handy or if it's just a way to miss.

Uranus and Jones recovered from their 'Shaken' status.

The previous failed mission not only lost me the Intel and VIP but contact with Western U.S. and the supplies normally gained there. Talk about a setback.

I go back to base and feel shame.

Categories: Miscellaneous Blogs

[XCOM2-Spoilers] Devil's Gift (Easy-Ironman)

Furiously Eclectic People - Tue, 03/20/2018 - 16:00

Operation Devil's Gift

Rescue VIP from ADVENT Vehicle, Edmonton

This is a rescue mission so I decide on two sharpshooters and no Grenadier.

Cast of Kidnappers:
Sergeant "Sailor" Neptune (Ranger); Sergeant "Sailor" Uranus (Specialist); Knight Number 5 (Spark); Leftenant "Sheriff" Schneider (Sharpshooter); Corporal Jones (Sharpshooter)

We start on a roof but after setup, only Sheriff is left up there as he has Squadsight. I do some running to scout using Jones and Neptune. We see a couple ADVENT in a building to our right but then we see the Viper King and a Viper peon slither out front. He becomes the priority target and we set up allowing the Troopers to flank us. Number 5 will start the barrage with everyone else on overwatch.

It goes fairly well. Neptune never got line-of-sight on the King and everyone else hit except Sheriff. The Troopers took tactical positions to my flank as expected, but we have to kill this Viper King.

Apparently only Neptune can move so she pulls her sword and dashes for the King doing heavy damage but not enough and his reaction is to open a gate for escape. Number 5 is Marked and takes some damage from a flanking Trooper (ADVENT Officer) while Uranus gets stabbed by the other one (ADVENT Stun Lancer). No music comes from Number 5.

I try to use Lightning Hands with Sheriff but somehow screw it up and he blows his whole wad on the Viper King, eliminating him. Now to the flankers and the eleven turns to get our VIP.

Number 5 flanks the Lancer and misses, almost hitting Uranus who ducks and curses Yoma. Spectacle Jones removes the Lancer from play.

Neptune rushes over, and strikes down the ADVENT Officer with her sword and snags some loot making me wish I'd added the extra loot option to my Guerilla Tactics Room.

Uranus hacks one of the local ADVENT systems to increase our vision for one turn.

Well I'll be a milksnake's uncle..... In my haste to take out the Viper King successfully, I just may have blown up the truck with the VIP.....
Mission Fail.
7 turns, 4/4 enemies killed, 1 soldier wounded.
Rating: Poor

Well, once again I feel like the mission was so bloody easy that I became lazy and foolish. This is a part of who I am. I excel best when challenged and when things seem too easy, I drop the ball. Perhaps as , XCOM can teach me some things that will transfer to real life. Perhaps I need to travel in the opposite direction he is to find my own balance.

Categories: Miscellaneous Blogs

[XCOM2-Spoilers] Operation Night Fire (Easy-Ironman)

Furiously Eclectic People - Tue, 03/20/2018 - 02:59

Operation Night Fire

Briefing: Supply Line Raid - ADVENT Convoy
Location: Wilderness of Eastern U.S.
Objective: Raid ther Advent Convoy; Neutralize all enemy targets; Secure supplies
Difficulty Moderate

The Troupe:
Cpl Neptune (Ranger), Cpl Arathorn (Ranger), Aspirant 5 (Spark), Cpl Pushkin (Grenadier), Sgt Schneider (Sharpshooter)

I have a number of injured soldiers but still some choices to make for this mission. Two Sharpshooters or two Rangers?

Normally I'd take the Sharpshooters and currently Micharu's (Ranger 2) partner Haruku (Specialist) is as few days away from health. As well, Spectacle Jones (Sharpshooter 2) is "Shaken." I need to get him out there to remove shaken.

Still, I'll go with the two Rangers, a Spark which I've renamed Number 5, Pushkin the Grenadier, and my German Sharpshooter with the Repeater.

Number 5 steps up while Ranger Micharu Neptune rushes ahead haphazardly and spots some baddies.

The patrol seems to be walking away from me, perhaps drawing me in as one of them turns to face me even though I'm concealed.

Ranger Aragorn Son of Arathorn scoots off to the other side and spots the supplies we're here to get. No engagement yet but wedding bells are in the air.

Number 5 moves just to the edge of concealment with Grenadier Dmitri Pushkin using him as cover. Our sharpshooter remains and goes into Overwatch.

Once everyone else is set, Micharu rushes in whispering something about being the soldier of affinity and attacks with her sword on one of the two ADVENT patrolmen but doesn't take him out. Luckily, Number 5 and Aragorn toast both of the baddies. There is no time for objections now, let's complete the ceremony.

We move forward in the same formation and a Sectoid with an ADVENT Trooper slide into few. Micharu tags the Sectoid and hurts him but no fatalities.

Aragorn flanks the trooper and lets fly the dogs of war scoring a critical hit and downing pasty trooper.

Micharu whispers "This is for you Haruku;" rushes up and disects the Sectoid with her sword finally getting a kill. She bellows "Space Sword Blaster!" and aggros a Viper and another Trooper.

Pushkin with only a 31% chance, nails the Viper but it's still up. Number 5 tries to finish him off while some music spins up in his speakers but misses. This leaves only the Sharpshooter to choose between finishing off the Viper or taking out the Trooper and he doesn't have good position on either of them (in fact he'd have to move for any hope of a pistol attack on the Viper). He takes out the Trooper but feels blue as he sees the Viper snag Aragorn and the truck beside them explodes, killing both....

Success, but Aragorn is dead. Three missions and 8 kills under his belt. His ugly mug will be missed and a broken sword placed on his grave.

Micharu dealt the most damage, Number 5 made the most attacks, Aragorn was the most under fire, Micharu moved the furthest. Everyone else gets a promotion except Pushkin, who did nothing.

Number 5 becomes a Knight and takes Rainmaker over Strike. I know Strike is good but I think I'll keep him for those big bad Sectopods.

Micharu Neptune becomes a Sergeant and takes Shadowstep over Shadowstrike. The latter sounds powerful getting better aim and damage when concealed but to move without allowing overwatch fire seems pretty useful all the time.

Lukas Schneider becomes a Leftenant and must choose between Death From Above (killing an enemy from above takes only one action and does not end his turn) and Quickdraw (firing your pistol at the start of his turn does not end his turn). Both are Abilities that I often forget about. I think I'll wait on this one and mull it over.

Uh oh, I'm low on Intel. It's possible I haven't mastered that game mechanic.

Categories: Miscellaneous Blogs

[XCOM2-Spoilers] Operation Regal Beast (Easy-Ironman)

Furiously Eclectic People - Fri, 03/16/2018 - 23:23

Operation Regal Beast

Location: Abandoned Research Facility
Briefing: Investigation - Unknown Site
Objective: Investigate Vahlen's Signal; Central must survive

Cast of Nitwits:

Aragorn "Son of" Arathorn | Ranger
Spark-001 | Mech
Katya Kazanova | Sniper
Dmitri "Rocket Red" Pushkin | Grenadier
John "Central" Bradford | Pincushion


Some blah blah explanation and signal stuff I never listen to. Probably why I don't know the storyline.

I send Aragorn and Spark out to scout and they see a couple Snakemen on guard duty. We set up accordingly trying not to be spotted.

Once we're setup, I place everyone in Overwatch except Aragorn who rushes in and slices one of the Neonate Snakemen in half. The other panics and slithers for cover. Spark misses it but Katya takes it down with one shot form her sniper rifle.

Aragorn takes point and while Spark is here to protect Central, I keep Central in full cover off to the left with Spark down the middle. I know he provides cover but I'm leery of keeping multiple units too close together.

As Aragorn moves forward a couple Vipers (type of Snakeman) wander into the room and he takes one down as Central proves why he's not 'field-ready,' firing wide.

Aragorn takes up a defensible position while Spark, Katya and Rocket line up in the back. We've entered a building and I need to get everyone in there for combat. Rocket gets an angle on the remaining Viper and with 92% chance to hit, he goes for it and rips the Neonate Viper apart with his cannon.

There are bats and snakes around which make this place creepy; not to mention the holograms of another type of Viper, a Muton and an Archon. We have two exits out the back and I send Spark, Aragorn and Rocket to the right with Katya and Central to the left, violating the ideal that Spark is protecting Central.

I change my mind at the last minute and send Rocket Red at a run to back up Central. Vipers come down from everywhere in the cavern. I lost count of them and while Spark and Aragorn took potshots, they missed these slithering beasts. One came out of a grate behind Katya and she reacted quickly putting it down with her pistol. Central took one out at the far end of the area. It seems he's warming up to field-work. Our rear is wiped but we've got an umbrella of Vipers ahead of us with our target location in the middle.

My first move in the combat is to order Aragorn closer to his nearest enemy instead of just taking the shot which aggros two more Vipers. Instead of taking his 100% on the nearest enemy he takes out one with higher ground at 75%.

Spark moves in and can't get any two in the area effect of his rockets thus he takes out the one closest to Aragorn. Katya sees one with her Squadsight and takes it down with ease. Dmitri (Rocket Red) can't see any targets, moves in and launches a grenade at one that could flank Aragorn.

Central has a couple choices. Open the door to the small building with our mission target location inside or try to take out one of the remaining Vipers. I can't remember how the Reaper Ability works, so I hesitate, but my gut is always to rush forward in berserker mode. Central guts two Vipers with his sword and ducks into cover. Wow, that looks like all of them. Well done guys.

Whup, a new one comes in from behind and targets Katya while another slithers between Spark's legs for position. Base tells us there are no more coming except some strange reading which may be y'know a Queen or something like that. No biggie. Press on.

Aragorn takes the one by Spark out with ease and Katya makes a risky forward maneuver, turning back at the last second to dispatch the other in a 50/50 gamble.

Uh oh, our target is not in the building but there's a reading she might be in the back of this cavern. Fun. What could go wrong? I eat a biscotte and consider dinner. All the troops reload while I eat my snack.

Spark takes point while I lazily order the troops forward to get organized.

Entering the back of the cavern, Spark finds some high ground down the middle; Aragorn goes left while Central goes right. Katya has to run to keep up with the rest of the group. Bats fly in front of my cameras. Snakes flee Aragorn's steps.

Oh great, a Viper King. I love this game but am not a fan of the "boss monster" style of play. Still, a couple reaction shots do some damage and another Viper slides out of the rocks.

While journaling I knock my mouse off the desk and move Central way back as if fleeing the fight and Katya gets snagged by the Viper King who's not just a Boss but a Ruler, which means it will act every time one of my troops takes a move or shoot action. This could be bad as I just had my most powerful unit flee the area by mistake. He's close enough to run back full tilt and stab the Ruler. I should use Reaper to kill it's peon on the way but I don't. As soon as Viper King is stabbed, it drops an injured Katya and summons a gate to flee. I bet I'll see it again. Better shred the armour before it gets away.

Dmitri can't risk rockets on the 'King' as Katya and Central are adjacent. He moves for a better position to shred the armour with his cannon. The Viper King gets away. Dangit.

Bah, lets' just kill all the rest. Screw prisoners.

We do.


Mission Type: Alien Nest
Objective: Completed
Turns Taken: 14
Enemies Killed: 15/16
Soldiers Wounded: 1
Soldiers Killer: 0
Rating: Excellent

Dmitri moves up to Corporal where he can actually shred armour. I guess he couldn't before. Whoops.
Aragorn also moves up to Corporal and gains Blademaster.
Katya is injured for 21 days but as the previous two, is promoted to Corporal. She has to choose between Long Watch and Return Fire. I really like the idea of Return Fire however Long Watch seems to be what's worked best in the past so that's what she takes.
Spark gets promoted too! Yippee! Now an Aspirant instead of a Squire he may choose between Bulwark (better cover for adjacent friendlies) and Adaptive Aim (removes recoil when in Overdrive). I really don't know but take Bulwark. Likely a mistake.

Conclusion: I don't feel like I was challenged, perhaps I should move this up to Veteran difficulty where I usually play, however even with the ability to load/save (not in Iron Man mode), I do tend to lose the occasional trooper.

Categories: Miscellaneous Blogs

HackMoor 2018/03/08 Place Holder Report

Furiously Eclectic People - Fri, 03/16/2018 - 11:43

Games are (usually) on Thursday nights sometime after 6:30PM at World's Best Comics, 9714 Warwick Blvd Newport News, Virginia 23601. (Note I just upped this an hour to reflect reality.)

As of the last report it was 5 weeks since the last HackMaster session, it has been 3 more weeks since the last report we still haven't played it, 8 weeks total.

​PART 1.


This doesn't mean we haven't played any games. We just didn't play any HackMaster. What follows are a summation of the last three sessions.

2018/02/22 - We played the old Avalon Hill game of "Rail Baron". The Player who runs Huang and Honda won this session in a three Player game. Having got both AT&SF and Union Pacific by the time all rail properties had been bought. We knew then it was a foregone conclusion.

2018/03/01 - We played a new game, Bezier's game of "Palace of Mad King Ludwig", again the Player who runs Huang and Honda won. Although there was some sense of beginner's luck was we were all learning how to accumulate points and swans. The game was a hoot, somewhat of a random jigsaw puzzle with points earned for tiles played. The idea is that you're all architects competing to build mad King Ludwig's palace. The winner gets the King's contract based on points earned for the best combination of rooms. There is a 14 minute or so video on how it's played, just do a web search on the title and the publisher.

2018/03/08 - We played no game, however I decided to have my Players go next door to the Italian restaurant where we normally get pizza and order real dinners, on plates. I put it on my bill. In other news, another one of my Players lost his job. Currently my Players are three out of five unemployed, and I'm not 100% certain of the status of the remaining two. Anyone in Hampton Roads hiring personnel with recent experience as a reciprocal horizontal motion surface cleaning engineer, let me know.






Grok the Dwarf, a third level ​WitchRanger​ (Battlemage subclass of Magic User).
Aerys, an Elvariel, a Fingersmith (Thief class).
Baronet Huang - a Master of the West Wind of the Stone Tiger Order, (Monk class).
Numrendir - a human Conjurist (a Conjuror, Magic User subclass)
Junkbot Jackson - a human Tracker/Friar (a Ranger 5th and Cleric 6th level).

Serena 2.0 - First Level Battle Mage​ Second​ (a Protege of Jacko).
Baronetess Honda - a Human Datai Samurai, Steward of Catan (formerly Temple of the Frog)
Gnomex, a Gnome ​Adept​ of Geardal Ironhand (Cleric class.)
Tanzen - a Fae-Born first level Exciter. (Fourth level Invoker, a Magic User subclass).
Fundisha - a half-Elf Swordsperson/Tout (Fighter and Infiltrator, a Thief subclass).

Gerry Castagere, human Fingersmith, (Thief class) and ever loving devotee of Elefus, abandoned to the Blood Cult in the City of Brass on the Plane of Fire.

​Felipe the Dwarf, a third level Sigil (Chosen One subclass of Cleric).
​Jacko, an Albino Dork Elf, a Master Espion (Infiltrator, subclass of Thief). ​
Sir Weasel, human Guild Soldier, Warlock, & Champion (Thief, Magic User, & Fighter classes) he stayed back in BlackMoor.
- and nine Pilgrim henchmen of various levels. (They wear hoodies.)
Slade Wilson - Dwarven Professional (a Bounty Hunter, Fighter subclass) Left behind at Catan.





This is also posted on three forums, and a blog.


Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:



Categories: Miscellaneous Blogs

Old Lies

The Rational Man - Fri, 03/16/2018 - 02:47

Apparently no one has bothered to let this poor sap (I don’t know who he is) know that the “Toxic” masculinity  narrative has now been replaced with “masculinity is toxic“. I find it interesting that when it comes to the mainstream societal understandings of what masculinity once was and what it is now – or what the mainstream believes it should be now – much of these interpretations are based on fanciful, anachronistic, ideas of what contributed to our understanding of masculinity now. I’ve gone into my own definitions of what constitutes ‘conventional’ masculinity for men many times before so I won’t belabor it now, however, as the popular narrative changes I’ve noticed some very common presumptions that masculinity critics like to use and are repeated over and over.

The first of these, and the most common, is the deliberate misconception that a boy’s learning to be masculine never left the 1950-60s. In the wake of the Nikolas Cruz shooting this rationale surfaced quite a bit. It still is. The idea is that boys are born as these tender, delicate souls, all naturally ready to emote and sensate like precious little girls – that is until the nebulous evil ‘patriarchy’ gets ahold of them and batters them into “being tough”, not crying and told to stop being such pussies. This is the old anachronism that presupposes western society never left the ‘macho tough guy’ preconditioning of boys to raise them to be these future murderers, wife beaters and misogynists.

This is, of course, the “boys are broken” narrative I addressed in Good Humans. It’s kind of ironic when you think that this narrative would have us believe boys naturally wanting to be boys is a net social negative and it takes some strong intervention in their upbringing to turn them into good humans. So what is it? Are boys being their natural selves by wanting to be rambunctious, risk taking, shit-giving, masculine boys, or are they naturally these tender little emo-beings coming fresh out of the womb only to have their ‘genuine’ sensitive emotional souls crushed by “hyper-masculine” fathers, male teachers and school coaches. This is one of the more stupid, but deliberate, paradoxes the Village and the Feminine Imperative conveniently switch between as circumstances require yet one more anti-masculine response.

Lies for Boys

You can see this confusion in the above Tweet.

Our society teaches boys to “toughen up”.

Actually no, the feminine-primary social order that has been systematically feminizing boys into feminine-identifying men for the past 50 years does nothing of the kind. Since the mid-seventies the cultural narrative took a hard turn to the feminine-correct in raising boys into pacified ‘harmless’ men. We’re going on five generations of telling boys it is incumbent upon them to get in touch with their mythical feminine sides if they want to evolve beyond ‘traditional masculinity’. There is no ‘toughening’ being taught to boys in a female primary education system that teaches boys in a manner that presumes they are defective girls.

…which is okay, but not okay when “toughening up” also means suppressing feelings.

Feelings are perhaps the only thing boys are being taught to prioritize in their feminine-primary educations today. This fact deserves a bit of explanation here. Male and female humans process emotions differently. Women in particular process negative emotions in a much different way than men. Men tend to prioritize information through a filter of rational discernment first and then sort out how they feel about that information in an emotional context. Women are much the opposite; girls process information through an emotional filter first and then sort out what the information actually means to them (and after that, how it might affect others). If this sounds like the essays I’ve written about how men’s and women’s communications methods differ you’re not too far off. Men prioritize the content (information) of a conversation while women prioritize the context (the feels she gets) from a conversation. This is how our brains work, and when one method isn’t socially favored above the other both methods can be complementary to the other.

But in a feminine-primary social order this is not how things work. As I mentioned, for the past 50+ years our educational system has shifted to favor the learning methodologies of girls at the expense of boys. This ‘girls style’ teaching has been the standard for so long now that we largely take it for granted that it is the only correct style of teaching. Today, men account for less than 25% of all teachers in the United States. In the UK it’s 25% and n Canada only 17% of elementary school teachers are male. Teaching is a female dominated profession and especially for younger kids. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics only 2% of pre-K and kindergarten teachers, and 18% of elementary and middle-school teachers, are men. How do you think stats like these affect the learning methodologies applied to boys and girls?

Yet still this lie that boys are the victims of some overwhelming toxic masculinity in their upbringing is the first reflexive explanation we hear from women and feminized men when a kid commits a criminal act. Why?

Lies for Equalism

Because it sounds right. It sounds like it should be right. The presumption is that boys are, in fact, girls; or at least they should be a functional equivalent of girls when it comes to educations. Over the past 50 years the baseless presumptions of blank-slate egalitarian equalism has not only inserted its lies into our social consciousness, but also into our presumptions about educating kids. I’ll repeat, men and women are biologically and psychologically different and boys and girls are equally different. The ways they learn are distinct to their sex. Yet for the past 4 generations egalitarian equalism has convinced (mostly female) educators that boys and girls are functional equals and gender differences are learned rather than innate.

While equalism informs (mostly female) teachers that boys and girls are the same, the teaching methodology that works best for girls and women is the predominant one today and for the recent past generations. The only way to justify this method as the universal one is to presume that boys are the same as girls – just ‘defective’ girls that must be taught to quash their innate maleness. If boys and girls are presumed to be blank-slate equals then it must follow that boys are just as emotion-prioritizing and sensitive as any girl, and it is through a process of an imagined patreo-misogyny social conditioning that boys psychologically cover over their “true” natures – that of precious little (defective) girls. In essence the equalist belief is that all babies are born as little equal blank-slates, but the ideal template for those blank-slates is a female nature irrespective of the sex of the child.

When a boy’s real, masculine, inborn nature expresses itself the first thing it meets in this equalist-but-feminine-primary education is derision and shame. For as much as boys would be boys they are taught that they aren’t good for being so. They’re encouraged to self-repress, self-deprecate their gender and self-police their brothers. They’re taught that the correct way to think is to emote like girls because that’s correct for the template of a “good human”. Despite the female-centric teaching boys innate nature still find ways for boys to be boys and when this happens an egalitarian (feminine-primary) social order presume the ‘bad behavior’ must be the result of the influence of an evil patriarchy that truly hasn’t existed in the way they believe it does for 50 some odd years.


As I’ve detailed in past essays, society only sees fathers as tolerable and superfluous when it comes to raising boys. Single mothers are celebrated as super-human and in the equalist lie that would have us believe that women can not only ‘have it all’ but they can ‘do it all’ we rarely question the necessity of a masculine influence in a child’s life. We give it lip service and parrot back the need for a man to “step up and take responsibility as a parent”. The message to dads is always “do better”, because the pretense for fathers is that they are inherently irresponsible and ‘broken’ just like all boys are.

The Village might even concede that a father is some advantage to a child, but ultimately he’s superfluous – that is until that kid is involved in some kind of criminality. Then the questions become “Where was this kid’s father? Why wasn’t he around to teach this kid some discipline and respect for human life?” The children of single mothers are overwhelmingly more likely to be come involved in criminality, but we don’t look at her half-measure parenting as a possible cause. Remember, she’s a super-hero and blameless, so any blame for this kid’s acts fall on the shoulders of a weak or absent father. Then fathers are necessary. Then the kid needed to ‘toughen up’ and dad should’ve taught it to him. And all of this comes full circle and feeds into the idea of father’s inherent incompetence again.

Lies for ‘Defective Girls’

The next lie is that boys can be,…

…both tough and fragile, vulnerable and resilient. Being vulnerable doesn’t affect your manliness.

I’ve written a lot about the lie of transvaluation and  Vulnerability in the past, but this was really in terms of how women perceive men and require strength and dominance. Another aspect of masculinity that is encoded into women’s mental firmware is to seek out men with superior competency. A woman just is, a man must become is the first maxim of a man accepting his Burden of Performance. Part of this masculine competency involves strength, know-how and determination; all things that have been replaced with feminine-primary emotionalism and naval gazing for boys.

Men are expected to know how to do everything and what they do not know, what they are not competent in is one criteria of how they are judged by women. A lot of guys might think, “So the fuck what? I don’t base my self-worth on the opinions of women.” As well you shouldn’t, but it doesn’t change the truth that if you don’t know how to change a tire when you get flat, or you need another man who does know how to do it to change it for you, a woman sees you as less competent – and by extension less capable of providing her with the security she needs from a masculine ideal. Women evolved to see men as a Jack of all trades, master of some.

A man’s vulnerability (taught to him as a child by his female-primary teachers) most definitely affects his manliness. Vulnerability is, by definition, a weakness. It is a flaw in the design, a chink in the armor and vulnerabilities will be exploited by enemies and rivals to ensure that man fails while a stronger one succeeds in all things. This is Darwinism so simple that to question it seems illogical, but in our equalist utopia toughness and fragility find no contradiction; vulnerability and resilience are bed partners. Again, we must consider that this illogical balance can only exist in the female ‘good human’ template and the idea that everything is learned and nothing is innate about male and female humans. Promoting the idea that ‘vulnerability doesn’t affect manliness’ presumes that the person declaring it is in some way an authority on a manliness that has been already demonized and conditioned out of our boys today.

They hate the very idea that a boy might act in accordance with an inborn masculine proclivity. They hate the idea that a boy might learn to be tough and resilient at the expense of a vulnerability (weakness) because it contradicts the equalist belief set. They hate the idea that boys and girls have innately, biologically, different ways of dealing with emotions that don’t align with their belief in a blank-slate. To force them to accept this would be to force them to abandon deeply ego-invested beliefs that they themselves had conditioned into them by the same feminine-primary education.

Boys don’t naturally emote like girls, but when they refuse to align with the female-correct way of emoting we say that some patriarchal macho man, somewhere, in some movie, in some song, in some household taught that kid not to feel. He somehow learned that allowing his emotions to rule over him, to be vulnerable, to prioritize his feelings above his sense of rational self is what it actually is – a weakness that in our evolutionary past was far likelier to get him killed than to earn the praise of his equalist teachers.

Boys are simply not as emotional as girls – our brains did not evolve that way – but because we value the feminine above the masculine today we say this kid is doing it wrong. We say he learned to be an asshole from his macho dad or he learned to love firearms because of the latest rap song or a toxically masculine society that doesn’t exist. A kid like Nikolas Cruz was bound to happen in a world that teaches boys to prioritize feelings above rationality. He was taught like a defective girl. He never learned the masculine inspired discipline, determination and resiliency because all that conflicts with the lie that vulnerability is ever a strength. All that conflicts with his feminine-primary upbringing.

As such, these ‘defective girls’ are unequipped to handle the rejection of a girlfriend. The participation trophy generation, the one where everyone’s a winner and no one ever has to deal with defeat, never teaches these ‘defective girls’ what to do when they finally do taste a bitter defeat. They never learned how to come back from it because that would mean admitting that vulnerability and emotionalism (the female-correct way to handle it) are in fact weaknesses. So, predictably, a ‘defective girl’ like Nikolas Cruz does what any petulant teenage girl would – he has an emotional outburst. Only his outburst consists of gunning down 17 kids with an assault rifle.

The answer to incidents like this doesn’t lie in gun control or further feminization of boys. It lies in reimagining how we educate boys and how we see masculinity as a net positive that can deter exactly this kind of emotional outburst. If you truly want these shootings to stop it’s time we embrace real men teaching real toughness and resilience in our boys. It’s time we teach boys like they will become tough, strong, invulnerable young men we may need to provide future generations with a much needed security. And the time where we’ll need them is coming faster than anyone today really thinks.

Categories: Miscellaneous Blogs

Transactional vs. Validational Sex

The Rational Man - Thu, 03/08/2018 - 01:34

You cannot negotiate genuine desire.

This is one of my best known quotes because it resonates with so many men. There was a time in the early 2000s when I was doing peer counseling for men – most of whom were at least a decade my senior – as part of my undergraduate study and one consistent theme I got from almost all of them was how their marriages (or LTRs) had been so much more sexually satisfying when they were dating their wives or before they’d committed to some kind of exclusivity. That’s always the crux of it for guys. They mistakenly believed that the hot monkey sex they were having with their women prior to “doing the right thing” and getting married or committed was something that would be characteristic of their quality woman into a long term relationship with them.

Why was this the case for guys? I can remember coming up with this quote as part of the advice I was giving while working for one of these men. He, like many of the other guys, had gotten to the point that he would do almost anything to get back to that real desire that convinced him to commit to his wife in the first place. And, like many of these guys, he’d convinced his wife to go to marriage counseling in order to find out what exactly it was that he needed to do to “get her to come around” to wanting to bang him. Nothing was working for him. Even after his sessions he was still either sexless or his wife only begrudgingly would have lackluster ‘starfish’ sex with him. We called that a ‘grudge fuck’ back then.

As a student of behavioral psychology my interest was (still is) in what motivates or incentivizes behavior in people (sometimes animals). What was it that inspires genuine desire as opposed to behavior that still has a purpose, but was more motivated by future outcome. You can make a case that genuine desire is also motivated by a perceived outcome, but in this instance I’m making a distinction between a natural, unsolicited desire as opposed to an incentive based on a preconceived outcome – if all goes according to plan.

This guy broke down in tears with me on at least two occasions. He just couldn’t understand why what was supposed to work (open communication, rational discourse and honest negotiation) wasn’t getting her to “come around” to having sex with him. It was then I thought, you cannot negotiate genuine desire. Either a woman wants  to fuck you or she doesn’t. There are definitely ways to prompt that genuine desire – most of which are behavioral and conditional – but as has been stated many times in the ‘sphere, attraction is not a choice. The key word there is choice. Few men would ‘choose’ to be attracted by an obese woman and in many ways this choice dynamic is why women promoting the ‘body acceptance’ narrative have a tough time of it. For all the nonsense about beauty being a social construct, arousal for men is very much rooted in evolved biology. Men can’t choose to get an erection for a woman they’re simply not aroused by.

The same holds true for women, but the conditions are different. Women can and do have sex for reasons other than genuine desire. Negotiated desire really isn’t desire at all, but women have readily used sexual access to achieve those perceived outcomes I mentioned above here. Negotiated desire only ever leads to obligated compliance. A talented hooker or stripper may be very convincing in her act that she’s really into having sex with a man, but the negotiation that takes place before the act can never make a woman want to have sex with her client. Attraction is not a choice, but really, arousal is not a choice either.


I am presently about half way through my read of Dr. Martie Haselton’s new book Hormonal. I was really anticipating this book’s release, and I had intended to do my first-ever book review of it here, but as I read through I’ve decided not to. I still highly recommend reading it. As you might guess it’s chock full of stats and research confirmation of so much of what I write here that I want to put it at the top of the required Rational Male reading list. I’ve been referencing Dr. Haselton’s (and her colleagues) work since I began this blog, but the delivery of the information was disappointing, and in a lot of instances, very immature and sophomoric. It’s written almost as an apologetic to feminists for having to kill a lot of sacred feminist social convention cows. I feel as if she’s writing ‘down’ to the women who she’ll inevitably market this book to, but, if you can get past her constant attempts to legitimize her feminist credentials, the information is absolute gold.

One aspect of female sexual dynamics that Haselton and her team detail quite a bit is the idea of an Estrus state in human females. I’m not sure how well appreciated this research is in the manosphere, which is one reason I included it in Positive Masculinity, but this concept is really integral to how we define Hypergamy. As most of my readers know, Hypergamy – women’s dualistic sexual strategy (and really life strategy) – is much more than a tendency of a woman to ‘marry up’. In Hormonal the ideas of Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks really solidify with the research.

However, as useful as it is as a catchy euphemism Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks could better be described as Alpha Seed and Beta Need. In a woman’s peak ovulatory phase of her menstrual cycle she enters an estrus state and becomes subject to behaviors that can only be defined as a pretext of seeking Alpha seed. In other words, nature and Hypergamy are very practical in maximizing the chances that a woman may get pregnant with the best available genetic specimen. Granted, the true outcome of all of that is subject to environment and a woman’s personal conditions, but the practicality of it remains the same as it has for 100,000 years. It’s also important to keep in mind that a woman’s behaviors, strategies, rationales and her own interpretation of all of them in those various times and conditions are also a part of the overall latent purpose of a woman consolidating on the best Alpha Seed and Beta to supply her needs.

While women are subject to an estrus state they still require the second half of Hypergamy – the Beta need for security, provisioning, protection, comfort and at least the sharing of parental investment responsibilities for any offspring. Estrus in women is concealed, meaning it is (or used to be) nearly, but not totally undetectable in women. There are in fact various ways men evolved to intuitively determine whether a woman is in an estrus state of fertility; most of these today are socially shamed in men so as to further confuse them and advantage women, but that’s a topic for another essay. A concealed estrus aids women in optimizing both Alpha Seed and Beta Need and it’s likely that much of what accounts for women’s sexual strategy is the result of this concealment.

Now, a lot has been written by myself and others about the impact of meeting a woman’s Beta Need aspect of Hypergamy being served by the state and/or direct or indirect transfers of resources from men to women. Most of my readers are well aware of how this side of Hypergamy has been progressively accommodated for over the past fifty years. In spite of this it’s important to remember that this accommodation of provisioning needs doesn’t eliminate the deeper needs that this side of Hypergamy engenders in women. It may be true that women have never been better provided for in history as far as money and opportunities go, but women still look for emotional security, protection, dominance and comfort in men as part of their innate mental firmware.

As a result of Hypergamy and this concealed estrus state women have been put into a condition of evaluating sex in different aspects today.

Validational Sex

When women look for that Alpha Seed in their peak ovulatory (proliferative) phase, the sex they seek is a desired sex with a man who meets evolutionary criteria. He’s the ‘hawt’ guy, or the man who leaves a woman with an perception of danger or excitement. A lot of men who don’t meet this criteria have a tendency to over-exaggerate this type of man as the ‘Alpha Chad’ and make a ridiculous parody of him as an ego protection mechanism for themselves. Let me state for the record here that every aspect and adjective that this type of guy embodies is mitigated by conditions and contexts. It is just as likely that this conventionally masculine dominant guy is only so according to his most immediate social situation. So spare me the “Chad Thundercock” anxieties.

The sex that women give “enthusiastic consent” for is validational for them. The easy assessment here is that women have a genuine desire to mate with conventionally masculine men who look and act the part – yes, behavioral congruency is vital. If you follow the research women consciously and unconsciously will actively put themselves into environments where the likelihood of their meeting a dominant masculine man who most closely matched that masculine ideal when they are in estrus. They openly and discreetly look of arousal cue from men who best embody what can only be described as Alpha Seed.

I should also add that women in “satisfying relationships” (meaning LTRs where a woman is still very hot for her husband/boyfriend) report an increase in sexual desire (proceptivity) for that guy during this phase. A lot of guys mistakenly think ANY woman will want to seek out extra-pair mating (cheating) opportunities when they’re in estrus. This is only true if a woman isn’t into her current man.

I don’t want to get too lost in the descriptions here. Rather, I want to focus on the associative feelings women get in and after having sex with that Alpha man during estrus. I would argue that Alpha Widows are made in the estrus phase. This is the sex women want to have and are enthusiastic in both the hunt and the act itself. This is largely (presumedly) the sex that men have with their wives-to-be before they marry. It’s this validational sex, the sex that women fantasize about, that men and women want to get back to once they are committed to each other monogamously but now have a dead bedroom. This sex validates a woman’s ego in that it proves to herself that a man of this SMV caliber would want to pin her to the bed and have marathon sex with her. Remember, the latent purpose of this sex, on this side of Hypergamy, is to access the sperm from men with high reproductive value as defined by what our evolved nature predisposes women to be aroused by. Validational sex is sex by choice and genuine desire, and is satisfying on both a psychological level and an evolutionary level.

Transactional Sex

One of the benefits of a concealed estrus is that it allows women a few luxuries. One of these was the ability to confuse men of their paternity. Today this confusion is little more difficult because we’ve got DNA figured out well enough to make accurate assessments, but in our evolutionary past it was important to trick cuckolded fathers into second guessing whether a child was his or not before he killed it and impregnated a woman on his own (this is also why men evolved mate guarding behaviors).

The other advantage of concealed estrus was essentially prostitution. Now, to pretty this up a bit, lets say that women who were sexual with men outside of their fertility window found that sex could be leveraged with non-Alpha men (men they didn’t want to have children with) to encourage them to help with a lot of the chores more Alpha men were less willing (but not entirely unwilling) to do. Enter transactional sex.

As mentioned, the most overt form of transactional sex is prostitution, but it’s impolite to call every woman a whore. In fact it’s impolite to even imply a woman may be having sex for other reasons than validational sex. Today women are contemplating whether or not transactional sex is itself rape since it technically meets the definition of rape (sex women don’t want to have). I discussed this “grey area sex” recently in another essay, but it’s interesting to see women wrestle with transactional sex in an era where the Future is Female and women ought to only have the (validational) sex they want to enthusiastically have.

For most men (i.e the 80% Beta men) transactional sex is where the rubber meets the road. In fact, I’d argue that for most Beta men transactional sex is the only definition of sex they ever really know. That’s kind of sad to think about, but most men never really experience the unfettered feral lust of a woman they’ve chosen to spend the rest of their lives with. I got into this in Saving the Best and Hats Off to the Bull, but I think it’s important for the average man today to acknowledge that it’s highly likely that their wives have shared parts of themselves with, and have lost all inhibitions with, men in their sexual pasts they may never know anything about. That’s a cold bucket of reality a lot of men who unplug from all this have to confront.

Marriage today is almost entirely predicated on on the transactional sex side of Hypergamy. I’m not saying it has to be, nor am I saying it always is, but I’m fairly comfortable in speculating that for most married women sex is reward she uses in the operant conditioning of her husband. And the very fact that this is effective with most husbands throws the power dynamic and Frame of the relationship firmly over to the wife. This has the effect of disqualifying that man from ever (or very rarely) being a candidate for validational sex within that marriage. And this too is another aspect of the transactional sex dynamic that modern feminists are contemplating today – if a woman doesn’t want to have sex with her husband, but does anyway, is it rape? But again, NAMALT, not all marriages are like this or have to be like this. I would also argue that a confident man whom a woman admires, who she recognizes as being above her SMV even if slightly and who has internalized Red Pill awareness within that marriage needn’t be doomed to transactional “duty” sex in his marriage.

Unnegotiated Desire

And so now we come full circle to the men I was counseling back in the day. Because all they’d ever known was transactional sex their deductive male brains attempted to solve their “sex problem” in the most logistical and pragmatic way – negotiate with her. If all sex ever is for a guy is a transaction – a quid pro quo – then it follows he’ll try to find the best way to ‘pay’ for his wife’s sexual access. Hunter Drew and I were recently discussing a man who Dean Abbot has been counseling and one thing we’ve all seen a lot of from young and old Blue Pill Beta men is this logical tendency for them to want to ‘sacrifice their way to happiness with their wives’. It’s as if the more they sacrifice the more they pay for that intimacy they seek, but what they never get is that this only buries their sex lives that much more.

One amazing turn around a lot of married and single Red Pill guys experience when they unplug is the attention they receive from women when they switch from a transactional disposition to a validational disposition with regard to sex. When a man unplugs and cuts himself away from his Blue Pill conditioning one change he makes is a shift from viewing sex as transactional to validational. In the beginning, when men are first learning Game and becoming more Red Pill aware about the nature of women they really don’t recognize this shift in attitude towards sex. When I say men need to make themselves the “prize” with regards to sex and their attention what happens is they go from the “how can I pay for sex to qualify for it with a woman” to “women will recognize that I represent and opportunity for validational sex”.

The Blue Pill conditions men to base their understanding of sex on a transactional paradigm. It’s all scarcity, and luck or providence that a woman might want to fuck them. This is why women get aggravated by the presumption that men might feel they are ‘owed sex‘ in exchange for what they do for them. And why wouldn’t men feel that way? They’ve been conditioned for half a life to believe that they should follow the old social contract and become a man with a lot to offer a woman, a wife. This is the transactional paradigm; I build my life to better accommodate a woman and she reciprocates with sex. Women know this too, so all pretenses of indignation about are complete bullshit. What upsets women is that a Beta man would feel entitled to her sexuality for having accommodated her. Alpha men are entitled to it, accommodations be damned, because he’s the man they want to have sex with.

Categories: Miscellaneous Blogs

Interviews and Video

The Rational Man - Sun, 03/04/2018 - 18:38

I wanted to make a brief announcement here that I have created a new page for all the interviews I’ve been doing recently. It was getting a bit cluttered to keep publishing a new post after every new podcast so I’m now collecting them all on a new page ‘Interviews’ you’ll see at the top of the blog now.


While I’ve always had interviews in my categories this just makes things easier. I also wanted to announce that I’m going to be doing a ‘Red Pill All Stars’ live stream with Anthony Johnson and some selected men I interact with in the manosphere every other week for the foreseeable future so this page will hold all of these shows too. We don’t have a title for this venture just yet so if you have a good idea please leave it in the comments here. I have no plans for a formal YouTube channel as yet. I might reconsider this and start one in the future, but as it stands now I’m doing so many interviews and talks I may as well have a channel. I know there are some guys who make a habit of doing live Periscope streams from their cars to get their thoughts collected about various Red Pill topics – I hereby reserve the right to occasionally do this too.

Pat Campbell and AM1170

I’m also doing weekly live radio (actual terrestrial radio) with talk radio personality Pat Campbell now too. It’s a really fun hour, but you’ll have to check my Twitter feed for the days I’m on, since he can sometimes call me the night before to go on the next morning. It’s fast becoming a really popular segment and there’s a possibility his show might go national, so give us a listen. His station was kind enough to create a dedicated archive for my segments and I’ve put a dedicated link in the side bar now too. If you want to listen live while I’m on, on the days I do the segment we go for an hour and usually it starts at 9AM EST – 6AM PST. You can listen to the live stream here when I’m on.

While Pat is my main man, I’m also considering the possibility of doing more live radio (I’ll be on with Jesse Lee Peterson this Wednesday) with other hosts in the future, as well as talking with some other e-celebrity personalities – stay tuned!

21 Convention Talks

I’ve had Anthony Johnson make my first 21 Convention talk available for free on 21 University now. You can watch the first talk above here or go to the YouTube channel, watch there and join in the comments there. Thus far it’s been very well received and the views have been great. I should also mention that this is my first in-person video I’ve ever done so I want to also open up the comments here to get my regular readers opinions about my doing this. What can I do better, what do you like about it (besides it now being free)? I’m still encouraging men to sign up for a membership using my link on the sidebar, but this video is now free for all to watch. My second talk was a roundtable format and covered a variety of topics regarding Positive Masculinity. This video will be available to members only, but I may also petition for a free version as well.

While I’m not in any way ‘officially’ partnered with the ‘New and improved Red Pill version’ of the 21 University organizers I do have some ideas I may run past them in the future (yes, I’ll be doing the 2018 21 Convention this year too). If you have ideas or anything to say about this I’m all ears too. As all my readers know, from a Red Pill perspective I’m first and foremost a writer and this blog and my books are always the primary way I organize and put forth my ideas. That said, I’m entertaining the idea of starting a small TRM forum this year, though I don’t want it to become something that gets so unmanageable that it demands attention away from my writing. This is another idea I’m looking for input on.

Finally, I’m going to be 50 years old on April 2nd this year. I’ll be publishing a kind of memoir / introspective essay when that event occurs, but for this post I wanted to say that this milestone in my life has prompted me to take assessment of what I’d like to do with my remaining years and how important this community has become in those plans. It should go without saying that I have every intention to keep doing what I do, but I’m deciding where I want to go with life and my ‘day job’ work and how I want to proceed from here. I’m factoring a lot of things into this evaluation that I’ve never really considered before and I’d like to ask you all for your input and assessments too.

Rollo Tomassi


Categories: Miscellaneous Blogs

What Makes a Man?

The Rational Man - Tue, 02/27/2018 - 01:21

When I was compiling the material I was going to use for my second book, Preventive Medicine, I chose to use the essay Vulnerability in the hopes that I might be able to dispel one of the more egregious fantasies about masculinity – that vulnerability is in some way a strength for men. At the time I was rebutting the Mark Manson claim that men’s vulnerability was a necessity in whatever it was he used to consider Game, or the idea that a lot of Purple Pill hacks like to cling to about men’s vulnerability being some foundation upon which a “healthy” relationship ought to be built on. This trope is pulled straight from the Oprah / Dr. Phill handbook and really the belief that a man’s vulnerability is in someway a strength is part of a Blue Pill conditioned belief set that young boys are taught from a very early age.

Go to any woman’s dating advice for men blog today and you’ll likely read some variation of it. It’s actually part of our pop-psychology social consciousness – transvaluation is a very common theme; reversing weakness with strength has been the order for feminizing men and masculinizing women since the Sexual Revolution. I can remember hearing this ‘advice’ since the late 80s on any number of daytime talk shows. Reading this pabulum coming from ‘dating coaches’ with any association to the Red Pill was enough for me to want to dispel the notion. That, and the need for men to get in touch with their Jungian feminine sides as a means to better identifying with women and thus eventually getting laid by all the women who supposedly swooned for vulnerable, sensitive and emotionally available men (also known as ‘Beta Orbiters’).

However, as I was editing that essay for inclusion in the book I realized that what I was considering wasn’t so much the transvaluation of vulnerability and strength, but the model upon which the Feminine Imperative would like to convince men is appropriate and best suited for women’s needs in a relationship. The provable fact that women’s Hypergamy predisposes them to being aroused by men who display the most opposite aspects to this vulnerability (Dark Triad traits for example) doesn’t seem to matter; vulnerability is only beneficial to women seeking comfort and security in a long term partner.

In that essay I outlined a few things about what masculinity has become in a post-Sexual Revolution female-primary social order:

For the greater part of men’s upbringing and socialization they are taught that a conventional masculine identity is in fact a fundamentally male weakness that only women have a unique ‘cure’ for. It’s a widely accepted manosphere fact that over the past 60 or so years, conventional masculinity has become a point of ridicule, an anachronism, and every media form from then to now has made a concerted effort to parody and disqualify that masculinity. Men are portrayed as buffoons for attempting to accomplish female-specific roles, but also as “ridiculous men” for playing the conventional ‘macho’ role of masculinity. In both instances, the problems their inadequate maleness creates are only solved by the application of uniquely female talents and intuition.

Perhaps more damaging though is the effort the Feminine Imperative has made in convincing generations of men that masculinity and its expressions (of any kind) is an act, a front, not the real man behind the mask of masculinity that’s already been predetermined by his feminine-primary upbringing.

Women who lack any living experience of the male condition have the calculated temerity to define for men what they should consider manhood – from a feminine-primary context. This is why men’s preconception of vulnerability being a sign of strength is fundamentally flawed. Their concept of vulnerability stems from a feminine pretext.

Masculinity and vulnerability are defined by a female-correct concept of what should best serve the Feminine Imperative. That feminine defined masculinity (tough-guy ridiculousness) feeds the need for defining vulnerability as a strength – roll over, show your belly and capitulate to that feminine definition of masculinity – and the cycle perpetuates itself.

I returned to this essay today because I think that over the past six months we’re seeing a strengthening push from the Feminine Imperative to clamp down on what we’re to believe should be an acceptable expression of masculinity. In essence the imperative (or the Village if you like) has been using every mass shooting tragedy to reiterate what masculinity should mean to men. And, failing this, the hope is still that men will be confused as to what conventional expressions they can subjectively define it in, in a more female-correct way.

The Feminine-Correct Paradigm

Since the most recent school shooting in Florida, the focus on what constitutes masculinity has come to the forefront of our social consciousness. What exactly is masculinity they keep asking, and then provide definitions that only have meaning to a social order that’s founded on female social dominance. They are definitions that most men heard repeated constantly as boys from their overwhelmingly female-taught and feminine-primary educations. Since the beginning of the Sexual Revolution and the rise of Fempowerment boys and men are expected to grow up into a female-defined masculinity. Boys are acculturated in contexts that feminize them, yet we are meant to believe that all the horrors of Patriarchal masculinity are still being taught to them today:

Two decades ago, the psychologist William Pollack wrote that boys start out sensitive but through a “shame-hardening process” — told to stop crying, to be a man — they learn to hide what they really feel. And if they don’t know or understand their own feelings, how can they care about anyone else’s?

This has become something of a cliché. And the truth is, there’s no single culture of boys, but many. In my memories of adolescence, beneath the constant ribbing and occasional pyromania, we had tremendous affection for one another. And we longed to connect with women with an intensity that was difficult to contemplate.

This was a quote from Real Men Get Rejected Too. It’s a good illustration of the paradox masculinity presents to parents and educators. The idea that boys are these sensitive delicate souls who, through the evils of their Patriarchal (typically male) upbringing, are conditioned to become ‘macho’ violent men is a popular trope. After Nikolas Cruz killed 17 kids at school it was the go-to rationale. “Boys are brought up to be violent gun-loving beasts thanks to a perpetuated misogynistic culture of men” or some variation of this is common. It’s an easy, digestible, info-bite that sounds right because we’ve heard it for so long. If only boys we’re taught more like girls to get in touch with their emotions and were vulnerable in expressing them we could avoid these male-created tragedies.

That’s the pretense we’re supposed to believe – and it’s important that a larger society does believe in the inherent evilness of masculinity if the Feminine Imperative is to maintain social dominance. But the truth is boys have been systematically feminized for the past 3-4 generations. Boys are taught like defective girls. Since the 1970s it is increasingly women who have dominated academia from kindergarten to doctorate degrees. The entire western education system is founded on a feminine-primary, feminine-defined teaching methodology. In the process of advantaging girls to the utmost efficiency in school (to fempower adult women) the educational atmosphere had to be defined by what best served girls. School and teaching became ‘for girls’ and the educational landscape shifted to teaching styles that girls were most benefited in.

In that shift the idea that boys might be disadvantaged had little bearing, but overtime the conditions of teaching ‘to girls’ defined the teaching style as the correct style. In fact, teaching in a way that girls learn best, and disciplining boys for not learning this way, is no longer a style – it is just the way children are taught. Boys and men today are the product of female teachers who actively advantage girls at the expense of boys. So normalized is this teaching that boys disrupting the advantaging of girls in class is something we’ve decided needs to be medicinally curbed. Boys being boys is diagnosed as an illness and drugs are prescribed so as to sedate them long enough for the girls to learn.

This focus on empowering girls isn’t limited to the classroom. In every form of early childhood through adolescent media, music, social networks and social exchanges this theme is continued; girls have the future in their reach, boys are potential rapists and criminals if they don’t fall in line with female-correct way of how things just are. I get asked a lot about what I think defines Blue Pill conditioning and I’d say this ambient social theme of fempowerment is a strong basis for it. Boys are not taught this old-school, much-feared Patriarchal masculinity, they are bombarded with themes of how masculinity is incorrect, laughable, and a shameful ‘act’ that boys have to put on to cover the ‘real’ female-correct versions of their sensitive selves. Boys are taught from the earliest age that being a boy is an incorrect mask, while being a girl, learning like a girl, emoting and relating like a girl is ‘real’ and the correct way of developing a personality.

Who would ever want to be a boy when so much is rewarded and praised about being a girl? There’s so much more advantage to be had if you’re a girl. As early as five years old boys are deliberately taught to loathe their own gender, but they are also being taught a redefinition of what a female-correct form of masculinity should be for them. The best they could do would be to become female to the best of their ability. They learn they must agree and support girls’ empowerment, identify with the feminine and above all, despise the parody of masculinity they are shown is ‘illegitimate’ and inauthentic.

Boys are systematically taught to make women and womankind their Mental Point of Origin. This is why it is so difficult for men to unplug and abandon their old Blue Pill selves; feminine-primacy was literally conditioned into them since they were kids.

Nikolas Cruz, like many other teenage shooters is the product of this feminine-primary education system, not a Patriarchal “teach boys not to cry” machismo school. He is a monster of their creation; one taught to cry on demand and emote like a girl. He’s the result of a participation trophy mentality that demonize men and masculinity to the point that he never learns how to bounce back from defeat, rejection or simply life’s adversities. No men and no masculinity is available to teach that kid how to harden up and be resilient, or how that masculine discipline is not bullying or hazing, but a necessary part of a boy’s maturation into a masculine man.

But to throw society off the trail a false narrative of hyper-masculinity ruining our otherwise feminine-correct boys is perpetuated. When the next school shooting takes place the Village will again want the public to believe it’s masculinity and men’s fault for what is really his emotional outburst. The Village will attempt to place the responsibility on men, on fathers, while in the meantime perpetuating the idea that men/fathers are superfluous at best, a societal burden at worst. Men are useful catspaws in so many ways, and in perpetuating this narrative the Village reinforces the female-correct theme for grown men too.

Masculinity is what they say it is, or else

In the Honor System I proposed the following:

Man Up or Shut Up – The Male Catch 22

One of the primary way’s Honor is used against men is in the feminized perpetuation of traditionally masculine expectations when it’s convenient, while simultaneously expecting egalitarian gender parity when it’s convenient.

For the past 60 years feminization has built in the perfect Catch 22 social convention for anything masculine; The expectation to assume the responsibilities of being a man (Man Up) while at the same time denigrating asserting masculinity as a positive (Shut Up). What ever aspect of maleness that serves the feminine purpose is a man’s masculine responsibility, yet any aspect that disagrees with feminine primacy is labeled Patriarchy and Misogyny.

Essentially, this convention keeps beta males in a perpetual state of chasing their own tails. Over the course of a lifetime they’re conditioned to believe that they’re cursed with masculinity (Patriarchy) yet are still responsible to ‘Man Up’ when it suits a feminine imperative. So it’s therefore unsurprising to see that half the men in western society believe women dominate the world (male powerlessness) while at the same time women complain of a lingering Patriarchy (female powerlessness) or at least sentiments of it. This is the Catch 22 writ large. The guy who does in fact Man Up is a chauvinist, misogynist, patriarch, but he still needs to man up when it’s convenient to meet the needs of a female imperative.

It’s important to review this premise if we want to understand the real intent the Feminine Imperative has in redefining masculinity for men. Aspects of conventional masculinity are useful for women, and masculine duty (appeals to men’s “honor”) is a means to access it while avoiding the aspects that would in any way advantage men over women. Conventional masculinity is largely disparaged and parodied in order to disenfranchise men, but men are still needed to save women from natural disasters and protect them from physical harm (so long as they never expect sex for it). On some level of consciousness women understand the transactional and validational aspects of sex. They know that men’s serviceableness comes with an implied transactional cost, so to circumvent this women had to be put in charge of defining what masculinity should mean to men.

Masculinity as defined by men is almost always illegitimate and inauthentic in a feminine-primary world order. The presumption is that “macho man” ridiculous masculinity is a mask that men wear. That mask is meant to cover their true feminine-correct selves; because men cannot be authentic in any other context than the taught, feminine-correct context. So, of course, men can only be fakes or insecure of their masculinity (the masculinity defined by the feminine) and can never ‘really’ be that strong, dominant male apart from the permission the Feminine Imperative gives him.

Because the Feminine Imperative controls the overall context for what should be correct for men this has the effect of making women the sole deciders of what is masculine. In effect, and in this Blue Pill context, women become the gatekeepers of manhood. If masculinity imbues men with manhood (literally being considered a man) a ‘man’ is only whom a woman will designate as such within her presumed, feminine-correct context. In other words, do the imperative’s bidding and it dubs you a ‘man’.

Breaking the Cycle

As you might’ve guessed, this social dynamic conflicts with women’s Hypergamous imperatives. A Beta who thinks he’s a ‘man’ and presumes entitlements because of that is a woman’s worst fear. A Beta transgressing into a manhood that the imperative didn’t give him is the making for a guy being considered a sexual predator. However, an Alpha man, a man of high sexual market value still needs to accept the feminine-correct social frame, but he must also know his role within that frame. I’ve made the comparison in the past that women only see men as either draft animals or breeding stock. In a feminine-correct paradigm the breeding stock must know that his conventionally masculine aspects mean different things to a woman (Alpha Fucks sex) than the draft animal’s masculine aspects (Beta Bucks service). As such, masculinity and a designation of being a man becomes a constant qualifier for a Beta male. Manhood becomes a carrot he follows to pull the feminine-correct cart.

In fact, Beta men hold their female-correct ‘man’ designation as an unwitting point of pride. Examples abound of self-righteous Betas AMOGing other men for not being ‘real men’ (according to the imperative) like themselves. What they’re ignorant of is that this self-righteousness is defined by how well they conform to the masculinity that the imperative tells him is useful – and avoiding the ‘toxic’ masculinity it also defines for him – all according to his role in the scheme of a woman’s sexual strategy.

Should a man awaken from this Blue Pill conditioning and coronate himself as a ‘man’ outside the approval of womankind, this is when he’s ridiculed as an old school Patriarch and an anachronism of the old male-incorrect social paradigm. This is the control the imperative has against men stepping out side this female-controlled masculinity. The first response any female critic has for men who make themselves their mental point of origin is to remove that status of manhood.

Because they don’t accept feminine-primacy this disqualifies them from ‘real’ manhood.

One of the most difficult aspects men face in unplugging and living in Red Pill awareness is the social stigma that follows when they remove womankind from the pedestal and make themselves their mental point of origin. He gets called an asshole, he gets called selfish, he gets called a misogynist, but he’s also “less of a man” because he no longer conforms to the definition of masculinity that the Feminine Imperative has taught him from his earliest memories. Learning to redefine his mental image of what makes a man a man in his own Red Pill aware state is tough. Most of what he considered the very limited and controlled aspects of an ideal masculinity are a big part of the Blue Pill idealism he was raised on. This transition to conventional masculinity is also hampered by a deep learning of shame and gender loathing for finding anything positive in masculinity.

These are some important things to keep in mind if you are moving into a Red Pill awareness and learning to live in a new paradigm based around a conventional understanding of masculinity that isn’t inherently evil. It’s hard to do, but that old mental model of masculinity your teachers (all of them) convinced you was incorrect is something you must unlearn and cut yourself away from. Know that women don’t just long for that dominant masculinity, they need it for the health of their own life experiences. They need the protection, the comfort, the security and the discipline that masculinity balances their lives with.

Women ask, “where have all the ‘real’ men gone?”, but they exist outside the presumed, feminine-correct paradigm they mistakenly believe they have a secure control of. They don’t want to let go of that, so they will fight you to maintain a control over masculinity (which by definition can be chaotic as well as comforting) that they never really had – even with all the social engineering.


Yes I know my enemy, they’re the teachers who taught me to fight me.


Categories: Miscellaneous Blogs


Subscribe to Furiously Eclectic People aggregator - Miscellaneous Blogs