There has been a long and quiet suffering by many Catholics (sedevacantists) that goes beyond the mere situation of the Church presently with regard to the non-Catholic, Freemasons, Satanists and impostors presently occupying the Vatican. After all, that situation is easily understood by anyone that cares to look into Vatican II and is in any case prophesied in the visions of many saints as well as in Revelation, so really, there isn’t much to worry about.
The situation concerns the growing gulf between Sedeprivationists and Sedevacantists.
If you are interested in the details, you can either read my Reclaiming the Catholic Church, available on Amazon in paper format, or for less in digital format, direct from my E-Store.
Or you could read the argument as presented here, which is essentially absolutely correct.
I was unaware of the “Totalist” position, when I wrote my book, but logic is logic, and I made it clear in that book, as well as the reasons why, the only nod to the word sedeprivationism that I acknowledge was that technically it was a better name because the chair of Peter is not actually empty, but filled by an impostor that needs to be thrown off it on his ear ASAP.
But that is not what Sedeprivationists mean when they use the term, and they try to hold onto the completely outmoded and outdated theory of Cassiciacum of Father, and later Bishop, Guérard Des Lauriers. As I stated in RTCC, des Lauriers’ theory was a very charitable and possibly briefly “valid” idea to present to the world so as to give the more timid and cowardly clergy of the day (1965 to 1978 or so) a chance to speak up or at least take a position that did not promote the completely heretical Vatican II event and all those associated with it.
The Code of Canon Law of 1917, and simple logic a child can arrive at, is clear that since Roncalli was invalidly elected on at least three separate counts:
He was a Freemason, which means he was not, and could not be, a Catholic.
He was “elected” only after Giuseppe Siri was actually elected twice, and blackmailed into not accepting in order to protect what otherwise he was told would be a massacre of Catholic Bishops in the Communist East. Blackmail and any event that forces a non-free vote automatically renters the election invalid.
Even if you ignore those two points it cannot be contested at all that Roncalli approved and signed off on the first two documents of Vatican II, one of which contains direct heresy in a number of ways and the other though not containing direct heresy was a document that said the heresy of Vatican II should be spread throughout the world by every means possible, so it was heretical in intent if not actual words of the text itself. This even was and is absolutely enough to designate Roncalli an antipope and as such completely invalid.
Montini came up after Roncally, and produced the remaining 14 documents of Vatican II every one of which is replete with heresy and inverts catholic dogma. He also changed the mass, which is absolutely not permitted so there is absolutely no doubt he too defected from the Catholic faith as per canon 188 part 4, and that if we are so generous as to assume he was a valid Catholic to begin with, which is questionable at best.
Every claimant to the Petrine see after Montini continued to promote and promulgate Vatican II and its manifest heresies, meaning they too at best defected from the Faith, but in any case had already done so by not denouncing Vatican II. And the same goes for any supposed clergy that does not reject Vatican II and its fake “Popes”.
This is not a matter of opinion, but one of Canon Law.
The position of the supposed Sedeprivationists is essentially a modified form of “recognise and resist”. On top of which Bishop Des Lauriers’ thesis, which I have in the original French, and have read, is also really doing quite the disservice to Aristotle, using concepts of form and spirit or material and formal that clearly Aristotle never intended to be used that way and which really have no place in Catholic theology.
Nevertheless, I can understand the wish to give some kind of a charitable “out” to people who might have been on the fence in the tumultuous times of the usurpation of the Church from 28th October 1958 to say the end of 1965, after Vatican II finished, but even if we generously allow for a period of say ten or twelve years after that, surely, by 1978 everyone that was going to call a heretic a heretic had ample time to do so, and those who did not and worse, continued to promote Vatican II, like the cowardly Vigano, who even has a doctorate in Canon Law, confirmed themselves as Heretics too, falling foul of the same Canon 188.4.
This is really not hard.
The Sedeprivationist clergy seems bent on “hoping” for a miraculous conversion of Bergoglio and the other pedophiles, Satanists, cocaine-driven homosexuals busy doing gay orgies in the Vatican and so on. That’s not going to happen, and even if it did, the rule is that a reformed heretic should have authority over absolutely no one and should spend the rest of their days in a monastery in perpetual penance, so even if the miracle of conscience, repentance and truth hit every one of those miserable scumbags in the head and they honestly converted right there, they would STILL not be allowed to act as clergy, perform sacraments or do anything else that clergy does, as Cum-Ex Apostolato Officio makes perfectly clear and which is still referenced by Canon 188.4 which in any case is moot since it was an ex cathedra pronouncement valid in perpetuity and was in any case the rule before it ever needed to be spelt out by Pope Paul IV in the 16th Century.
So, by all possible perspectives, the Sedeprivationist view is in error. And while the clergy espousing it are absolutely valid priests and Bishops, no one is questioning that, they are in error. And as this error has now been perpetrated for a long time, with increasing grumblings from the lay people that is reading shores that go from America to Australia and even in Russia, where there are sedevacantist communities that all are starting to realise that you cannot square this particular circle, it becomes incumbent upon the laity to correct the clergy.
We are in the current shameful state because the clergy of the Church in 1958 was weak and the laity initially deceived and when it became obvious that an usurpation had taken place, the clergy demonstrated themselves to be in the vast majority of cases, absolutely weak and cowardly where they were not actively Satanic Freemasons involved in the corruption of the Church for decades.
And when that began t come to light, the laity had been slumbering in complacency and also in weakness and comfort and cowardice and did not call out the corrupt, fake, impostors nor the weak cowardly clergy.
We cannot allow a similar situation to stand today, when the clear error of sedeprivationism continues to be perpetrated with inevitable consequences of further error and ultimately confusion, error, discord and possibly even defection from the faith, as any error or deviation from the truth ultimately results in.
As I am used to being the lightning rod for such discussions and debates, which are not a schism, I want to make it clear, but simply a more perfect ordering and understanding of Catholic dogma, I am presenting the first instance of this discontent among the laity here on this blog.
A more formal and combined public open letter will in due course be presented to those priests or Bishops, that are in error. And that error is the result of one of the following:
In good faith but erroneous understanding, some have not studied the Catholic position in sufficient depth.
Habitual obedience to Bishops even when they are in error and have no authority, since without a Pope there is no authority beyond that of performing sacraments and performing the usual duties clergy does when in an interregnum (between Popes).
They are Bishops of Power instead of Piety and are overreaching their mandate from heaven, authority on Earth and over the laity in their misguided efforts to create a “bigger, stronger” renaissance of the true Catholic Church.
I have extremely good reasons, and plenty of evidence, to suggest that almost all and possibly really all, of the laity falls under points number one and two, above. Possibly many clergy that subscribe to sedeprivationism fall under point two, as well, although it is also clear a few are simply not as educated about Catholicism as they should be and are in fact in error as per point number one; undoubtedly in good faith, but error nevertheless.
More concerning is that Bishop who is acting as he is acting, in flagrant error of Canon Law and with imperious ego, because acting under the impetus of being a Bishop of Power, as defined by Rodney Stark in his History of the West How the West Won.
In brief, a Bishop or priest of Power is one that pushes the advancement of the church for the satisfaction of his own ego or worldly machinations. Despite the natural inclination one may have to see these people as evil egomaniacs, a couple of points need to be kept in mind.
Firstly, in some cases, while their ego is certainly ever-present, their intent may be to genuinely increase the spread, power and resilience of the Church. And in their minds whatever little “rules” or dogmas they may need to trample over are justified by the increased “glory” of the church. This in itself is an error of category, since it is the kind of error that laity, if anyone is supposed to be “okay” doing such things, should be taking on more than the clergy. it was crusaders that went off to war and Catholic knights that defended Malta, not priests and bishops taking up arms. So, whichever way you look at it, they are still in error, but their motives may not be as strictly selfish as one might at first imagine.
Secondly, even if they do happen to be egomaniacal narcissists that want to live in luxury, have big homes with servants and gold goblets to drink from, or whatever, the reality is that as a collateral side-effect, in the history of the Church, such despicable creatures nevertheless enriched the Church which permitted its expansion, the creation of amazing cathedrals and an increase in the faithful. Yes it was kind of a collateral effect, but it is a real thing anyway. So, even if at a personal level such clergy would be vile, God, historically, has managed to make at least some good flow from them, because at a worldly level, the use of funds and commitment towards creating more seminaries, more cathedrals and so on, and increasing the number of faithful, obviously has a positive effect.
As a result, I don’t necessarily object to some of the practices of priests or bishops of power, as long as:
They do not break canon Law of Catholic Dogma.
Their intent is not personal but for the benefit of the Church and this can be demonstrated by their personal living situation and so on.
Many other laymen and women are not as “charitable” as I am in this respect, and the grumblings at grassroots are becoming a low-level murmur reminiscent of an impeding avalanche or earthquake.
And such a thing we would all like to avoid. So, consider this simple, somewhat brutally direct, blog post to be an initial canary in the coal mine, in the hope that certain clergy takes note, some laity make them aware of it and they perhaps take note and begin to adjust accordingly, with all dignity and process due, and thus without any scandal or strife between the various faithful, be they clergy, or laity alike.
In my opinion the hope this will work on the relevant clergy of Power is absolutely remote, but, as our Lord tells us, we should first try quietly, then kindly, before we definitely call people to account.
This situation has been building for years, it’s not a flash in the pan, and it needs addressing.
I pray to our Lord that it gets resolved quietly and expediently by those responsible. And if not… well… we, remnant laity of the Catholic Church take our lead not from the timid types our grandfathers generation but rather from that of the Normans and Franks of 1095, from which, incidentally, on a personal level, my family line originates and can trace itself back to.
Glória Patri, et Fílío et Spirítui Sancto, sicut erat in princípio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculórum. Amen
And the Incidendal Drawing and Quartering of Rollo Tommasi.
Adam has recently posted a couple of somewhat interesting articles that consider the prospect of sex before marriage, fornication, and the PUA mindset in general.
The key message I personally see as most relevant in the first one is the partial quote that derives from the reading of Goldwin Smith (a 19th Century historian) by the author of the piece Adam links to, JM Smith, which he however presents only in part, and I think deserves a fuller version of it:
He [Goldwin Smith] was appalled by the prospect of women’s suffrage, correctly foreseeing that it would make democratic politics even more emotional, and that Anglo Saxon men would be to soft, silly and spineless to stop it. He explained this as the dolorous result of gynæmania, a “disease” of the Anglo Saxon male that was characterized by a morbidly excessive craving for the good opinion of women. The word gynæmania was first coined as a scientific name for satyriasis, or a morbidly excessive craving for carnal knowledge of women, but Smith saw that slavery to sex was becoming slavery to the female sex.
The emphasis on Anglo-Saxon is mine, and I maintain it remains the key point of the article, as it was indeed in the post by JM Smith, and indeed Golden Smith’s original work, even if Adam did not seem to focus on it particularly. So keep this point about the Anglos in mind for later, we shall return to it.
The second article can be summed up as a strong and unequivocal advice —almost an order, really— to men, to not indulge in sex before marriage; and he takes a post by Rollo Tommasi as his jumping off point. Tommasi is somewhat “revered” in PUA circles as being one of the grandfathers of the PUA movement. Personally, though I have weird hobbies, and looking at PUAs and their thirst for raping incels’ wallets was one of many such entertainments, I have never found Tommasi to be especially insightful of much of anything. And the article Adam links to is definitely of the stupidly degenerate category, although my take on things is considerably different from Adam’s in many respects.
Rollo’s post is a car-crash of bullshit and lies and simply illogical nonsense and deserves a point by point take-down even just on its own (non-existent) supposed merits. And… because… you know how I said I have weird hobbies? And typing doesn’t hurt me, I’m going to do just that right here below, between the fancy page breaks. If you don’t care (which is absolutely fine), or if you can’t hold a key point in your mind for more than 3 minutes, or are particularly pious and find vulgarity distatesful, then avert your eyes and skip the Rollo Tommasi take-down below, and scroll to the second fancy page break.
The key points by the way, so far are:
Anglos are weird about caring about what women think of them, and,
Rollo is full of shit. The detailed takedown below is for those not experienced/logical/clear-headed enough to see why Rollo is full of shit, and I am here to help! [insert sociopath smile here].
Rollo in fog-fart grey background your friendly host in standard text.
Rollo, do you think “Body Count” matters?
Absolutely. And the higher, the better. I need a girl who’s DTF (down to fuck) from the jump. For guys after 50, all that pretentious bullshit about long-term commitment should melt away to sexual expediency. It’s not about experience or some contrived want for a virgin bride. It all comes down to guys who fuck and guys who don’t. If we’re talking from the perspective of evolutionary effectiveness, women (and men) with higher body counts are effectively proven commodities in a sexual economy.
The sexually unfulfilled and deprived Rollo tells us several things right in the first paragraph:
He is over 50 and not married or settled down, still chasing the ever elusive “high” of some sex with a random “hottie” (but at over 50 I am fairly sure he’ll take whatever bone is thrown at him).
He in fact has given up on being “pair-bonded” as the PUAs call it, to one woman. He tries to cover it up with absolutely false bravado and machismo, but it is painfully obvious he is in pain from this. Whether his pain is always conscious or not is not clear yet, self-deception in people like Rollo is over 9,000 and also eleventy.
UPDATE: I stand corrected! He’s been married since he was 28, which means I was completely correct about his being a fraud with regard to his “experience” with bedding women, it’s literally all made up theory. And since I did not “correct” any of the subsequent points after this point, you can verify immediately that I really did not know anything about this guy besides read maybe 10 lines of his stuff over the last decade and concluding he was irrelevant, and secondly, that my dissection of his nonsense post is spot on, despite this.
He talks absolute nonsense with regard to “evolutionary effectiveness” because banging as many random women as possible, or, for a woman, even worse, as many guys as possible, throughout human history was only a recipe for absolute disaster and death, and the end of your genetic line. Staying together, regardless of the difficulties, and ensuring the survival of your plentiful children was the only successful strategy, and it still is. The obvious idiocy of his thinly veiled self-justification/rationalisation is clear to anyone with a functioning neurone or two.
“Oh, oh! but you say he is sexually unfulfilled and deprived, when he clearly has (or had) sex with a lot of women, you’re just bitter!”
No, young Padawan, pay attention now:
Firstly: PUAs LIE. And Lie spectacularly about their “body count” trust me on this, I looked into the subspecies of “male” that labels themselves as PUAs in some depth. Feel free to use the Search Me button on the right there. (heh… in light of my not bothering to research Rollo at all and then it turns out he was married the whole time he pretended to be a “player” this is kind of hilarious.)
Secondly: Let’s in any case ass-u-me Rollo does indeed still have regular sex with random hotties every week. Even if that were the case, considering by his own supposed “reality” he has been doing that for 30 years or so, you have to wonder… what can he possibly still be chasing? As regular readers of this blog will know, I am no stranger to the female form myself, and went through a lot of women in a short period of time after I gave up essentially on long-term relationships. And after a few years of it, I tell you, I was essentially bored of it. And no, I am not a guy with low T or lack of energy or any difficulty in securing a regular flow of pretty, usually above average intelligence, women to my bed. I assure you, my pointing this out comes from having lived that way and not any kind of misplaced envy, lack of understanding, or inexperience at the “thrill” of a new woman under me. The fact is that only a man that has yet to fill the hole in his soul can continue to behave this way, in the erroneous belief that if he just beds enough women, somehow, at some point, he will feel fulfilled. Don’t get me wrong, there is some truth to the fact that if you become able to essentially pick up women for sex almost at will, it does give you a certain… I am not even sure what to call it, but I guess… level of general life confidence would be it. But in reality it has little to do with how many women you take to bed and more with your attitude when with a woman. There are men that have this sense of confidence innate to them and only marry and stay with one woman for their entire lives, and there are men that may go through some women to realise they have it already. It’s a little like martial arts. There are guys who never take a class but in a certain circumstance will not hesitate to fight back, and there are guys who need to go training for a while to feel strong in their sense of justice, or whatever. The reality is that a man who forever chases sex with an ever growing number of women, is simply a malformed man. He is not, I assure you a self-actualised man, to borrow a Maslowian term. He is like the perennial teenager, still trying to be “cool” at 70. Or if you prefer, he’s like the Boomers, who keep insisting 80 is the new 40, or whatever. And that is no way for a grown man to be.
Third: Remember that point about the Anglos being far more desperate in general for female approval than say, well, your average dago, spic, South American, Greek… oh look… it’s a divide between Protestant and Catholic or Orthodox religions… again. Things that make you go hmmmm, eh?
Are you starting to understand what I mean by deprived and unfulfilled yet? (It seems clear he wishes he was a “player” which he clearly is not, and never was so…)
Guys who don’t fuck spend lifetimes consoling themselves with moral high-ground narratives to explain why they don’t fuck. At least 80% of guys don’t fuck, so there’s a lot of narrative inbreeding and self-congratulatory bullshit passed around among them. This bullshit has been de rigueur for millennia, but in the social media age, it’s an obvious cope. We’re just more aware of it now.
Of course, the best narratives are the ones that make guys who don’t fuck feel good about not fucking while simultaneously making guys who do fuck feel bad about fucking. This disqualification tactic is one of the many forms of bloodless intrasexual competition tactics that 80%er men have consoled themselves with since the Middle Ages. If you can make your intrasexual rival feel guilty about fucking – because God hates fucking for any reason besides making babies – then you have a tactical advantage in the sexual economy. It works even better if you can gaslight a superior sexual rival to believe he (or she) is going to Hell if he pursues his biological imperative to his fullest potential.
Good God. Talk about gaslighting. If you take him at his word, Rollo is saying that fucking, just that, fucking, not procreating, not making children, just fucking, as many women as possible, is what makes life worthwhile. I have met men like this. Several PUAs are like this, and let me tell you, they are absolutely pathetic. They are a kind of Gollum about pussy in general. My Preciousssss they say, obsessed, salivating, masturbating furiously, whether alone or inside someone else, and that is all that their lives revolve around.
He also further blurts out obvious absolute lies, imputing 80% of men in the Middle Ages did this thing: which was about telling you that way to live (that he thinks is the epitome of existence) is a shallow, discivilisational, unfulfilling, unhealthy way to exist, and not live at all, and they did it to prevent other men from having sex with lots of women. This is complete nonsense, since most men in the middle ages got married, did not have lots of partners, and raised children with their wives, and in the Catholic world at least (which was the ONLY Christianity), most marriages lasted literally until death parted them.
According to him, the entire structure of the Catholic Church was set up so the celibate priests could get all the poonani. It’s ridiculous on its face, ahistorical, and frankly smacks of Gollum-like backward rationalisation that would make a crack whore trying to justify her habit blush with shame.
Generally, lesser men cannot openly challenge greater men (men who fuck) in physical prowess. So, more intelligent men who don’t fuck contrived forms of social gaslighting to improve their chances of reproducing. Smarter lesser men have always devised workarounds to solve their reproductive problems. It’s actually one of the strengths of our species. Nothing sparks innovation quite like a man solving his proximate need for sex and his ultimate need to reproduce. And nothing has been more expedient a tactic than convincing a greater man that he ought to disqualify himself from the sexual economy.
According to Rollo, the Gammas have been “successful” throughout the ages at getting Alpha men to not reproduce. Oh, no, sorry, to fuck, for the sake of fucking alone; reproduction be damned. Once again, anyone who has actually been successful with women over a period of some years, can tell you this is absolute bullshit, and it makes me suspect Rollo, like so many PUAs after him, is likely also full of shit about his supposed sexual prowess with women. It doesn’t matter what the Gammas do. Alphas and Sigmas (that are that way inclined, some Sigmas are not) will be with women sexually even if you imposed the death penalty for doing so. And they would still find ways to get away with it. Gammas have never been very successful at anything really, except being annoying, redundant, and getting women to avoid them like radioactive plague. And notice also that for Rollo the sole qualifier of what makes a man “great” is how high his body count is. Truly it is so pathetically ridiculous that it makes me laugh at both the stupidity of it, and Rollo’s own intrinsic amoeba-like existence. And while he wants very much to paint my view of this as some sort of “envy”, there really is absolutely zero of any such intent or reality in my perspective. It is genuinely the somewhat ironic mild amusement one gets from watching a complete fuckwit trying to be clever and spectacularly showing his ass to the world for the fuckwit he really is.
The problem is, guys who fuck are usually too preoccupied with the logistics of fucking to be bothered by the self-loathing moralism of guys who don’t fuck. At least, that’s how it’s been in a post-Sexual Revolution sexual economy. If it ain’t broke, fixing it isn’t even an afterthought. When you watched the now infamous AMOGing scene in The Wolf Of Wall Street where Leonardo Di Caprio swoops Margot Robbie from a trust fund yuppie, you’re really watching the intrasexual combat between a guy who fucks and a guy who doesn’t. It’s how human males lock horns over sexual access in rutting season. The only thing a guy who doesn’t fuck has in his arsenal is his cunning and nerve.
The emphasis is added by me to point out yet again another logical fallacy. The men who are successful with women do not preoccupy themselves with the logistics of fucking at all, beyond possibly getting their maid, sister, or slutty FWB, to change their semen-stained bedsheets from the night before, because they have a new girl coming over. Literally every man I have known that was… well… a “guy who fucks” like Rollo wants to put it, gave his interactions with women less consideration than he did his enjoyment of a film with a good friend, or his sport of choice, or reading a book he was into. The fact Rollo does not know this, again, makes me suspect he is not quite the lady-killer he presents himself as.
This is why body count only matters to guys who don’t fuck. Their moral crisis isn’t about their inability to find a virgin bride. Guys who don’t fuck couldn’t give two shits about whether a woman’s ability to pair bond with him is impaired by her body count. All they really want is the kind of sex women give to guys who do fuck but never need the ‘value added’ benefits he had to qualify for to get her to fuck him. You see, the gaslighting goes both ways – outwardly towards a sexual rival and inwardly to convince himself that his purpose is righteous. Moralizing over body count is as much about the guy wagging his finger at women as it is about their indiscriminate fucking. There’s actually nothing indiscriminate about it, but sour grapes and making your necessity a virtue are necessary to make Strategic Pluralism an unfalsifiable sexual strategy.
There is a hint of truth to this paragraph, but it is presented as the only absolute, which, as usual, is nonsense. Most men in general actually do care about body-count for any woman they would consider as a long term partner, and at times even for ones they would consider only for a temporary fling. The fact Rollo does not know this, is a clear indication that he is still at the teenager level of sexual immaturity.
Strategic Pluralism Theory
According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), men have evolved to pursue reproductive strategies that are contingent on their value in the mating market. More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring (guys who fuck).
In contrast, the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities (guys who don’t fuck), is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.
From a woman’s perspective, the ideal is to attract a partner who confers both long-term investment benefits and genetic benefits (true hypergamy). Not all women, however, will be able to attract long-term investing mates who also display heritable fitness cues (guys who fuck). Consequently, women face trade-offs in choosing mates because they may be forced to choose between males displaying fitness indicators or those who will assist in offspring care and be good long-term mates (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000).
The most straightforward prediction that follows is that women seeking short-term mates when the man’s only contribution to offspring is genetic should prefer muscularity more than women seeking long-term mates.
Guys who fuck are usually typified by physique. Usually.
All that theory says is what has been known since the dawn of time. Women want the fittest and most successful male to breed with, and those types of men have unlimited options so tend to make use of them. Also, water is wet.
Much as I despise Destiny, the guy DOES fuck. Maybe not like Justin Waller, Jason Momoa, or Mike Sartain, but he certainly ruts like a feral animal compared to Ben Shapiro. Guys who fuck don’t sit around comparing dick sizes or bask in the glow of the imaginings of the third-party validation they get from filling a void in their souls/egos by fucking. These are tropes that guys who don’t fuck tell themselves to explain why guys who do fuck are fucking the women they’ll eventually fuck because those women ran out of options. The concept of fucking for some ephemeral form of validation is part of that gaslighting I mentioned above.
Here we see a rather convoluted bit of chaff-firing, self-delusion and gaslighting in order to justify and rationalise both to himself and the world, his ultimately meaningless way of existing.
He says guys who have his (supposed) lifestyle do not worry about their image which can be “true” to the extent that some men do not care how their womanising makes them look to other men (or in some cases to women too) or society in general, but they tend to be the exceptions, most Alpha types do care about the way they are perceived, and in any case, they all care at least about what women, or at least any given woman in particular, at a point in time, thinks of them, if only to get them in bed. It is also generally true that men who are successful with women do not tend to over-analyse themselves (unless they are PUAs) but the fact remains there is a deeply unfulfilled part of them, whether they realise it or not consciously, that has quite a lot to do with needing to feel loved, and paradoxically, their womanising tends to almost ensure they are ostracised from that very sensation they crave (consciously or not).
But ultimately he ends with yet another nihilist absolute. According to him, such men (as he presents himself to supposedly be) fuck for… just the orgasm I guess. They don’t do it for any self-validation, they don’t do it for love, they don’t do it for procreation, they don’t do it for long term companionship… right Rollo, nice of you to finally admit (if passively aggressively like a whiny bitch) that all people like you do, is really masturbate themselves to death, and it really makes little difference if you do it alone or with a human you empathise with about the same as you do with your no-doubt well-used fleshlight.
It’s intended to get your genetic superior to disqualify himself by contemplating his filling the void of existence with meaningless sex. Meaning plays another big role in the game of guys who don’t fuck. “Meaning” is a container word. It’s a term you can subjectively fill with anything you like. Even fucking if you’re clever about it. Meaning is intentionally ambiguous, and that’s what makes it so effective in being unfalsifiable. As a rule, gaslighting depends on unfalsifiable concepts, but meaning is one of the capstones. Any time you listen to some child on the Fresh & Fit podcast prattle on about how she’s living her truth, you’re listening to a variation of the meaningfulness horseshit.
And here Rollo doubles down on the idea that his life has no meaning. None whatsoever. All there is, is the fuck, for the sake of the fuck, the ultimately masturbationary orgasm for the sake of the orgasm itself, not any other reason. Not self-validation, not self-improvement, not marriage, not reproduction, nope, nope, nope, just the ever omnipresent “fuck”.
Do you see why I compared him, and people like him, to Gollum?
Guys who don’t fuck, like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson, are actually the ones who need validation. Because soul-void fulfillment means confronting the reality that they’ll never enjoy the uninhibited feral lust their wives reserved for the men in their past who fucked. Men who never had to prove their value-added bona fides to fuck the women who would become their wives. Men who don’t fuck live lives of ceaselessly qualifying for a desire they know their wives were capable of with other men but can’t seem to provoke themselves. This is why validation is a thing for guys who don’t fuck – and women who need a Jungian term to explain why guys who do fuck won’t fuck them.
And now he takes the doubled down absolute idiocy to truly stupefying levels. According to him, the men who “fuck” are the be-all and end-all of life, the utter epitome of manly manness. Yes, there is some truth to the self-soothing half-truths and lies men and women tell themselves for not being as successful in the sexual marketplace, but what Rollo tries desperately to shove under the carpet with his tracer-firing barrage at what he considers “inferior” men is the question: What, exactly, are the men who “fuck” better for, or at, in life? And the ONLY thing Rollo keeps coming up with is the purpose of “the fuck” itself. Which is, of course, either ridiculous or nihilistic and pathetic to a suicidal degree. And we know more than one PUA has gone the suicide route too. (And as it happens, Rollo himself turns out to be one of the guys who “does not fuck”, in his own terminology, which according to him, makes him the same as Ben Shapiro. Well… I got nothing, the man is entirely a fraud whichever way you look at it.)
Guys who don’t fuck are the dutiful, loyal, supportive, and nameless husband who Rosehad children and grandchildren with, yet pined for Jack (a guy who fucks) and dropped a priceless diamond to the bottom of the sea in the final moments of her life at the end of Titanic. Hypergamy doesn’t care about the moral crises and ethical concerns of guys who don’t fuck. Validation and body count are just two heads of a conjoined twin. They haven’t gotten the memo that their 20th-century moralism-as-strategy is meaningless in a 21st-century sexual marketplace.
Ah yes. Using Titanic as the masterpiece of philosophy that it clearly was, and making the vapid, stupid, callous, utterly self-absorbed narcissist Rose, the “heroine” of the piece, because she throws away a fortune she could have given to her progeny, in quintessential, wicked, super-boomer format, is indeed, a bold strategy, Rollo! Not a good one, valid or sensible one, but certainly “bold”. As in the same kind of “bold” that would stick his dick in a bar-cutting industrial machinery to “prove his manliness”.
Body count only matters to nameless husbands who don’t fuck. It doesn’t matter to anywoman because they would rather fuck a lot of Jacks on a sinking ship than be bothered by the purity (paternity) concerns of guys who don’t fuck. Guys who fuck don’t care about body count because they know women hate guys who don’t fuck, and those guys care about body count.
Again, it is quite obvious that Rollo protesteth too much here, as he has throughout the entire vapid, ageing PUA post.
Rollo is the male equivalent of a post-wall woman who has ridden the cock-carousel so long she is now left on the shelf. And Rollo is the post-wall “bad-boy” (assuming he ever really actually was one at all) who is left with spent cigarettes, a ruggerised fleshlight, wrinkles, and increasingly creeping despair, at the beginning of the end of a life wasted on ephemera.
FINAL UPDATE: As I said right from the start, PUAs lie, and as it happens Rollo lied about pretty much everything concerning his supposed “ability” concerning women, and he advises men to do the exact opposite of what he himself has done, which is to stay married to one woman for 26 years. If he had been the ladykiller he presented himself as, the above vivisection would be absolutely correct, and as it happens, remains so, regarding the fictional would-be Rollo. And since he is an absolute fraud that advises others to go down a path he knows nothing about and leads to nothing good long term, one can hardly imagine anything he has to say is relevant or worthwhile. Even by his own (retarded) “measuring stick” Rollo himself is the exact guy who “does not fuck” that he so denigrates in his post. And yet he also advises against being married. So… what exactly is Rollo, what does he actually have to say that is relevant, or true, or valid?
Right, now after that vivisection, let us return to the original points, which are that:
Anglos are weird about caring about what women think of them, and,
Rollo is full of shit.
And seeing what that says about men who chase after women for sex and so on in general terms and in spiritual terms.
First of all, I think the point about Anglos being afflicted by gynæmania is a real thing. The English speaking world of the Anglos is indeed, culturally, regardless of whether British (though these are the epicentre of it) Australian, New Zealand, Canadian, or even the more Anglecised parts of America, tends to be irrelevant, as a people, they tend to be grossly united by the Protestant Zeitgeist and a kind of fear/intimidation/shyness of women in general.
Certainly none of the Catholic countries suffer from this to anywhere near the extent the English people do. And it has been this way for centuries. The writings of Italian travellers to England recounts the same view of things that we Southern European tend to have even today of the English men and the English women.
I believe in part it is due to the nefarious influence of Protestantism, as it is an invariably mechanising of humanity and the minute you do that, the first errors will be with your understanding/handling/appreciation of women, because human females are in a way the very embodiment of the chaos of humanity at its best and its worst, and any reduction at binarium pensierum (binary thinking) will invariably produce vast errors in your model of reality with respect to women. And as such they will become only more mystifying, unpredictable and dangerous for you. The other part is due to the fact that as a rule, the Anglos tend to be a logical and shy people, neither of which quality lends itself particularly well to being easy-going in relation to women, who as a rule are not logical and only pretend to be shy in the company of men, if at all.
For such men, the eventual “ability” to bed a lot of women does in fact begin to become a form of validation for them. It remains essentially a false one, but one they believe in and buy into as much as the people they try to convince around them.
These are the men that despite having slept with a hundred or even a few hundred women or more, remain nevertheless prey to their own desire for women and susceptible to how they are perceived by the women they are attracted to. They invariably appear as what the Zoomers call “cringe” to men who have the self-assuredness internally that these Anglo types seek perennially, and hardly ever find. I have known men that only had two women as sexual partners, the first was their wife and the second also their wife, after the first one died, and yet these men would have zero problem genuinely attracting almost any woman they set their eyes on, and they would do so free of the anxiety and self-doubt that plagues the supposed ladies men with hundreds of notches on their belts.
For me, discovering I was able to get women to have sex with me successfully, was not self-actualising in any way. It was more like discovering I had a natural aptitude for fencing, or skiing. A kind of pleasant surprise about something I never really gave much thought to one way or the other. And a good part of why I was successful has very much to do with the fact that that is pretty much how I treated it, not because I wanted to pose as such a person, but because I am such a person. And I cannot with certainty say what makes a man that way or not. I think at least some of it is genetic, but life experiences probably formed in childhood also has something to do with it.
And if I had to give it my best guess, I would say it is probably mostly due to whether your relationship with your parents, and primarily your father, was honest and direct and loving or not. The English sense of “logical detachment” I think is ultimately damaging to children, which is why the entire Anglosphere is a fucking mess of feral youfs with no sense, no honour, no dignity, or discipline to speak of, and increasingly illiterate at that.
The more instinctual and visceral love of an Italian father, who may well kick your ass, literally, for some small or even wrong reason, but who would unquestioningly jump into a harvesting combine to save you, is a far healthier way to be raised than the cold logic of the Anglo-Saxons. And instills in you a profound sense of self-assuredness that I think nothing else does. And that sense comes through to women like a lighthouse in the dark, whether they are aware of it or not consciously (mostly not).
I hope this explains the reason why some men, regardless of how many women they have slept with, ultimately remain on some level… uncertain. Doubtful. Unfinished. And women can in fact sense that.
Now, let us get to the concept of fornication in general and so on, which in fairness, was the topic that Adam was trying to cover, and to which, my extremely long preamble above is merely introduction to give you my context.
On Fornication
First of all, let me state unambiguously that yes, in an ideal world, the way that the Catholic Church says we should behave, both as men and women is indeed, the best and ideal way. No question. I unreseveredly agree.
That said, being as I am Catholic, and being as I lived like a heathen for at least 43 years of my time on Earth, and given that I made no attempt to resist temptations of the flesh in that time, I think I can say with some authority that:
We live on a world that is decidedly fallen and very far from ideal.
Every one of us is utterly flawed in many ways even after we see and realise and accept the truth of Catholicism.
Men who have yet even to see the truth of Catholicism cannot, in all likelihood, even begin to see why what are known as the sins of the flesh are even bad, never mind actual mortal sins.
So, if unmitigated fornication is the equivalent of a blind and deaf man walking towards a cliff-face, how can I possibly begin to even make him aware of this truth? The temptations of the flesh after all are not a fairy tale. They are very much real, and they certainly never felt bad or sinful to me when I indulged deeply in them, nor, do I expect they feel that way to the average 20-something or even 30-something year old male that is “finally getting some!”
And while Adam and people like him, including Catholic Priests and Bishops are absolutely correct that it is a damaging thing, it’s not as if I had not heard that sort of preaching when I was indulging deeply in fornication and then some.
And my reaction to it all was usually, something like, Eh, poor bastard isn’t getting any and he either doesn’t know what he’s missing, or maybe would like, much as the feminists, everyone to be as miserable as him.
And I expect any young man that has got this far (if any have) in this long post, is probably thinking the same thing, and they also do not have a counter-example as a reference frame. Not one they have lived certainly, because that counter example you only get once you are married, and fully committed to one woman, and she is to you too.
It sort of feels like a lie. Oh, don’t you have any fun now, boy, you just wait and just take the ONE sweet, and only that one, for the rest of your life, and trust us, it’s better this way. With all the bullshit you have ingested by age 20, and your at least seeing some of it (if you are not completely retarded) one can hardly be blamed for thinking this too is a massive lie.
And because I am Catholic, and because I have also the example of my own life, and the awesomeness of a real priest that Baptised, Confirmed and presided over my Marriage, and had the benefit of his wisdom and kindness, I also understand that fallen as we are, erroneous as we are, mistaken as we are, we are not necessarily evil or shunning God. We are just wrong. Badly, desperately, tragically, sadly, wrong, but mostly just wrong, not intentionally evil. And we are sad, weak, feel unloved and uncared for by anyone and we try, like drowning rats, to scrabble some sense of worth and love and kindness, wherever there is any illusion we might find some. And so we make mistakes.
And most of you reading this who are unmarried will be in the midst of those mistakes, and I am not here to chastise you, or rain thunder and fire and brimstone and judgement from God on your weighted and desperate heads. Far from it.
I was one of you. I walked your path deeper and longer in the swamp of godless life than most. So, young man, if you will, after this very long set of words, take a seat near my camp-fire and let me tell you a story and may it help you navigate your own swamp, and may it be shallow and brief.
So you are fornicating. So you may even like a girl you are with and be boyfriend and girlfriend, and you may even be thinking how it would be nice if it will last. Or maybe you’re so infatuated with the sensations of sex that a new girl every week or every day or two, or whatever, is intoxicating and draining all your thoughts and actions, wallet and testicles. Whatever the case may be, listen to this and think it over:
What do you want for your life? What do you want to think about your life when you are 99 years old and on your rocking chair and you can see the grim reaper finally walking towards you? And you’re fine with it and smile at him even, recognising that this supposedly terrible and fearful boogeyman is nothing more than a tired and misunderstood boatman, taking you across the veil (or the river Styx if you prefer).
Do you think you will be pleased reminiscing over your 287 sexual conquests, aided by your printed out spreadsheet in large letter format, because your eyes are no longer what they used to be? Playing out the sex tapes on the projector of your study to remember better what you did or felt or what they did? Or who they even were? Do you think that will warm your heart as you face the final journey?
Or your sporting achievements?
Or your financial ones, absent children and grandchildren to leave it to?
Tell me, young man, what do you think will make you able to face the final boatman with serenity and peace?
I’ll tell you what it is for me now and what I hope it will be for me at 105, but I say only 105 because I started late, otherwise 99 would be perfectly acceptable to me too. And yes, I know I’d be lucky to get there.
It is the idea of my children grown up and married and with children of their own, and doing well, and if God grants me the energy and the fortune to do so, the idea of leaving them as much as I possibly can, to make their lives and those of their children good ones.
It is the idea of watching my grandchildren and possibly even my great-grandchildren (hence 105!) running around nearby, screaming and making noise and playing joyfully and laughing full belly-laughs and thinking my sons and daughters and their wives and husbands are good women and men who will be with them to the end of their days and help them raise the next lot of joyous Crusaders for God, Truth and Justice, as my family line has done since the literal original First Crusade.
Now you may have a different religion from me (because you’re still young and stupid, heh, heh, heh) but I don’t think it changes the equation. I don’t think it changes it at all.
And here is what else I think. I think if what I just told you is NOT what inspires you, is abhorrent to you in some way, then I hope very much it’s only because, as I said, you’re young, and really fucking stupid, and you have bought in to a lot of Boomer-era lies, And I sincerely hope you grow out of your mental retardation.
And if not, if that is who you really are, then fuck you. I hope you die young and rid the world of another noxious creature that only spoils the Earth and everything on it. And I’m not talking about climate change, you fuckwit.
Now, if you get the impression that I am a kind of bastard for an old man, I would say, fuck you at the “old man” I can probably still kick your ass at 54 if you are in your twenties, depending on some factors, but that aside, yeah, I am not the most pleasant human being. I don’t like humans much because mostly they are weak, and because they are weak they lie. And they lie a lot. They lie to themselves first and then to everyone else around them. And the lies cause the harm. They cause ALL the harm. Which is as the god of this world wants it. Because this Earth is under the dominion of Satan. And no, young man, I don’t give a shit if you think “The Devil” is a superstition. He is more real than the heart-attack all the poor imbeciles that took the genetic serum are probably facing in the not too distant future.
Oh, and this is just a side note, but listen up: The Earth is NOT Flat!
And if you think it is you are a stupid bastard and I really don’t care what happens to you and with a level of stupidity that high it is definitely a better thing if you do not pass on those retarded genes at all.
Back to my story, now.
So, if you agree with me so far, then you also must realise that you get that kind of old-age satisfaction only if you make children and raise them well. And this means finding and marrying a woman that will also want to be with you until one or both of you die and raise children together. No matter what difficulties you will both face. No matter if you are so fucking stupid one day to fuck your secretary, or hire a prostitute, or become a heavy drinker, or make a bad business decision and lose your shirt. And conversely, no matter if she is so fucking stupid to spread her legs for the sexy postman, or her co-worker, or the neighbour, or she becomes a heavy drinker, or more worried about what the neighbours think of you and her than looking after her husband and children, or she splashes out on stupid shit and drives you to the brink of bankruptcy.
So is it easy to find such a woman? No.
Is it easy to stay married to such a woman, delightful as she might be? No.
Will you come across things in life that will hurt you in ways you never imagined, and that would seem to make leaving her a better option? Yes.
More than once? In all likelihood, yes.
And will she come across such things? Yes, without shadow of a doubt, and probably even more often than you.
And if you are thinking right now, Well Old Man, this is a really rosy picture you’re painting for me, what the fuck do you want me to do, and is the light at then of the tunnel also an oncoming train?
I say this to you:
Firstly fuck you twice for the Old Man again, you wet behind the ears know-nothing. Secondly, it’s not rosy. It’s just how it is, so you know what you’re facing. Forewarned is forearmed as they say. What I want you to do is immaterial. It’s what you want to do, or not do, that matters. Realise whether you pick something, or pick nothing, you’re still picking something. So choose, and choose consciously, because at least then you got no one to blame but yourself.
Oh, and yeah, in the end, the light at the end of the tunnel is always an oncoming train. Sometimes it’s got a boatman riding up front. Smile and run at it, because fuck the train. Live like a man and die like one too if need be.
So now you might be thinking, Ok Old Man, so how do I find such a woman?
And I say to you, firstly, fuck you three times for the Old man. Secondly, unless you have uncommon good luck, unless God for some reason decides to send you an Angel in disguise as a human woman, most likely, you cannot find such a woman walking the Earth today.
Young man stares blankly at me.
You have to build her.
Young man says: What?
You have to build her, boy. You find one that is as close as you can find to a finished product, and I sincerely advise you to find one that is in your category of looks. If you are a 7 don’t try and stay with a 9. You’ll be so worried about keeping her that you will fuck up a myriad things and she will end up fucking your “best friend”, the neighbour, your boss, her boss, and if you did marry her, she will take the kids and your house too when she inevitably divorces you.
Take your time in your courtship. Learn who she is and pay attention to what she does and how she acts in various situations and feel free to almost totally ignore whatever she says she is like. You can really only go badly wrong if you believe her when she describes all her good qualities. Pay her words no mind. Observe her actions instead.
If you feel you have enough to work with (at least 51% good is a minimum) then begin to go about leading by example. Do NOT request of her efforts or sacrifices you are not willing to exceed. And yes, some things are not comparable on a like for like basis, because she is a woman and you are a man, you can no more give birth or breastfeed your child than she can write the alphabet in the snow when urinating, and don’t think the one is equivalent in value to the other, but realise that as a general rule, women can provide three things to a man:
So do your part and gently show her the way, so she feels better about herself, as women invariably do when they begin to act in accordance with their God-given, biological imperatives, that have been subverted by lies for the last hundred plus years or so.
That’s about it, boy.
And if you are still wondering where this puts you in the fornication scale, well, to not put too fine a point on it, according to the Church, until you marry and commit, your fornication is going to send you to Hell. So I would hurry up and get to finding that woman as quick, yet also as careful, as you can. And try not to get hit by a bus until you get married to her and repent and foreswear your heathen and fornicating ways, you miserable sinner.
And if you have any brains at all, about now, young man, you might be having a little smile at the apparently hypocritical, arrogant, bastard, old man in front of you.
That’s why I no longer describe myself as a libertarian. Not simply because I have rejected the ideology, although I have, but because I no longer believe that most ideologists, past or present, are even remotely interested in, much less connected to, truth and objective reality. Despite its grandiose and universalist pretensions, ideology is the detailed rationalization of an identity group’s immediate interests, and it will always be subject to further modification and mutation as that group’s interests change over time.
It is the mark of one of the vanishingly small number of men who are capable of changing their minds based on facts when a man admits to in fact doing so, and it is one of the reasons I respect Vox’s often apparently contrarian thoughts. And of course, anyone reading this is probably thinking “from what pulpit comes the preaching!” because as contrarian as Vox may at times appear to be, I think I am the only man on Earth that has been labelled as responsible for the need to create an entirely new class of role-playing game character: The Theologian-Berserker by a Hugo nominated author.
The reality, however, is that neither I nor Vox are actual contrarians for the sake of being contrarians. I believe we are simply men that observe the world and try, to the best of our ability to interpret and share, our honestly objective conclusions or theories based on the available evidence.
Even as a much younger man, when I was not even remotely Catholic, I always rejected the concept of ideologies. In fact, in the Villains section, I specifically explain as the very first point, why all ideologies are ultimately an error.
All ideology is ultimately dehumanising. This is of course a broad statement but it is a mostly accurate one. The moment you make something become a rigidly fixed “belief”, almost regardless of what it is, it will ultimately become a tyrannical yoke on the neck of natural and honest human beings. If you need a good example and exposé of this, you should really read the essay The Power of the Powerless, by Václav Havel. He basically predicted the fall of the Soviet Empire at a time when the collapse of it was essentially thought of as mostly unthinkable. He did this because of an intrinsic understanding of the human spirit and the nature of such a spirit. Human souls are born to be free and joyous, not oppressed and repressed by dogma. Modern ideologies tend to be far more sophisticated in their insidiousness, but the end result is always the same, a dehumanisation, an increase of strife, both internal and external and an alienation of humans from each other in terms of how they relate to each other. Ideology forces us to try and relate to each other as cogs instead of souls. Regardless of whether you even believe in souls, do you really want to be related to as a cog in a machine?
The above was specifically written in 2018, but I had the concept clear in my mind certainly from my mid-twenties.
The holding on to ideologies is really a form of infantilism, and while I do not want to place ALL of the world’s ills at the feet of America and Americans, especially because the people who control America are for the most part not American at all, but mostly Jewish, it remains a fact, that Americans (actual Americans, not paper Americans) are, as a general people, some of the most gullible and infantile humans on Earth and certainly in the Western World.
While individual Americans can be quite brilliant, the vast majority are maleducated, malnourished (as in fed badly, not as in starving), vastly ignorant and almost entirely brainwashed into believing in American greatness. In their defence, it does need to be said that they are also the first pretend-nation that was created by Freemasons and entirely on Freemasonic principles, so they never had much of a chance from the start.
And since America, thanks to its vast resources for a time, became the most militarily powerful country on Earth and with almost unlimited funds, it zeitgeist has pretty much succeeded, until recently at infecting most of the planet with its ideologically based lies.
Protestantism, of course was the precursor and raised its Satanic head shortly after America was discovered by Columbus.
The reason why Ideology is always at best an error and usually ends up being directly evil in due course, is because human beings are living beings, and ideology is a dead and static thing. Ideology is the mechanisation of human beings, as is, Protestantism and indeed any facile, binary way of thinking.
A small child wishes for things to be clear and simple. Good and bad. Light and dark. Yes or No. and so on. As we grow in abilities and life experience, one hopes we begin to understand that while there are definite absolutes, at least in the moral sense of human affairs, these are relatively few and reserved for extreme cases, and because human beings are weak, petty, stupid, selfish, brutish, vindictive, fallen creatures, yet imbibed with an eternal soul loved by God, we tend to, for the most part, play out our worst characteristics more than our divinely inspired ones.
Simply observing life as we find it, makes this rather obvious, or rather, so I thought. As it happens, what is often obvious to me is apparently shrouded in mystery for most people. Even intelligent ones.
There are many such examples, and I mention a few not to show you what a clever special boy I am, but merely because most people simply haven’t even thought of this stuff:
Free Speech– Has never existed in the entirety of human existence and never will. This was obvious to me from the first moment I became aware of this Americanism in my early teens while living in relatively remote Africa.
Ideology (all of it)– as described above from early 20s at the latest.
Intelligence behind creation of some sort – About age 16 but confirmed by basic mathematics by age 19 when I explicitly stated it clearly.
The difference between Principles, Dogmas, Axioms and Ideology – Ideology is always an error, to whatever degree. Axioms might, eventually, prove to be somewhat erroneous from totally (if based in ideology) to partially, to perhaps never (certain divine concepts, or Mathematical realities). Dogmas can be a thinly veiled ideology, or a sound axiom or a simple universal truth (math is logical for example, could be said to be either axiomatic or even dogmatic). Principles are personal choices, often, but not always, based on a man’s best understanding of reality. Conflating these different terms just because there are overlaps however is an error and should be avoided, as all conflation in general should always be.
The Paradox of Truth with a capital T and the Human condition – Concepts such as Justice, Honour, Courage, Honesty and so on, are principles that in their ideal, or theoretical form are perfectly clear and free of ambiguity. In the world of humanity however, these noble truths, for they are true, and they are noble, cannot help but be tinged with our humanity, which —even a blind and irreligious man as some of us may have been for decades— is akin to being soiled with a bit of raw sewage. In short, while Justice, Love, Mercy and so on are all true and theoretically perfect, on Earth, we can only come to close approximations at best. This is the hard reality of course, which is why religions of a simple-minded, binary nature, like Protestantism or Islam are ultimately patterns of thought that lead to a beastly existence. The Protestants of course either become puritanical freaks for which the flashing of an ankle at a ball is grounds for wearing a scarlet letter, or lascivious degenerates for whom strumming a guitar explaining Jesus is their gender-neutral boyfriend is the height of their “christianity”, While Islam simply does away with any pretence of reason at all when it merely says that everything is the will of Allah. In that respect, the only religion that properly takes into account both the human failings but also the truth and nobility of these concepts is Catholicism. No other religion does, and for that reason it is the best model of reality we have ever had as a species.
As I progressed in my observations of life in general, and people in particular, the objective noticing of reality always served me well, and once I became a full blown Catholic (which I ALWAYS explain means a sedevacantist since those are the ONLY Catholics actually left on Earth) the model of reality that Catholicism offers, fits the observable reality better than my own Zen-Agnostic philosophy of some 3 decades or more, at least an order or two of magnitude better.
Humans are indeed complicated, and only Catholicism truly appreciates and answers, the multi-faceted aspects of the Human condition with equal measure, Mercy, Forgiveness, and Charity as inflexible Truth, Justice and Virtue.
I therefore invite you to at least begin to study actual Catholicism and actual Church History from the very beginning.
My own books can serve as a shortcut and are filled with references so you can verify what I say, but it doesn’t matter how you get there, just get there.
UPDATE: So, having received some feedback already, it seems that in my effort to try and make things clear I have apparently made it less so, so I present two shorter versions of the FSSH below, that stick to the cold facts without the longer explanations. Some people find these easier to grasp or at least easier to process, and the point is to be helpful, so… here it is:
Keep in mind that the WHOLE POINT of a SSH is for it to be able to make accurate predictions of human behaviour in any given situation. The Male SSH predicts male behaviour and my FSSH predicts female behaviour; not quite to the same level of accuracy that the male SSH does, but certainly at a probability that is correct comfortably over 50% of the time (I’d say at least in the region of 75% of the time and considerably higher when the women involved have average IQs). Here it is then:
The FSSH does not have a list of “types” like the Male SSH (yes, one a few autist complained there was no lists at all! Which I thought was obvious from the longer post below but whatever).
In fact, the FSSH is a dynamic cloud of probabilities within which each woman shifts up or down the pecking order depending on various factors.
Whatever those factors are, the effect on each woman can be approximately predicted by considering:
The situation itself
The relative 1-10 attractiveness of each woman in the interaction
The fact women process the world mostly according to their emotions and most important of all:
Women are essentially solipsistic to the point of their believing the universe is there to please them!
That is the shortest description I can make for the FSSH.
Another attempt is here below a bit longer than the above and then the original post below that.
The reality is that there isn’t so much a FSSH with various categories but rather more of a cloud of probabilities that is dynamically shifting at any given moment due to 1. Situationality 2. The relative attractiveness of the (female) participants on the 1-10 scale 3. The fact women operate mostly on their emotions and solipsism. If one considers those points in any given scenario, he can make general predictions about the behaviour of each female in the group that will likely be correct more than 50% of the time. That, in a nutshell, is the cold reduction of my observations into a short post. But that tends to be difficult for the average man to grasp so I detailed it out with some examples in the much longer post below. If one is looking for a nomenclature like gamma, alpha etc I think that doesn’t exist as such for the FSSH, as it is always situational and relative to the other female participants.
Point 1 is the situation itself, which if you want to predict behaviour you need to process from HER (solipsistic and emotional) perspective.
To you, you’re having a cocktail party with your cool friends. But to HER, Jennifer might be a 9 (with her fake tits, bitch!) to her 8.5 and the stakes here are high and Jennifer (the bitch!) laughs at all your jokes and Brad, Jennifer’s husband is meek and quiet. So that Bitch is making eyes at you!
So when your wife behaves in a casually and uncharacteristically cold manner at Jennifer… or YOU, because you smiled at Jennifer! Twice! The dirty whore! You pig!
You can resolve the issue by praising your wife and making it obvious you love her.
Average man: Uh… (quietly in the kitchen) honey… why you being such a bitch to Jennifer? Result: female meltdown
In that situation, in case it wasn’t clear, Jennifer has the higher pecking order; at least until you act in a way that makes it clear you see no one but your wife, then your wife has the higher pecking order, especially since Brad is quiet and meek, meaning despite your wife’s 8.5 on the hot scale to Jennifer’s 9, she (your wife) scored the better male, and so she is now higher on the totem pole.
I agree, of course, that any man that says he has totally figured out how women work is either crazy or —usually more often— a liar; of the PUA variety. Nevertheless, some things can be known, as Vox indeed pointed out regarding the fatness issue.
But I think we can figure out a lot more than that, at least in gross terms. The female socio-sexual hierarchy, (FSSH) is both simpler and more complex than the male one Vox has detailed (and isn’t that paradox typical of the females of the species!)
My version of the FSSH is a little like my own original version of the male SSH, which I had come up with long before I met or read anything at all by Vox; that is, it is more general and rough, nowhere near as detailed as his. I only had three categories: Alpha, Beta and Scout. Which compared to his equate to Alpha, everything else, and Sigma.
My reasoning was based on evolutionary biology, which in many respects is a kind of pseudo-science, a little like hypnosis. It’s not that it is all quackery, there are some very solid pieces of information in it, but it’s just that a lot of it is not clear what exactly it means, (at least to most people) or even, if it means anything at all (it does, but as I say, it is a complex subject). So it’s a mix between art and science. Given I tend to be more on the engineering side of the equation than the artistic one, my premise was simple and based purely in the practical aspects: Alphas are the movers and shakers in the social world of humanity. Betas is pretty much everyone else, and I did not bother to categorise them beyond noting which were loyal, reliable and mostly honest, and those who were not, because these were the only qualities that had any real meaning to me. Aside their quirks of personality or things they did or were good at or whatever, they were not really of any consequence. I considered Betas mostly like NPCs, some good, some bad, mostly just background noise. They are not and have never been anything dangerous. They can be annoying or helpful, but lions, even quiet ones, are not concerned with hyenas, or whatever. But I also reasoned that for mankind to move beyond small tribes of about 200 people each, some guys, and yes it had to be guys, must have had the scout skill, that is, the ability to infiltrate other groups different from his own not only without getting killed, but also being able to procreate with this other tribe.
That, especially in primitive societies) takes an uncommon level of chameleon-like quality, discarding of personal bias at the drop of a hat, and intelligence, and even then it’s risky business. I knew I was not Alpha material, because the trappings of social power, to me, are just that mostly: Trappings. With precious little to off-set that cost. And despite their social power I never feared Alphas. I kept an eye on them, because they could be dangerous if they got it into their head to make you an enemy of theirs, but no matter their level of social power, it never had any effect on me. And I could recount many times that my genuine absence of status-worship or “celebrity-dazzle” or even sometimes awareness of it altogether resulted in somewhat comical effects. Alphas on the other hand, tended to have an almost visceral and instant aversion to me. And I am certain it is because they could sense I was a potential danger. Making an enemy of a scout means the king might wake up with his throat slit, his wife having delivered the dagger to his assassin, and his throne usurped; not for the sake of power, but merely as securing the Scout’s best option for survival.
Vox detailed the various versions of what I called Betas in far more detail than I ever cared to, and that is a good thing of course. But I explained the above to make a parallel, because my version of the FSSH is going to be akin to my simple version of the Male SSH, it is not particularly detailed, nevertheless it is useful. Even very useful, given the apparent dearth of understanding I notice around me.
First of all you need to grasp that women do NOT operate on the basis of Logic. They operate on the basis of emotion. Which is the part that makes them difficult or even impossible to always predict. In short, this is the “complex” element of the FSSH that means a detailed breakdown of various “types” is probably impossible to do other than in the broadest terms, as you will see shortly.
Secondly, you need to understand that women operate as if the entire Universe is built and exists only and solely for them. If it rains when they want to wear a sundress, then she will be angry at the fickle and exasperating God that is DISOBEYING her needs!
If you think my two paragraphs up there are hyperbole, do yourself a favour, run with my model anyway and observe women around you for a while and you will see it’s a useful model all the same.
If you can appreciate the subtlety of the second point especially, that is, their intrinsic solipsism, you will also begin to understand that if the entire Universe is built exclusively for them, and everyone else in it is basically just an NPC that is the backdrop of the film in which she is the star, you begin to appreciate what her relationship not just to other people in general is, but more especially, to other women is; who, remember, are all the stars in their own mind of the film of life that everyone else is just an NPC in.
Now, imagine a giant film set in which every single woman in it believes she is the central character of the film. Regardless of if she is a fat ball of lard with a half-shaved head and blue hair, or a svelte supermodel with the entire works of Shakespeare, Milton and Keats committed to memory.
If you keep this image in mind, while the detailed actions of any one of these “starlets” may certainly surprise you from time to time, if not outright kill you (yes, it can, trust me…) you can probably make decent educated guesses at what kind of thing they may do or how they may react in any given situation that involves other women.
The fat balls of lard KNOW they are fat balls of lard, but they are the STAR, remember, and as such, the svelte looking supermodel with the hot-looking chiselled featured stud in tow is just another snooty bitch that thinks she is so great just because she is not a fattie, BUT… let’s not forget, the fattie is the STAR, so she will tell anyone who will listen how the supermodel is really quite dim, and she only gets any parts by spreading her legs wherever she goes, and the Brad Pitt lookalike is even dumber than she is and either being taken advantage of (if he is polite and kindly to fattie) or is just as mean, mercenary and stupid as the supermodel (if he tends to shun fattie).
On her side, the supermodel is quite happy to shower the fattie with obvious praise in public, because why should a STAR like herself even feel threatened by a frumpy ball of lard like fattie? Besides it makes everyone around her like even more! Supermodel looks, Brad Pitt lookalike on her arm AND she is kind to the unfortunates that look like fattie, and small animals. It all just makes her more of a STAR!
Now, what if fattie starts going to the gym and eating salads? Well, it’s fine at first, the supermodel might even compliment her, especially if fatties genetics mean it will be impossible for her to ever compete really with the supermodel, but there is a dangerous tipping point, where fattie, even if only a 6 in the looks department, especially if she keeps her head down, just gets on with it and behaves more reasonably and logically and gives everyone around her (men especially) their dues… well… guess what… many a man would rather spend a pleasant evening with a friendly and non-self-absorbed (well, for a woman, anyway) 6 than a vapid, or egomaniacal 9 who looks like a supermodel. And that pleasant evening might even stretch itself to an evening or ten of passion, and maybe even a lifetime.
Brad, might be getting sick of Angelina and her insane bullshit. Brad might begin to think that frumpy Janet who lost a lot of weight, looks after herself and acts at least 2 or 3 levels closer to sanity on the Universal Hot Crazy Matrix scale, might start to look attractive in more ways than just casual coffee on Fridays before shooting for the day starts. And Angelina can’t have THAT! So she will begin bringing doughnuts fried in lard and covered in sugar to those Friday meet-ups and make sure to offer them daily to Janet. By the way the Universal Hot Crazy Matrix also has a version for men, right at the end of the video, which takes about 20 seconds, and aside from accurate, it’s funny too, so watch it, even if you have seen it before.
Now, what confuses most men about this is that while the above is a perfect representation of the dynamics of the FSSH, the problem is that it is not as directly linear as the MSSH. And this is because women operate on emotions, not logic and objective reality.
And this also affects what I term their self-awareness level. So, if Angelia is having a fantastic day, she may even be nice to Janet and tell her genuinely that she really is making a good effort in her own life (which will still feel like condescending snobbery to Janet, regardless of actual intent in that moment), but if Angelia just had a fight with Brad, she will be a complete harpy to Janet, and vice-versa.
Those of you old enough to be familiar with the legendary video of the Universal Hot Crazy Matrix I linked to up there, or who just watched dit, may recall a very important point the man says, which in some ways is the most pivotal point of it all and goes something along these lines:
“Now it’s important to understand that any woman can appear or disappear from any one location on the chart and appear or disappear in another location of the chart, and it is only once you have a cluster of data points that you can approximately place her on the chart.”
And this is very much the same here.
And for those men that lament the emotions of women, allow me to point out that while it is true that no man will ever really understand women fully, there is a sliding scale and if you lament the emotions of women, you sir, are dimmer than most.
Let me paint you a picture of what women would be like if all you left them with was their ravenous solipsism. Their naked egomania if you like. Unmuted and unsoftened by their ever ephemeral states of mind. Just where do you think that “mythologies” like the Gorgons (Medusas), the harpies, and the demonic Succubi come from? And more fool you if you think such women are only the stuff of myth and legend.
So, be grateful, you foolish mortal, for the God-given emotions that rule their hearts and minds. Yes they can become like a storm in the high seas, but they can also become the calm waters of an idyllic lake whilst the hurricane of life rages all about you.
If you keep these two points in mind, that they are ruled by emotions and that these in turn are affected by their hormones far more than your hormones affect your own emotions, and that the central belief of every woman under the sun is that the entire Universe was created solely for her and her pleasure and happiness, then, you can truly begin to predict quite a lot of their behaviours.
You can even make broad generalisations that will fit vast categories of females.
For example, the good looking ones do tend to be higher on the crazy scale. Why? Think about it. Men will do almost anything to bed one of these women. They will lie, pretend, posture, spend stupid amounts of money, time and energy to impress them enough just so as to get their knickers off them and a taste of what lies beneath them. But most men are not like Ulysses (Odysseus) and do not have the mental fortitude to tie themselves to the mast of their ship so as not to be driven onto the rocks by the Siren’s song. So… when this vision of beauty gets into one of her “moods” they will fold to her will in a desperate attempt to please her, which will make her eventually resent and be disgusted by the weakness of such a man, or run from her in despair and fear or at least self-preservation, or attempt to weather the storm only to find their lives dashed on the rocks like so many sailors before them. And this pattern for a beautiful woman, especially if she is also intelligent and has at least a smattering of potential at doing logic, invariably embitters her towards men in general and certain attitudes or behaviours will also tend to set her off even when nothing underhanded is meant by them.
For example: the normal and natural tendency of every man alive under the sun to enjoy, want, think about, plan and act, pretty much throughout 90% of their day with a direct or indirect intention towards sex, will end up making her think all men are disgusting, sex-starved pigs. The damage done to her by these unfulfilling temporary relationships with sub-standard men, will naturally embitter her, because, without her natural appreciation as a woman, she will forget that while, yes, indeed we all are close enough to disgusting sex-starved pigs, the truth is also that if you have the right attitude, pigs are very intelligent, loving, fun animals to have around. Besides, if we don’t crucify you for being ego-mosters thinly veiled with a veneer of emotive camouflage, don’t begrudge our almost male praying mantis proclivity for wanting to mate with a creature that is far more likely to cut off and eat our head than we are theirs (at least emotionally speaking, certainly).
So, the damage caused to women’s souls, minds, hearts, by the men that are attracted to her but for whatever reasons end up being incompatible with her (almost always as a result of the man being a weaker specimen than his ancestors ever were) tends to make her indeed, more skittish, more egomaniacal when in one of her tantrums (justified or not), and overall more unpredictable and deadly for any man.
On the other hand, the sixes and five of life, those unfortunate ladies that just can’t compete in the looks department, will tend to be taken for granted, used and discarded by men as a second or third hand “prize” to merely salve the wounds received by the nines that shred their hearts to war-torn flags of despair.
As a result, when (or if) they finally snag a husband, that is, a man that will commit to them, they will either tend to gradually catapult all the resentment they accumulated over the years onto him (because remember the Universe has been unkind to her and the Universe must now PAY for this outrage, and if you married her, well, guess what, YOU are the central NPC that obviously must pay for it, since you too are just part of HER universe, you dolt!), or become so desperate in their fear that he will sooner or later leave them (because they simply don’t feel good enough) to either suffocate him with unrelenting jealousy, or smothering subservience to his every whim. Neither of which makes for an attractive quality to a man.
It is a rare woman indeed who is not a solipsistic ego-machine throughout most of her life, and if you find one… beware… as the man said, she might be a tranny, but even if not… she might actually be one of the worst of the lot; those Gorgons of supposed Myth: Female narcissists. The Medusae of life, are truly a beast forged in Hell, and with the ability to shape-shift before they slash your heart open while you sleep to feast on it like the vampire-succubi of death they really are.
Anyway, with those two simple pointers about emotions and solipsism in mind, you are forewarned at least 90% more than most men, who for the most part remain entirely clueless.
I will add two further pieces of advice that are also extremely valuable to keep in mind.
Women are as they are. If you are weak, stupid, and/or bitter enough to hate them for it, regardless of how you got there, then you too, are really, behaving in the same way as the woman who gets upset at, the weather being rainy when she wanted to wear a sundress, and who spoils the whole day for everyone around her too because of it. In short, you are NOT behaving like a man, but like some wimpy, pussified, emotional, effeminate, gay version of a “man”; that is, more like a woman. Look in the mirror and bitchslap yourself back to your senses.
Do you hate the sun for doing what it does? Or a snake for biting you if you step on it because you were not paying attention? Or a lion for eating you for the same quality of obliviousness? A lot of men do. And that’s because a lot of men fall into the category best expressed by Professor Cipolla: There are always more idiots around than you can possibly guess at.
So that’s the first suggestion. If you are bitter at women for being as they are, you are only making your own life more miserable. You might as well rage at the weather, or the sky for being blue.
The second suggestion is literally as old as the oracle at Delphi:
Man, know yourself.
It doesn’t matter what a woman is, harpy, narcissistic demon, sweet angel (of death and/or of life), or anything in between. If YOU know who YOU are, it doesn’t much matter what anyone does or says. You will act in accordance with who YOU are. That, has been the one saving grace I have had in my travels through the Odyssey of women I have lived through. And while Odysseus only took ten years to get back home, or if you count the siege of Troy too, twenty, my own journey was about twenty-eight years long before I landed in my metaphorical Ithaca.
I have probably made every mistake and survived every kind of female sea-monster that it is possible to survive, and if I did so it is only by the Grace of God and the fact that since a very, very, very, young age, I have always known right down to the molecular and atomic level of my DNA, who I am. And when you exist that way, they might kill you, they might break you, but they can’t bend you. And even if they break you, if they don’t kill you, you will rise from the ashes and be even more formidable after it.
I honestly think at least part of that is genetic. I come from a very long line of men that you could class as adventuring warriors with a code of honour. It is unbroken for at least some 820 years we can track the history of, and I see it in my own small son, so I cannot say that I am personally wholly responsible for it, but I am absolutely certain that I always did everything in my power, from even before the age of seven, that I could do, to deepen that sense of self, that knowing who I am, and therefore of knowing how I would react to any given situation even if I never even imagined it before.
Whatever happens, if you are the kind of man that is ready to die for his ideals, and not in a grand-showing of glory, but quietly and silently without anyone ever knowing you did so or why, and yet you would choose it still, then, my friend, perhaps not every woman will fall at your feet adoringly, but no matter what they do, you will survive it and not remain bitter; and you will be able to walk away even from Aphrodite herself, if she crosses certain lines, and the wrath of the gods be damned.
This is Absolutely the Way
You might be interested in the following posts:
By G | 19 February 2024 | Posted in Christianity, Fighting SJWs, Increasing Happiness, Social Commentary, The Enemy Within