I am El Zorro Plateador, a voice-man, offering Classics of the Early Manosphere and my own original RP content, to bestow clarity to men lost within the Fog Bank of Feminism.
I come bearing gifts - myths, stories, and tales for a world in chaos.
I welcome your comments, feedback, and suggestions.
All my videos are conveniently organized, for your viewing pleasure, into playlists. Please see, view, and watch by playlist.
Yes, I can tell that the person who translated to english is a french speaker. Protégée (F) and Protégé (M) both mean "Protected" in French, but they also mean "guided or supported by an older and more experienced person" in English. The use of "The Protégé" in this context will mean "the protected".
This chapter reminded me of Sally Ride. For those of you who do not know who she was, Sally Ride was America's first woman in space. She flew on two Challenger missions. She enjoyed her brief fifteen minutes of fame both before, during, and then after her first flight. She was a manufactured celebrity for NASA, and she did beat out like I believe it was two other women for the role, I think, in part, because of her looks. Not that she was especially gorgeous, per se, but she had a wholesome look; athletic (she was a promising tennis athlete in college), yet she had this "hometown girl next door" kind of charm that NASA was looking for. The media called her Mustang Sally, after the song. As for her second flight, as I recall, the media attention was not nearly so big, and I, being a bit of a space junkie at the time (as an American middle-schooler...living in France at the time due to my parents had to move there because my Dad's job sent him there), only knew because I remember looking at the crew roster and seeing her name. After her brief five year marriage to fellow astronaut Steven Hawley, she divorced, with no children. She came out as a lesbian in the 90s, living with her partner Tam O'Shaughnessy, until her death in 2012 from cancer. She taught physics at the University of California, San Diego, and she did some things like help with the investigation of the Challenger and Columbia disasters, and public outreach about space programmes and such. I asked some of her students about her, about her classes. Now, what I found is purely anecdotal, but what I found interesting was that she predominantly had male students, and about half of them, as was told to me, admitted to taking her course because they knew she was America's first woman in space. What women I found who attended her class admitted they didn't know that she was America's first woman in space, but, she rarely let a class go by without reminding the class she had been to space on the Space Shuttle. Ask most women today about her, and odds are they won't know, because they do not care. To be fair, a lot of men these days aren't especially interested in knowing who Buzz Aldrin was. But, more men than women would likely know that he was the second man to walk on the moon. And Aldrin, after his glory years were behind him, didn't take the loss of fame or of working in aerospace too well, taking to alcoholism for a time. I suspect that something similar happened to Ride, because for a brief period of time, she was America's darling, but when the fame wore off, and when she found few women in her classes, and the ones who were there didn't know who she was, I think that must've hurt. Because while women might celebrate other women's accomplishments in public, at the same time, they do not care a whit. It doesn't serve them personally. Sending a woman into space today is par for the course, and even if we send people back to the moon, and a woman were to walk there, women, in general, will not care about it. Not in any way men might, because men are interested in all sorts of things that women just aren't. If a woman isn't getting the constant attention and applause, not simply by men, but from other women, she will lose interest, and I suspect that the only reason, apart from money, that Ride continued to do any kind of outreach for space for women was that it gave her a sense of status among feminists who, for political reasons, would care, but only to an extent. And I suspect she only came out as a lesbian was to get some brief attention again. When she passed away, the LGBTQ+ activists called her the first lesbian in space. I tend to look at her life as a bit tragic. She chased after something that, in the end, I don't believe really satisfied her. Because her voyages into space could've been handled by any man, including her ex-husband, that NASA had on hand. She helped install and test the new robotic arm on the Shuttle, and while she may have had some technical expertise on that component, at the same time if she couldn't go up for whatever reason, any other astronaut could've filled her role and taken instructions from Mission Control. She knew her role was a publicity stunt more than it was anything else. Rather like the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova, she was selected both for her sex and for her looks. Tereshkova was not a pilot, but she did do some amateur skydiving. They found her in a textile mill. When she went into space, she was supposed to do some minor scientific tests up there, but she bungled them. But, the Soviets were happy, because her mission was a propaganda stunt, meant to show the West how more egalitarian they were. As far as I know, she's still alive, serving in the Russian parliament. But, ask any woman today if they know who Valentina Tereshkova is, and I'll bet you they don't know, and don't care.
She's wrong about reversing the roles of war. Women are not warriors. They are not soldiers. Military service, in all branches, is very hard work, and war requires a lot of physical labour. Women cannot do it. Even if, by some miracle, you find a woman who can, at her age, equal or exceed men's physical fitness standards, this doesn't mean she can take the sheer level of work needed, for hours on end, day after day. To move men, material, weapons, ammo, planes, ships, and trucks around, to deploy them where needed, takes a lot that most women will never be called upon to do. If they're in a convoy, and a truck breaks down, they may have to get out and march, and that means carrying as much as you can, for several miles. If you stop somewhere, a perimeter might have to be set, and that means digging in, setting up tents, communications, latrines, and other things. And there's a chance you may have to do it all over again the next day, if you get any sleep (guard duties have to happen). Women require more medical and sanitary facilities than men do. It is important to her health that she gets clean daily, or bad things happen. Whereas men, while we would stink, can go for weeks on end without a wash (I know, because I had to do it, both in the US Army and the French Foreign Legion). We might need to be deloused, and checked out, but, for the most part, after a good scrubbing we're just fine. But women can get things like yeast infections, urinary tract infections, and other maladies that could affect them for the rest of their lives if they do not get regular access to washing facilities. Moreover, while men can and do stink, without adequate and regular access to washing facilities, women stink FAR worse. It's one of those things women do not want men to know. Ask any correctional officer, male or female, of any women's prison how bad it stinks there. Women may be able to emotionally handle the emotional vicissitudes of violence and war, they cannot handle the sheer stress of war. What's more, they don't have to, and they know it. I've seen women get out of field training exercises merely by whining. Men cannot do that. And, if a woman in the military knows she may have to go to a combat theater, and whining doesn't get her out of it, she will find a way to get pregnant, and fast! The instant a woman gets pregnant, she immediately becomes non-deployable, because, for one, she's physically useless to the military, and second, the baby didn't sign up for military service. Getting pregnant means that she'll not only get out of going to a combat theater, but she'll be home for at least a year, if not longer, doing light duties at the rear echelon post, and collect a paycheck. She'll also get housing if she isn't married when she gets pregnant, not to mention all the medical and pre/post-natal care she needs, on the taxpayer's dime. That also means she can get pregnant in theater, which means the military has to spend millions of dollars in terms of manpower, equipment, fuel, and other things to get her out of theater. It can be even more if she's on a Navy ship at sea, because they can't just send the ship back to port, so it's more difficult. Adding women to the military creates de-facto prostitution. There were reports of women getting out of theater in Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom with thousands of dollars in small bills found in their bags during mandatory shakedowns. Since there weren't too many banks or ATMs women could deposit that cash, they took it with them (and I don't think any of it was confiscated, since it's not contraband). They didn't get that money selling MLM products. Women may live longer than men, but it's not because they're tougher. They're not. They live much more pampered lives. They don't do the kind of work men do, or put themselves at risk as men do.
This is such a contradictory chapter. It's so all over the place. It's in direct contradiction to her first book. I think she's focusing on the male's perspective or she's just completely wrong altogether. The ideas on the manipulated man do not help with the distinction of sexual love. Sexual love is in contradiction to her chapter in the manipulated man - the one on how attraction has no say in a life partner. I think she's implying that there does exist a short-term mate and a long-term mate. Equality is impossible. So therefore, protege polygamy + protection is ideal. Not "one partner equality." To which, she feels, no woman is deserving of. Because she knows that women don't have much to offer. She's right - so she'd like access to it through polygamy. She also mentions intergenerational dating being not attractive. While, in the manipulated man, she says that all that matters is life-long provision. That's why she would choose the younger man. It all doesn't make total sense - attractiveness is important. Women like masculine and muscular men - they also want provisions and protection. Attaction is important, otherwise, pretty boys wouldn't be popular. I still believe that the ideal is a masculine/prettyboy mix that provides well and doesn't interact with them much other than the occasional escapade. They want this to happen "naturally" - LOL. So, in these cases, monogomy never existed. She's beating around the bush here. Still going to listen to the rest - I hope she makes sense then.
Two of the biggest attention whores changed the course of history. Helen of Troy - caused the Trojan War a dick measuring contest between 2 kingdoms to free her from captivity Salome of Galilee - asked for the head of Saint John the Baptist when the Emperor was drunk Poison vines indeed, women's attention and praise is like crack to betas/simps/cucks.
Change your conception of yourself and you will automatically change the world in which you live. Do not try to change people; they are only messengers telling you who you are. Revalue yourself and they will confirm the change. Neville Goddard
In your own bosom you bear your heaven and earth, And all you behold, though it appears without, It is within, in your imagination, Of which this world of mortality is but a shadow. William Blake
The value of the content on here is unreal. Still flummoxed as how you have barely 3k subs in 2024. I guess people prefer a comfortable sleep, to confronting bitter reality by waking up. Much props for opening with this story. As an Indian, most of us did not know this story until a movie was made somewhere in the 2010s I guess. Every time my inner voice bitches, whines, moans, or complains - I come back to this channel, and slap that bitch right out. Much gratitude brother. Namaste!
Esther Vilar is incredibly based and red pilled asf, and she was talking about this in the 1970s well before the woke madness which started in the 2010s. I am from India, and every single word of what she writes is true even in conservative regions like Latin America, Eastern Europe/Russia, Africa and Asia. In fact women from the third world are even more hypergamous and their nature is more pernicious and insidious than Western women, due to the lack of economic opportunities. Women would rather share the house with another woman, than be alone to fend for themselves. Muslims and Mormons were on to something. Polygamy if allowed, will collapse the Western countries, because the notion of child support (which is actually woman support) will vanish. And so will the entire vampire ecosystem of divorce lawyers etc. Just like communism is taking from the rich and giving to the poor, feminism is taking from men and giving to women. If dowry is illegal before marriage, than so should be alimony after divorce. Divorce starts in the bedroom, and ends in the courtroom.
Esther Vilar is incredibly based and red pilled asf, and she was talking about this in the 1970s well before the woke madness which started in the 2010s. I am from India, and every single word of what she writes is true even in conservative regions like Latin America, Eastern Europe/Russia, Africa and Asia. In fact women from the third world are even more hypergamous and their nature is more pernicious and insidious than Western women, due to the lack of economic opportunities. Women would rather share the house with another woman, than be alone to fend for themselves. Muslims and Mormons were on to something. Polygamy if allowed, will collapse the Western countries, because the notion of child support (which is actually woman support) will vanish. And so will the entire vampire ecosystem of divorce lawyers etc. Just like communism is taking from the rich and giving to the poor, feminism is taking from men and giving to women. If dowry is illegal before marriage, than so should be alimony after divorce. Divorce starts in the bedroom, and ends in the courtroom.
This chapter should have been much before, newr the beginning of the book. Because it rips bare the problem in today's world. What was rife only in the West, has spread like a mind virus to trad cultures. Now even women in Eastern Europe, Latin America, Asia and Africa have become corrupted thots thanks so simps and social media. Anyway, you can only pull the rubber band or pendulum, so far back before it snaps or moves to the other number extreme. We are in the final fourth turning now. Much gratitude for your work mate. Namaste 💖💯🌻
The voices are top notch brother 😂 No AI can ever come even close to a real heartfelt narration. You should be a voice actor or read audio books haha! Namaste from India 🎉
Some men are conditioned from childhood to become hyper dependent on a females approval. It takes years of mental health work, and definitely physical exercise, in order to become aware of the manipulation. To have complete understanding of how you’re being manipulated is often difficult, especially when actively being manipulated by a partner.
@@elzorroplateador8567 I am also just living life and enjoying women, things got a bit weird online though, and accidentally had another kid lol, I keep up with people like Rian and Nuke sometimes, just got this video recommended and remembered that listening to you reading book of pook while doing long walks pulled me out of a bit of a hole a some years ago.
@@jsgdk Glad ur doing well, yes the book of book is powerful medicine but I must point out: "there are no accidents" and therefore there are no accidental children lmao I made that mistake too
Let me get this straight, you take a brilliant work that is generational in its value and you think you can critique it? Jesus Christ talk about dunning-kruger effect right there.
I would further and say that a mans power is systemic. The greater his extent at projecting infinite power, the closer he is to the gods, a power women can never experience.
I see the reason why men get manipulated is because they are stack in the left linear logical brain and they can only see what's happening around them if they learn to use their right big picture brain that involves see, hear, feel, smell and taste! That way they can't get manipulated simple stuff hah but hard to condition in a human being!
The spirit behind this woman and her book is anti-Christian. Despite the truths she has given. The principalities that utilized her vessel are anti-Christ in origin
Young men are learning from the mistakes of their fathers and older brothers and marriage is falling out of favor. Women are losing ground to gaming and porn websites. AI will soon replace high-dollar dating. Times are changing. Note: Everything a woman does for her son is for his benefit and everything she does for her husband is for her benefit. It is all business.
plenty of women have had their tubes tied, many of them have no kids. They dont give a gd if the guy can make babies. Many dont care (much) if you never so into them with anything but a finger. They prefer tongue.
This book is good and all, but what is the answer to it all? Stay away from women? Don’t have kids with them? Don’t love them? Don’t get in relationships with them? Escape to the woods and live by yourself? Thanks.
I can only give you my own answer, not the author’s opinion. That is - be real with yourself and be realistic about women. Women want that too. Women need men to be real and practical and a little bit cynical about women. Women know they are tricky because they have to be. It is a survival tactic. Don’t be naive. That’s the message I took from all this.
Thankfully I’m already anti theism Anti Natalism and anti Marriage And now after reading her Even anti dating. The moment she said “hookers is the best Buy” in book.
@@elzorroplateador8567 You must read Costin Alamariu - Selective breeding and birth of philosophy, the philosopher is been trolled as Bronze age pervert, but he got the whole matter right.
@elzorroplateador8567 impossible that mate. If women are being true to their duplicitous nature, then it's impossible for them to be "a good girl". As to be a good girl, they are only putting on an act. And sooner or later, their true character will come out! 🫣🤒
This is a very thought-provoking and somewhat scary thesis-book. There seems to be one piece of the puzzle missing though: how do/can women control their sex drive so much better than men in order to not need a lover in their life, once they have children and have secured the protégé role for life? It doesn't seem convincing enough. Why don't women also feel the need to become polygamous? The same way a (normal) man doesn't want to have sex with a child, a (normal) woman wouldn't want to feel like a child in the act of sex. Any thoughts?
What makes you think they are inactive in a child bearing marriage, despite inactivity with the husband. The genders are ferociously competitive, even in seemingly loving relationships.
Women are only fertile about 1 week in 4 for about 3 decades at most while men are just fertile basically from about 13 to 60 every day...why would biology/evolution/god make women interested in sex in their non fertile times?
Sometimes, counterintuitively, to define someone as something they are not leads to them becoming that very thing. One example is “better to be hanged for a sheep than a goat,” and another is Neville Goddard’s famous “I will not climb a ladder” exercise.
@smttn1 Because vilar is examinining the human contidion in stasis so to speak, (honestly if I have to explain that... just don'r read anymore). Like one would describe a thing that is sitting in front of them. Even then, it's the test of TIME that proves the relevance of what she's saying which brings me to my point. The social stimuli, and psychological and physioligical profile of both parties obiviously can't be quantified; much less filtered thru the experience of the 9 billion ppl here now (and all before them , of course) just to churn the shot glass more of self-reflection you clearly need to just break this ridiculous Kay-Fabe you all uphold to avoid taking responsibility individually AND collectively for what you all kinda [NOT kinda at ALL] know exactly what u are doing when u are doing it and the part no one can help like your own personall trauma that got you there and the ones keeping you there cannot be simply ignored where you behavior is an issue yet on full display the other hours of a day you aren't sleeping. ESPECIALLY if you expect us to carry ANY of said responsibility for our own inner child issues and behavior meanwhile ignoring your behavior. But you'd find something, I'm sure.
