@Typo-MAGAshiv Yes, its not about forgiveness (that is not your business), its about suitability for selection.

One can overlook the past, if one is sure that an individual has reformed. Their past still exists though. It still leaves its mark on someone. Its like a past drug addict. They always know what they are missing even when they are sober. They have habit patterns that they have to consciously decide not to follow when it comes for reaching for chemical support at certain challenging times. Those who have been previously promiscuous or have been very serial monogamists know inside themselves how easy it is to move on, how easy it is to get more attention elsewhere, how less they have with the current partner in some situations than they had with previous partners.

The born again are basically people who have taken a resolution, backed by a community and a lot of stimulating ritual. The community and the ritual are supportive but they are also often a crutch. The compliance in the individual is usually less to the resolution than to the group. The have abrogated personal responsibility by pledging to a pre formulated way of doing things. Oh golly that does sound a hugely attractive idea to women doesn't it.

@Typo-MAGAshiv Sounds like Theroux came from hislibtard bosses with a conclusion pre formed. He used to make good TV. He tried to get to the bottom of what people were like. He wins their confidence and then the truth just falls into his hands when he pauses in conversation.

In fact his Jimmy Saville documentaries were a good example, for all the attacking him for them in this one. Saville was a freak and a paedo but he was also adored by the British establishment as a great charity worker and was a knight of the realm. Louis gets close to him and while he doesn't quite show him up as a paedo Saville practically gives it away himself and he does show him up as a total weirdo who is manipulative. He only succeeds because he actually hangs out with Saville and wins his confidence.

Sometimes the freaks come out of Louis' documentaries on top -they explain themselves rationally and you see its the truth because he has got close to them and the truth has just fallen out.

He just came in to do a hatchet job on the manosphere, found some big easy targets and took them down. It wasn't a good job.

@Stigma Great post there. I agree fully with you there.

It was their insecurity that undid them. They should have been straight over the issue of the one sided monogamy (which was really a side issue from their being knob head grifters selling a fake vision of uber alphaness).

"Look I offer a lot. This is something I ask in return. Girls have a free choice when they get with me. I don't lie to them (Which is for a start better than many men and women offer their lovers). Its not like you like everything about your wife Louis. Some things she does and likes don't suit you but she offers what she offers and you took the deal both for better and worse when you accepted her. There is no such thing as any one's ideal spouse but these girls accepted us on these terms. They accepted the pluses and the minuses we bring. I accept that she snores/ can't bake/ has an annoying mother/ has a chavvy dress sense, asks X or Y from me or whatever. These were not deal breakers for me and this was not a deal breaker for her. If it is, she will leave and I will consider whether it was worth it to me or not. Its a big world, Louis, full of consenting adults making choices."

Instead to keep up their fake vision of being so alpha that girls just agreed to and wanted everything they wanted; they said "she wants whatever I want" Muppets! We all want what we want. We agree to live in a position where we are happy with the sum of the pluses and minuses. That's adult life. The red pill suggests, among other things, that men dare to ask for what they want from life not to follow gynocentric scripts.

@lurkerhasarisen Here is an interesting one. Are we saying that loyalty and care for those under you are beta traits?

Alcibiades had all of the alpha traits but he was very self interested. Dragging his wife out of court when she tried to divorce him amuses the school boy in me but it also suggests a lack of ability to resolve things sensibly. If he was really all that good at being alpha and making women submissive why did she take him to court in the first place to divorce him for his whoring?

If we are taking what I call the "fake alpha stance" some manosphere "teachers" are promoting, shouldn't she, in a state where women had almost no legal rights and there was no femtardation, have said "whatever makes you happy Chad, can I join a threesome, I find the idea of you doing other girls makes me so hot?" He failed in leadership there. His actions provoked mutiny. He just lived in an age where you could get away with it if you were an influential guy.

Alcibiades was essentially selfish. Being uber Chad maybe never gave him much need to think of others but he was a charming traitor in the end. And that's what got him killed. I mean seriously, who defects to Sparta and thanks them for accepting him by shagging the queen? He came up short in the end. He possessed all the gifts of manliness except self control. He just thought too much of himself and not enough of others.

I would like to suggest that what he lacked in self control and empathy was where he fell short of having the whole apha deck. I would like to suggest that empathy and self control are not beta traits unless used by a beta mind.

Low ranking men learn to control themselves better than many high raking men because they are forced to. Low ranking men often have to be thoughtful of others because they lack power but that does not actually make those characteristics weak, its just that low ranking men are in a weak position to start. Its just like saying women are not all sweet and kind. In fact plain women tend to be sweeter and kinder than hot women because they have less options.

Low ranking men often look with jealousy at high ranking men and think "I wish I could be a selfish dick too, that would be so high status (alpha)" What they are not seeing is that they are looking at failure not success when they see these things. A good leader does not unnecessarily injure his subjects. There are times when one has to act against the interests of subjects but these times are when you are forced by circumstance or by a greater opportunity for a greater number.

Being kind and self controlled are part of being a successful high status man. I wouddl argue that when done well they are Alpha traits, just as dominance needs to be done well or its only aggression. A low status dog will cower under a table and bite you from fear. That is badly used aggression. Its not alpha its gamma or delta behaviour. Similarly a low status man against whom you have the upper hand verbally and legally may punch you because that is all he has left. It may landing in jail but he is desperate. In fact come to think of it most domestic violence against women is done by low to mid ranking, whom the women are forcing or humiliating. Its not that the guy is so alpha that he is a danger to women, it because he is not alpha enough to ignore her, roll over and go to sleep.

@adam-l Yes. These guys are monetising ideas that should be for the wider benefit of society and some of them are doing it simply by creating content that pushes frustrated men's buttons. This is not where the manosphere started. It was a sort of bro science and bro philosophy. It is the truth behind our ideas that has pushed us out into the mainstream.

Louis comes out on top in that video. He came to make content out of them that would push people's buttons and he did. Where I always thought he excelled was in gently getting to know people who were on the fringes of the acceptable and finding out what mad them tick. He showed you the crazies but the crazies had a chance to show you what they were about. Sometimes they came out of it well and his friendly style came them a chance to do this, sometimes they made fools of themselves or showed the holes up in their world view.

Louis went out there and found some guys who were so easy to let make fools of themselves that it was too easy -make the fools perform to push the buttons of the liberal elite folk at the BBC, collect the money, get the exposure, next!

I wish he had talked to the right people but I fear those who commission his stuff want polarising button pushing stuff these days not stuff that stretches the viewer and may lead to disconcerting conclusions.