Wednesday, August 5, 2015

The Superficial and Transitory Nature of "High Value"

I've read the term "high value" more times than I can remember. The Manosphere, often being adolescent, sees it "being attractive to women" and "getting laid a lot."

I've had quite a lot of experience with guys who get laid a lot, as in a hundred and more women. In every case, as I've pointed out before, they were cowards, liars, sometimes perverts, often drunks or drug users, and had emotional problems. They were self-centered and immature, oftentimes covered up with a superficial charm.

In other words, they were low-value "omegas." Most of the ones I've met oftentimes belonged to the scum/deviant/criminal class. And even if they didn't, and were educated and made a lot of money....they were still sleazy, their relationships never worked out (due to chronic cheating and seeing more than one woman at a time), and they were impulsive and their money just flowed through their fingers like water.

The Manosphere, as it often does, gets the definition backwards. What it thinks are "high-value alphas" are in reality "low-value omegas."

Here I must make a digression. My last semester in college I was informed I was short a class in Philosophy. The only class that was half-way attractive was Buddhism (as compared to say, Epistemology) so I signed up for it.

I got really, really lucky. My instructor had gotten his Ph.D. from Yale and had gone to India for his B.S. to get the original teachings about Hinduism and Buddhism from the source.

He informed us throughout life we were going to run across a lot of nonsense about Buddhism, from people who knew very little about it. He was right.

Again, I have lost count of the people who think Buddhism is about having "no desires." Our instructor informed us that was nonsense, the Buddha never taught that, and everyone has desires and that's the way we are built.

What he taught was that everything changes, we try to cling to that what gives pleasure, it changes, and so we can never be happy. Many thoughtful people have noticed this throughout history (I remember that even the nutcase Freud wrote about it).

Much of the Manosphere thinks that being popular with women and having lots of sex brings happiness. This is taught by the nutcase and fraud Roissy, the buffoon "Roosh," along with others.

So here is what happens: you have sex with a woman and it's very pleasurable. The pleasure goes up, then it goes down and goes away.

That is the nature of pleasure. Up and down, up and down. But instead of realizing the problem...people cling to the pleasure. And that's a huge problem.

The PUAs I've met never got happiness from one woman. They got pleasure, which went up and down and then went away. So they went to another woman and the cycle repeated. So they tried drugs and alcohol.

Same thing. The pleasure goes up and down, up and down. They kept trying to cling to it, desperately seeking to make it last. And it never did.

Here I make another digression. I can't remember what class it was, but the Greeks noticed that "arete" leads to "eudaimonia." In other words, excellence in life leads to well-being.

Pleasure is not well-being. Pleasure is transitory and goes up and down and then goes away. It is short-term, oftentimes very short-term. Like minutes.

Well-being, on the the other hand, is long-term, sometimes for years or decades. And you get it though excellence in life.

Being "high-value" really means "excellence." But since having a lot of women and having sex with all of them doesn't bring well-being but instead transitory pleasure...it's not excellence. That's another adolescent Manosphere delusion.

Every culture that I am familiar with has taught the difference between the transitory nature of pleasure ("sex, drugs and rock 'n roll" - which will destroy your life if you obsessively cling to it) and true well-being.

The Manosphere overwhelmingly teaches that excellence and well-being comes from being an "alpha" and getting a lot of women. But again, what it teaches as the characteristics of an "alpha" are in reality the characteristics of an "omega...and you sure aren't going to get well-being from going from woman to woman to woman. In reality you'll wreck your life - and I have seen it more than once.

I've seen them die from leading the wrong life. "Pride goes before destruction"? "A haughty spirit before a fall"? "Hubris followed by nemesis"? The Manosphere teaches none of it.

What it often teaches is the road to destruction. And it doesn't even know it's doing it.

27 comments:

Shaun F said...

Thank you for saying that. Pleasure is not well being. It reminds me of the story of the Exodus. Everyone in the Wilderness of Sin are complaining about the hardship and fondly remembering the bondage of Egypt: the gilded cage of pleasure in the form of comfort, fine meats, and wines. I agree also that most Buddhists, at least on the left coast - are a tad...flakey (misguided).

Unknown said...

Insightful. Which leads us to the obvious question... What is and how does one achieve well being? Probably, it's different for each individual. Although one must assume the basics are the same, at least within all males.

Anonymous said...

"What is and how does one achieve well being?"

Try self-hypnosis:

http://www.selfhypnosis.com/downloads/health-wellbeing/

http://www.selfhypnosis.com/downloads/find-happiness/

DeNihilist said...

Very succinct Bob.

DeNihilist said...

To add from an eastern point of view, we are, men and women both, both feminine and masculine energies. Been mulling this over for awhile. It seems to me, that real Alpha's (as per Bonecrakr), are men with a more masculine energy. Beta's are a few points higher in masculine energy, whilst omega's seem to be men that have a higher feminine energy count.

PUA's, as you point out Bob, are more omega then anything.

- Very feminine in their ways. Unsure of themselves - need to fuck many different women to prop up their lack of self esteem.

- Very catty, use verbal attacks and humiliation such as denigrating beta's, to make themselves feel better then others.

- needing a system to be able to manipulate others, known as game, as they have no natural tendencies to attract other people. Funny thing about game, is that if it works at all, it only seems to work on drunken women, or sluts. Krauser pua was good enough to prove this point when he tracked a year of "day" game. 1,000 approaches, 28 bedded women. This may not be a controlled experiment, but is still good data, as krauser pua is considered an alphalpha amongst alphalpha's.

28 closes from 1,000 approaches is no better then chance/luck. So when game is used on women when they are not drunk or sluts, it does nothing to improve your chances of bedding said women.

But you know, us haters gotta hate! LOL!!

michael savell said...

If it is at all possible a man should marry his best female friend,the one he gets along with and can have a laugh without the tears.I so much agree with you and I am nearly 80.There is nothing to be gained save sorrow if you spend your time scalp hunting and one day you will pick the wrong person and that is why this "rape" argument will continue to flourish whether true or untrue.Have a good relationship with someone who loves you and you can trust,not a series of empty vessels.

Glen Filthie said...

When it comes to assigning greek letters to men - it starts and ends with Vox Day, actually. (I got banned from his site when I pointed out - that by his definition - his own son was a contemptable 'gamma'. HAR HAR HAR!

But in all fairness I note that his definitions of the terms differ from yours by about 180 degrees. Of the classical manosphere wanks he is probably as good itas it gets. He does have problems with his masculinity but he understands how to handle women that are bat-shit crazy - which is about 50% of them if the divorce stats are to be believed.

Complicating things is that we are old world men. The dating game, marriage and sexuality are all being re-defined by a minority of people that are deeply disturbed and immoral. If I had to critique the manosphere and guys like Roosh and Roissy it would be to admonish them not to throw out the baby with the bath water. There are good women still around - a fella just has to be selective and patient.

Bob Wallace said...

I've never banned anyone, even the especially annoying. If they want to be retards in public I'll just encourage them.

Anonymous said...

Hmm...I have read a few articles and one by Roosh that shows he is tiring of the game and starting to look into more spiritual matters and even said he wants to be a father. I believe the Manosphere/Red Pill/Alpha thing is, as noted, bravado covering insecurity and after a fashion, it just fades. Keeping that up forever is probably exhausting and ultimately unsatisfying. Even a kid will stop eating cookies at some point.

Bob Wallace said...

Looks like Roosh's 15 minutes of being a douche are up. Next to go is Roissy.

Anonymous said...



Regarding Roosh, if "game" worked, why is he going to these other third world countries in latin america and eastern europe? Shouldn't game work anywhere, everywhere, and on any woman?

DeNihilist said...

Anon, see my comment upthread about krauser pua. He has proved that game does not work on women, unless they are sluts or drunk.

LosAngelesKing said...

"I got banned from his site when I pointed out - that by his definition - his own son was a contemptable 'gamma'."

LOL. I'm just curious Bob, did you ever get banned from Vox's sight? I noticed in the comments every so often you would disparage his Greek alphabet soup monikers or other bullshit that he was regurgitating and the other commentators in the peanut gallery would go ballistic like a middle aged shrew having a hot flash. It was all quite amusing to read, all being said. Just like the self proclaimed "alpha" bitches that come to these comment threads to whine that you're daring to question their new found religion (they certainly believe what they read, but not necessarily experience with all the zeal of the newly converted). I'm starting to think they may need a therapist's couch to deal with the trauma of being called frauds.

"I have read a few articles and one by Roosh that shows he is tiring of the game and starting to look into more spiritual matters and even said he wants to be a father."

If Roosh ever has a child, then Lord help that child then. And if he is tiring of the game, then it's hardly a surprise. I knew most of the concepts of the manosphere was bullshit before the manosphere even existed, probably at about the age of 12 reading the Bible: man cannot live on bread alone. What does it profit a man, that he gain the world, but lose his soul? I know you'll probably correct me on the actual translation Bob, but one's soul is the true self.

One final thought on the fatigue of hedonistic lifestyles in the manosphere and it is this. It is feminism for men. Encouraging confused and oftentimes justifiably angry young men to destroy their lives, while calling it self-improvement is the same as Gloria Steinem and the other rancid cunt whores to do the same with young women while calling it "empowerment." And men far better than the others mentioned above knew the destructiveness of thrill seeking and hedonism. Lessons learned from reading the confessions of St. Augustine. "Save me O Lord, but not yet.

Any young man asking me for advice on navigating the turbid waters today's dating pool receives the same lecture from me. They ask me if I have anything else that I'm selling. But here's the thing, and this must be remembered, unlike the manosphere personalities and keyboard jockeys, I'm not selling anything. I don't need to sell these thoughts, these thoughts sell themselves.

DeNihilist said...

LAK - the days of heavy lifting are in the rear view mirror for a lot of people. not only have these alphalpha's tried to redefine the classic terms of Alpha, Beta, etc., for their own favour, they have also conscripted the terms of masculinity, and tried to shove it into the grab bag of game. Denying that game is a small sub-species of masculinity, instead declaring that masculinity is held within the game moniker. Game is easy to learn, it is free on the pua sites, just pay thousands to attend a "boot camp", etc., etc., et-fucking-cetera.

As always, sex sells. Now the promise is that low life mating strategies can be bought and not only will you bang more sluts, but your boss will give you that big raise you deserve as the alphalpha male of the firm!

So fucking pathetic it hurts!

Anonymous said...

These guys are smoking crack and/or looking to sell you some. Thats all you need to know about them really.

As an aside. I have very rarely come across other men who do have remarkable presence. Its not charisma, or primate dominance displays or sleazy marketing/sales techniques or psy-ops or any of that. An almost tangible force that I am sure was not just inside my own head but was real. Anyone have similar experiences?

Anonymous said...

Interesting, can you write more about what your instructor has taught you regrading buddhist philosophy?

kurt9 said...

I can tell you that every guy I knew personally who got laid a lot with many different women did so because they lied. They lied their asses off to get laid! Some of the stories I heard these guys say were simply unbelievable. The purpose of the lying, of course, was to manipulate the girl into putting out. The lying usually took tow different forms. The first was to misrepresent who the guy was in terms of job, money, and other characteristics that the girl in question would find attractive. The other most common form was to lie about their feelings towards the girl (in order to manipulate her emotions in order to "score").

The problem with this kind of lying is that it eventually rubs off on the person doing the lying. Con-men often come to believe in their own stories. This is part of the reason why such lying ultimately causes emotional problems for the person doing the lying. It is simply not possible for normal people (e.g. non-sociopaths) to live a lie for a long time.

Anonymous said...



I think a lot of these guys in the manosphere and their followers project their adolescent fantasies onto women, i.e., the much bandied about "cock carousel" - women being promiscuous. I have no idea how much of this is accurate, if any at all. Sure there are women that are promiscuous, but a wholesale change in female attitudes? Sure women like sex, their human too, but women think about sex differently from men.

See here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/11779200/Why-are-American-teens-having-less-sex.html

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your writing. In my opinion, the Manosphere has the problem of "democratization of information". That is, a 15-year old teenager's writings have the same value of an experienced man.

While some concepts can help men deidealize women, the vast majority tend to be poisonous over time. Yes, we have to be careful when dating women; yes, some women are psychopathic and dangerous to your health; yes, be observative and careful before proposing marriage. Other than that, there is not too much to read.

RustyS said...

"Anon, see my comment upthread about krauser pua. He has proved that game does not work on women, unless they are sluts or drunk."

That actually should be pretty obvious to anyone who's read into PUA "techniques." 99% of them have no application at all outside of a nightclub. On the other hand drunks and sluts accurately describe a really good chunk of America's female population. How many young single girls do you know who do anything besides facebook and the bar/club scene with their free time?

Anonymous said...

"Thanks for your writing. In my opinion, the Manosphere has the problem of "democratization of information". That is, a 15-year old teenager's writings have the same value of an experienced man."

You mean bloggers like sniveling, snot-nosed adolescents, Vox, Krauser, Roosh, Rollo, Chateeau Heartiste, are not on par with Carl Jung, Marcus Aurelius, Shakespeare, Schopenhauer, Weininger, St. Augustine, Aquinas, Cicero, Cato, Aristotle, Plato, etc.? LOL.

Earl Thomas said...

Pertinent to this topic if you guys want to take the time to listen to some good fodder from a priest who describes what it means to raise/ be a man...here it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7V1W967ofA

The highlights are he points out the endless pursuit of pleasure is what makes men go effeminate (soft) and that striving for virtue, sacrifice, and taking on responsibility is what makes a true man.

Anonymous said...



Men who achieve great things in life also practice sexual transmutation - channeling physical and sexual energy into mental energy to achieve worthwhile persuits.

Earl Thomas said...

Yes...if a man is able to channel and subdue his lower appetites in order to live the higher ones, he will go on to achieve great things. This is an example of self-discipline and sacrifice.

Anonymous said...

"Anon, see my comment upthread about krauser pua. He has proved that game does not work on women, unless they are sluts or drunk."

Yeah, if a man wants to get sluts and/or drunk women, game can work, but these women are almost always abnormal and damaged to begin with, and will most likely cause problems (e.g., legal (false rape accusation, domestic violence accusations), health (STD's) and psychological) for him.

I think it also affects the mans' ability to have normal relationships with "normal" women because he gets so acclimated to dealing with these psychologically abnormal women who tend to respond to game. These game guys get a warped view of women and female behavior, then they cannot recalibrate how they act and think with normal women, thereby destroying the ability for them to have a normal life and relationships with real women.

Game also takes time, a lot of time just meeting and approaching lots of women - I think most men who follow this course in life don't really achieve much of anything life, except to boast that they slept with a lot of loose women, and most are probably not that attractive.

Bob Wallace said...

"LOL. I'm just curious Bob, did you ever get banned from Vox's sight?"

I rarely comment there, have never been banned, and I wonder if it's because although I'm not nearly as well-known as him, I still am fairly well-known. And if I wrote an article about him banning me...

Bob Wallace said...

"They lied their asses off to get laid"

That's been my experience, too, without exception.