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.