I’ve been collecting my thoughts about my recent talk with Jedidiah Bila and a few topics of discussion stood out in this show. People wonder why I don’t do “debates” with every new influencer who wants to make a name for themselves by challenging my character – rarely my work – and then proceed to talk over and past me at every uncomfortable point I make. Going on Jedidiah’s show and then playing ‘gotcha!’ with Ruslan for two hours on Adam Sosnick’s show reminded me why I don’t bother with disingenuous critics.
Jed blanketed me with “Not all women are like that” (NAWALT) responses to every assertion I made. After 20 years in the sphere, the rationales and cope never change. Women will always presume their experience is the universal one. Any woman can speak for all women because solipsism is baked into their psyches. An unflattering collective truth about women’s nature is an attack on the individual woman’s ego. Whataboutism, thy name is woman.
One thing I was reminded of in my 3 hours and 10 minutes with Jedidiah was the importance of never revealing the Game to women. It is always a mistake to explain the game of intersexual dynamics to women. I’ve written essays about this since 2014. Back then I added a caveat; never talk about Red Pill concepts with women you want to get intimate with. If you didn’t care whether you ended up in bed with her or you were trying to hold a woman accountable for whatever reason, then have at it. By now you should know you’ll never reason a woman into bed with you. Reason and virtue are anti-seductive because they rely on logically convincing a woman to sleep with you. Seduction is about emotional appeals. Women want to feel like they want to bang you. That means playing the Game with them to prompt those feels. Explaining Game to women triggers the observer effect.
Women want to play the Game, they don’t want to have the Game explained to them.
Even the women you don’t want to end up in bed with. This explanation has been been the downfall of every Blue Pill guy who’s ever agonized over how his crush just can’t see that he’s logically the best choice for her to invest her sexuality in. These are the guys who do all the in-depth analyses and spreadsheet breakdowns of their qualifiers that would make them a woman’s best bet for future love, security, and parenting. They’re also the guys women want nothing to do with because the very act of explaining why they should fall in love with them, have sex with them, and reproduce with them grates against women’s feminine intuition. Engaging her intuition is part of the play. Vox Day once said that women can’t explain why they feel a barely repressible urge to punch Gamma males in the face. That urge stems from the feeling that Gamma men are trying to trick women into selecting him by logically explaining why he is her best option. This is effectively negotiating desire with a woman that a Gamma male isn’t in a relationship with. It’s like convincing her that she has an obligation to fuck him and settle on him for the long term even if she has no real desire for him. It’s akin to controlling her body and removing her choice in the Hypergamous process.
Every time I’ve been on shows discussing Red Pill topics with women we always reach the point of diminishing returns. The conversations begin with explanations of female nature and the point-counterpoint proceeds from there. This is usually the most productive phase of the ‘debate’, but eventually, we get to the point where women run out of logical counterpoints to defend themselves and the sisterhood. This is when we enter the NAWALT phase. This is the phase where selection bias and individual qualities of real women enter the conversation. Disqualifiers, No True Scotsman logical fallacies, and then universalizing of personal anecdotes and “lived experiences” as the objective truth usually crop up in this phase. This is when one woman speaks for all women; or all women who are of the standard she believes she sets in the sexual marketplace.
When these rationales fail we finally reach the point of the emotional reframe. This is the point of diminishing returns. “Who hurt you?”, “Have you ever actually been in love?”, and “What was your childhood like?” are all variations of the emotional reframe. If you ever hear these questions or accusations in the course of explaining the Red Pill to a woman, you’ve reached the point of diminishing returns and nothing more productive will really come from continuing the talk. If you continue past this you enter into the point of negative returns. At best you’ll look like you’re beating up on helpless women with logic they can’t refute. At worst your detractors will take the best 30-45 second video clips of you out of context to use against you in a Reel, TikTok or YouTube #short to build their own White Knight brand.
The mistake in all this is expecting any contrition on the part of women. Why? Because you’re explaining the Game to them rather than playing the Game with them. You’re essentially assuming the role of the Gamma male explaining to women how they do their magic tricks. It’s not really magic. All their fascinating tricks are explainable and have logical purposes that benefit them or have some practical function. Explanations kill the faith and the feels necessary to play the Game. All women cease to be special in the light of rational explanation. Belief ceases to be faith when you explain the machine behind the magic.
This is why women think you’re creepy and want to punch you in the face when you explain the machine to them. They literally cannot argue against why you are the right (or wrong) choice to fuck and procreate with. This is exactly why Mikhaila Peterson complained of “Not getting a good feeling” after my talk with her back in December of 2021. Contrary to popular opinion I don’t actually want to fuck Mikhaila so I have no reason not to explain the Game to her. But I can’t make it feel good after I do, nor would I want to. The point of the talk wasn’t to feel good after the show; it’s to debate the strength of ideas. However, she’d probably like to punch me in the face for ruining the magic for her.
Observing a process will change that process. This is called the observer effect. It’s why there are certain phenomena that have to be observed in the wild rather than in the lab. I honed my people-watching skills while working in the casino marketing and liquor promo industries. This was my fieldwork for decades. It’s also why I focused on behaviorism in college. Organic, unsolicited behavior is a good metric for genuine desire. But negotiating desire or discussing desire on a talk show triggers the observer effect. You cannot negotiate genuine desire, but there are many ways of negotiating it that seem like logical, female-correct methods of forming a healthy relationship. I’ve heard every pop psychologist from Dr. Phill to Dr. Peterson blather off some variation of negotiating desire as a key to a good relationship. I argue this is the kiss of death to any relationship. Why? For all the reasons I learned and described after debating Red Pill topics with a myriad of women whom I’ll never have any desire to bang.
Negotiating desire is always rooted in reasoning a woman into bed with you. Thus the obligation to fuck you is based on the same reasoning.
Likewise, explaining the Red Pill to women is negotiating desire based on similar logic.