I’ve just recently been able to appreciate the wisdom of Roissy at his blog Chateau Heartiste. I’m guessing the name infers the House of the Fine ‘He’ Artist. He does have flamboyance in his writing, which strikes first. The word ‘cankles’ is indelibly etched in my mind. He also has sureness. His 16 Commandments of Poon are classic. Still, only recently have I gotten his wisdom.
The reason I think is one of logical (not social) frame. I’m analytical and need the bird’s-eye perspective. Isn’t that what makes civilization, us men advancing the constructs expressive of our vitality? I am grateful for the tons of great and even average writers of the Manosphere, and the people who manage the content postings. I find control of a website’s content to be problematic, but this is not an article about software. With pearls of wisdom here and there in the Manosphere I developed a logical organization for the ideas we call Game.
So I am reading Roissy’s second article on somatotypes and see in the margin a link to Treatise of Love. I read almost all of it last night, staying up into the wee hours of this morning. I just finished reading it this afternoon (16 August 2012).
I just finished reading a great summary in broken English of the sexual evolution of man (including cultural and marriage): The Treatise of Love, as it is recognized by awful bore. It is a translation by Mikhail Linetsky to English from Russian text of Russian author Anatoly Protopopov, apparently communist in political bent, but the work is not compromised intellectually for the one isolated expression of that bent.
Some things I now conclude:
- All women have higher reproductive value than most men with relatively little distribution spread.
- Women were the accelerator-judges of evolution by way of species-wide programming called instincts, a role now defunct by wealth stewardship and meme evolution but still played.
- Women sexually disregard lower ranking men so fundamentally that they believe men choose women or that men are in short supply, when in fact the opposite is true. (Apex-comparison fallacy, a term I read elsewhere.)
- Upright walking requires closely attached hips with minimal intervening space; animals with large, round brains permissive of high connectivity must be born premature; and mental development requires learning time and mentoring—which means women are each not able to rear her children without help from men (or without women capable like men and abdicating their own reproduction roles which fails reproductive competitiveness).
- Instinctively, women use sex to get the best seed but more frequently to get food and protection, and the optimal number of sexual partners is not necessarily 1 or many. They are equipped to manage an indefinite number of lovers by hiding outward signs of estrus and being equally fertile year round.
- Natural selection by politically liberated women leads to debasement into a feral, uncultured state.
- With wealth accumulation, women were freed from sexually servicing multiple men for only the means of survival and child rearing, and the social contract of sex favor consolidation is called marriage, which is naturally monogamous or polygamous. (Polyandry is nearly feral and not always better. Monogamy is perhaps most civilized, but as symptom or cause? Evolution works by failing men reproductively, which could become economic not genetic failure, but how completely could economics alone work? We have political maintenance and upgrade to consider.)
- Men are programmed to have multiple sex partners; women are programmed to have multiple love interests but procreate only the ‘best’.
- Women propped up by the state have no material reason to offer sex or sexual contract.
- A woman’s love is an instinctive relic that is pleasant for the man so long as he meets the woman’s egocentric instinctual valuation test, which most men can’t do vis-a-vis the forced cuckoldry of producers who are typically men of average sexual market value ranking with no adequate reward to keep producing and to materially support society.
- The best most men can do is fake the attributes of a feral alpha male: calm and continual self-assurance, personal authority, sureness of purpose and propriety, risk of attention redirection, resource indulgence, no fear, no worry, too much opportunity and too many options to require strategic discipline beyond sociability in general and respect of women’s sexual permission in particular. Some men of high social status not in Bilderbutt Group can simulate and partially personify alpha attributes. I got that perspective from reading Ricky Raw’s serial “Myth of Middle-Class Alpha Male.”
The Treatise of Love is a great relational analysis of the motives of sexual and romantic interaction between the sexes. My only dislike about the article is the dedication to Friedrich Engles introducing the important section “Origin of family, prostitution, and promiscuity.” We know that feminism is communism with tits, comrade, but if I lived in Russia, maybe I would be compelled to do the same thing. I just don’t see socialism in the analysis.
It is for the man to sublimate his emotions and choose effectiveness. The treatise is brilliant even in broken English. I don’t know if Anatoly Protopopov primarily cobbled together the ideas of others, but it would not change may assessment of how great it is. The breadth and clarity is remarkable: synthesis is an art. I am so much wiser now. Anatoly clearly thinks for himself and identifies salient points of disagreement with writers whose work is closely relevant to his concern, the actual causality and features of woman’s love.
A man who doesn’t have food and resource control doesn’t have stable marriage control. Marriage game is ongoing crisis management that gains power by the economy of preemption, I would guess, since civilized liberty game is the same: that’s life. Why the instability in marriage? Women lose interest in what they catch: Mystery’s Cat String Theory. If the wife ever measures up to, and certainly above, her husband in her mind, sayonara, sucker.
Lest I mislead, I disclose that I am beta per Roissy’s test, and financially less than that. I am single and don’t care for feelings arguments. And I have feelings that I take responsibility for having. I trust some readers are impervious to argumentum ad hominem and will evaluate for themselves the merits of my writing. I don’t claim to be perfect, but I also don’t need to be. Excellence is enough.
As a rational thinker, I believe the central issue to us in the Manosphere is sovereignty. Alpha is the manly embodiment of unilateral determination. The loss of men’s economic value, political rights, and sexual market value on civilized, rational terms is what makes seduction for notches the best (but non-alpha) option under the circumstances. Western patriarchy was a form of sovereignty in the way of elite centralization of power. Game permits its male practitioners to shed as much economic subjugation as possible and to temporarily redirect the agency of useful idiots to personally beneficial uses. It is eminently prudent to do for the seed of opportunity it sows. The political subjugation remains, and lots of us don’t see the Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) having a prayer. MGTOW is an improvement that suggests ultimate direction. To be an activist is to play in the moneyed game against the house that owns the very definition of money. Too many liberty activists want the government to provide an official medium of exchange. A real man decides what his medium of exchange is. The gold standard will always succumb to Gresham’s law, as I explained in an earlier post entitled “The Gold Standard: A Measure of Control Assiduously Avoided.”
My greater point is that evolution is the driver of progress. Might makes right. Notches are limited success. How many children do you have? and what are their values? What are your values? I think, if the Manosphere is not censored out of existence, we the backlash of manhood is going somewhere because seduction of women who have state-given political superiority is practical. Only a man’s platonic love is true love because he values what he loves for what it is and what it can intrinsically do for him or someone like him. His value is not relevant to his own evaluation of the other’s intrinsic worth!
A woman’s love is a projection of role value from her imagination of what life (really her life) must be in her genetically refined insanity. The genetic value of a child assures that child’s role to the mother according to her script because the genetic value is not objective but only egocentric. A real man knows better. He knows what love is. He seeks physical love from his woman but not emotional love. Emotionally he seeks admiration.
I say I love some of you guys in the Manosphere. Natural alphas that I’ve met and observed never could or would explain how they were successful. Women are no help and in fact detrimental. Aristotle and Plato were helpful. They seeded each of our lives with more love than all of the female ancestors we each have had since they lived. Not surprisingly, Platonic love evolved after physical love which is only lust, regardless of what the crazy bitch professes. Don’t love lust, that is the woman’s trap. Lust lust and love love. To each its own.
This really took some time writing, linking, and editing. I need to get out, get some face time, and practice triggering female attraction before the whole day is shot looking at a screen. Game on, friends.
Cherchez la femme.
—’Reality’ Doug, 16 August 2012