Your Guide to Monarch Mind Control - Chapter Eight

The Illuminati Formula Used to Create an Undetectable Total Mind Controlled Slave
By Fritz Springmeier and Cisco Wheeler

Introduction
Chapter One
Chapter Two
Chapter Three
Chapter Four
Chapter Five

Chapter Six
Chapter Seven

CHAPTER 8 THE SCIENCE OF BODY MANIPULATION & PROGRAMMING

To be conspiracy-minded is to make some fundamentally dangerous assumptions about the world. There are no coincidences and there are no mistakes. One’s enemies are uber-competent, exquisitely proactive and have a gift for projection that is close to clairvoyance. Any gaps in knowledge must be filled by assuming the worst motives and the best abilities.

We return to the mind-set of Fritz Springmeier in this chapter. His contributions are marked by an excessive attention to detail that, read aloud, sound like the mutterings of a street crazy. He is focused on dates, locations and pseudo-science. Here he explains the process by which slaves are neurologically altered.

One basic premise is that the physical attributes of the brain work the same as those of muscles. Just as muscles are enlarged by tearing the fibers and allowing them to heal, so does enhancing the ability of the brain. That is, the brain is precisely damaged so that the healing process strengthens its capabilities. This is accomplished through electric shocks.

The elite have need of those with enhanced intelligence to run their computers, we’re told. Some may have implants put into their brains to carry information, a la Johnny Mnemonic.

The Illuminati also find it advantageous to perform split-brain programming on its victims. This involves separating the right and left halves of the brain so that each side is enhanced and can function independently.

Split-brain programming is achieved by stimulating both sides of the brain differently. One film may be shown to the left eye while another is shown to the right. S&W also posit that there is a drug that can selectively “shut down” one half of the brain.

Once the brain is trained in this way, the alters associated with each side will be more analytical if left-brained or intuitive if right-brained. We are also told that the advanced technology of the elite has developed even more numerous brain-splits.

Brain-work is, of course, dangerous. Many potential slaves die in the process. The delicate nature of this work necessitates the use of health professionals, most of whom are mind-control slaves themselves.

They go on to tell us that programmers can make scars appear and disappear, through training with histamines. We are then told that the mind, operating through the endocrine system, can change genetics. This is key to improving the bloodlines of the Illuminati families as well as producing families of victims optimized for slavery.

The work with drugs, chemicals and neurology gives the programmer control over the slave’s bodily functions.

Again the question may be, why would they condition a slave this way? Because, if the Master can call out a hypnotic trigger and change the slave’s heart beat and blood pressure, does the reader see how “puppet-like” the slave feels? The slave’s mind and body are literally owned by the master.

The slave is not even allowed to control his own body.

The authors discuss how the Illuminati has developed techniques to conceive twins and then to abort one of them. In this way, the surviving zygote has increased “spiritual power” and will be predisposed to splitting its personality.

Then there’s this:

Over the years, the New World Order has secretly developed the ability to create a subspecies of people who can swim and breathe water.

The first question one may ask is, “Why?” One use is for an even more effective member of Navy SEAL teams. Rather than infiltrate dangerous territories with watercraft, amphibious soldiers can simply swim to their targets. Also, they are working on underwater cities, for reasons that aren’t revealed.

These literal frogmen are being developed by two means. The first is technological and the second by creating human-animal hybrids.

One may find this hard to believe but why else would so much money be sunk into the film Waterworld unless it was to mentally prepare the public for the sight of a man walking among them with gills?

Chapter 9 discusses the psychological techniques of programming.

Scott Walker: The Lost Years

If you are new to the work and story of Scott Walker, I have a unique opportunity to introduce you to the debunking before you hear the myth.

Paul Mark Phillips was a music journalist, A&R man and composer/producer in the British music industry from the late 60s on. One of his artists was Scott Walker in what the artist terms his "wilderness years."

At the time, I thought of him as blessed with an exceptional voice. Beyond that, I found him embarrassing, a precocious child who felt he was not getting the attention he warranted.

Phillips hints at an angle that is less available to us who are discovering Walker, rather than living through his career. Maybe it was very important to Walker that he be considered a genius. Phillips says, "The whole Jacques Brel thing lacked authenticity for me."

Phillips issue with Walker is personal. The story at the link is about how Walker hardly cared about which songs he sang and, when the albums failed, he blamed the record companies. Since Phillips was the company rep responsible for bringing Walker material, he feels personally slighted.

Phillips may believe that he's undermining Walker's legend but my opinion is that he's simply shading it with more detail. The myth is that Walker, finding that the public wasn't interested in his genius, gave up and gave the public and the record companies what they wanted. His heart wasn't in it, though, and the material is weak.

The legend's image is of depression, despair and heavy drinking. Phillips' story sounds like that condition as it plays out day by day, not a refutation of the myth. Walker, judging by the fact that he put out several albums during that time, seems to have been a functional depressive. Chances are, he spun between trying to make the best of things and making bad decisions, thinking, "Who cares?"

And these were bad decisions. Take a listen to this track from Any Day Now, "We Could Be Flying:"

It's clear this is a 70s-era Frank Sinatra reject and it points to the fundamental problem with this period of Walker's work. A hopeful Scott Walker is uninteresting and, more importantly, sounds false.

A comparison with Sinatra is helpful. While both have distinctive, powerful and note-perfect voices, Sinatra has a talent for phrasing that Walker doesn't. This points to why Walker is a successful songwriter (successful through the lens of history, that is) and less so as a song interpreter; he's less able to make something of a song unless it's written to already fit his style. Brel's work, for example, is both dark and theatrical--where Brel applied a hurried, panicked tone, Walker could make the notes soar with his powerful voice. Walker is limited as an interpreter but an able writer for himself.

That limitation means that, since Walker was no longer writing songs, he had to be very particular about which songs he picked to record. As important as the musical style was the topical style. Sinatra established a musical persona that ranged from celebratory (though less so than Dean Martin) to heartbroken (though not desperate). By the end of the 60s he had added a strain of wistful humility, the tone of an older man looking back at life and the world. 

Walker's musical persona had contempt for the world and felt that love was only a temporary salve against the horrors of life and made it worse once it inevitably ended. To sing what he does on "We Could Be Flying" is so out of character as to be jarring. 

A disregard for his own limitations and his persona is the strongest quality of the "wilderness years" albums. Listen to the mind-boggling choice of covering Bill Wither's "Ain't No Sunshine" on the same album:

I mentioned, when comparing the Walker Brothers with the Righteous Brothers, that Walker has absolutely no soul in his voice. Why then, does he cover a song that is arguably all soul? Wither's original is stripped down to its expressive basics, putting the spotlight on Wither's vocal styling and emotion. Walker's sounds like Tom Jones' Las Vegas opening act. He compounded the mistake by covering Wither's "Use Me," as well.

Thankfully, Walker's primary output was denatured countrypolitan, taking an already plastic production style and mainstreaming it even further. I say "thankfully" because it doesn't inspire the listener to reach through the speakers to clamp a hand over his mouth. Jerry Reed's "You're Young and You'll Forget," from We Had It All:

Even more than improper song choices, Scott's lost years output is marked by his disconnection from his work. What we are hearing is pure singing skill with zero passion. "Sundown," made popular by Gordon Lightfoot, from the same album:

Walker's first album without originals from this period, The Moviegoer, has a few tracks in which he sounds engaged but it's cold comfort to fans of "Such a Small Love," which shows his vocals at their most dramatic. 

Walker is also a bit more lively (but nowhere near his peak) on the first two albums he recorded with for the Walker Brothers reunion in 1975. Here's the title track from the first album, No Regrets:

What an odd song. It sounds as though the band, even when the guitar solo starts, is in a room next door, while Scott is crooning right in one's ear. It sounds like he's barely opening his mouth.

But at least it's a proper Scott Walker song. He's singing about waking up in an empty home alone and waiting for the dawn, which is about as Scott Walker-y as it gets.

The next Walker Brothers' album was Lines, a weaker collection than No Regrets. He sounds more engaged than in his previous three solo albums. Here's the title track:

Alienation, regret and some actual belting--it's not much, but we'll take it.

The Walker Brothers reunion got a good deal of attention but the releases were not interesting enough to keep it, especially consider what kind of years those were for British pop, with David Bowie and Elton John at their full power. By the time they started their third reunion album, no one cared.

Which is the reason Scott was able to do something so remarkable with it.

"Edgy" or the Canary in the Coalmine?

Call it the newest terror of the non-establishment right:  re-entryism:

Edgiest political position you can take: Things actually aren’t that bad, and in fact some things are quite nice. The US government is stable and not evil, resources are abundant and people are living longer and happier lives than they have in the past.

This from The Right Stuff, which has lately been encouraging engagement with the conservative establishment.

This standpoint reveals an odd, perhaps disturbing similarity in all of the narratives, both mainstream and edgisphere.  They all share an underlying need for a villain, for opposition, for hatred.  We have to be *this* close to utter annihilation.  It doesn’t matter that our world offers abundant material wealth and almost limitless means for one to find self-actualization, that in many ways all of this posturing is vanity, actually being content in any way is unthinkable.

Michael Annisimov faced this several months ago when he had an online debate. He was armed to the teeth with arguments for monarchy but was stymied by the question, "What's so bad that we have to change everything?" (That's the impression I got, anyway.)

I think the agitation within the non-establishment right is a matter of a few things. The first is that the opinions expressed over here have been suppressed. The Internet has allowed these opinions to be heard again.

The second comes from my personal sense that we're overextended in all areas. Take the first statement's proposition that the "US government is stable and not evil." "Evil," of course, is a strong statement but I feel that we've foolishly tried to control the world. 28 Sherman has done a great job of explaining US foreign policy of the Cold War (and for a while afterward) as a protection racket. It's not a noble system but at least it's pragmatic. You make sure we have cheap access to your exports and we'll make sure that regional disputes settle in your favor.

Clinton seemed to wrestle with the notion, but Bush and Obama both dove fully into the idea that the US should use its power to impose our ethereal ideals of social perfection. If we were arrogant before, it was an arrogance of strength. We currently have the arrogance of a self-righteous busybody, taking to the global stage to shame African nations about their laws against homosexuality. The former has to be respected while the latter brings only contempt. The former earns the enmity of the weak, who cannot battle with the powerful. The latter earns the enmity of the powerful, who resent being lectured about their petty failings.

America has less of a need to relate well with other countries than, say, the Czech Republic. We're mostly isolated and abundant in resources. But the assumptions of those in power--and those that put them there--are just as foolish as those that drive foreign policy.

The life of Obamacare is a great example of the weaknesses of our current dynamic. The bill was powered through Congress as its most prominent supporters claimed that it had to be passed in order to "find out what's in it." These supporters made a (somewhat pathetic) march of triumph and then claimed that they were victims of racial slurs as they did so. The bill that was signed into law was the creation of an unprecedented legal innovation providing a shortcut past the Constitution. Its provisions have been delayed and altered by extra-legal means. The roll-out of the central website (outsourced to Canada) was a disaster caused by lack of meaningful supervision. Throughout the entire process, those that controlled it pointed their fingers at their opponents, claiming that they were the cause of all the problems. Facts and numbers have been spun so much that there is no telling what the consequences are.

I'm not an end-of-the-worlder. My position has long been that the assumptions we've taken on since the "long march through institutions" are wrong. At its most fundamental, our assumption is that human society can be organized on strictly rational grounds. All difficulties are either the fault of not enough "logic" or Kulaks, who must be driven out.

The system, what we've termed the Cathedral, rewards not results but a determined fervor. "He's a son-of-a-bitch but he gets the job done," is no longer acceptable--one must conform to the assumptions. But adherence to an ideology means lesser adherence to reality. Were the architects behind the Obamacare roll-out hired for their effectiveness or their party affiliation?

The problem with the progressive assumptions is not just that they are unrealistic. It's that they allow for no feedback. The answer to every setback is, "More of the same, only twice as hard," and "It's that redneck's fault. Get him!" One can't argue with that; in their minds, it's the people that fail the theory, not the other way around.

Classical conservatism says that if we halt all attempts at "improvement," then we'll be okay. In some respects, I agree. Not because this system is pretty good and will work if we stop tinkering with it. Instead, if we somehow manage to halt all top-down change, then we can start working around it, forming new traditions. Americans have always been a resourceful and charitable people; left alone to make our own way, we will find a way to be successful and fair without the scolding of professors and bureaucrats.

But, when progressivism fails, its response is to seize more power and more control. After all, the theory wasn't practiced properly and, besides, an immoral enemy got in the way. If we had the power to do things right, and to smote the enemy, then we'd really see how great the theory is.

The agitation from the "edgisphere" is because we are squandering the social, moral and financial capital built up from eons of traditional arrangements and it won't stop until it's all gone. The end of progressivism will be when there are no excuses left. One by one, we've kicked the foundations of society out from underneath us; the non-establishment right is crying out, "Hey, we need those!"

The foundation they kick at hardest is that valuing effectiveness over zealotry. The question at hand is:  How long before the same people who devised the Affordable Care Act are in charge of the highways? How long before they become small-claims court judges? Do you think they'll do any better at that then they have at sweeping national reform?

There's always a chance that each debacle will wake a few up to the fact that their beliefs aren't realistic. One can either choose to double-down on one's ideology or reject it. Maybe someday we'll hear them say, "I don't care what his politics are, he's the best bridge inspector we've got and we need him."

But I doubt it. The progressive mentality is that all of this, all this civilization and organization and infrastructure, just happened naturally. Here we are, in one of the most technologically advanced and wealthiest nations in history--"It took nothing for me to get here, so it should take nothing for me to maintain it."

Go visit a third-world former British colony some time and you'll see the result of that thinking.

The US government is stable in the way a 700 pound man is stable. So stable that, when he inevitably dies, you won't be able to move him and have to let him rot away.

Is it all that bad? Of course not, because all of the national and international horror show is just a performance viewed from the back row. America might lose out for influence in the Ukraine but that won't effect how your streetlights work. The realities of your life as a citizen aren't in Washington but all around you, right where your sitting.

Is the world collapsing? Well, the part of the world that doesn't work. Is it going to effect us? Probably, but we won't be alone. And when the new bridge inspector shows up, you'll know he's an idiot--because you looked in his eyes--and plan accordingly.

Transactional Love

Bryce LaLiberte is probably the best example of neoreaction's tendency toward enthusiasm over rigor but he makes a good point over at Social Matter:

While in the past one generally had a guarantee that their romantic partner would live and die with them, the breaking up of relationships is now the norm. The effect of this is neither inconsequential nor non-negligible, yet we rarely analyze it as a social ill, practically discounting heartbreak as not a real problem deserving of a solution. Yet the costs of heartbreak are tangible and for a majority of people heartbreak plays a role in the onset of mental disorders, a decreased pleasure from love and romance, and an eternal fear of ever becoming attached and letting someone else have power over your emotional state. As such, we withdraw from each other, pursuing sexual relations as though the emotional element might be sanitized. Recovery from heartbreak changes a person, and while they might come out better for it in certain material ways, there will always linger that unease at being asked to trust someone.

By the time one reaches thirty, most everyone that's single is emotionally damaged. Some have been heartbroken and avoid making emotional attachments the way one learns to avoid touching a hot stove. Others become emotionally callous.

Manosphere writers have lately made a point of highlighting articles in which female writers announce that they're "ready for a nice guy." This is especially sad. Red pill writers point out that the women's sexual market value has expired and that a woman whose body is well-known to a surfeit of men is less than attractive.

But there's also the condition known as being an "alpha widow." Though the woman has settled down--and settled--for the proverbial beta provider, she still dreams of the lotharios of the past. Whether the yearning is sexual or emotional, that circuit has been burned out; it will never fire for the man with whom she condescended to spend her life.

Men do a little better with experience. If the man at the end of his peak decides to settle down, he has a more objective measurement of what will make him happy than a woman's, her preference is for being emotionally overwhelmed. While a man decides that he wants a woman who is, say, attractive, cheerful and loyal, a woman wants to be swept away by her partner. She may find a man that meets her checklist--good job, good with kids--but she'll always be tempted by the possibility of rapture.

Either way, the relationship can shade into becoming transactional, the way thrown ball is drawn towards the ground. Both the over-experienced man and woman become self-centered--the relationship is a method for obtaining what they emotionally desire. The old definitions of marriage and family, of being a part of a whole, of union, are harder to achieve.

That's not to say that the majority of marriages pre-Sexual Revolution were two becoming one, but the culture pointed us in that direction. The message was, if you are unsatisfied, turn toward your relationships. The answer isn't out among the mass of strangers but within yourself and how you relate to those closest to you.

Our current understanding tells us that we are all self-contained objects, extracting our needs from the environment around us, billiard balls bouncing against one another. Two people enter a relationship because it is mutually beneficial; they part when the good feelings dry up.

Each sex is suspicious of the other, and the assumption that the relationship will end, while simultaneously continuing it as though it might end in a lifelong marriage, alienates the self from his most primal urges to belong to another, to have another to protect and call his own.

I touched on that balancing act the other day. The definition of what a sexual relationship is has been thrown away so everyone chases exactly what they want at the moment, just as the alpha widows above say, "I am now officially pursuing a long-term relationship." That one's desires may change from day to day isn't considered.

The old dynamic was that the husband and wife were at the core of the family. Families were at the core of the community. The communities were at the core of the state. Society had a million tiny anchors, as small as the house you grew up in. Now, that house is just the rack from which the balls roll out to bounce against one another.

Fritz Springmeier: Illuminati Apologist?

I haven't dug into the story too much, but Fritz Springmeier, co-author of our book series, has recently written a piece on his blog sounding awfully enthused about his dialogue with a "bloodline leader"--namely Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, of the conspiracy-to-run-the-world Rothschilds.

More here. And Springmeier's response here.

Your Guide to Monarch Mind Control - Chapter Seven

The Illuminati Formula Used to Create an Undetectable Total Mind Controlled Slave
By Fritz Springmeier and Cisco Wheeler

Introduction
Chapter One
Chapter Two
Chapter Three
Chapter Four
Chapter Five

Chapter Six

CHAPTER 7 THE SCIENCE OF STRUCTURING

Most people are still unfamiliar with multiplicity and their rigid thinking is challenged by the concept that one mind can have several personalities.

... 

On the other hand, they can understand perfectly that a computer can wall off sections of memory, and they can understand perfectly that a single human mind is superior to all the computers in the world assembled together, and yet they can’t let go of their basic simplistic foundational understanding of life that one mind has only one personality.

This means, of course, that we are about to re-enter the internal world of the mind-controlled slave.

The majority of the chapter is written by Cisco Wheeler. She offers an occasional personal glimpse of her own internal landscape. For a more coherent and broader discussion, read an interview with her here.

The result of splitting personalities via trauma is a shattered individual. In order to program and then use the alters the chaos must be put into order. The system will ultimately have hundreds of alter personalities within the internal while only a dozen or so “hold the body,” or interact with the world.

[I]t is suggested that [we] approach it as a city of persons. A city has both a unity and a multiplicity about it. It also must carry out certain basic functions if it is to survive. All cities have administrations and city planners, and justice, and police, and garbage collectors, and entertainment, etc. The early Illuminati researchers soon accepted that their victim of multiple personalities is in essence a city of people, and so they used that understanding to construct in the victim’s head, using the victim’s creativity under torture and drugs to create all the structures and features that accompany a geological land.

The citizens of the internal world have just the same kind of interaction as residents of a real city. Some are aware of each other while other others know of alters that do not know of them. Some alters share thoughts, which may also be a part of city life, depending on your definition of true love.

The public has found Wizard of Oz or Alice in Wonderland programming riveting but Wheeler’s personal internal landscape is much less whimsical, though more sinister. Landmarks include concentration camps, “thousands of doors with red-hot knobs,” mazes, snake pits and Torpedo Town.

Those alters that take the body, or “fronts,” are given much more pleasant landscapes. They “might see their world as a basketball court, or several houses, or a dollhouse, or a street.”

While this is how the alter personalities see their world, the programmers have arranged it all much more precisely:

A standard Illuminati System is built like a 13x13x13 cube with an elevator shaft running up and down from the bottom to the top.

…

On the chart, the programmer will have a square on a grid where he will record the cult name, the front name, the alter’s alphanumeric pull up code and its grid number.

Even organized into a three-dimensional chart, the reality is still messy. Alters are not simply single-unit personalities but a feathery collection of shadows:

For instance, a Gatekeeper alter will have a shadow alter fragment that holds its fear, one that holds its pain, one that holds its anger, and many that hold its memories of abuse and torture.

Wheeler runs through the different types of alters again. Most of these we’ve already discussed, although we learn that large groups of “fragments” are given uniforms and formed into the “Egyptian Army.” Another new arrival are the “scrambling” alters who make incoming information confusing.

The chapter continues, long-windedly, with another run-down of the systems by which alters are organized. While Wheeler isn’t clear, a system like the “carousel” structure operates parallel to the aforementioned grid structure. An alter may be “placed” in a coordinate on the grid but also part of the smaller carousel system, as if the coordinate were an apartment and the carousel their social circle.

Finally, it appears that S&W return writing as a duo to pad the chapter with yet another set of programming models from the media. The film Labyrinth is said to be an example of “princess” programming. They also discuss the use of Star Wars and Star Trek, although they seem to have trouble distinguishing between the two.

Chapter 8 deals with the physical aspects of programming on the brain.

Meeting Buddha on the Road: The Red Pill Shades Purple

The saddest element of our information age is how quickly coalitions can form only to crash and burn immediately. Take the Red Pill.

I moved back to my hometown almost five years ago after living in a city for more than a decade. I’ve settled down, starting a family in a town with just over 10,000 residents. I’m no longer mixing with the libertines and social strivers. The red pill movement has been more an object of study than a new gospel for me.

I found it exciting. Finally, everyday men were discussing truths the previous generation had to find out for themselves. Some never have.

I’m of the previous generation. The sexual revolution was finally the new paradigm. The Moral Majority had been the last populist pushback against the new sexual morality, with a weak echo in the GOP’s “family values” platform in the early 90s. License had triumphed.

For the sake of argument, let’s agree that traditional morality at least restrained the most damaging aspects of unrestricted sexuality. I’m not here to parade the classic arguments of teen pregnancies and STDs. What I’m most interested in are the personal interaction aspects.

What traditional morality restrained was the male’s roving eye and the female’s fickle heart. All romantic roads were to lead to monogamous marriage. If an individual didn’t wish to face legal, social and familial disapproval, he or she would have to learn to manage their extra-marital desires. In the best scenario, they would learn to love one another more deeply and maturely.

The sexual revolution legitimized--but did not create, libertines will remind us--romantic relationships other than the marriage path. One-night stands, serial monogamy, short-term polygamy, casual hook-ups, friends-with-benefits are all available and applauded.

As proud as we all are about our sophisticated expressions of lust, some problems arose. For one, no one ever seems to know exactly what kind of relationship into which they’ve entered. Worse, if one party pushes for clarification, the magic disappears. “What are we doing here?,” is such a fun-killing question that it’s become a cliche. Worst is the unspoken suspicion that one’s partner has a different idea of the relationship than you do.

The red pill deals specifically with another problem:  that the nature of women, once traditionally concealed under flattering constraints, has been more recently rationalized as a natural good in and of itself. The old pedestal of innate female nobility is still there, only women now believe that wherever they step, the pedestal is beneath them. They are told that whatever feelings they have are correct, without need for adjustment. We forget that the pedestal was also a boundary of what was acceptable.

Red pill theory tells us that what we’ve been told about women's natural goodness is untrue, that we’ve been believing the lies women tell themselves. 

My opinion is that the most important truth of the red pill is in that neologism, hypergamy. Women want the best possible man they can get.

One aspect of this I haven’t seen discussed--and what I think is behind the techniques red pillers advocate--is how this plays out internally. How does a woman know that she has found her best possible mate?

When she feels like she just barely qualifies. 

When a man engages in what’s called “beta” behavior, he is communicating that she qualifies for his affection and does so without any effort. When one practices “bad boy” behavior, he is telling her that her hold on his attention is tenuous; she’s just barely good enough for him. If she’s just barely good enough for him, he must be pretty special. Her emotions are parallel to that of a student struggling to keep up in a prestigious school or a neophyte among a team of high-powered salesmen. The slightest bit of approval produces a glow that no number of “You’re beautiful to me,” comments could.

It goes without saying that this is simply a trick and the source of the “Chicks only dig assholes,” lament. The shiftless but handsome man is triggering the cues that tell women, “This is a good one,” without actually being a good one. But women view the world through their feelings first and their reason second. When their heart is telling them one thing and their mind another, they naturally follow the former.

I’m starting to believe that the red pill community, for all the condensed wisdom it has assembled, is ultimately worse than the even more autistic PUA community. While the PUA discussions looked like the manual for a space shuttle, their compendium of techniques, plays and other discrete abstractions were separate from their personas. That is to say, the red pill aims its acolytes at personal transformation, to attain the internal state of the “alpha male.”

No one has done a better job of outlining the problems with red pill theory than The Rawness in his Reader Mail series. His argument is that re-forming oneself to red pill standards is to become a compensatory narcissist. 

To paraphrase it with my own commentary, the female half of the sexual market is now populated with women whose tendencies toward solipsism and hypergamy have been unshackled. In order to compete with other men and present themselves as the best of the options, recovering betas (Rawness points out that “beta” behavior is actually co-dependent behavior) assume the impervious facade of the bad boy. 

The Rawness doesn’t consider this a healthy reaction. The switch from being co-dependent (“You are more important than me”) to being faux-narcissist (“I am more important than you.”) is just the other side of the same coin. I consider it being an expert on the rules of a children’s playground.

This weekend, I had the opportunity to visit a nearby city with an energetic nightlife. Hundreds of people were out on the streets walking from bar to bar. I got the chance to see the living results of red pill thinking.

I was with my girlfriend with whom we have an infant (I am aware that I am in violation of my faith, so no need to point it out) and her sister. We had just come from a family get-together celebrating her engagement to her long-time boyfriend.

My first experience came when we left the quiet jazz bar filled with adults and entered a multi-story nightclub. I left the women to visit the bathroom. I came back to find two separate gentlemen triangulated around them. They didn’t face the dancefloor and the DJ like everyone else. They were at the accepted forty-five degree angle and looking at the ladies alternately directly and from the corner of their eyes.

I already have my own counter-technique in place. I motioned over my girlfriend and directed her to kiss me on the cheek. I counted to myself, “Five...Four...Three…,”and both gentlemen broke their stances. To my surprise, one walked over to the other and began talking into his ear; they were a twosome.

The second instance was at another bar. It was mostly empty--our end of the night spot. There were no women around the bar, though I assumed that there were a few in the booths farther in the back of the restaurant. We took a bar-side table.

Once again, I stepped away. When I returned, some dude was talking up my girlfriend and two more were approaching her sister. I put myself into the conversation with my girlfriend. She was being coldly resistant, which did not slow him down, but, seeing how I was being friendly (pretending he wasn’t doing what he was), he moved over to talk to me.

My goal was to get him to move on, so I told him who he was talking to. “That’s my girlfriend and that’s her sister, who is engaged.” “So you’re saying you have a claim here?,” he responded.

“You’re in the wrong place,” I told him. “Look around. There’s no women here. If you’re looking for action, go across the street.” I pointed to the club and the crowd of people in front of it.

I wish I had asked him, “Did you take the red pill or something?,” but my attention focused to the sister. The two guys weren’t taking her hints and she had to be pointedly rude, three or four times, to get them to leave.

(I haven’t even mentioned the peacocking guy with the rose-print wife beater, six-inch beard and perfectly-coiffed hair. Or the dozens of men who entered the various places alone and maneuvered for position. Or the scores who scanned the rooms with a look of desperation masked as aloofness.)

What’s wrong with you guys?

Being an impervious egomaniac is not the key to happiness. Making cold-calls to get booty-calls has zero dignity. 

One of the supposed crimes of the Catholic Church is that it prevented the common man from reading the Bible for himself. It was kept in Latin, read aloud in service without the people understanding the words, and then interpreted for them.

But look what happened when it was translated into the vulgate. One person after another decided that they alone understood the meaning of the text and Christianity split into a thousand different sects. Some have been more valuable to the Faith than others; some have ended like the Branch Davidians in Waco.

Likewise, the red pill has been the distillation of principles from the PUA/Seduction community. Perhaps things were better before because the average red-piller can’t seem to handle the truths behind effective techniques.

For example, here’s something that’s been lost from that acronym-heavy bygone era:  IOI--indicators of interest.

The men that vultured my companions hadn’t received any IOIs. Yet, they approached, confident that their “alpha game” was tight enough to bend the will of their prey. Once they were rejected, they soldiered on until they were insulted, clinging to their vision of an unperturbed bad boy.

Red pill men, do you realize that you are creating a romantic arms race? Please realize that women are not always out in public to get it on. In fact, I’d say that the majority of them aren’t. Your unwelcome approaches and your inability to hear the word “No,” can only result in stronger defenses. It’s only a matter of time before women respond with a punch in the face--you are exhausting the effectiveness of rudeness.

Why aren’t you able to spot the ones who are looking for action? First of all, they are not sitting in a quiet bar talking to their friends. They will be looking around all the time. They will be dressed provocatively, in one way or another. They will be out on the dancefloor. They’ll be squeezing themselves between men at the bar.

How many fractures and exposed frauds have populated the manosphere? How many pixelated alphas found in the comments and forums are actually alpha in real life? Why hasn’t the oft-discussed formation of red pill rules for long-term relationships ever come together?

Because, at the ground level, the manosphere is full of children who grab a piece of wisdom that appeals to them and miss everything else.

The saddest part is that the biggest bloggers associated with the red pill aren’t even telling you to behave this way. What they do best is explain how to avoid blowing the whole interaction because you can’t keep your feelings in check. They talk about abundance mentality and being secure enough that the shit-tests don’t cause you to melt into a puddle of emotions. They don’t talk about being a robot with an erection whose only mission is to spit game and ignore all other input.

Maybe even a year ago, one could make the claim that the red pill was about rediscovering masculinity in an age that denied its unalterable existence. Now it’s reduced to hollow braggadocio and arguments whether it’s about self-improvement or getting ass. Have you ever seen anyone ask, “I’d like to know how to work on my own car. Where do I start?” Why would you ask these morons?

They don’t discuss much that’s typically male. Where they once could have been men exchanging advice about how to be a man--an ancient practice abandoned by most of our Baby Boomer fathers--they instead shame one another for not going to the gym enough and not getting a STEM degree.

Men and women are fundamentally different. The message of our time is that they are not, but the information-elite won’t let us take women down from the pedestal. And, when you are trying to transform yourself into a cocky, unruffled player, you are putting them on a pedestal. 

My generation was told that women wanted, to paraphrase, beta behavior. All the romantic comedy stuff that would get the average guy arrested as a stalker. The resultant man was whiny and needy but at least he was himself (the most unimproved version of himself). Today’s post-red-pill man lives only inside his own mind, creating a world of supreme ego and measuring it with his dick. It’s as pathetic as what came before.

If only Roosh, Heartiste and the rest had written in Latin.

"Modern Family" - Is It Modern Enough?

The title of this Indiewire article should tell you everything:  "Is 'Modern Family' Still Making an Impact After Five Seasons?"

Oh, is that what it's supposed to be doing?

To start, the series, as many others have in the past and will likely do so in the future, has lost some of its initial luster. The luster referred to here, of course, was originally derived from the inclusion of minorities as central characters on a network sitcom -- particularly the Colombian (played by Sofia Vergara) and, more notably, the gay couple (played by Jesse Tyler Ferguson and Eric Stonestreet) raising an adopted Asian baby. While the cast consists primarily of non-minorities, the combination of the two made for one of the most unique ensembles in television comedy. Not only that, but the first season's ratings showed that such a refreshing notion of family was in fact welcomed by audiences, with the show's ratings increasing quite well over the following two seasons. (my emphasis)

One can hear the wind whistling through the portion of writer Ziyad Saadi's brain that is devoted to forming his own thoughts. Using his logic, the most popular show on television would be an exhibit of all the flavors of ethnicity and sexual persuasion.

Modern Family is falling behind in the race to "break ground:"

[W]hile the show started out riding a tidal wave of critical and ratings success, the last two seasons have dwindled on both those fronts, which leads to the question of 'why?' To answer that, one would need to dissect the ground which "Modern Family" was bold enough to break
...
[W]ith shows such as "House of Cards," "Game of Thrones" and above all else, "Orange Is the New Black" all prominently featuring minorities and/or strong independent women, the hit ABC sitcom seems quite tame in comparison. "Black" even has a male-to-female transgender as a significant member of the ensemble and has developed the character in ways that are unprecedented.

This is the gold standard of media reporting these days:  "Are there minorities?" "Are there enough minorities?" "Are they portrayed as brilliant, sexy saints?" "Are they brilliant and sexy and saint-like enough?"

I point these out not because they should surprise anyone but because these social justice warriors have ruined cultural criticism. I like reading about the arc of a sitcom. I just don't think that Modern Family's (apparent) problems have anything to do with "breaking ground." In fact, it sounds as though the decline is because of a willingness to kowtow to those activists who have decided that the show isn't doing enough:

The writers seem to be making the attempt to mend these issues this season. In regards to the women on the show, Claire is being groomed to take over her father's business while Gloria's working class roots have been revealed and credited with justifying her reward of a more comfortable life. Even Cam and Mitchell's relationship is headed for a grand wedding in the season finale, with the dissolution of California's Prop 8 being worked into the season five premiere. But the chances of the characters' situational improvements ultimately reviving the show's image seem increasingly bleak.

Is it really that complex? A good sitcom, like a good film or any other television show, is a combination of good acting, good writing and good execution, with a sprinkle of unforeseeable magic mixed in. If it were as simple as violating norms, I Love Lucy would have ended its run with a Mestizo transgender furry as Lucy's best friend and neighbor.

Even Saadi knows that he's bullshitting:

Ultimately, it may very well be the fact that "Modern Family" no longer breaks new ground or causes a stir that proves the biggest testament to its iconic nature. A show that, five years ago, shocked viewers is now barely making them flinch. It's become increasingly apparent that people have accepted its unconventional nature and presently view it merely as "the norm."

I don't remember anyone being "shocked." If anyone noticed at all, they rolled their eyes; "Network television presenting an alternative family? That's the last thing I would have expected of Hollywood."

Incidentally, Modern Family used its "ground-breaking" status as a cover. How many shows portray their female characters as arrogant and irrational and, Heaven forbid, often even wrong?

Does Being Realistic Mean Supporting Republicans?

Ghoul at The Right Stuff discusses "The Libertarian Problem:"

Libertarians are nothing but 2.0 hippies. World peace, free people, and lots of marijuanas. The 60′s kids never left. They simply adopted a capitalist twist to further push their utopian ideologies. 

Most libertarians I've known--and myself, when I considered the affiliation--are people that believe that there's no reason why leftist social permissiveness should be linked to an animosity toward wealth. The more astute might realize that a healthy economy is necessary to enjoy the previously-proscribed pleasures. Starving people don't consume pornography.

I must ask you to stop fantasizing about your alternative right-wing universe. I must ask you to stop LARPing, and start doing something that actually pushes for market values, and for traditional ideals. I’m asking all of you to stop with your political melodrama, and just be a damn conservative. Yes, I know that’s rather boring, and it doesn’t quite match up with your super special Hitler revivalism, or your anarchistic techno-utopias, but you are going to have to compromise for your values. I’m not asking you to stop gloating about how much philosophy and economic reading you’ve done, as I know that means a super-duper lot to many of you, and if you simply refer to yourself as “conservative”, people might think you’re uneducated. However, you are not “on to something brilliant” by taking your reading so seriously that you deliberately try to stunt the GOP organization. You’re just making things harder for some real American right-wing organization.

While I generally agree, I'm on the fence about his conclusion. When are conservatives allowed to admit they have an abusive relationship with the GOP? Anger, separation, forgiveness and yet another attempt to "work things out"--all one-sided. When is enough enough?

A conspiracy theorist could say that the Republican party looks like false opposition, collecting and neutralizing everyone who doesn't agree with the progressive agenda by offering them an ineffective outlet. And the higher-ups make a good living crying out, "No!," and shrugging their shoulders when the progressives win again.

One of the excised portions of my pieces about the Philosopher's Stone--yes, there were parts I left out--was that the left all shares the same Philosopher's Stone, taken from boiled-down Marx and Robespierre:  The successful are villains and we must use force to eradicate villainy. All that's left to argue about is the definitions of "successful" (which has devolved to "privilege"), "force" (regulation, social-media shaming or the guillotine) and "eradicate" (forced to resign, the gulag or the Ukranian famine).

Whether one is an intersectional feminist, a race-baiter or a window-smashing left-anarchist, they share that same assumption. The right is everyone who doesn't agree, which means that we usually don't agree with one another.

Is it any wonder we're exhorted to "Enjoy the Decline?" Leftists share a base-line assumption. Rightists do not, except that the dominant assumption is wrong. What hope is there? Is the answer to hold our nose and shake hands with the Republican Party once again?

There is hope, but not at the scale this article assumes. The old quote is that everyone is conservative about what they know best.

So, how are things in your neighborhood? Any leftists barking orders?

Want a national assumption on which to build a counter-consensus? Try this:  Decentralization is better.

More on the Shape of Democracy

A few weeks back, Captain Capitalism got himself all worked up about "The Unrelenting Ego of Leftists":

The problem for leftists and politicians in general suffering from CRA ["Chronic Regulation Addiction"] is that they fail to realize that there's nothing wrong with doing NOTHING.  That maybe over the past 250 years an adequate amount of laws and regulations were already passed and this body of legislation needs only mere and occasional tweaking.  No they "must do something" and so they're always on the hunt, always on a crusade to right and imaginary or made-up wrong. 

Cap argues that this is because of the personal failings of leftists. My argument has been that leftism is an inherent part of democracy. It is the politicization of petty personal feelings--envy, rage, and self-pity stitched together as a movement.

Secondly, another inherent quality of democracy is a drive to constantly change. How many people have been elected on the platform that they're not going to change anything while in office?

Democracy is always in motion. The most powerful force behind that motion is the accumulated desires of the individuals within the mob. The mass media stokes that force through stimulating the individual's outrage. The outrage is harnessed to expand government power. Leftism is the centrifugal force of democracy. At best, the centripetal counter of conservatism is considered an obstacle. At worst, we believe it shouldn't even exist . And so we spiral.

Your Guide to Monarch Mind Control - Chapter Six

The Illuminati Formula Used to Create an Undetectable Total Mind Controlled Slave
By Fritz Springmeier and Cisco Wheeler

Introduction
Chapter One
Chapter Two
Chapter Three
Chapter Four
Chapter Five

CHAPTER 6 THE USE OF ELECTRONICS & ELECTRICITY

The go-to gag regarding crackpots and conspiracy theorists is that they wear tin-foil hats to keep unwanted signals from reaching their brain. S&W introduce us to exactly which device we should fear.

Patent number 4,858,612 details a plan for a hearing aid that uses microwaves rather than the typical tiny speaker. In WWII, people who crossed in the path of radar stations reported hearing clicking and buzzing sounds that did not come from any physical source. The noises were the result of microwaves stimulating the auditory nerve.

The device in the patent seems to be more of a patent troll claim than an actual invention. The design is attaching a microphone to an as-yet-undeveloped apparatus that converts sound to microwaves. How the sound is converted and whether microwaves are capable of stimulating the auditory nerve beyond simple noise is undetermined. In other words, 1. Attach microphone to magical device, 2. ????, 3. PROFIT!

S&W, like most conspiracy theorists, believe that their foes have superhuman abilities. They find this patent to be proof that dark forces have developed a method of planting thoughts into their victims' minds. One point is clear: If they do use microwaves, then a tin-foil hat would be very effective.

Much of Chapter Six is devoted to reproducing the patent but other information about electronics frames it. Unsurprisingly, the main idea is that electronics and electricity are used to traumatize their victims. The book is increasingly a catalog of torture fantasies. Just as one would expect, stun guns, cattle prods and electric shock collars are used to send the slaves "over the rainbow."

We also see the conspiracy-minded at work.

One victim who spent time talking to Fritz Springmeier reported how they had repeatedly tried to trick him into going to free hotel rooms and other traps, where they tried to bombard his head with the idea that he should sell drugs. He cleverly dismantled their devices which they hid in the ceilings and other locations in these rooms to protect himself from the thoughts they were trying repeatedly to beam into his head.

Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? Very clever, indeed.

S&W scour reports of new technology in order to feed their paranoia. Devices implanted in the body to transmit medical data are, of course, much more sinister than the manufacturers claim. The meditation machines that were advertised in the back pages of magazines during the early 90s--goggles that flashed lights and colors in a rhythm purported to sync one's brainwaves--are one hundred percent effective when used to twist the mind toward black-hearted ends but, by all reports, completely unable to create the sensation of peace they were advertised to produce.

Chapter Seven, God help us, is further information about the internal structure by which alter personalities operate. A quick glance does not reveal much information that hasn't already been addressed but we soldier on.

Scott Walker: The First Solo Run - Originals

In 1967, the pop music world was set ablaze. The most important album of the rock era had been released and no one could believe what they were hearing. Journalists report that, wherever one went in London, one was sure to hear its music coming from the apartments one passed. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band's only drawback is that it's been played too many times for anyone to be amazed by it again.

Oh, a half-year later, Scott Walker's first solo album, Scott, was released. It had nothing to do with The Beatles whatsoever.

That's exciting all on its own. The Beatles' influence drapes over pop history like a psychedelic hair shirt. Combine them with Bob Dylan and you've got the source for three-quarters of the rock music produced since 1965. Scott Walker sounds nothing like them or their influences. He doesn't fit into the history of pop as we usually understand it.

One reason that he's a cult artist is because he was based in Britain. The UK, of course, is not some distant outpost of culture but it's not always easy to remember that their pop scene, as transformative as it was for American listeners, came from very different sources than the rock'n'roll of the States. Rock'n'roll's origins were more or less spontaneous, a combination of high-energy R&B and similarly peppy proto-country music. When the sound came to the UK, it was just that--another sound. The older pop forms of music hall and the singer-with-a-big-band style took longer to fade.

Since this orchestral pop is what interested Walker, it makes sense that he found a home in England, staking out a claim to a fading genre. Keeping the flame of a dying style alive is not the only reason he's a cult artist. Like Frank Zappa, or Love, or the Velvet Underground, the individual parts of his music fit together in a way fundamentally different from that of the mainstream.

That lack of Beatle's influence is one part of the alien quality of his work. As written in the previous post, Walker's primary songwriting influence wasn't Chicago blues or Buddy Holly but Jacques Brel, the French chanson singer whose songs were semi-theatrical performances. Here's Walker's most Brel-like piece, "The Girls From the Streets," from Scott 2:

Not only is the piece far removed from the likes of Dylan and The Beatles, its removed from its next-closest Anglophone kin, the works of Frank Sinatra and Tony Bennett. The documentary 30 Century Man discusses the interest 60s-era Scott had in modern classical composition but that's something I know very little about. What I do know is that Walker takes a lyrical position that is profoundly horrified and disgusted at what it's portraying, a wealthy man taking a younger one out for a night of debauchery in a world where the poor are both desperate and depraved. It's not "She's Leaving Home."

Prostitution is central to another piece, "The Amorous Humphrey Plugg," which details the joy the titular Humphrey takes in escaping from his family to take up with whores, from the same album:

Take note of how Walker's music creates the sound of ecstatic rapture in the first song and joyous pride in the second, just as the johns are in the midst of their transgressions. Putting the darkest elements in the most thrilling and melodic points of the song is a technique Walker uses brilliantly in "The Electrician" a decade later.

The documentary makes a point of telling us that one key to Walker's success at this time was that his songs often depicted the parts of England that weren't Swinging London. He sang about the lives of sad middle- and working-class people whose illusory brushes with happiness damage them forever. Here's "Rosemary" from Scott 3:

It appears that the only happy moments in Rosemary's life is remembering the travelling salesman who bedded her, perhaps echoing the line in the Walker Brothers' "Orpheus:"  "Remember me/I've already forgotten you."

Even when the romance is at least intimate and ongoing, it's surrounded  by dirty vulgarity. In "Montague Terrace (In Blue)," from Scott, the couple shares an apartment building with a "bloated belching" man upstairs whose stomping "tear[s] the night," and a woman across the hall whose "thighs are full of tales to tell." The feeling one gets is not that their dreams of Montague Terrace are a future they expect but a fantasy shielding them from the filthy world around them.

Walker turns his everyday portraits of escape into the absurd with "Plastic Palace People," from Scott 2, in which young Billy floats above his town, held back by a string to his underwear. Beneath him, the "plastic palace people" dream too long and "Rip your face with lies:"

The theme that runs throughout Walker's work is that life is generally empty, with only waves of sexual rapture, memory, pain and existential dread punctuating the numbness. Take non-album B-side, "The Plague:"

Awake at night (another long-running theme), Walker's protagonist tries to remember "Lips on lips/And hips on hips/And ice and fire and gloom and glow." "When did they leave the man?," he asks.

With this attitude, it makes sense that Walker writes a song retelling the story of Ingmar Bergman's The Seventh Seal, albeit taking an amusing spaghetti-western musical approach:

"The Seventh Seal" is the opening song on Scott 4, generally considered to be his best album of this era. The previous albums (including one compiling music from his television series) were all very successful; Scott 2 was number one on the British album charts, temporarily displacing Dylan's John Wesley Harding.

Scott 4 was a flop. Many attribute this to it being credited to Walker's real last name, Engel. There's no denying that it was a serious personal blow to him. It was the first of his albums to be entirely original. Like the others, it's stylistically diverse. One standout is the jaunty "Hero of the War," detailing the pointless misery of a man who's been paralyzed in combat from the perspective of his mother:

One of the oddest cuts is "The Old Man's Back Again," a slinky number about the Soviet invasion that crushed the Prague Spring:

And here we start to see the legend of Scott Walker form. What the uniqueness of his solo work hides from the contemporary listener is that Walker was a fixture of British entertainment. The aforementioned television show was a variety program in which Walker sang duets with guests in front of stage sets. While it wasn't crass sensationalism of Sonny and Cher or the schmaltz of Andy Williams, Walker's show was in step with mainstream entertainment.

As one can imagine, the trappings of show biz success were troubling for a man prone to laying awake at night, trying to remember some moment of joy in his life. The failure of his first completely original work shook his confidence in his art.

He was able to write two-thirds of the next album, Til the Band Comes In, as he reexamined his career. Here's "Joe," a cocktail-lounge piano ditty about an old man dying alone:

The cheerfulness continues as Walker dissects all the shared misery that keeps humanity together as a war rages:

One of the most remarked-upon elements of the album is the way the Walker the man seems to vanish from the picture early on the second side. After one original tune after another, the last five songs are interpretations and of much lesser quality than his previous work.

This is what makes Walker's story so interesting. While his confidence was shattered and he turned to drink, he didn't disappear from the public eye. He simply stopped caring about what he was doing. He went through his paces, cutting albums of string-heavy MOR covers, holding a mid-level presence on the radio and obscuring the originality of his previous work with a thick layer of treacle.

Up next, Scott Walker's lost years.

Behind Blue Photo-receptors

If you want a good example of the leapfrogging loyalties of the Cathedral, check out The Atlantic's, Why Sci-Fi Keeps Imagining the Subjugation of White People.

Writer Noah Berlatsky writes almost totally from the perspective identifying with colonized people and alienated from the colonizers. I suppose that his Central European heritage makes him think he's neutral in the history of whites v. browns.

Then, there's this:

 In Terminator, as well, the fact that the robots are treating us as inhumanly as we treated them doesn't exactly create any sympathy. Instead, the paranoid fear of servants overthrowing masters just becomes a spur to uberviolence (as shown in Linda Hamilton's transformation from naïve good girl to paramilitary extremist). The one heroic reprogrammed Terminator, who must do everything John Connor tells him even unto hopping on one leg, doesn't inspire a broader sympathy for SkyNet. Instead, Schwarzenegger is good because he identifies with the humans totally, sacrificing himself to destroy his own people.

What?

Perhaps it was Skynet that Pete Townshend sang about in "Behind Blue Eyes."

This is where progressivism will lead you, folks, to sympathize with a genocidal computer on the basis that, Hey, at least he's not human.

At least we now know in what order we should be eliminated once our superiors arrive. Americans, British and Germans first. I'm sure that Berlatsky will be first in line after the last German is vaporized. I only hope that he gets his deepest wish, to shake his alien killer's hand and tell him how much he admires him, before he enters the death chamber.

The Philosopher's Stone Part Two: The Dimensions of a Cloud

As discussed in Part One, Esther Vilar has the markings by which we recognize feminists. Her “misogyny” can be more easily explained as envy of more romantically successful, less intelligent women. Her theory looks like a plan to turn the world upside down in the service of a single Argentinian-German writer.

And what she wants appears so minuscule compared to what she damns as the problem. While “Slut Power!” feminists want society to change so they can gain access to many men, Vilar wants a revolution so she can have a monogamous, jealous and faithful relationship with just one man.

Though I believe her arguments are weak, though I believe the whole of her vitriol is not in defense of men but in service to herself, I still recommend The Manipulated Man to nearly every man under forty.

The reason is this:  nearly every man would benefit from its perspective. TMM paints the relationship between a man and a woman as the cold exploitation of a pathetic fool. We should all spend a little time asking the question, “Am I a pathetic fool?” Especially so when it comes to women--nowhere does the male tendency towards idealization do as much personal damage.

A few might agree but I’m getting the impression that more would be puzzled at my recommendation. “Why would you tell someone to read a book based on flawed thinking?”

E-PRIME, abolishing all forms of the verb "to be," has its roots in the field of general semantics, as presented by Alfred Korzybski in his 1933 book, Science and Sanity. Korzybski pointed out the pitfalls associated with, and produced by, two usages of "to be": identity and predication. His student D. David Bourland, Jr., observed that even linguistically sensitive people do not seem able to avoid identity and predication uses of "to be" if they continue to use the verb at all. Bourland pioneered in demonstrating that one can indeed write and speak without using any form of "to be," calling this subset of the English language "E-Prime."

When Robert Anton Wilson first introduced me to E-Prime, I didn’t see its value. Everyone knows that language is a metaphor, right? I didn’t see a need to remind people that to say, “The apple is red,” is to say, “The apple absorbs the full spectrum of light and reflects only that wavelength that we agree to call ‘red.’”

But Wilson was right and I was wrong. We do need to be reminded that “the map is not the territory,” and often.

I recommend Vilar’s theory not because it is the capital-T Truth but because it is an enlightening perspective. Vilar, on the other hand, is quite sure that she has found the Philosopher’s Stone that makes all of the male/female problem comprehensible.

The philosopher's stone is a legendary substance, allegedly capable of turning inexpensive metals into gold. It was sometimes believed to be an elixir of life, useful for rejuvenation and possibly for achieving immortality. For a long time, it was the most sought-after goal in Western alchemy. In the view of spiritual alchemy, making the philosopher's stone would bring enlightenment upon the maker and conclude the Great Work.

My statement is this:  There is no Philosopher’s Stone, in any arena of human knowledge. 

E-Priming that statement, we should assume that there is no Philosopher’s Stone and that every theory that comes along should be thought of as a description and not a definition.

We see the folly of believing that we have created a definition--that we’ve pinned reality to a display board--in Vilar’s The Polygamous Sex.

Two of her assertions reveal that she hasn’t discovered the Philosopher’s Stone. The first is her analysis of biological imperatives. The second is her definition of love.

Vilar told us in TPS that humans have three drives:  to preserve one’s own life, to reproduce and to raise the offspring until they are independent.

The whole of her theory, from the first book to the last, rests on her assertion that the last two drives are entirely distinct from one another. But are they really?

Speaking biologically, one doesn’t rear offspring unless one has had sex. The mentor-protege relationship, as Vilar characterizes parenthood, is inextricably connected to sex.

I’m sure that Vilar has thousands of words available explaining why this connection is illusory, but that connection explains the development of the traditional monogamous family. It explains it more simply, too, than asserting that the family is only a female trick upon men.

Since Vilar is telling us--in so many words--that she has the Philosopher’s Stone of romantic relationships, just arguing the distinction makes her whole argument false. Truth is the absence of the false; she tells us that she has the truth.

If she had stopped writing at The Manipulated Man, that work may have become more than what it is now, which is a footnote to a footnote. If she had said, “Look at your love life from this perspective,” its value would be more obvious.

Instead, she tells the married man that he is being deceived by the one he loves, that he is a slave and, worst, that he is committing “pseudo-incest” each time he enjoys the marital bed. Not only that, she says she can prove it, as she pulls out a list of definitions.

But we have thousands of years of personal and theoretical descriptions of marriage. Our civilization (at least until the last few decades) has concluded that a monogamous marriage between a man and a woman is a net positive for everyone.

In response, Vilar waves her Philosopher’s Stone and cries that she has seen the Truth.

Vilar tells us that the reason that men commit infidelities is because their primary relationships are incestuous. Deep in their hearts, men are disgusted by this and turn to other women, seeking the pure sexual love Vilar describes.

That’s certainly one way to look at it. Our current accepted wisdom is that men are biologically driven to spread their seed far and wide because that is the best evolutionary reproductive strategy. Infidelity is natural and monogamy is unnatural.

Anonymous Conservative tweaks this theory. The urge to have sex with as many women as possible stems from an r-selected reproductive strategy. With abundant resources, the organism’s best path is to create many offspring and invest little energy raising them. The alternative is K-selection, in which organisms mate with fewer partners and devote more energy to raising offspring. This brings us back to the concept that the sex instinct and the nurturing instinct are linked.

At the very least, we can return to our original quibble with Vilar and say that, while raising offspring is completely linked to sex, the reverse is only occasionally true. The loose correlation of sex to children allows room for interpretation, but the two drives are definitely linked. Vilar looks at it and decides that they aren’t linked at all.

If our concern is to pinpoint Truth, we cannot accept Vilar's argument. Her distinction between the sexual and the nurturing drive is false. Since the rest of her argument hinges on this distinction, we must pronounce that it isn't True.

One antidote to Philosopher’s Stone thinking is the phrase, “For the sake of argument.” We accept that Vilar has severed the sex instinct with the nurturing instinct not because it is true. We accept it to see what doing so can tell us.

Vilar, however, believes that she’s found Truth, so she aims for a definition of love based on her assumptions. Love--sexual or romantic love--has been perverted into pseudo-incest by stupid and lazy women. What, then, is love when it is uncorrupted?

To explain, she relies on her ex-husband’s ontological theories. Note that she feels no need to prove his theory. We are to accept it as valid.

What I’ve gleaned is that it begins with a basic thought experiment.

Imagine a black box.

You may have imagined the box resting on a surface. If not, you may be assuming the box surrounded by air. If not air, then surrounded by nothing.

The one thing you can’t picture is the black box as its own “system,” as Vilar phrases it. If the universe stops where the box stops, it’s not a box. A box has sides; if there is no “outside the box,” there is no “inside the box.” The edges are where the box stops being and starts not-being.

The conclusion is that objects are defined by other objects. A box is not air. A box is not nothing. A box is not the surface it rests on.

Okay. We don’t know how useful that line of thinking is, but we’ll accept it. Vilar then says that the individual is no different, that a person is defined by other people.

Putting it mildly, this skips over a lot of philosophy. Vilar says, in effect, that that entity that we have called the psyche, the soul, the self, or consciousness--that entity which we have discussed for millennia--is simply an object like a black box. We can know the self only by defining it through others.

Here, even the most indulgent of readers has to take pause. Q:  If a person lives alone in a forest, does he exist? A:  Why would you think he doesn’t?

The arguments against this idea are more complex than a simple, “I think, therefore I am,” but it does not matter. Vilar simply asserts that we somehow don’t exist until we are defined by others.

What I mean to say is that it’s a little hard to swallow.

Her next leap is to assert that the best definition of the self comes from having only a single definition. Her argument is that multiple definitions create the possibility of contradiction.

This is a remarkable statement. She has been playing the ruthless logician throughout the book, but yet she places the highest value on a perspective that does not eliminate inaccuracy, but eliminates the evidence of inaccuracy. She will not allow a second definition because it may not agree with the first definition. This is like covering one’s ears to avoid hearing what someone is saying.

The PDF that Crowley linked contains commentary by an unspecified “KJ” at this point. This KJ has very little respect for Vilar’s arguments--at least in this portion of the book, because he doesn’t show up elsewhere. He pokes enough holes that I won’t waste any more words on it.

Vilar’s whole definition of love is a tangle of questionable assumptions and bizarre logic. It’s all in service of proving that love--sexual, romantic love--is monogamous, jealous and faithful. (Note--by “monogamous,” Vilar is saying that an individual has one partner over a lifetime, not that he sleeps with only one person at a time. Otherwise, it’s redundant to include “faithful.”)

Armed with the Philosopher’s Stone of reason, she believes that she has established that any relationship that doesn’t have these qualities is not love.

On the other hand, the Western tradition has concluded that monogamy is the best way to unite a man and a woman, because faithfulness manages the natural feeling of jealousy that sex partners have for one another.

In other words, that…mess above was created to prove what we’ve already believed for centuries. Yet, Vilar tells us that marriage, the monogamous institution that manages jealousy by demanding faithfulness, is a ruse to trap men.

[In fairness, some clarification:  Vilar is telling us that once we experience real love, we will automatically be monogamous because we are emotionally compelled. She is sex-positive and anti-virginity, so I assume that she believes that sexual restrictions get in the way of finding that love. That is, we won’t know that it’s love until we have sex, so take off your pants and go mix it up.

It’s actually a more restrictive concept than traditional marriage. Tradition tells us that we will be tempted to stray but we must resist. Vilar tells us the temptation is proof that the union is not real love and must be abandoned.]

How does this prove the folly of the Philosopher’s Stone? We don’t need Vilar to drag us through a brier patch of argument to get to her conclusions; we can just take the path that was created by the millions of husbands and wives before us. It’s no unique insight to conclude what most others have concluded.

When Vilar discusses our biological drives in respect to the power dynamics of romance, she is giving us the height, length and width of a cloud. But the cloud is not a rectangular box; it rises here and it stretches there. Her measurements may be true but they tell us very little that’s useful.

However, her description of a man enslaved by a woman who cares nothing for his interests, humors him enough to get what she wants, and allows him to work himself into an early grave for her benefit--that’s a useful description. She’s taken a snapshot of the cloud and drawn lines to show the dimensions. We can see more than just her assertions and we can see how her ideas fit into the whole.

Philosopher’s Stone proponents wish us to abandon everything we’ve understood and accept only their interpretation. They demand this because they believe that their stone has explained everything there is to explain.

Is it possible that someone will crack the code of romance and we will gain a complete understanding of it? Anything’s possible, I guess, but it is better to assume that the code will never be broken completely. Once a true Philosopher’s Stone comes along, we’ll deal with it then.

We should resist believing in a Philosopher’s Stone because that is the first step in believing that it has been found. In the field of relationships, we have seen one Philosopher’s Stone after another in the past couple of decades:  The Rules; Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus; He’s Just Not That Into You; Act Like a Woman,Think Like a Man. Each of these set a fire in the self-help world and each one died out because they weren’t the Final Answer.

Malcolm Gladwell has made a career out of uncovering Philosopher’s Stones. The most famous TED talks are almost always about a Philosopher’s Stone. Marxism, Objectivism, progressivism--they all say, “One formula to rule them all!”

To explain romance by way of biological imperatives, or to diagnose the poor as victims of either the wealthy or of vice--any argument like this is reductive.

Reduction is necessary. Without it, we couldn’t say, “The apple is red.” We’d have to show the apple and figure out a way to indicate the color itself. But we have to remember that, like sex is to childbirth, our reductions should be attached to reality but reality is not attached to our reductions.

The lack of a Philosopher’s Stone does not mean that we can’t know anything. What it means is that we have to accumulate descriptions.

Vilar gave us one picture of romantic relationships. Plato gave us another. So did Shakespeare. So did Love Story. So did your parents.

Vilar tells us that a single definition is best. I say that each new description brings us closer to accuracy, if even if by being completely wrong.

The Enlightenment put to rest the search the alchemical Philosopher’s Stone, only to replace it with the search for a rational new one. Our age is one that believes that all is knowable, that what is unknown now will be known soon, and that everything can be reduced to a formula.

In E-Prime:  Attempting a complete understanding produces very little value. In English:  Seeking a Philosopher's Stone is to view the world precisely as it is not.