Rollo Tomassi – The Rational Male (unabridged)

I have only hit upon violence on a couple of occasions. I have only been in physical altercations a few times. The kind of violence that requires you to physically harm another person is called real fights. I competed in martial arts tournaments when I was in my 20s and 30s. I can appreciate that there is a difference between competitive sport fighting and real violence, even though I have been hurt and caused hurt to my opponents. My younger brother and I were both interested in beating the shit out of each other when we were younger. I was no stranger to taking a fist to the chops or various headlocks when I was in high school. The majority of the fights I have been in have been in high school. We are too immature to appreciate how Darwinistic our teenage years are. Unless you grow up in a sheltered family, you will most likely learn about sex and violence at an early age. I was 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 You had to keep those kind of fights in the back of your mind as a possibility, depending on where we played and who we ended up pissing off. Usually, your friends or bandmates had your back, but not always. We weren’t the most physically imposing guys to be honest, so most of them were versus a drunk guy who thought he could kick my ass. The guy was fed up with guys like us because the women preferred to fuck guys like us, or the fight was provoked by a woman and the guys fighting were coming to blows. It was usually the girl who admitted she made a mistake and the other who found out. It was back in the 80s and 90s. The basis of violence will never change despite the fact that things have changed. Human nature includes violence. Denying this simple fact is something we do ourselves no favors. In 2001-02, I did casino promotions for a new sport called King of the Cage. It was the beginning of MMA fighting, but back then it was not as accepted as it is today. Nevada was one of the only states that could legally host such an event. It was thought that legitimizing it as a true sport was the first step towards social savagery. Or something like that. People used to be appalled by it. I have seen some Evangelical Christian churches use MMA fighting as a draw to get their men to attend a masculine revival weekend. A MMA fighter is speaking about using his sport as a ministry. There is a side of men’s nature that makes violence attractive. Violence is an aspect of the human experience that is innately different between men and women. Competition, combat and violence are what boys and men are drawn to. We make guns out of our hands. We use scraps in the garage to make weapons. We like our plastic army men, G.I. Joes, cowboys and indians. Combat and strategy are the topics of our video games from the first coin operated arcades to our virtual reality consoles. Sports have been called a proxy for war. Team sports are similar to tribal competition. Human males have evolved for combat and physical stresses. It might be hard to believe, but the evidence is there. The male Burden of Performance began with a need for testing performance against real opponents. Human beings are innately risk averse, according to some research. Humans would rather avoid conflict than fight and die in the process. Our sense of caution for life and limb is what makes us successful as a species. It is likely that your risk-averse genes will spread into future generations if you cooperate and play it safe. The flip side to this can be summed up in an old Latin proverb. Men experience a spike in testosterone levels after defeating a rival in combat or killing their opponent, according to research. Some studies show men experience a similar spike when their sports teams win a game. While avoiding conflict and backing down from a dangerous engagement has survival benefits, risk taking and implementing one’s will by force also has some reproductive benefits. Women do have an affinity for violent men. Men with a capacity for violence turn on women. Modern psychology tries to rehabilitate this arousal caused by dangerous men, but by order of degree, women evolved to select men with at least the perceived capacity to do harm to another man. I think that the attraction stems from the fact that women have evolved need to seek security and protection from men, and that men have evolved an innate protectionist aspect to our own. It’s part of our ancestral programming to compete with other men for sexual access. Competition shifted to contests of performance between men as we developed into a more civilized species. I pointed out that women today have developed a false sense of security with respect to the potential of real violence in the past. Our accommodating of the Feminine Imperative in mainstream cultures is a result of the masculinization of women. As globalization of women’s entitlements has spread, so has women’s entitlement to personal safety. The Fempowerment narrative has convinced women that the fantasy of a strong female is something they can aspire to. Over the course of generations our feminine-primary social order has convinced women that they can realize the same warrior role as men. The ideal is that physical differences in men and women are relative, and that women can be just as tough and dangerous as men. This is a dangerous precedent because it is a direct result of old order beliefs in the popularization of Blank Slate. In the idealized fantasy society of equalism, masculinized Amazon Warrior Princesses can give as good as they get from any man. Men and women evolved for physical performance, competition and combat in the real world. The realities of our physical differences are unavoidable as the introduction of biological males into biologically female sports divisions proves. The idea that women are entitled to physical protection in the new order is interesting. Women mix an entitlement to personal safety with an expectation of female bravado. Add a bit of alcohol and the social posturing of a group of women all vying for attention on a Friday night and you begin to see the volatile potential. Today’s women are used to starting or escalating inherently unsafe circumstances for themselves, to say nothing of the men they’ll involve. For most of the time, women understand that they can be violent with relative impunity. If a male ever strikes a female, even in self-defense, she can be assured that a mob of random males will form to beat him up. In today’s Blue Pill engineered society, even the most passive male waits for an opportunity to prove his quality to womankind by becoming justifiably violent in defense of a woman. Most men are conditioned for it. I don’t know what happened to me. I can not tolerate a man hitting a woman. Our male hindbrains know that the old, vestigial, evolved response of violence will cause gina tingles in women. Blue Pill conditioned psychological red meat is the ideal of the nobleman. The guy raised a hand to a woman, opportunities to prove a legitimate capacity for violence are rare for low SMV men. Women assume safety. Women will feel unsafe around men. They want to enforce a male curfew out of safety concerns. We will install emergency call boxes on college campuses and hire security staff to walk a woman across a dark parking lot. Men will play by the old order rules when drinking in social situations. There is a maxim that says that women provoke men to violence. It was called Lets You and Him Fight. Whether women are aware of this and deliberately provoking a fight between men, or their subconscious motivates the conflict is a debate that has been around for a while. The LYHF dynamic can be used to assess a man’s Alpha status. A woman needs indignation, but her hindbrain wants a response from a man. When a friend told me that he was annoyed by his girlfriend starting fights with guys that she expected him to finish, I became aware of the LYHF shit test. If someone cut them off in traffic, she would sound the horn from the passenger seat. If the opportunity presented itself, flip off other drivers. She would start fights with other women which would prompt their boyfriends to step in on their behalf and he was expected to kick their ass to defend her. Do you have a pussy? Go beat his ass! I won’t belabor the subject of shit tests here, but this test plays upon some very deep, evolved, intersexual and inter social dynamics. A woman wants to know that her man can get violent. Most Blue Pill men don’t like that suggestion. We are supposed to be above all of that. Most of the men wouldn’t want to take a fist to the face. Social conventions and rationales are built around not engaging in physical activity. It’s possible that a woman would want a man with a violent past for her own safety. Robert Heinlein said that any group is weaker than a man alone unless they are trained to work together. A group of men form a coalition to overthrow an Alpha leader. Alphas instinctively remove this coalition building to ensure their position. A smackdown, abuse, punishment for anything that looks like a challenge to his position from lesser male troop members is something Alphas rarely teaming up on him. This is a display of dominance that is reinforced by social proof. The Alpha becomes weaker and less effective as the number of the Betas increases, so they can band together and dethrone him. The Alpha role is assumed by the most dominant male. He gets access to the most fertile females, kills off his rivals’ offspring, and reproduces for as long as he is able to remain in that position. I am aware of the theory that pro-social Alphas that build loyalty-exchanges among other males, and display a willingness to share resources with females, tend to make for better leaders within a tribe. Most of the research leaves out the jealousy and envy that develops in the Beta male population until the sentiment reaches a point of challenge. Alpha has to watch his back. Many of these behaviors are similar to humans. Alpha displays of violence, even if by proxy, are sexy, but mostly we manifest male prowess in social displays. Any costly signaling of high sexual market value can be found in athletics, resource acquisition, and peacocking. To compete with Alpha displays, lesser males must either: increase their own value, and learn to display it effectively, find ways to convince other men, and reproductively viable women, that those displays are worthless, and prop up his own displays as more valuable. In the age of social media and mass communication, Beta males are reminded of their lesser positions. There is no respite. Alpha is a reminder ofBeta male inadequacies. The evolved human male experience is always one of competition and a Burden of Performance. There will be winners andlosers when you are male. Get it immediately. Rollo Tomassi wrote The Rational Male. In human cultures, disqualifying an Alpha is a constant theme. Alpha males have always been a teenage fantasy for boys. Spiderman and Captain America will prove to the world how Alpha power should be used ethically. The nerd who gets the girl because she magically sees his superior quality that meshes with the terms he’s establishing as valuable is also a fantasy. The Alpha was cast as an oppressor. It is good to have a giant’s strength, but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant. Restraint of power is a moral imperative. What happened to disqualify value displays? The idea that a real man is a dangerous one who possesses the capacity for violence and oppression, but has the strength of will not use it has been promoted by Jordan Peterson. How does anyone know a man has this capacity if he doesn’t display it? Concealing strength is indistinguishable from weakness. Until you get in the ring and fight, no one knows if you are a black or white belt. The moral consensus is that men are not allowed to display value. The majority of lesser men formed a global social coalition. Lesser men look worse for doing things like disqualifying the merits of superior men. You have higher value men doing the heavy lifting for lesser men if you build a social order around men self-policing their displays of value. The social mores of the time created to serve the majority of lesser men will tell you to hide your power. They will convince the whole of men that showing vulnerability, not strength, is a display of value. Old order thinking is what I am digging at here. The greatest number of Beta men have been served by socially enforced monogamy. The social expectation of monogamy is also the result of society-wide coalition building among lesser men to ensure that greater men wouldn’t out-breed them. Control of men’s innate directives is a male-specific social convention. The rules they teach limit displays and use of strength. In the new order we see this old order intersexual competition struggle to keep pace with a global sexual marketplace that centers on women’s innate mating strategies. Open Hypergamy rewards men for overt displays of higher value. Men form online coalitions to disqualify displays in an attempt to devalue the strengths of men they couldn’t hope to compete with in the old order. Women in the global sexual marketplace reward men who display genuine value according to their needs. I am sold out of my 20 tickets for this event. I would like to thank all of the guys who have reserved a spot. The response to a small gathering of guys in Vegas has been overwhelming. I sold out of my initial 20 tickets in 5 days. Jon’s tickets are also sold out. Rich Cooper is close to selling out. That is the bad news. There are 6 extra slots available for overage. Once these are gone, that’s it! The price will remain at $500 until March 1st. At that point, registration goes up to $750. To purchase a spot, you must be a Rational Male Patreon subscriber. Jon has added a new gathering to the event activities. Human nature must be constrained by laws and social processes in order to be animalistic, according to one side of the spectrum. Humans are capable of overcoming their Darwinian natures through intentional decisionmaking and must be unconstrained in order to flourish according to the other side of the spectrum. Everyone is between the two. Most men here lean toward a constrained vision. Nature vs Nurture is a constant theme in the Manosphere. It is a constant theme in most natural sciences, but it is a contradiction that will always affect intersexual dynamics. The belief sets of people are more related to one or the other. The issue of personal responsibility versus biological determinism defines what our perspectives are on a lot of things. This isn’t an issue of politics. Evolutionary dictates on both sides of the political spectrum can be seen in the fact that there are plenty of believers in our human capacity to rise above our personal circumstances. There is a left-leaning humanist who will agree that humans aren’t beholden to what some inconvenient science says if they agree with their belief set. The age of new order thinking or our New Age of Enlightenment is where most old order ideologies are struggling with relevancy. This new order understanding is the result of a lot of information we have access to. It is this new influx of data that is challenging the old order ideologies, as well as the accessibility to it that old order thinkers can no longer keep up with. This influx of information requires us to make sense of it. Most people will make a hard turn towards the old order dictates that used to be able to explain harsh truths to us adequately enough for us to move on to other things. The global Village is returning to an interest in old religions, shamanism, metaphysics and tribal superstitions. Some of the old order institutions had merit. New order data can be confirmed by old order beliefs and wisdom. New order information can confirm what we used to believe. This is problematic for old order believers. It is not a comforting thought to be confronted with a thought that can be quantified. Your religion was correct about some things, but they are no longer the magical articles of faith they used to be. We are better than that, right? The nature vs nurture debate is a proxy for the war between Determinism and Free will. While questions of consciousness and personal philosophies are outside the scope of this blog, what is in scope is how these perspectives define the way we approach our understanding of innate mating strategies, long term relationships, forming families and raising children. determinism feels wrong to both kinds of believers. I debate the harsh realities of how Hypergamy works, not just for our species, but most of the animal kingdom, when I am faced with the question of whether or not Hypergamy is good or bad. There is always a desire to qualify what is really a natural dynamic. Is a pack of wolves bad for killing a caribou to feed them in the dead of winter? It depends on who you are rooting for. These scenarios are nothing new for thesphere. One example of a naturalism vs. moralism dilemma is the moral implications of Hypergamy. Empiricists hope that knowing about the dynamic and how it works will lead to better outcomes. Hypergamy works X-Y-Z; now plan accordingly and build a better life. They believe that the goal of debate is to establish what is morally better, and what everyone should do. They argue about what’s right. On a recent video I had a discussion with Rich Cooper and Dr. Shawn Smith about whether or not the idea of Hypergamy should be used as a framework for understanding intersexual relationships. We discussed the merits of Hypergamy in its expanded definition and whether it is a reliable metric to compare people’s relationships against. Even though my detractors lie about my interests, I still stress the importance of Hypergamy in Red Pill awareness. It is really important. I posed a question to Dr. Smith, If Hypergamy is not a reliable framework for understanding intersexual relationships, what is a better one? I wrote the question down in my notes for the show, not being facetious or trying to hit Shawn with a gotcha question. If not Hypergamy, what is a good outline by which we can judge women’s motives, incentives and behaviors with respect to their mating strategies? Is it possible that women have mating strategies defined by their innate, evolved natures? Is their sexual, reproductive decisions solely an act of cognitive will? If 100,000 years of human evolution didn’t change women’s reproductive strategies, what are we left with? Is it free will and choice? We are meant to believe that the decisions are extensions of her cognitive will. I understand that it doesn’t have to be one or the other. It is possible that nature and nurture affect women and men’s mating strategies, and that choice is involved in the outcome of those strategies. I think we want to believe our conscious decisions are what are pulling the strings. When we asked the question, Do women have agency?, I was in all the debates. The more moralistic a guy is, the more likely he is to include women’s lives to his list of masculine duties and personal responsibilities. The underlying assumptions are Aren’t we better than this? With what we assume is free will and a liability of personal responsibility for the choices we make when exercising that free will, haven’t we evolved above all our base impulse? Shouldn’t we have by now? If we are above it all, then the fallacy of the Blank Slate as well as the notion that we might ever be influenced by our evolved, is what I harp on about every day. The variables of evolution are meaningless if our conscious selves are better than our evolved natures. Developing our consciousness to rise above our conditions is all that matters. Our conscious minds can change our natures. Sometimes we can kill ourselves by not eating. A hunger strike can be done as an act of will. Our will supersedes our innate nature when a sense of righteousness and virtue is mixed into that conscious. Our bodies need certain things and it doesn’t change their physical state. We commit suicide as an act of will or a conscious act of depression. Will will supersede our physical conditions, but how much of what we believe is our willpower is not influenced by the same physical conditions, environment, upbringing, socialization and personal circumstance that we hope to rise above? Within my lifetime, we will be able to genetically engineer humans. The first gene-edited baby was created by a Chinese scientist. The science is already here. There is a chance that human beings can engineer our physical states to conform to what our ideologies tell us is better. You will understand the implications of this technology if you have seen the movie Gattaca. The ethics of what we engineer into the humanity of tomorrow will be affected by the ideologies we subscribe to today. The questions posed by Gattaca are real. This raises a lot of interesting questions. Is it a good idea to engineer-out of humanity diseases like Down’s Syndrome? Is it related to sickle cell anemia? I don’t believe homosexuality is genetic, but should we edit it out of humanity to make sure heterosexual human beings are in future generations? The scientist who broke the rules of ethics was reprimanded. peers in China and abroad condemned him for manipulating life’s building blocks using a relatively untested gene-editing tool. But why? A Chinese official declared his experimentation illegal. It is possible that a new race of superior humans could be engineered to be better adapted to live longer, be smarter, more immune to certain diseases and make for a stronger human species. Why would it be wrong to try to be perfect? Have we raised our will above our limitations? Do we use our physical conditions as an implement of our will? The realities of our physical selves influence our ideological bent and ideas of what right and wrong are. Jack commented about the rise of the New Order: Rollo, the digital age has ruined us. The new way is just a day away from being the old way, as culture and pop culture move at an alarming rate, what was hip now won’t be in the next year or month. The demon is out of the ring, no turning back, and there is no way to deal with the modern age. You don’t get anything if you aren’t born into greatness or use the knowledge of the net to surpass everyone. Hypergamy wasn’t out of control before, but now it’s the same with women. There were checks and balances, God and church being two of them, shame was a motivator for keeping women in check as they don’t understand loyalty like men. They now have infinite access to all top men, with upwards access to all jobs, and no repercussions for acting in their best interests at all times. It shrinks the dating pool to a few desirable mates because they value themselves so much. If you aren’t a natural at flirting with women, or learned how to do it through you and the many other red pill men out there, you will get nothing or lose what you have. It is almost all risk no reward for modern men unless they are alpha. You lose if you aren’t always 100% on at all times. If Jeff Bezos and Johnny Depp are not safe, what does that say for everyone else? As a modern man, you have to be and do too much to compete on the global market, as a man younger than you, I don’t know if you can understand how daunting it is to have to be everything at once. If you don’t put out content, you fall to nothing again and have to start from scratch. Your competition as a red pilled man, are other men with this knowledge, and it will get harder as time goes on with more men are forced to adapt this way of thinking or give up entirely. The new system will force you to adapt faster and be better than your peers. There is no rest, no reprieve, no time to catch your breath, either you constantly innovate and improve on the new or you simply don’t.