Writings On Man, Masculinty And The Emerging Patriarchal Renaissance

Neither Blue Nor Red Pill, But A Man, Capital M

Maximus Decimus Meridius | September 30, 2017 | 12 minute read

I recently had a challenge put forward to me via a twitter thread I started. The twitter spat was sparked to comments I made about r-K selection and ladder theory mating strategy in women. My point of view was attacked quite forcefully and my writer's voice was called into question. Specifically, I was challenged that my twitter comments were "at odds" with my blog's writings. Writings that are apparently viewed by some (or so I have now learned) as being above such heuristic, deterministic and biological arguments on the nature of women.

You can find the beginning of the Twitter thread here. Or the best one can. Twitter threads don't seem to be strictly linear in showing all responses, but I digress.

To begin, I want to highlight the two replies that sparked this post.

Does anyone in The West believe in truth anymore?

This is not a rhetorical question. Having recently read an incredible book on Greek thought and culture during the transition from the Archaic to the Classic to the Helenistic age, it is a valid question I ask once again today. It seems to me that while the Red Pill manosphere claims to have the truth, for any man in it to outright claim he knows the truth seems to push a lot of buttons. I understand where Craig is coming from. No man should actually believe he is the only one with the truth, but for a man of any merit, especially one in his fourth decade, to not be able to make a truth claim and state it boldly with 40 years of experience behind him... is to have failed as a man. This is, in a nutshell, the entire problem with men in The West. None of them want to just outright say "Hey, I got the truth here. The best that I can reason to it of course, but I will be damned if I am going to coach my words when I speak cause 'feels'. It's the truth, and if you don't like it, I don't give a shit."

But if a Man is challenged to prove his truth... he has to rise to it and so I shall.

How can Maximus claim women are human beings, fully deserving of love and respect, who are fully capable of rising above their base biology... while also simultaneously strongly adhering to r-K selection and ladder theory mating strategies by these same females?

The answer is elementary my dear Watson. Maximus' apparent lack of consistent intellectual voice on the nature of the female can be explained with some good old common sense. A pearl of wisdom we have all heard, but few men now apply anymore to their life and their dealings with women.

Trust in God, but tie up your horse.

Trust that women are capable of rising above their biological nature, but be damn sure you don't get taken in by all the "love" talk.

It really is that simple. The entire argument on Twitter was absolutely hilarious to me. I was taken to task for being a man incapable of talking to women or laughing with them because I have boxed them into an r-K genetic/Darwinian mating algorithm. All this invective was thrown my way... at an avatar of Russel Crowe... to the depth of a final and absolute psychological judgement of "what's wrong with Maximus and why he has no girls". It was unbelievable to watch unfold and I still chuckle about it, but it was a moment of clarity for me and why I write.

I will know I am hitting my goal as the Socratic gadfly of the manosphere when EVERYONE in it hates Maximus.

That... is when I might... MIGHT... know I am onto the truth. Yes, that truth... the singular and absolute.

So... what is the truth about the nature of the female?

I - A woman is a human being. Period. Full stop.

A woman is entirely capable of responding to a man's personality and not caring a whit or shit for his wallet. No, I am not talking about a mythical unicorn here. There are many such women out there. But to believe this AND also believe women are the realist, the pragmatist, the business side of "romance" in the mating dance is NOT an incongruity. It is simply putting a man's head - the one ABOVE his belt - in line with reality.

II - Love is the last reason a woman is with you.

And here is where the married vs single line gets drawn. I have seen it sooooo many times. Married men are truly in a box with no light. Even the woke ones.

CITE: Eyes Wide Shut (1999) - The bedroom scene where Kidman tells Cruise about her desire to sleep with another man and throw her entire marriage and future away... based on nothing more than a single glance.

THAT... is the true nature of the female.

Is that another mic drop I hear?

She is absolutely, 100%, capable of choosing to love and stay devoted to one man.

But she is also absolutely, 100%, capable of fucking a hot young guy who gives her the kind of eye contact her husband has never ever been able to give her. The look that says "I know who & what you truly are, and I am not afraid."

I don't care how manly or masculine or on top of your "game" with your wife you are. She is capable, at any time, of choosing to NOT choose to deny her nature. It's called Sudden Divorce Syndrome and you will not see it coming.

Men... simply do not understand how business minded women are in a relationship.

Yes, even the good ones. It's a world most men, especially married ones, never ever see, let alone understand if they could. I read a blog post about a wife who loosens the door jam in their house and then calls her husband to fix it. While he is screwing the door jam tight... AGAIN... she initiates a "talk" they need to have. This is how this woman has trained her dog... I mean man... to respond to her needs. How many men would even notice this? Let alone come to the realization that THAT is how LITTLE she thinks of you... her husband.

Are all women like this?

Of course not.

Are 9 out of 10 women like this?

I'm a betting man and would NOT bet against those odds.

And as if to prove my point without my need to say (or write) a single word... fate intervenes to support my comment on this thread that a man can be a fully RP'ed Game & frame master... but if he is a patriarch, the girls will run. This is what started the whole twitter row. Craig posted that a man can do a lot to remain attractive and retain a woman's loyalty through masculine style and attitude - to strive to be a man of higer value she desires - but I responded that a man (such as myself) can do all these things, but women will want nothing to do with him because he is a patriarch. My proof of a patriarchal man's dislike by women, especially in The West, came in the form of a like on a comment that truly ripped into my digital-Russle-Crowe-soul. To wit...

Let's take a closer look...

Now. If you have been on Twitter for any length of time, I am sure you have gotten the boobies-I-want-to-fuck like or follow. Those girls are clearly bots... but this one has over 5000 followers?!?! That piqued my curiosity.

Who is this Natalia Nova?

Google says...

Escorting - the world's oldest profession - is truly the litmus test of a Man's understanding of female nature. You don't have to like or approve the profession, but you do need to respect the women in it. A man also can't afford to ignore it and pretend it does not exist.

A woman selling sexual intimacy is the single most full palm slap to the face a man can get on female nature. Just because some women decide to make the business aspect of "love" crystal clear, does not mean your wife/girlfriend is somehow above doing so. She may adamantly swear she would never sell her body to a man for money and fully believe it, but make no mistake; she is with you because you paid, in ways both financial and personal, that make you of value to her. Ask any man his opinion on the world's oldest profession. His response to it will tell you how truly awake he is.

Now... let me be clear. A Twitter like means absolutely nothing... per se. Is she endorsing AJC's view or liking it in open sarcasm? (A view I also completely agree with. Natalia, as a woman, would also know how little men are capable of just being with her - her true nature - and not judging a 'sinner' nor worshipping a fantasy.) What is clear though is that she did not like a single one of my comments and instead decided to engage/interact with AJC. Again... I want to be clear in that all I am doing is contrasting our profiles, our digital personality projections, and thus unveiling & underlying where a woman's natural sympathies with (and power & influence over) a man rest...

I know this sounds nauseatingly repetitive... again... all I am doing here is comparing and contrasting, and noting which one of these two profiles the lady Natalia decided to engage with

Which one is the patriarch? Which one the boy toy? In full honesty, with no judgement on true personality or character based on a digital profile... what does a WOMAN see? What kind of man will a woman judge the two of us to be based on the signalling and messaging we are both putting out to the world?

Natalia did not engage with me... the patriarch. Which was precisely my argument for men today. And I also want to show that AJC did apologize to me, though he did not need to do so.

NOTE: Be sure to check out Alexander's fitness blog - https://alexanderjuanantoniocortes.com. He has some really good content. This article on 50 Ways To Naturally Increase Testosterone should be printed out and read like a Bible.

The crux of my argument on Twitter now made crystal clear in this post is this:

If you truly own your masculinity - i.e. adopt a fully and wholly patriarchal mindset beyond red or blue pill - many women will run away from you.

They may find you attractive, sexy, alluring and even irresistible... but if they don't feel they can manipulate you with their charms, if they can sense you value yourself more than getting laid...

They will run.

For they know that a wink, a flash of leg, a plunging V-neck and pouty duck lips will never work on a patriarch who is in 100% command of himself... and also 100% knowledgable of the truth of female nature.

Which is not to say such feminine wiles & tactics don't work on a patriarchal man.

The difference is one neither red nor blue pill can capture.

A Man, capital M... simply accepts the nature of the female and is both loving, and cautious, in his dealings with her.

There is no need to be afraid of women. Both MGTOW and the extreme PUA side of Game are afraid. They both stare into the abyss that is female nature and react in polar opposite extremes. The prior rejecting completely, the latter childishly "using", the feminine. Both are ego driven - one to protect, the other to project. Neither are masculine and BOTH harbour deep seated anger, hatred and mistrust of women.

A Man, capital M... simply loves, laughs and enjoys her show.

Embrace and love BOTH sides of a woman's nature.

Be in awe of her heart and soul... but respect and beware her nature to hurt your own.

It is the only way forward.

When it comes to the fairer sex, you will never truly know what you are going to get. The more masculine, the more red pill you are, the better your chances of coming out on top in the mating game. And she WANTS you to come out on top!!! But if you think you can't hold the view that women can rise above their natures... and also hold the view that they are slaves to it the majority of the time...

Let's just say I don't want to be having lunch with you in the shop one day and hear you talk about how your wife wanted to move back home to be "closer to family" while I am chomping down on my sandwich and saying, nervously and quietly in my head "I know where this is going..."

And then she divorced me!!! 25 years. 25 YEARS!!! And she goes completely crazy. How does that happen?

No. She did not go crazy out of the blue. She is just behaving the way she was designed, the way God created her to behave... her nature... female nature.

Let that be a warning to you married guys out there. If your wife EVER wants to move closer to family... don't.

But I still love 'em!!!

Strength & Honor