A Series of Negatives on Inherent Unfairness, Part II

The story of Creation and the Garden of Eden is well-travelled ground for the Christians (and some non-Christians) in the Manosphere. I want to discuss an aspect of it that I have never realized before last night, and have never seen discussed–though I might have just missed it. Each part is a really short bit that isn’t talked about in scripture explicitly, but is unavoidable once you see it between the lines. By unavoidable, I do not mean that I have the answer, but that it is a question that should definitely be asked.

One of the ways in which the stories of the Bible, and the parables of Jesus, are so good is because they are the field in which new treasures are always being found.

44 “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.”

This is part II of a series in digging for what is under the surface. I was going to do several parts, but I have some things I want to say, and I need to get through this so I can build upon it. You can find the other part here: Part I

Genesis 1:6-27

And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And Godmade the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

20 And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.

Here we see the first instance of God referring to Himself in the singular and the plural. Just wanted to throw that out there.

And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

Up until now, this has been what corporate knuckleheads like to call the “30,000-ft. flyover” of creation. In the next chapter we get a closer view of the specifics of the creation of man. Why this introductory chapter? Why the two versions of the creation of man? It only makes sense to me that God is meticulously laying out the order and then the purpose; order and then purpose; order and then purpose. He wants us to take it seriously.

I also think it’s important that, not until each part is laid out, does He say “It is good.” He doesn’t say. “It is good to have plants.”, and then make plants.

Here’s the rest of the chapter:

28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Notice: He doesn’t say it is good that He made man until man is stated in the context of what He is to be about. With all the other steps (light, dry land, plants, animals, etc.) those things are good as soon as God sees them. Mankind are not stated to be good until they get a job.

And remember that bolded part.

We Hold This Solipsism as Self-Evident

Vox, and now Dalrock, have taken up the rebuttal to Susan Walsh’s challenge that men prove women’s solipsism exists, or drop it. I can add nothing to their comments, except to note a couple forms of it that really irritate me.

One of the most common forms of what we refer to as female solipsism (and I’ve argued is identical to Dark Triad traits) is women’s almost perpetual state of undress. If she’s wearing pants: they’re skin-tight pants. If she’s wearing a skirt: it’s a short, or high-slit, or very form-fitting skirt. If she’s not trying to be alluring: she’s wearing sweats. I’ve argued that this is abusive to men in the sense that they’re calling out, “You should want this”; the visual equivalent of a one-sided game of slap ‘n’ tickle.

The most common form of solipsism that “good” girls express is when they bring women un-dressed in such ways around their men. They are unconcerned and unaware of the most basic workings of the male libido. If wives knew how tempting it is for their husbands to lust after the wives’ friends, wives would shame other women into dressing properly, and never bring them around their husbands if they weren’t.

A Series of Negatives on Inherent Unfairness, Part I

The story of Creation and the Garden of Eden is well-travelled ground for the Christians (and some non-Christians) in the Manosphere. I want to discuss an aspect of it that I have never realized before last night, and have never seen discussed–though I might have just missed it. Each part is a really short bit that isn’t talked about in scripture explicitly, but is unavoidable once you see it between the lines. By unavoidable, I do not mean that I have the answer, but that it is a question that should definitely be asked.

One of the ways in which the stories of the Bible, and the parables of Jesus, are so good is because they are the field in which new treasures are always being found.

44 “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.”

This is part 1 of a series in digging for what is under the surface.

Genesis 1:1-5

1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

God makes the universe including what would become the Earth; then light, and separates the light from the darkness, creating day and night. And these are good.

camera click!

Why darkness first? Not too far from now, nearly everything good is going to be described in terms of light; while darkness will represent evil.  This description is utterly pervasive in human thought, and therefore seems unavoidably part of God’s design. If God wants a good universe–and in the near future a good Earth, good things on it, and good people–why does He start from a position where we would describe everything as inherently bad? Why isn’t the universe luminous from the beginning?

Advocates Under Authority, Awaiting the Jubilee

This post was a comment on Society of Phineas, (and reposted at Dalrock, in the thread that spawned SoP’s post.) but I wanted to repost here for posterity; that anyone can find. I have edited it a good deal, to become a more complete post.

In no way do I absolve the women of the reality and guilt of abusing men; particularly husbands. To wit: If she cheats, or is a slut, that is her fault. Nevertheless, as I won’t be married to a cheater, and God allows it to happen, then I must accept that it is God’s will that I not be married–provided He does not change my heart.

A woman does NOT have the same moral culpability that a man does. That is not to say they have none at all. Scripture is clear that women as a sex were given a mediator because of this weakness; first the father and then the husband. Numbers 30.

“If a woman vows a vow to the Lord and binds herself by a pledge, while within her father’s house in her youth, and her father hears of her vow and of her pledge by which she has bound herself and says nothing to her, then all her vows shall stand, and every pledge by which she has bound herself shall stand. But if her father opposes her on the day that he hears of it, no vow of hers, no pledge by which she has bound herself shall stand. And the Lord will forgive her, because her father opposed her.

“If she marries a husband, while under her vows or any thoughtless utterance of her lips by which she has bound herself, and her husband hears of it and says nothing to her on the day that he hears, then her vows shall stand, and her pledges by which she has bound herself shall stand. But if, on the day that her husband comes to hear of it, he opposes her, then he makes void her vow that was on her, and the thoughtless utterance of her lips by which she bound herself. And the Lord will forgive her. (But any vow of a widow or of a divorced woman, anything by which she has bound herself, shall stand against her.) 10 And if she vowed in her husband’s house or bound herself by a pledge with an oath, 11 and her husband heard of it and said nothing to her and did not oppose her, then all her vows shall stand, and every pledge by which she bound herself shall stand. 12 But if her husband makes them null and void on the day that he hears them, then whatever proceeds out of her lips concerning her vows or concerning her pledge of herself shall not stand. Her husband has made them void, and the Lord will forgive her. 13 Any vow and any binding oath to afflict herself, her husband may establish,or her husband may make void. 14 But if her husband says nothing to her from day to day, then he establishes all her vows or all her pledges that are upon her. He has established them, because he said nothing to her on the day that he heard of them. 15 But if he makes them null and void after he has heard of them, then he shall bear her iniquity.”

Should a woman reject her prescribed mediator, she is on her own. She has this ability; which nearly all modern women practice.

Scripture is also clear that women as a race–mankind–need a Mediator because of mankind’s moral depravity. Christ does not go His own way, in regards to us women (men and women) that repent. Having heard of our sins, He pleads our moral vacuity (we know not what we do) before the Father, and so absolves us of them. We become blameless not because we do not sin, but by recognizing we are guilty and weak, and so subject ourselves to His blameless rule. He pleads our case of: not guilty by reason of insanity…lack of reason; lack of Logos. We cast our sins upon the Sinless, at His offering. This is remarkably unfair to the Man–which only makes since in an inherently unfair world. It is not justice to the law, which is made for the world and condemns, but mercy–we are justified to His love.

Compounding the problem, in their cowardice, earthly fathers have created a moral hazard for wives and daughters by not informing them of their true choices: submit to their fathers until they marry and then to their husbands, or submit to themselves and prepare to suffer their own consequences.

So who is more to blame here? It is men. By our sin of abdication is the ground cursed, because we would not stand up against sin, for the sake of our women, and before the Lord. No change will come until fathers begin to incline their hearts to their women in true love and understanding of their nature.

We do not need a men’s rights movement (does the Bible ever speak of rights?); we need a true men’s responsibility movement;

32 As for the cities of the Levites, the Levites may redeem at any time the houses in the cities they possess. 33 And if one of the Levites exercises his right of redemption, then the house that was sold in a city they possess shall be released in the jubilee. For the houses in the cities of the Levites are their possession among the people of Israel.

one that informs women of their options, and also casts out those that choose to go their own way, to be disciplined by Satan. This is the error of:

Christian husbands and fathers of the world (best demonstrated by Feminist Christian leadership, to sell our wives and daughters as equal sisters rather than subordinates, that we might prosper.)

the MRA movement (best demonstrated by their desire to change caesar’s laws and science to accomplish God’s order, instead of rendering what has the face of God back to Him),

and Players (best demonstrated by their eagerness to suffer, and cause suffering, not for the sake of love, but for the sake of pleasure, revenge and destruction).

It is sacrificial and fearful to be the man, but if we will assume our authority, and intervene in love, our helpmeets can begin healing immediately; without one law of man being being changed. Though, the time of reclamation will have to wait for the jubilee.

I will repeat what I said before: celibacy is a righteous option. However; insofar as anyone rejects that women’s independence, harlotry, and idolatry (in a word: Feminism) is a problem to first be sorted out by fathers and husbands–by explaining and maintaining the scriptural order–they are in error because we are men under authority.

When he had entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, appealing to him,“Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly.” And he said to him, “I will come and heal him.” But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” 10 When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith. 11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”13 And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; let it be done for you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed at that very moment.

Finally, I want to add that I do not say these things because I have tried them, and they’ve worked so well for me, but because I believe they are true even though my trying of them is very shabby. This blog is as much a working-through for myself as it is a proclamation to the world. The Jubilee is coming.

I also want to remind my readers that I write with an eye towards the Christian man who desires marriage; with a special emphasis on not letting the wisdom of the world crowd out the wisdom of God–most especially as it pertains to finding a wife, the role of the husband, and sexual sin.

The Church in Ephesus: Marriage as Combat

Author’s Note: I owe a great deal to Dalrock, and his commenters. Particularly noteworthy are GKChesterton and Desiderius. No doubt several others made many of the same points, but I did not connect with them. Of course there are many who argued against. I thank them too.

The man who now calls himself Elihu (h/t: Ulysses) thinks has had had an awakening, and issued a warning:

So heads up quiet, obedient, chinless Churchian men: The pick-up artists have caught the scent of your relatively unsullied women, and we are coming for them. Whether our conversions are genuine or not is irrelevant to you. Your faux-Christian weekly social club is soon to be beset by an influx of thirty-something Lotharios. Learn Game and deprogram yourself from the Cultural Marxism that you picked up from your pastor as much as any Gender Studies professor or episode of Glee, because you’ll eventually go toe to toe* for the souls of your women, against those of us who have.

If I am very generous, I can see this as how Elihu might speak to the Church in Thyatira. Probably too generous: Elihu was a righteous man who took God’s position; not the position of Job’s enemy. I address the Church in Ephesus–the enemies of the sons of the earth mother, the sons of the huntresslike this:

10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. 14 Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness15 and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace16 In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one17 and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God18 praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints19 and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel20 for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.

Notice that the Christian man must take up the shield of faith himself–not irrational confidence–to extinguish the enemy’s favored weapon of flaming darts (arrows, and javelins). He must pick up the sword of the Spirit–which is not Game–but the Word of God, to combat evil. For every suggestion the Player asserts, there is a superior choice in scripture.

There is a discipline that puts the sword in its rightful place, central to the life of the martial man, and that way is called chivalry.

I can hear you already (as I have foolishly said myself, to my shame): “Chivalry is failed!” To abscond with a Chesterton quote:

Chivalry has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.

It’s not that chivalry was not manly enough; but that the weight of its manliness was greater than men are inclined to wield. Indeed, chivalry’s weight is godliness.

This, then, is the beginning of a new era for me, if not others. I mean to lay out as much of the map as I can see, in this space, about what a new form of chivalry will look like. During this time, I’ll cover pragmatic topics such as behavior and dress; to abstract topics like the nature of authority, and Nicolaism. There will be a good deal more on Ephesus, Artemis, reproof of the Church, and calling men to recapture her.

I am aware there are much smarter men writing on these things; probably in what is called the Orthosphere. Maybe they are a better fit for you. I can’t say because I don’t read them. My attempts left me…bemused. I am earnest, but a novice.

In the meantime, this is an analogy of what Chivalry looks like when confronted with the problem of caring for women, children, and the old; in a world threatened by the kith and kin of Artemis.

* This is not a change. From stem-to-stern, Game is a martial discord meant to defeat other men, to gain their women. Christianity calls for marital discipline.

There is no Poon III: Ain’t No Wang Either

This is the last post in the TINP series, and I wanted it to be as punctual as possible. Up until now, virtually all of the links to Game philosophy have been to Heartiste, but are actually Roissy’s older work. It was the Chateau’s original curator who laid (hey-o!) the foundation* of Game that the Manosphere builds upon. (No offense: Mystery, Neil Strauss, et al.) It’s time to get up to speed.

One of the current heavy-hitting Game writers is Rollo Tomasi, the author of The Rational Male. This is a lengthy quote, but worth the time. You can read it in context here.

[M]ore sociopathic men, being entirely self-concerned and outcome indifferent, are primarily the types of men women feel the most arousal for and attraction to. In other words, the sociopath, in his self-importance, can’t be bothered to observe the process of attraction in women.

That said, I can’t help but find a similar parallel in women’s cognitive ignorance of their own attraction cues. Women’s innate solipsism (further reinforced by fem-centrism), like the self-importance of the sociopathic man, predisposes her to be oblivious to her own pluralistic sexual strategy (Alpha vs. Beta attraction). A woman’s solipsistic nature suggests she can’t be bothered to observe her own process.

In fact I would argue that evolution and hypergamy has selected-for women who are more predisposed to being oblivious to their own attraction cues, thus allowing them more cognitive brain-space to be devoted to filtering for the best mating option and the best long term provisioning option among prospective males.

Here he breaks into some seriously convoluted evo-psych theorization. What’s really stunning** is that Rollo never links the “solipsism” (actually Dark Triad traits) of the these cave women to the their male children. In other words, he never gets the clue that Cads aren’t good at being men, they’re the wreckage of Bad Women.

Recently Professor Mentu had a twitter debate with a manosphere-aware female wondering if there were in fact ‘red pill women’. Naturally in her self-congratulatory solipsism she wanted credit as a woman figuring out the Men who’d figured out women. I got a good laugh out of this, as I do with bloggers like Aunt Giggles and a few select other manosphere women because in truth, all women are red pill women – it’s dragging the truth of the red pill out of them that’s the trick. (all emphasis in original)

Translation: The Red Pill man should imitate the Dark Triad man, because the Dark Triad man is successful at sleeping with women. The Dark Triad man is successful sleeping with women because he thinks like his single mother–he is the wannabe rocker, the aspiring rapper. He is the disaffected ne’er-do-well of a single mother. He projects onto everyone else what he has always and only known: how to make mother happy, and get what he wants. This works very well in our society, for obvious reasons.

That does not make it healthy, and admiration isn’t even a goal.

In the previous TNIP post, I showed how what we in the Manosphere call female solipsism–hamsterization–is really a low-to-mid-level expression of the Dark Triad traits left uncured in the minds of uncivilized women…which in our era is nearly all women. The two most well-known people (in terms relevant to the subject of the exhibition of solipsistic/Dark Triad traits) are Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton.

They are but two nipples of the many teats of an ancient Feminist. The peaks of those bulbous hills are pink and brown with rockstars, and rappers, and every shade of nervy and undeserving celebrity; each roused to harder heights by the removal of the cloth of Christian civility. But it is only among the round and fatuous globes do these protrusions seem cocky. Their penetration into the world are fleeting, and bear no fruit.***

The daughters of Artemis are absurd, and her sons choose the life of a eunuch.

*I had started a very long work of de-coding Roissy’s always relevant Sixteen Commandments of Poon back into their original Feminist languages, but I’ll probably cancel that. I’m itching to move on to something else. Besides, if the changing tenor in recent posts of Game-friendly blogs is any indication…

**Who is very sharp. That’s what makes it stunning.

***I sincerely hope this story ends with a reversal of fortunes.

It Needs to be Personal

UPDATE: I hated the other title. It was a silly choice. 

I want to take a break from my TINP posts…my head’s in the wrong place for that topic.

Over at Dalrock’s place, empathologicalism asks a question:

Let ask it this way…..from where will numbers of red pill men come?

I honestly don’t know where, but I gather he’s more optimistic than I am. However; it did lead me back to thinking about how I started down this road. This isn’t about how I learned to interact with women, but how I became conscious I had diverged from the common emotional climate of society.

Depravity’s Child

Back when we were apartment dwellers, our PC was in the living room; on a wall perpendicular to the TV so that you couldn’t see it if you were looking at the monitor. Back then, way back in the poor and stupid days of the 90s, we had cable. At first, I watched copious amount of MTV. Even in those days, there were no music videos, but there were a whole bunch of girls in colorful bikinis; miniskirts, etc. When you’re 22, it can while the time. Over just a few months though, I began to hate them. Pretty soon, if I was watching TV I was watching Speedvision, or the Hitler Channel*, and I’d watched one too many Barrett-Jackson auctions (Go, Cobra, Go! WHAT??? Only $75,000? What a LOSER!)…and, “poof”‘, in four or five months of cable and I was done with TV again. Especially those teases on MTV.

I’m not sure what game I was playing–I’ve always been partial to shooters. I know I had headphones on–but Mrs. Caldo harkened from the couch.

“Aw, I love this video.”

(Man, I need a health pack soon.)

“Cane, have you seen this video?”

(I’m almost out of ammo, too.)

Can you see the little car parked on the tracks; it’s driver fidgeting with her radio? Can you hear the rumble of a Kansas-long freight train of MTV scorn, burdened by innumerable alien enemies, bearing down on ?

“Cane? Did you hear me.”

(…)

“Cane…”

It’s too late to stop; best blow the warning whistle.

“No, I don’t care.”

“Will you just look for a second please? She is so pret-“

I take of my headphones, and place them on the desk, turning towards the TV, and there’s Beyonce, shaking her ass. Somewhere in the background, my avatar suffers a grisly fate.

“-ty. See?”

My eyes were full of ass-shaking, and lust.

“Yeah. I would totally fuck the shit out of her. Is that what you want to hear? Because I would. Can I play my game now?”

Maul Shopping

By the time I was 20, I had developed a visceral reaction to the mall, and I avoided it whenever possible. For a long time, I couldn’t put it into words, but not long after the Depravity’s Child incident, I understood: It was the girls.

They come in all types, sizes, and ages, but they go to the mall in only two modes of dress: slob, or slut. The underdressed slobs elicit mild disgust, which only serves to set the stage. Their hair is tied in knots, over sweats, or stretchy pants; feet shod in flip-flops. Why in the world they still wear half-inch eyelashes and layers of make-up, I’ll never understand.

The sluts, though… Women don’t understand the primal forces they employ when they oppress the average man with carefully extruded and exposed flesh. One day I became aware that the feeling I had, the anger, was equivalent to my reaction to the Napoleon-Syndrome tyrants at school.

The tall boy in public school has a special little Hell: older smart-mouthed little runts. They run their mouths at the big guys who haven’t yet displayed physical dominance. Should the smart-mouthing fail to elicit a strong enough response, runts will escalate to posturing and pestering…while their friends gather around. The runt has nothing to lose: if he gets his ass whipped, it was expected, his friends and the bureaucracy will avenge him. If he wins, well, he’s mighty, isn’t he? The tall boy, of course, has the reverse situation: nothing to gain. Boys who fight in school get in trouble, period. It doesn’t matter who starts it: any display of aggression is met with mind-numbing re-education; in school suspension; removal from extracurricular activities; monologues…

Did I forget to mention that this is only true for the bigger boy?

This is my mall experience: hordes of stupid little 16 to 30-year old sluts taunting me; jerking at my johnson with their various states of disrobe, and there’s nothing I can do about it unless I want to deal with some severe repercussions. It’s the equivalent of bowling right into strangers with my 6’4″ frame; never apologizing; always oblivious. It’s their beastliness abusing my civility that angers me.

That moment of realization was when I changed from egalitarian to chauvinist. I wouldn’t encounter the idea of Red Pill until over a decade later, but the path led out from the mall.

It seems to me that no man’s experience was that one day his friend told him about Game, and his eyes opened; or that an Men’s Rights Activist left a pamphlet, and it affected someone who’d never thought about it. It must be personal.

*The History Channel. There was a time when is was 2/3 Hitler, 1/3 Rome.) This is before the Great TV Conflation of the 00’s when Remodeling-Cake-Truckers took over every station. But, really, there’s only so much about Hitler one can learn (SPOILER ALERT: he’s the villain.)

Then Love Ham at 400 degrees for 18 Years

A contributor at Feminism is Empathological, I Art Laughing, has a good post on what the Resigned Loving Patriarch looks like when confronted with his own sin, from the story of Noah and Ham. Part of his summary struck a response

I think it is our job as husbands to counter the feminist culture, in the world and in our wives. We need to love our wives like Christ loved the Church, and not respond like they are God Himself when the criticize us.

One of the most fruitful fights with my wife was my persistent trivialization and condescension of Oprah, and fem-centric media in general; TV, ads, magazines, everything. Fight is not the right word: It was a years long guerrilla war. Every time I saw emotionally-based, lib-tard, anti-masculine, Feminist programming I would mock it; sneer at it; laugh at her if she was enjoying it.

Now, I don’t know if this was the best approach (and I’m not the best patriarch), but overall it was worth the fight. One sweet fruit of which was texted to me at 7:30pm the other night (I’m out of town).

There is No Poon II: Solipsism, The Dark Triad, and Game

One of the best-known expressions of female solipsism is the game: “Let’s have a fight between you and him.” The charge of solipsism comes from the fact that, as far as the women is concerned, these men only exist in her mind, for her purposes. It is only natural that they fight for supremacy and her affections. But is it solipsism? We can’t truly know that without being able to see her mind; see from her mind, really. When we say this woman is solipsistic, we’re really using it as a short-hand to describe something else.

Before we go any further, here is what Wikipedia has about Dark Triads, and their  Mating Strategies.

The Dark Triad is a group of three personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy, all of which are interpersonally aversive. The Dark Triad refers to three theoretically distinct but empirically overlapping personality constructs. The term reflects the perception that these three diagnostic categories, have at least some common underlying factors:

  • The narcissistic personality (in the clinical sense) is characterized by a grandiose self-view, a sense of entitlement, lack of empathy, and egotism. On some theories, such as Kohut’s, it is associated with protection of a radically weak, shamed, or damaged self.
  • The Machiavellian personality is characterized by manipulation and exploitation of others, with a cynical disregard for morality and a focus on self-interest and deception.
  • The psychopath, or antisocial personality, is characterized by impulsive thrill-seeking, and in its “primary” form by selfishness, callousness, lack of personal affect, superficial charm, and remorselessness.

To go back to the woman who thinks Saturday night’s all right for fighting, what we can comment on is what’s being displayed to the realist, rationalist, and the like: a psychopathic nature, and a machiavellian practice that flatters her narcissism.

Here’s another example.

As I’ve written before, I learned that an effective way to get my wife to lose weight and want to have sex with me was to play “Let’s have a sex-off between you and her”. And, as I also stated at the time, I’d never heard of Game. I wasn’t making calculated Game decisions to fire her hypergamy cannon in my direction. My decisions were based on a simple set of metrics: I don’t want to hear “No”, and I want to be pleasured. It was a narcissistic machiavellianism, with psychopathic overtones. It was also incredibly harmful to me; more so than my wife. I don’t mean it wasn’t deeply painful for her, but it’s always the way that pain is more keenly felt by the living than the dead.

Enough about me: I want to look back at the mating strategies, from the Dark Triad article on Wikipedia.

The Dark Triad: As mating strategy

Moreover, the time-course of the benefits are an important consideration. These traits appear to predispose individuals to short-term rewards and relationships over long-term rewards and benefits. Although advanced societies attempt to promote long-term thinking (environmental protection, saving money for retirement), there are reproductive benefits for the individual for thinking and acting on a shorter time-course.

Consistent with this perspective, those high on the Dark Triad tend to have an accelerated mating strategy, reporting more sex partners, more favorable attitudes towards casual sex, lowered standards in their short-term mates, a tendency to steal or poach mates from others, more risk-taking in the form of substance abuse, a tendency to prefer immediate but smaller amounts of money over larger but delayed amounts of money, limited self control and ADHD symptoms and a pragmatic and game-playing love style. These traits have been identified as part of a fast life strategy that appears to be enacted by an exploitative, opportunistic, and protean approach to life in general and at work.

Two people come to mind when I read these three traits, and the associated mating strategies, . These two people are instantly recognizable to Manospherians for all three traits. Their narcissism expresses itself as shameless self-promotion (and shamelessness in general). Their willingness–even glee–to exploit their private lives (up to and including their sex lives) and lives of others is a dead giveaway of their eager machiavellianism. Lastly, the clear disregard they have for the impact on the people around them from the decisions they’ve made is classic psychopathy.

Of course I’m speaking of Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton. They are the epitome of the Dark Triad traits. If Game is about overconfidence; that is: developing Oneitis for yourself (and it is), then Kim and Paris have Game down pat. If Game were the Olympics, they would comprise the entire USA basketball team (insert joke here). What’s interesting about the Manosphere is we would never look to them for advice; yet men who act like (even if they don’t think like) Paris and Kim are, here, the teachers on how to get women. Not in the sense of, “Watch out for the sort of girls that behavior attracts.”, but in this way: “How can I attract girls like that?”

Game is the charade of solipsism to better emulate the Dark Triad traits of narcissism, psychopathy, and machiavellianism.  These three traits can be practiced unto internalization; until you actually are some combination of narcissistic, psychopathic, and machiavellian. It’s a calculated attempt to become hypergamous, in the worst sense of the word.

Though Game is a perverse pose for a man to take, it is a quasi-logical response to the world around us; in the same way it was logical for Eve to desire to be like God, and for Adam to take a bite at egalitarianism to maintain his relationship with Eve. It is men parodying women to leverage this Feminist paradigm. Not feminine–Feminist.

The personal and societal problem Game/solipsism/Dark Triad traits pose is that since neither men nor women are playing their roles, this can never move beyond a hook-up culture. No sane man can assume the role of acting like a woman–Game her, to attract women acting like men–and believe that marriage is worthwhile. Not only is it not worthwhile: It’s not even possible. One transsexual promising itself to another simply is not marriage. Whether transsexuals merely fucking one another is desirable, is the question you have to answer to decide whether Game is a net good or not.

What you’ll find is: There is no poon.

That’s what I found. The reason I decided to not continue the divorce was because I found that every woman I engaged with was worse than the one I was leaving; if for no other reason than they were willing to sleep with me. There were no lovable women out there, for me. And, based on the “alpha success”stories shared round the Game-fire, I’m far from alone. Men who profess to love women can’t find one to love for the rest of their lives.

On top of that, I already had children with my wife. Why would I want to start over, or create half-siblings? I do love my children. I love making them. I love having them around. I love the mere fact of their existence. I love being a father.

Mrs. Caldo was made plainly aware of these facts and reasons. I do not envy her, though I’d take it as a kindness if it was remembered this monster was her suggestion.

*This is a description of Satan; the Game-wise alpha among alphas. By contrast, Jesus was so beta from the Game perspective that Satan did not even try to tempt Him with women in the desert.

Endnote: There are activities considered within the realm of Game that are truly beneficial to men. By my lights, they do not properly belong there. After I finish what I’ve started–tearing down the alpha myth idol–I will start writing on that. As I said in my first post: I’m trying to bring organization to my thoughts.

I know, I know; but semantics are important.