Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
Can Societal Programming Ever Be Good?
One of the over-arching themes to all of my writing, if not the over-arching theme, is that your mind is full of false Societal Programming that seems right, but is actually the opposite to how objective reality operates. Therefore, managing your life in accordance with these falsehoods will create conflict, pain, and unhappiness for you, and often, the people around you as well. This can sometimes lead to the question, is Societal Programming ever good? Or at a minimum, is there some SP that isn’t harmful?
-By Caleb Jones
1. When the Societal Programming happens to coincide with objective reality. You may have some strong SP that says you shouldn’t attempt to murder your girlfriend. The SP tells you that if you were successful, you would probably wind up in prison. If you were unsuccessful, the SP tells you that she probably wouldn’t like that and leave you.
In this case, the Societal Programming is still programming from society, but it also happens to be factually and objectively accurate. In other words, it’s SP, but it isn’t false SP. So in this case, the SP is okay. The problem is, as I’ve stated many times and in many ways, for every one objectively true piece of SP in your mind (“Don’t try to kill your girlfriend”) you have 10, 20, or even 30 pieces of SP that are false. The vast majority of Societal Programming is false. That’s why it’s so destructive. The times it’s not false are the very rare exceptions to the rule, so never assume such.
2. When the Societal Programming influences your harmless preferences that are easily satisfied. I love big, loud, brutal, testosterone-filled action movies. It’s a preference I have.
Did I come up with this preference completely on my own? Of course not. My love of action movies is a direct result of Societal Programming. It’s sourced from SP on multiple levels, including SP from my family (my dad liked them when I was a kid), my culture (Western culture), my nation (the USA), and the era in which I grew up (the 1980’s, when films like this were very common and celebrated). All of this programming went into my little brain when I was a kid, so today, it’s rooted within me as an adult; I love action movies whether rational or not. (On my recent flight to Dubai, I watched Ninja 2: Shadow of a Tear on my laptop. Fuckin' badass.)
Is this bad? Well, it depends. It’s simply a preference I have, not something that dominates my life. I’m not going to get married, start a business, move to another city, get a job, make an investment, or make any long-term health choices based on my love of action movies. All this particular SP does is determine which movies I will watch when I choose to watch them. As long as I don’t spend hours on end on a daily basis watching action movies when I should be working on my goals, this is okay.
I also happen to live in a country and in an era where watching action movies is very easy. I can literally click my mouse about four times and watch any action movie I want (since I own all the good ones from the last 40 years; and what few I don’t I can watch online). So my preference is easily satisfied. Therefore, in this one case, the SP that says “action movies are awesome” is okay, and it’s one of the few pieces of SP I left in my brain when I cleaned out most of my SP starting about 15 years ago.
Unlike my preference for action movies though, your preference is both harmful and not easily satisfied. Not good. You’re going to go out into the modern day, left-wing, collapsing Western world and look around for a virgin (good luck) who will never divorce you (good luck) and never cheat on you (good luck) while you try to never cheat on her (good luck) and never get caught (good luck) and never get divorced (good luck). Your life will be a series of up and down failures, huge disappointments, and major chaos. You’ll never be happy. Your SP is dangerous to you, and needs to be cleaned out and/or modified to reflect objective reality instead of some kind of outdated, right-wing Guy Disney fairytale.
The point is, not all preferences are equally harmless. What if it’s harmless, but not easily satisfied? Maybe you have SP that says that the hottest women are tall, white, blue-eyed blondes with big tits. Nothing wrong with that at all, and having that preference is largely harmless… but if you live in the middle of Chengdu, China, you’re in big trouble. Your SP is mostly harmless, but it’s forcing you in a direction that can’t be easily satisfied, thus it is bad.
3. When the Societal Programming doesn’t conflict with your core biology. SP is particularly bad when it directly conflicts with core human biology. However, if it doesn’t, then it might be okay. Maybe. For example, if you grew up in a family with very healthy parents, you might have some SP that says, “Vegetables are delicious!” This doesn’t conflict with human biology at all. Due to the way your body is designed, veggies are very good for you and won’t cause any long-term health problems, even if you eat a lot of them.
However, if you have SP that says, “I am a priest, and priests never have sex,” now we have a very big problem. Human beings biologically require sex, period, end of story. If you have SP that says you should never have sex (like a priest, monk, or nun), or that you should never have pre-martial sex (religious people, Asians), or that you can’t have sex outside of a very serious, committed relationships (many high ASD women over age 33), you have SP that is in direct conflict with your biology, and problems are virtually guaranteed to occur.
This is why you have/had so many Catholic priests rape and molest little boys over the years. These priests are operating under a biological model (no sex ever) that is literally impossible to maintain for the long-term (barring the exception to the rule). But, if you have Societal Programming that is in congruence with your biology, such as “Exercise makes you feel good” or “Meaningless sex is great as long as a condom is used” or “Be sure to get plenty of sleep” then you’re probably okay. As far as I know, those are the only three times were SP can be good or neutral. They are always, always the exception to the rule.
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
Pale Blue Dot 2017-11-16 05:20:25
Societal Programming to Blackdragon is same and equivalent with Feminine Imperative to Rollo Tomassi. It's just another "ism" against something and it would indeed needs for an external blaming entity.
joelsuf 2017-11-16 07:46:48
Good stuff. I'd like to add that swapping out one form of SP for another is also a bad move, and a pretty common mistake for people to make. This is why sex negative MGTOW still fail at life because they still view chicks as the constant for their mental health. They are going from: All chicks are delicate, beautiful creatures ----> All chicks are picky assholes who want everything for free Its just one form of SP going to another. I've had to catch myself doing this as well, as I've been getting heat (and rightly so) on one of BD's articles regarding PUAism. In this case, the constant was PUAism. My thought process went from: PUAism is amazing ---> PUAism is a scam Both of those statements are sweeping and only the result of strong SP. Let's face it: PUAism, like anything, has good and bad qualities. When dealing with SP you gotta know that there are always gray areas even in SP that is harmful and that harmful SP for you might be helpful SP for others. And also, and I'm not sure if BD has written about this yet (he probably has), it is not your place to say that you are better than anyone because you have discarded SP that holds you back. Cuz then you have just invented your own SP that you want to save the world with, which is an external solution that not only is a waste of energy, but is also a form of vengeance.
CrabRangoon 2017-11-16 08:56:44
It's funny how conscious of SP I am now since changing my life and becoming more "2.0" so to speak. I hear it spew out of people's mouths so often I'm sure they're not even aware. I do enjoy pointing out that it's just a lifetime of brainwashing which typically just gets you the ad hominem argument of "you're just bitter!", etc... I know couples that got into a traditional marriage mainly to make mommy/grandma/grandpa or whoever happy since they were going to die soon. They don't seem to see the stupidity in that decision-one day, this person you were trying to appease will be dead and gone and now you have to live your life with this decision for potentially many decades. It's right up there with folks who cite taxes and insurance as reasons to legally wed. I'm thinking it's also part laziness since getting legally married is kind of a short cut to some "benefits" most if not all can be achieved in other ways which just take more time and effort. I really can't think of anything you can't get outside of legal marriage through other means. Get creative-work on lowering your tax burden (or move as you are planning BD), get cheaper catastrophe health insurance in case of a major incident and take care of your health in the meantime. All that said, it is very hard for most of the population to rise above SP which is why guys like us are a rare breed. SP is the path of least resistance in getting accepted and validated by society but as you point out, won't make you happy long term.
anon1 2017-11-16 10:45:15
Having grown up relatively sheltered during my developing years, I didn't absorb most of the negative social norms or attitudes common nowadays. Also, because I didn't share most people's negative values I was able to avoid most of the common pitfalls people find themselves in. I was always so astonished of how crazy some people acted even though they knew what they were doing wouldn't be good for them. Unfortunately even when I try to help some people by giving them advice from a detached perspective, it usually does not work the first time most commonly for these reasons: 1. It's too "cold-hearted" or "unemotional" 2. "I'm too young to understand these things" 3. And the strangest one of all is that I'm "too fatherly" since I usually wear only dress shirts and dress pants. Regardless of all of this, people usually always ask me for advice.
ITM 2017-11-16 10:50:36
"I love big, loud, brutal, testosterone-filled action movies. It’s a preference I have. Did I come up with this preference completely on my own? Of course not. My love of action movies is a direct result of Societal Programming."Oh. But I was subjected to the same programming, and since I was 30 I have watched nothing but those arthouse films with original-language voices and translated subtitles that can't be allowed into the mainstream (commercial suicide, they call it). I don't think SP bears much weight on that preference of yours there. *** General statement: Of course societal programming is (not "can be") necessary. Or we wouldn't have had it, in all the world, since millennia ago. No-one who is "programmed" under SP would be faring better without SP. The few who fare better, find a way out of SP already, before or later.
Steve 2017-11-16 11:20:00
SP made me and my younger bro go opposite ends. He started off harmless enough. Listening to rap, going more hardcore, more gangster rap. Then watch testosterone movies lead to gangster only movies. Went with weed that lead to harder substances. You see where I'm getting. All tattooed up. He moved out years ago at 16. He avoids me and our parents cause we are 'lame'. Needless to say he is continuing the path now set in front of him. TY SP. Keep glorifying gangsters you liberal fbags. As long as these thug kids you made can't afford to live in your expensive walled neighborhoods it doesn't matter to you.
Duke 2017-11-16 11:46:45
I really can’t think of anything you can’t get outside of legal marriage through other means.A lot of people use the "how will you visit your SO in the hospital when they only let in family." Like lying would be out of the question, and the people at the hospital would ask you for your marriage license.
Blackdragon 2017-11-16 11:52:23
it is not your place to say that you are better than anyone because you have discarded SP that holds you backCorrect, but it is your place to say that you're probably a much happier person.
I don’t think SP bears much weight on that preference of yours there.So if I was born the exact same person, but was born and raised in Africa during the 1930's, I'd still love action movies? SP bears a lot of weight, but it can also be mixed with your personality to define your preferences. SP isn't your only source for your preferences, but it's a powerful one.
Of course societal programming is (not “can be”) necessary.Yes, but only about 5% of it, since the other 95% is false.
No-one who is “programmed” under SP would be faring better without SP.Oversimplification. A person will fare better, much better, without 95% of his SP, which is false. The remaining 5% I agree is good to keep.
James 2017-11-16 12:51:05
What you call "SP" is in the same vein of what most mystics talk about, emptying yourself so you can see reality for how it actually is.
A 2017-11-16 13:24:31
A truly independent man should be looking for ways to profit from prevailing SP. For example, I am dismayed with the passive whining of many androsphere men. They have discovered rare and valuable knowledge, and do nothing with it. Sure, societal SP is anti-male. So they whine about it. MRA activism would be an external solution, but they don't even do that. That is why PUAs look relatively better, if nothing else. At least they are taking action towards a goal. I would be much more impressed if a red-pill guy used the knowledge of women available here and wrote a screenplay for a lucrative flick. That would at least be an implementation of this knowledge for personal gain. 50 SoG sold 125M copies, was made into a film, and the franchise overall probably made the originator close to $1B in total. Heartiste has been blogging since 2007 (then called 'Roissy'). His writing skill and knowledge meant the 50 SoG opportunity was available to him to unique exploit at that time. What did he do? Nothing. Today, the 50 SoG writer is a near-billionaire, and Heartiste's blog has a fraction of its original traffic since it is just Stormfront at this point. Talk about not seeing an opportunity that matches with your talents, at the right time.
A 2017-11-16 13:29:22
BD said :
SP bears a lot of weight,Indeed. This cannot be overstated. Look no further than sports. Different people from different countries are SP brainwashed into their local sports, and dismiss other sports in a knee-jerk fashion just because a different country plays a similar sport with a different name. "Baseball is better than Cricket. Cricket Sucks." "Baseball is inferior. Cricket is more rigorous and has been around longer." "American 'Football' is more like Rugby, but less rigorous. You actually wear helmets and pads. Football is what you call soccer, and is viewed by more people in the world." "Football is religion! The Superbowl is the new Christmas! Soccer sucks, and should not be called 'Football'. Rugby? What is that? Sounds stupid." People are just programmed to like the sport that they grew up with. Hence, a different, unfamiliar sport induces primitive reactions of knee-jerk hate in people, which shows how most humans still belong in 10,000 BC. This is how powerful SP is.
Ben 2017-11-16 15:23:35
Great article. Speaking of action movies, I looked up the trailer for ninja, both of them and i'm getting it now. I've enjoyed Scott Adkins movies but thought i'd seen them all. I'm glad my programming is around good action movies, and not girly movies where I can sit and cry.. I don't know if any guys actually enjoy that shit, but sadly I assume some do these days.
The New Yorker 2017-11-16 15:40:46
It's awesome to know that I'm not the only one who loves Scott Adkins' films. By the way, if you're an MMA fan and you haven't seen "Boyka: Undisputed 4" and the rest of that series, you're missing out on some quality fight scenes. In fact, Yuri Boyka and Donnie Yen were literally the two main reasons I got into the MMA scene. Unfortunately it took me two busted knees, a fractured wrist, a hyperextended elbow joint and a mild concussion to admit that I'm not cut out to be an actual MMA fighter. But hey, at least I finally realized it was just SP all along. In spite of everything, I'm still a hobbyist. After all, plain exercise without a clear purpose is so boring! It's almost like maintenance work.
Leon 2017-11-16 19:58:42
But, if you have Societal Programming that is in congruence with your biology, such as “Exercise makes you feel good” or “Meaningless sex is great as long as a condom is used” or “Be sure to get plenty of sleep” then you’re probably okay.These seem like scientific facts to me, since they are in congruence with our biologies, they should be (unless one's biology is in the 2% himself) Is there any quick question to self-ask when you aren't sure if something is false SP or fact? (without spending time researching about it, of course)
Gil Galad 2017-11-17 04:41:31
It’s awesome to know that I’m not the only one who loves Scott Adkins’ films.Throwing in my own vote for good measure. But I actually didn't like Undisputed 4 as much as I liked 2 and 3. The end of '3' was satisfying enough imo; I know they kinda wanted to give more closure to Boyka's arc but they just needlessly mellowed it by introducing that chick. But okay some of the fights in '4' are good. Watched the first two Ninja movies too. And Donnie Yen rocks, of course.
Mike 2017-11-17 05:30:54
BD, a couple of clarifying questions: How do you distinguish between real SP and something a person might just call SP to rationalize behaving differently and ignoring legitimate concerns? For instance, if I have the chance to sleep with a friend's wife and I'm thinking 'It is just SP, so I should do it anyway.' Say there is no chance of being caught. So the reason that there might be drama in the future would not be given. Does the concept of personal conscience come into play at some point, too? I understand you have been questioning SP for 15 years which is a long time. So what you say is probably the result of a very thorough thought process and experience. Are there things you 'feel' are right or wrong by imagining them without being able to calculate all possible consequences and make a fully informed decision.
Blackdragon 2017-11-17 08:47:48
Is there any quick question to self-ask when you aren’t sure if something is false SP or fact? (without spending time researching about it, of course)That's the problem, you may have to spend time researching it if the initial answer to that question is "maybe" or "I don't know." That's why I do as much research as I do; I want everything I believe to be in congruence with objective reality and not my preferences, biases, SP, or guesses.
How do you distinguish between real SP and something a person might just call SP to rationalize behaving differently and ignoring legitimate concerns? For instance, if I have the chance to sleep with a friend’s wife and I’m thinking ‘It is just SP, so I should do it anyway.’ Say there is no chance of being caught. So the reason that there might be drama in the future would not be given.The two questions I always ask are: 1. Is it real? 2. Is it relevant? If the answer is yes to either, then it's probably not SP and I need to acknowledge that. So you want to sleep with your friends wife. Is it real? Are you truly doing something objectively wrong by having 100% consensual (on both sides) sex with his wife? No. She is doing something wrong, but you aren't, since you never made any promises or commitments about that to anyone, and she did. (Unless you are in a monogamous relationship with someone else, of course.) She would be cheating, but you would not be. Is it relevant? Are there any consequences that you may suffer? Yes. Your friend will likely find out, and he's going to be pissed, and you're probably going to lose your friend. Therefore, I would not do this. This is why one of my personal rules is to not sleep with the wife or girlfriend of any man I already know (friend, co-worker, family member, etc), even though I'm still not the one cheating and it's all bullshit SP; I won't want the drama or conflict involved in such a thing, which is likely to come.
AnonDude 2017-11-17 11:44:17
This is why one of my personal rules is to not sleep with the wife or girlfriend of any man I already knowEven if you knew an Alpha 2.0 who would not care if you are sleeping with his MLTR or even his OLTR as one of your FBs? I have never had an OLTR but I don't think I would care if she was sleeping with someone I know as long as he is just an FB and all other OLTR rules we established are respected.
Blackdragon 2017-11-17 12:07:47
Even if you knew an Alpha 2.0 who would not care if you are sleeping with his MLTR or even his OLTR as one of your FBs?No, I'm talking about people I know who are monogamous or "monogamous," which is just about everybody who isn't sexless or in player mode. Alpha 2.0's are very rare, less than 3% of men.
Mike 2017-11-17 14:17:50
OK, you want to avoid the hassle o being caught eventually. That's fair. But what if you were 100% sure you would not get caught? Don't tell me it is irrelevant because that is not possible. Just assume it was. And I guess it might even be possible under some scenarios. Let's say the friend is an alpha 2.0 and having an OLTR with his wife. So then it is not even cheating unless he asked you to stay away from his woman. But say this friend is a regular guy who expects his woman to be faithful. True SHE is cheating. But I guess in that case you are betraying your friend as well. I know if you wouldn't get caught, he would never know. So it would never cause him any grief, sadness and unhappiness. So technically it is as if it never happened. Still I wouldn't want to lie to a friend's face about such important matters.
C Lo 2017-11-17 14:48:57
I still wouldn’t. Too many potential issues, smacks of scarcity mentality. too dangerous inside of your social circle.
Blackdragon 2017-11-17 15:56:12
But what if you were 100% sure you would not get caught?There is no such thing as 100% in scenarios like this.
Don’t tell me it is irrelevant because that is not possible. Just assume it was.I don't do fantasy hypotheticals.
Let’s say the friend is an alpha 2.0 and having an OLTR with his wife.Then I would verbally ask him if it was okay before I did it. Otherwise I would pass.
But say this friend is a regular guy who expects his woman to be faithful. True SHE is cheating. But I guess in that case you are betraying your friend as well.That's not why I wouldn't do it. The stupid and juvenile Societal Programming expectations men have about monogamy and female purity mean nothing to me. I just don't do drama.
smacks of scarcity mentality.Agree.
Bluecheer 2017-11-17 23:24:44
Agree with this column, but ignores acknowledging that most of the SP discussed comes from the right.
Mike 2017-11-17 23:56:50
Agree, too. Proactively going after friends' women is scarcity mentality. I wouldn't do it for the exact reasons you mentioned, i.e. drama and risk of losing that friend. My point was that there is another reason apart from this for me personally. Even if no one would ever find out, I'd still think it is 'wrong' for me. That is my personal moral conviction, I don't think it is SP. I was first thinking about 'conscience' for the lack of better term. After thinking it through, I guess it is about my definition of friendship. I value loyalty a lot. And I expect my friends to be loyal. And so am I towards them.
Jack Outside the Box 2017-11-18 06:52:35
1. Is it real?No. Marriage is not real. It is a garbage social construct mostly used today for the purposes of attention whoring or virtue signaling in front of an audience and "relationship insurance" for the woman (if it doesn't work out, she gets paid). Monogamy is not real either. Yet another delusion and socially constructed agreement for insecure people and narcissists with a fetish for territorial human ownership.
2. Is it relevant?If the husband is a stranger, no it is not relevant. I'll fuck his wife in a heartbeat. If the husband is my friend, relevancy is determined by the likelihood of getting caught, plus the importance of the friendship divided by the importance of banging his wife on his kitchen table. If the friendship isn't that important to me, I'll do it (assuming I'm reasonably confident that he is a beta and not one of these mentally unstable alpha 1.0s who might come after me with a gun or baseball bat!). If it is important, I first have to be absolutely sure that his wife and I won't get caught. There are ways of assessing the probability based on the specific circumstances, the wife's personality, her level of discretion, her level of red pill liberation, etc...
So you want to sleep with your friends wife. Is it real? Are you truly doing something objectively wrong by having 100% consensual (on both sides) sex with his wife? No.Correct.
She is doing something wrong,Disagree. Rebelling against her SP is right, not wrong. It's also very courageous, unlike those of us who pride ourselves on having been red pilled for a long time.
but you aren’t, since you never made any promises or commitments about that to anyone, and she did.Promises and commitments based on tyrannical societal programming and outdated puritanism before she woke up from the matrix. I won't judge her too harshly for that. Maybe the husband can wake up too and join us.
(Unless you are in a monogamous relationship with someone else, of course.) She would be cheating, but you would not be.Cheating is a sign that the shackles of your slavery are falling off! Three cheers for cheating!
Is it relevant? Are there any consequences that you may suffer? Yes. Your friend will likely find out, and he’s going to be pissed,If the possibility of getting caught is "likely" then you're right, I wouldn't do it.
and you’re probably going to lose your friend.This is only relevant depending on how much the friendship means to me, of course. As an introvert, I pick my friends very carefully, so most of my friendships mean a great deal to me. So I guess I wouldn't do it then, unless I could make a reasonable calculation that there is virtually no way we'd get caught! And there are ways to calculate that.
Jack Outside the Box 2017-11-18 06:55:53
My point was that there is another reason apart from this for me personally. Even if no one would ever find out, I’d still think it is ‘wrong’ for me.So you believe that monogamy is a legitimate concept that you should respect?
That is my personal moral conviction, I don’t think it is SP.Yes it is.
I was first thinking about ‘conscience’ for the lack of better term.How is shedding other people's delusions a violation of conscience?
After thinking it through, I guess it is about my definition of friendship. I value loyalty a lot. And I expect my friends to be loyal. And so am I towards them.The best way to be loyal to a friend is to give him the red pill.
Mike 2017-11-18 09:19:51
@Jack Where did I say this is about 'respecting monogamy'? I said this is about my concept of friendship. If I have a friend who wants to be monogamous, I don't fuck him over to prove a point. I respect his decisions as I would expect him to respect mine. If I wouldn't be caught, there would be no red pill for him by the way. And still it would violate my value of loyalty.
joelsuf 2017-11-18 09:24:29
Sure, societal SP is anti-male.I'd argue that at this current state, it is anti Alpha 1 more than anti Male in general. Which I kinda don't mind; Alpha 1s who nuthug Mike Cernovich and talk about weird conspiracy theories are just as annoying to me as ratchet college chicks who think they are Gloria Steinem or Bell Hooks with their weird feminist theories. They can keep cutting each other with their edges all day, just leave me out of it. But we will be dragged into it, as being a collectivist in and of itself is now SP. Years from now it will be enforceable SP. And people tend to forget SP used to be anti-chick back in the day, and now its anti Alpha 1. Its a cycle, and soon we'll have another dark ages and we'll get back to a point where gender politics isn't dragging everyone down. Who knows when that will happen. All I know is that I don't want to be around for it.
So they whine about it.Which, paradoxically, is a very feminine thing to do. Putting on demonstrations etc is also toxic feminine. This is why I laugh at people when they say they stand for "men's rights." Its just as bad as the women's movements. When these geeks stop screaming and actually make things better for themselves on an individual basis, that is when I'll respect them. Until then, they just want vengeance without boundaries just like the Social "Justice" Warriors do.
Mike 2017-11-18 10:03:38
@BD Thanks for your quick responses!
Blackdragon 2017-11-18 11:37:25
Agree with this column, but ignores acknowledging that most of the SP discussed comes from the right.Yes, but only when talking about SP around social issues (marriage, monogamy, traditional dating, etc). SP regarding governmental functions (as just one example) comes from the left, not right. It doesn't matter though. As I show regularly at my other blog, both the left and the right are wrong on most issues, so SP is bullshit regardless of where it comes from. You're implying that SP from the left is somehow not as bad as SP from the right... that is incorrect.
Even if no one would ever find out, I’d still think it is ‘wrong’ for me. That is my personal moral conviction, I don’t think it is SP.Moral convictions are SP. Read this.
After thinking it through, I guess it is about my definition of friendship. I value loyalty a lot. And I expect my friends to be loyal. And so am I towards them.All of that is SP. (Whether or not it's good or bad SP is debatable.)
Disagree. Rebelling against her SP is right, not wrong. It’s also very courageous, unlike those of us who pride ourselves on having been red pilled for a long time.We've debated this before and I'm not going to do it again, but to repeat it just once, it's wrong because she made a commitment/promise someone and is breaking that commitment/promise. That is lying and being deceptive, and therefore wrong. I rebel against SP in a moral and honest way. A person promising monogamy to another and then violating that promise, and doing so behind their back, is rebelling against monogamy in an immoral and dishonest way, therefore it is wrong, regardless of if it's against SP.
Promises and commitments based on tyrannical societal programming and outdated puritanism before she woke up from the matrix. I won’t judge her too harshly for that.Great, then she's free to tell her husband, "Hey, when I made that promise of monogamy six years ago when we first got married, I didn't understand things and made a mistake. Now I do understand, so now I'm going to have meaningless sex on the side with other men." That would be moral. If she doesn't do that and just cheats on him behind his back, I will judge her. She is doing something immoral and wrong. But I'm not going to debate this with you again. If you think lying to people is a good thing, you're welcome to that belief.
Mike 2017-11-18 16:54:47
BD, I've skimmed your linked article. There you are stating that 1. Morals are personal and made by people themselves and 2. Ethics is SP. My definition of friendship may sound SP, I admit that. That is totally fine with me. If it is SP, it is harmless SP and is congruent with what I've learned in life. I had so-called friends that betrayed me. Only because I didn't choose carefully and was too generous with that concept. My personal experience has taught me that a 'friend' who is not loyal is not worth a dime and should not be called a friend. This man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemmy who was as rebellious and anti-SP as one can get said (I paraphrase) that 'a true friend is someone who hides you from the cops if they are out to get you'. I couldn't come up with a more pointed statement.
Jack Outside the Box 2017-11-18 21:11:21
BD, first you say this:
Moral convictions are SPThen this:
I rebel against SP in a moral and honest way.Wow! You're slipping man!
Jack Outside the Box 2017-11-18 21:35:06
Where did I say this is about ‘respecting monogamy’?You respect monogamy by refusing to bang your friend's wife even if there were zero chance of him ever finding out, by your own admission. So instead of treating monogamy like the fictional concept that it is, you treat it as if it exists in the objective sense, irrespective of his thoughts about it, getting caught, or ruining friendships.
I said this is about my concept of friendship. If I have a friend who wants to be monogamous, I don’t fuck him over to prove a point.If there is zero chance of you getting caught or him ever finding out, you're not "fucking him over." Nothing happened, as far as he's concerned. But you're saying that it's still wrong, which implies that you believe that monogamy has some type of objective existence apart from the concept of "consequences" or your friend's knowledge. This is SP. If anything, screwing his wife might actually help and/or revitalize their marriage. Ever think of that? Many married women have told me that I literally saved their marriage. You're storing up for yourself good karma and are being classy and noble by not even telling him.
I respect his decisions as I would expect him to respect mine.You're not disrespecting his decisions by sleeping with his wife! You're respecting her decision to have sex with you. If he wants to be monogamous, then respect his decision by not tempting him to cheat with other women. But he has no right to make decisions for another adult. That's an ownership mentality and a strong part of SP, which I see you are still thoroughly marinated in, in the form of acting as a proxy for another man's delusions.
If I wouldn’t be caught, there would be no red pill for him by the way.But there would be for her!
And still it would violate my value of loyalty.Being loyal as the matrix defines loyalty means you're supporting the matrix. Supporting the matrix while being unplugged from it is identical to being plugged into it yourself. Actually, it's worse because you know the truth and yet compromise it for the sake of your feelings (not even his, because he won't find out). This is beta.
My definition of friendship may sound SP, I admit that. That is totally fine with me. If it is SP, it is harmless SP and is congruent with what I’ve learned in life.Assisting your friend in his SP delusions by forcing yourself into a blue pill mode for his benefit is not friendship. It's cowardice.
I had so-called friends that betrayed me.The idea that sleeping with another man's wife is "betrayal" reveals a very blue pill definition of the same.
My personal experience has taught me that a ‘friend’ who is not loyal is not worth a dime and should not be called a friend.But loyalty should not be defined as adhering to Disney delusions for the sake of feelings.
This man who was as rebellious and anti-SP as one can get said (I paraphrase) that ‘a true friend is someone who hides you from the cops if they are out to get you’. I couldn’t come up with a more pointed statement.Wow! Seriously? So if your friend is a murderer, you'll hide him from the cops? This is getting pretty sick. How about this: If your friend is in trouble with the police, it is your duty to yourself to cut him off from your life, learn to be a better judge of character, and pick good people to be friends with next time, not criminals, thugs, or the type of people who get in trouble with cops. Jesus Christ dude! Respect yourself more and don't make friends with criminals!
joelsuf 2017-11-18 21:56:07
BD, first you say this:
Moral convictions are SP
I rebel against SP in a moral and honest way.
Wow! You’re slipping man!BD did say that some SP is good, and morals being the one sliver of SP that is good. Its when these morals are manipulated by a group and pushed onto individuals, that's when it becomes bad. And that's become nearly all forms of SP in the west. But the observation (not fact) that hurting and inconveniencing others is bad is a form of SP that BD follows. So when he says that he is rebelling against SP in a moral and honest way, BD means that he is taking care not to rebel against SP with his own version of SP.
Blackdragon 2017-11-18 23:10:53
You’re slipping man!You're the one who's slipping, because apparently you didn't read the article. I clearly said I have retained some SP, just the good stuff. I also never said I have no morals. As per chapter 8 in my book, I have a personal Code of Conduct that determines my moral center. Some of this was derived from SP, particularly Judeo-Christian morality (thou shalt not kill and such), but the majority of it is derived from my own objective analysis of what is best for me and best for the other party or parties. Lying damages both parties, therefore I have deemed at as immoral and not something I want in my life. Cheating, which is simply a type of lying, potentially damages all three parties (the person cheating, the person being cheated on, and the person the cheater is having sex with), therefore it is something I have deemed immoral; not because of SP, but because of the damage it causes myself and others. You're not stupid. You know damn well that lying via cheating is a bad idea, regardless of how stupid monogamy is. That's why your only response to my above comment was a weak (and inaccurate) ad hominem instead of a logical counterargument.
Mike 2017-11-19 00:01:59
@Jack You operate from the assumption that anything I said is some blue pill conditioning that is per se false. Feel free to believe that. You say you should sleep with your friend's wife to do him a favor even if he would be devastated? Well, maybe you should burn his house, too, to teach him to get proper insurance... Or rob him in a dark valley to make him more careful. If I thought that my friend would be unhappy by his own monogamy, I might tell him to try something else. But generally it is not my responsibility to convert him to a particular lifestyle. He is an adult. If there were no chance of being caught and my friend would not want me to sleep with his wife and I knew that, then I wouldn't do it. For one, because it would turn me into a lier and deteriorate my character. Also, I had to lie to him in the future and would have to live with the knowledge I did something which would hurt him if he knew. That would create unhappiness for me.
Jack Outside the Box 2017-11-19 10:06:40
You’re not stupid. You know damn well that lying via cheating is a bad idea, regardless of how stupid monogamy is.I may be stupider than you think. Ha ha ha!
That’s why your only response to my above comment was a weak (and inaccurate) ad hominemSorry man, I didn't mean any ad hominem attacks.
instead of a logical counterargument.I'm trying to do that with Mike above.
Jack Outside the Box 2017-11-19 10:16:45
You say you should sleep with your friend’s wife to do him a favor even if he would be devastated?He wouldn't be devastated because he wouldn't know about it. The favor would be strengthening and revitalizing his marriage. If there is a decent chance that you'd get caught, you shouldn't do it.
Well, maybe you should burn his house, too, to teach him to get proper insurance… Or rob him in a dark valley to make him more careful.You're seriously comparing women to property? I rest my case! It's not your fault. Treating the opposite sex with an attitude of ownership is inevitable when you're against cheating or respect other people's monogamy. For the record, burning down his house or robbing him would be bad because you're violating his private property, and thus his human rights. By fucking his wife, you're not violating anything, except cultural brainwashing. Marriage and monogamy is fictional bullshit. A house and money are real.
If I thought that my friend would be unhappy by his own monogamy, I might tell him to try something else.Good.
But generally it is not my responsibility to convert him to a particular lifestyle. He is an adult.Correct. And if his wife wants to rip your clothes off, it is not your responsibility to convert her to a more conservative lifestyle. She's an adult. And you also have no business shielding your friend from the consequences of his particular lifestyle choice (which may include getting cheated on).
If there were no chance of being caught and my friend would not want me to sleep with his wife and I knew that, then I wouldn’t do it. For one, because it would turn me into a lier and deteriorate my character.This is vague and poetic.
Also, I had to lie to him in the future and would have to live with the knowledge I did something which would hurt him if he knew. That would create unhappiness for me.Really? Fictional hypotheticals create unhappiness for you? Interesting. Only unpleasant realities do so for me.
2017HappyLifestyle 2017-11-19 11:24:46
There's some Societal Programming that is good. If it was not for the SP that paper money is actually worth something, then most people would have to be farmers growing their own food and current guys would really have something to complain about then or they would be too busy and too tired to constantly complain, so money is SP that is good. Probably SP about the military because it accelerated the development of airplanes, rockets, jet engines, computers, the mass production of antibiotics, lighter materials, and the DARPA ARPANET that eventually became the Internet. Those are some SP by-products with benefits. People get to watch SP as it is happening. Currently many news articles and news tv shows even more than usual are about sexuality as something bad and criminal and the kino cops are out trying to control everyone's bodies and have further weaponized sexuality as an economic and political weapon (as if other peoples sexuality is the most important topic in the world right now). Divide (men against women, etc), Distract (old politicians are touching each other, so don't think about more important issues or your own goals), Prime (more sexuality as crime laws are going to be needed in the future to increase our salaries and to fund our pensions), Program (it's wrong for people to be sexually attracted to each other without a legal contract that if the man breaks he loses much of what he used to have in order to pay the lawyers salaries). In the 1600's to 1700's people caught having pre-marital relations were publicly whipped/shamed, it's 2017 so it's good that doesn't happen anymore, oh wait the tv news is on now, oh look at all these anti-sexuality online news articles. I'm starting to drop deeper, sexuality is bad, oh wait I can think for myself and make my own decisions so I decide that sexuality is good. I think it's better to not become famous, don't be a politician, don't be a teacher, keep a Low-Profile, and be very discreet. It's been interesting but in a stressful way to watch the SP on PUA type blogs where it appears most guys start drinking the Mountain Duude, and instead of doing pick-up, some of them march on U.S. cities and do other crazy things. There was a blog that to begin with pretended to be The Story of O (I have it but haven't read it yet) about extreme bdsm possibly, said to Fck women good and have a Mission in life, so that was fine, then it oddly turned into toxic political propaganda promoting the world is ending type fear, and I got away from it (and other similar toxic blogs) but other guys fell into the trap. Some PUA's have become instigators and agitators of outrage to SP their followers to have fear, anger, hate, and incorrect mental maps of interpersonal relations. Feminism started out as sexual freedom for females, and decades later a few women and many male politicians who may hate on men turned it into left wing political issues to the point it should be called a totally different term (instead of guys over the last few years complaining about Feminism they should really be complaining about some other definition such as Left Wingism or something like that). Similarly, PUAism started out about sexual freedom for males trying to learn how to get laid, then within a decade or less many guys who hate on women oddly turned it into right wing type political issues to the point where those doing that do not represent PUAism as they are some different term such as Right Wingism or something like that. This is relevant to the topic of "pick-up" because it is part of how many guys are being Socially Programmed currently. If there are a few women who hate men and if there are some guys who hate women, I say so what because fear/anger/hate will not make me more happy so as a calm cool collected mentally-stable relaxed Alpha 2.0 man with Outcome Independence I try to avoid all of that and I just focus on being happy and programming myself into doing the actions to achieve my own goals as I enjoy living a happy lifestyle. The word with the letters f,u,c,k was determined by the Supreme Court in 1971 for people to basically have the right to say it, as it originally might have meant to plow, sort of like as in suck (out)/fuck (in), so if it wasn't for the Societal Programming of money then most guys would have to be farmers and go outside and fuck the fields.
Greg 2017-11-19 13:33:54
I'm a fervent reader of this blog, but I still can't find a good justification for tossing aside the famous "monogamy" in my life. Being married and being in a monogamous relationship is two separate things. Although the former is bad for numerous reasons I'm agreeing with (like alimony, giving her half of my assets in case of divorce...), I don't think being monogamous is a big bad thing from SP. Hell, you know who is with who, it helps to give a bit of structure to the society which don't need to turn into a swinger's club. Yeah having sex is important but having a stable and organized society is also important for you too. The only argument I can agree with is somehow having less "drama", but even then you just next her ass if she turns into a bitch after the 3 years mark or if she really doesn't want to have sex with you or me. And then get another girlfriend in the week, pretty simple. No need to do anything complicated nor cheating or managing FB/MLTR if I only want to have sex with one woman. You know you don't need to be a complete beta who'll agree with everything she says, and... you don't need either to have a bunch of side women to have sex regularly. It's a big waste of time and energy. Just take what you need nothing more, nothing less.
Bluecheer 2017-11-19 20:52:52
BD, did not imply anything about SP outside of hetero relationships .
Blackdragon 2017-11-19 21:10:26
it helps to give a bit of structure to the society which don’t need to turn into a swinger’s club. Yeah having sex is important but having a stable and organized society is also important for you too.You don't engage any any type of personal relationship because you think it's good (or bad) for society. Indeed, that is perhaps the worst reason their is to have any type of relationship.
you just next her ass if she turns into a bitch after the 3 years mark or if she really doesn’t want to have sex with you or me. And then get another girlfriend in the week, pretty simple.https://blackdragonblog.com/2017/03/06/advocating-serial-monogamy-men/
you don’t need either to have a bunch of side women to have sex regularlyhttps://blackdragonblog.com/2017/06/05/dont-need-date-lots-women/
Trem 2017-11-23 11:20:32
Okay, I'll try to explain why this Alpha 2.0's system is somehow worse than a polygamy's system for most Alphas. Polygamy : * The male can have X gf (not married obviously) * The female couldn't have any male other than her husband/bf * The female could be fed up & mostly cheat/become frigid after the 3-4 years mark => The male need then to hard next her ass and get another one. * It's better if the male is outcome independant & need to be confident to pull this out, but a Alpha 1.0 could still do it with ease since it's imply the girls aren't "shared" and the adjustments to his Social Programming to do this are easy to make. * The male need to do "The Talk" about having more than one gf unless he lives in the Middle-East. Alpha 2.0: * The male could have 1-X FB / 1-X MLTR or 1 OLTR * The female could get any male she wants other than her Alpha 2.0 * The female could still get out of the Alpha's 2.0 life when she LSNFTE him, moves out, get a new job or any other cases when she's "not there". Then the Alpha 2.0 need to sarge to get another female to remplace her. * The male need to be outcome independant & confident and don't mind to "share" a girl with someone else (which is a hard SP package to get rid off). * The male need to do "The Talk" about having more than one girl (in case of a MLTR/OLTR) In this blog Blackdragon said females love "serial monogamy", so it's easier to get them when you promise them monogamy for some times. In the two systems the male need to remplace every once in a while their "females", and the Alpha 2.0 more often than the Polygamist hence a better sense of stability for the Polygamist. The Polygamist has a better chance of betaization which is the drawback of this stability and could appeal more to Alpha 1.0.
Blackdragon 2017-11-23 15:05:25
Okay, I’ll try to explain why this Alpha 2.0’s system is somehow worse than a polygamy’s system for most Alphas.Polygamy is included under Alpha 2.0. I just call it MLTR. You're just saying you prefer MLTR over OLTR, which, as I've said many times, is perfectly fine.