Thanksgiving for Pushers

In response to my lack of appreciation for Game, Keoni writes:

Discovering “Game” was my game changer. It gave me a language to describe and think about so many things I previously could not even name, let alone comprehend. It provided a schema for grasping the larger concepts bereft in my emasculated upbringing. And ultimately, it has also  eventually brought me around full circle into belief in the truth of the Gospel of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

For this, I have the degenerate scumbags, the cads, the God Awful P-U-A to thank. Oh promiscuous manwhores who proclaim your proficiency in fornication and adultery, it is your discussions and note-sharing on how to commit these debased sins of hedonistic nihilism by exploiting the fallen, sinful nature of women, that helped me come to understand the primary sin that has infiltrated and subverted Christianity in the West, the sin of IDOLATRY.

My reaction was wildly different; a mental nausea induced by seeing myself reflected in Roissy’s nihilism. It does come to my mind that Keoni is far behind on his thanksgiving; as I have yet to see him thank Monsanto for teaching him about genetically modified food; the Federal Reserve for usury; the NSA for tyranny…I don’t get the praise for the Assyrians, here.

And it’s this that animates me to caution against Game. I can’t stand most psycho-pharmacology either, but I don’t go on about it because I don’t run into a lot of Christians who say,

“For this, I have the degenerate scumbags, the pushers, the God Awful Gangsta to thank. Oh, street pharmacists who proclaim your proficiency in slinging and dealing, it is your discussions and note-sharing on how to commit these debased sins of hedonistic nihilism by exploiting the addictive nature of users, that helped me come to understand the primary abuse that has infiltrated and subverted medicine in the West, the ABUSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.”

One just doesn’t hear that sort of thing said. It’s nevertheless true that a study of drug dealers could be the beginnings of knowledge on the landscape of prescription drug addiction; to see the motivations of lazy doctors and greedy Big Pharma; the erratic and dangerous methods of drug approval; the collusion of physicians’ associations. But even if you’re in pain and there are no legitimate pharmacists in sight, it remains that it would be a very bad idea to buy heroin from the dealers who’ve told you they heavily cut their product, and tell yourself that unlike those guys: You know how to use it wisely.

More importantly, if I wanted to tell these truths to others I’d both want them to get the real truth straightaway, and also not have to go through addiction, dealers, overdoses, the slums, etc. to arrive at it.

So many opportunities to praise God for what He gave us in His Word are instead turned into cheerleading for Game. His Word has been there all along, but because you, me, or our fathers didn’t bother to check it out: More praise goes to Game; an incoherent and indefinite thing that’s not as old as some of my clothes.

See also: Zippy on the merits of syphilis.

Some Follow-Up On What I’ve Been On About

In the comments of my response to Free Northerner there were a couple comments that I want to highlight. First, from MycroftJones:

Steven, I think he laid out his terms and conditions clearly enough. If you want someone to teach you, then treat him with respect. If you want to be a student, act like one. Not like a spoiled child demanding a toy from a stranger.

This is it; the main reason I wrote the post. It’s a counterpoint to my post on on the lack of respect older men show to the following generations; whether through current commentary, the obliteration of incentive for marriage, or by the acceptance and promotion of anti-Christian behavior in pop culture by Christians going back several generations.[1] This lack of respect and gratitude all around is part of the lack of love–and of the most basic sort. I give freely, and it is thrown in my face.

Peoplegrowing wrote:

I agree with those who have pointed out that art nevertheless has technique (which is not the same as a system). Technique is imminently teachable, but technique becomes art in the hands of those with natural talent, or lots of practice. For example, anyone can learn to draw, but only those willing to put in the time, or with the proper natural instinct, become masters. Nevertheless, everyone can benefit from a few lessons, and a little technique is all most people ever need to accomplish their basic goals.

This is a good point, and one that Hawaiian Libertarian expands upon, but it’s a rebuttal of something that I did not say. In fact, I have written techniques on this very site. Yet because I don’t endorse Game or a system, fans of Game either can’t recognize them as techniques, or they bluster that what I’ve said is actually Game even though the source was entirely different, and in fact predates Game by thousands of years. Such co-option cannot be combated with rational debate because the foundational assumptions are completely different, i.e., we have wildly different philosophies…different religions.

My assumption is that the Bible is true, and so if I see something in Game that echoes something found in the Bible I say, “That bit of Bible you got there is good stuff.” If you retort that this proves Game is true, then you’ve gone too far. If you go even further and say that the Bible is all right because it has some of this good Game stuff in it, you’re sold out on idolatry. The latter is my experience with fans of Game.

I don’t think they set out towards idolatry; I think that fans of Game tend to be lovers of systems who want to compile and codify information, and that they are seduced into thinking they can make straight what God has made crooked. It’s no coincidence that Game theory is so cross-pollinated with diet fads, evolution, HBD, conspiracy theories, natural law, scientism, and all these other systems of thought that claim to have figured out how things work; that they know what’s really going on. I think there is some truth to be learned in all those things, but they have to be tested against the Bible.

Here’s less serious example: As far as I can recall, the Bible has nothing but good things to say about wheat and bread; particularly unleavened bread. Any diet that tries to tell me that wheat bread is bad for me is a non-starter. That doesn’t mean that I approve of Monsanto, or that one can’t eat too much bread.

While the basic problem seems–from a systematic view–to be that there’s a lot of bad info out there, Christ teaches that the problem is one of the desires of our hearts, and that the heart is fixed not by the perfect transmission of perfect information, but only by the Holy Spirit. How this happens is–in very simple terms–by choosing to have gratitude for Christ’s sacrifice for us, that kick-starts a process[2] by which God changes our hearts. In turn, this change in our hearts will be reflected in our lives, i.e., bear fruit.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

Things are the way they are not because we’ve been given bad information, but rather we’ve given each other bad information because of the way we are. And if a man’s contentment (love, joy, and peace) is predicated on the obtainment of a wife then he’s not walking in the Spirit but in the flesh, and he is in fact a slave to women and the flesh, and of cunningly devised fables and oppositions of so-called science.

[1] Again: Not specifically a recrimination of Zippy; of whom I am indebted. His comments were a jumping off point.

[2] Here we can get into deep denominational discussions about the ways and means God goes about this, but the Merely Christian fact is that this is what happens.

Take a Number

I want to examine a few sentiments that are often expressed by professing Christians in the Men’s Sphere; many of them in the comments of my last post.

1) “I can read Game blogs, and practice Game while retaining my Christianity and continuing to be sanctified because I can separate and ignore the bad stuff like fornication when I see it, and that part I simply don’t buy or perform.” (For this portion we’ll focus on the easy things. I won’t even discuss that Game is often an exercise in pride, effeminism, etc.)

The second is like it.

2) “I cannot go to church and serve because while that would in some ways benefit my spiritual growth and be helpful to others, I can’t separate their pedestalization of females from the decent things that I could otherwise do there.”

If you believe this of your own situation, or that these statement are compatible, then you’re admitting you actually have a very faulty filter, and so are not in a position to make a call about either.

3) “Not everything I need to know is in the Bible. It doesn’t tell me how to fix a carburetor, or how to paint.”

That knowledge is not needed to live a good life. If you think it is, then you don’t know what the word need means.

4) “Since my goal is to find a good Christian wife, I have to learn how to find and attract one. Since Game writers are the only ones giving advice on how to get a girl, I have to go to them. The Bible doesn’t teach the technique/system. If they are: Prove it.”

Sometimes I have to really power through these comments and requests, but this one’s easy, and I’ve written about it before. Here’s the Bible on: How to Get a Good Christian Wife:

House and riches are the inheritance of fathers:
and a prudent wife is from the Lord.

Good news: Your search is over. Bad news: You need patience, and you need to stop telling yourself you need a wife because you don’t.[1] Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 3 show how a husband can be part of this process, because a wedding is the beginning of a marriage (the beginning of a wife) not the end. (I was glad to see that Vox is now rhyming with me on this point.) The desire for a wife and sex is real and reasonable, but it is not like the desire for food. It is like the desire for wealth or knowledge; wholesome, but unnecessary.

5) “The Bible doesn’t tell you about how to deal with women; how women really are. It doesn’t tell you about shit-tests.”

Let’s back up one whole verse:

A foolish son is the calamity of his father:
and the contentions of a wife are a continual dropping.

Contentions; as in she contends often, and often for no good reason. Several times in the book of Proverbs alone are we warned about contentious wives. We’re warned about contentious men, too, but the warning count on contentious wives outstrips them. The Latin root of the English word here is “tenere”; which means a shell, pot, or hard covering. The root of “test” is “testa” also a pot, brick, nut or other hard encasement. The word picture is a wife who will not open to her husband; who greets his presence with a defensive posture…a shit-test. It’s worth noting that the encouragements and warnings given in Proverbs are respectively for and against moments and choices that everyone will face.

How do you respond to this contesting? The same way you do anyone else:

25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another. 26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: 27 neither give place to the devil.

Love them; as in do them good. We are instructed to love our wives, love our neighbors, and love our enemies. Sometimes wives are all three. It’s no sin to remain steadfast in your actions (love) while telling them that their contentions are bitter and wicked attempts to drive you away. Catch that? You be the rock, and you tell her the truth. What you don’t do is just take it and tell yourself you’re stoic.

6) “Watching porn and playing video games has nothing to do with attracting women. It’s a distraction from the real problem that girls don’t like good Beta men like me.”

You need to wake up. If you’re a nerd, that sentiment does not apply to you. No man gains points with a woman by the revelation (by design or otherwise) of watching porn, and if you’re not cool you will lose a lot of status. Video games–particularly RPGs, shooters, and other non-sport and non-casual video games–are nerd signals. If you’re cool: You will not be docked for it. If you’re a nerd, or display introverted nerd-like tendencies: You will be. Fairness and reason have nothing to do with it. It’s about the aesthetics and the correlations.

The same is true for trading card games, role-playing games, comics, anime, science fiction, and other frivolities of the introverted. If you have fantasy artwork for an avatar and you complain to me that girls don’t like you, the reasonable assumption is that you’re either displaying way too much nerdiness, or that you’re not selecting nerdy enough girls. There are nerdy women out there who like those sorts of things, and you can keep your hobbies and get one of them. They are often fat, unhygienic, shy, or otherwise aesthetically hobbled, but if you would make a good husband, perhaps she would make a good wife.

Limit yourself to a maximum of two of those nerdy hobbies, and over the course of a week spend less than one hour a day on them. So if you spend seven hours playing Call of Duty on a Saturday: No video games or other nerd hobbies for the rest of the week. Then put the rest of that time into more productive and attractive activities. Nobody gets docked by sane people for lifting weights, reading the Bible, taking walks, Sudoku, writing, cooking, painting, woodworking, or any number of other things. Here’s a generalization on how to know if a hobby is nerdy. If, at the end of the hobby’s endeavor, you don’t have a new product, life experience, or life skill: It’s probably nerdy. Collecting or buying baubles does not count as production.

[1]One of the ways a lot of pastors go wrong is that they tell men that if God hasn’t given them a wife that means they don’t deserve one yet. We can’t know that, and I think that is exactly the sort of disrespectful nonsense that drives our bust-to-bust Economy of Respect and miserliness. All we can know is that God hasn’t given them one, and that therefore he does not need one.

Harriett Johnson’s Lament

In a post linked to me, Free Northerner asks:

Where is the practical Christian advice that will help me find a wife? Where can I find advice so the good Christian girl’s description of me to her friends isn’t “ew”?

He then goes on to say:

Without that, all the rest of this debate over game is just noise and thunder signifying nothing. Awkward Christian men will go the degenerate dirt bags, because our choices are either try to pick the occasional nugget of truth from the hedonists and hope we don’t become corrupted by them or live the rest of our lives in grinding loneliness and sexual frustration.

If you don’t like game, give us an alternative.

Or what? The nigger gets it?

What do you have to do with me? If you want my help, then you should beseech my help. It won’t encourage me to help if you threaten to take yourself hostage. It is a father’s job to teach manliness. I’m not your father. I don’t owe you patrimony.

Having said that: It’s outrageously stupid to vomit out that I haven’t provided any advice on how to portray manliness, how to handle women, or how to attract women. I have given more patrimony than I owed already! There are volumes here and more volumes in the comments of others blogs. What I haven’t provided you with is the trappings of a system.

That’s what you want: a system. Why? Because you’re a nerd who likes and responds to systems and lists. While all sorts of good engineering is a result of good systems, living life is not. Life isn’t a system. Women aren’t a system. Marriage isn’t a system. Being a man, living a good life, and being married to a good wife, then, isn’t about following a system. It’s about living artfully. That’s why nominal Christians who “find” their answers in the Men’s Sphere bleat and repeat: “But, but, but…the Bible doesn’t teach how to attract and handle women!” Yes it does, but you can’t recognize it because you’re deliberately ignoring art while you delve for a system.

What I’ve written here is an artistic endeavor; both in what I advise, and how I advised it. A while back, I wrote this comment on Leap’s blog:

There was once a blog with a great tagline: “treating matters of great concern lightly”. Marriage is very serious, and as a man you’ll find that the seriousness inclines you to want to be “earnest” and “sincere” about everything.

I don’t know if you ever played sports, or sculpted, or painted, but there is a way that you are both deft (light) and intentional (follow-through) with your movements. Whether you’re trying to move the ball where you want it to go, or to cast the right shadow on the face…

I’m not sure if what I mean is coming through, but here’s another art example.

The best way to draw a circle is to step back almost arm’s length from the canvas, hold the pencil in your whole hand (not like you hold it for writing) firmly, but not tight. Then imagine a circle. Put the tip of the pencil on the canvas, and then draw the circle using your whole arm.

Intentional, and using the whole body, but with a light touch. You’re looking for a mate, but you are not going demand that she mate or bounce, or worry about whether the circle in your mind is perfect.

Over and again you’ll see this is my prescriptions: Step back, take a good look, see what the masters have done, see what the tools look like, and really see the canvas; which is the terrain. Then clear your mind except for what you want, put yourself out there and perform; lightly but with intention. Pitching is like this. Shooting hoops is like this. Sculpting is like this. Reading the Bible is like this. There is no list to drawing a circle except the very rudimentary one I’ve provided here. These are all arts, and arts can’t be codified into systems.[1]

Alternatively, you could pretend to take yourself hostage from yourself and then quaver, “Isn’t anyone going to help this poor man?”

[1] Another of the many confusions surrounding Game. It seems like–and is sold as–a system, but it can’t actually be learned except by doing. Those things are called arts.

That Ol’ Time Game

When I look at earlier Game gurus (Mystery, Strauss, even pre-2011 Roissy) there is very little conflation of Game and the pursuit of manliness.

[Game writers say]: 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 TINP 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.

Game separate from general self-improvement or general social engineering is about getting the attention of women, then the interest of women, then sexual relationships with women. It was formerly sexless nerds telling other sexless nerds what they changed about their behavior and thinking to reliably repeat those those endeavors. Zippy’s right on the math according to the numbers provided to him, but it’s not terrible helpful because those numbers are questionable. They’re hardly rigorous as the PUAs giving the figures are not interested in proving themselves according to chart-able metrics, but in selling themselves. Obviously PUAs can only get some women, but they’re in sales, so it’s left to hang as all women…and it’s plausible because there’s so many women who are delighted by the lure of these narcissistic mirrors

that the opportunities are endless for one man; especially compared to a former sexless existence that is a problem in a fornication market. More importantly: Each sexual partner represents many sexual episodes; so an improvement (in Game terms; a measure used in the fornication market) from 0 episodes with 0 partners, to fornication with 2.7% of approached women times 10 episodes  per successful approach is a damnable improvement.

2.7% is a high percentage in the fornication market. It’s like saying the 4% of millionaires aren’t actually rich because their money is a very small part of the economy, and they didn’t become billionaires. From both angles the problem is the fornication market itself, and the fornication market trades in pop culture and celebrity.

My suspicion for the reason of the conflation of Game with manliness is that when more people read and commented on Game, more of them made the charge of Game being full of effeminate behavior; of which I think it was/is often guilty. An example is the Neg. The Neg used to be pitch-perfect passive-aggression; cattiness with plausible deniability.

Now Negs have been rebranded as manly nonchalance. Hilarity aside, I can accept taking the term Neg captive and making it mean “tease”, and thereby changing the whole tone of the interaction. What I can’t accept is when someone comes along and says that’s what Neg meant all along; whether PUA or traditionalist. Both now claim it frequently.

Wounded by the charge of effeminism (as men should be) the PUAs started to respond with more sophisticated evo-psych nonsense about Game being a covert, esoteric, and ancient manliness. Covert so as not to upset PC sensibilities during the performance of Game; esoteric so as to explain why their knowledge about such tactics aren’t common (When they are by all accounts procreationally necessary, and even genetic! How did all those Alphas spawn all these Betas?) ; ancient so as to cast a glamour over those susceptible to the trappings of tradition.

This sophistication confused the topic massively. The “old” Game was more honest in it’s pursuit and portrayal of Dark Triad/feral female camouflage, and I think worked better at attracting sexual partners from among the majority of women. Now it’s just a lot of guys who actually aren’t very attractive to a wide swath of women cherry-picking traits and cobbling them together in an attempt at self-justification, e.g., “This is how I’m Alpha…” More specifically, it is cherry-picking incidents of success at fornication, and then co-opting whatever behavior is displayed during said incident as “a function of Game science, once properly understood”.

To me the mathematical success argument is beside the point. The arguments against those tools of Game that are evil shouldn’t rest on whether it works or not. I’ve heard it said that gays make the best lovers because they know how their opponents partners bodies’ feel, but I ain’t doing that either.

Let’s hear Jules on the value of objective good over what feels good. (cussing ahead)

[Ed: Re-purposed and expanded from this comment.]

If You Can’t Make it Straight, Make it Up

That’s what a lot of Game advice is: Made up. Cobbled together from sticks, rocks, and the other bits of debris where parts of civilization once stood. They’re not the only ones.

Continuing his series on the poor results of game (from his perspective), Zippy says:

There weren’t many cultural advantages to growing up in the 1970′s, I have to say.  But one that I rather wryly appreciate now is that at least we knew a low value dirt bag loser when we saw one, and the fact that he’d slept with enough women (of one sort or another) to contract gonorrhea didn’t change the evaluation.

Let’s all reflect on the blessings of uncelebrated dirt-bags from the 70s: Burt Reynolds, Rick James, John Travolta, David Bowie; Lynyrd Skynyrd, Led Zeppelin…

That was my off-the-top-of-my-head list. Here are the top 10 Google Image search results for “70s icons male” (that returned actual icons, and not costumes):

  1. Danny Zuko (John Travolta)
  2. Arthur Fonzerelli (Henry Winkler)
  3. Ziggy Stardust (David Bowie)
  4. Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone)
  5. J.J. Evans (Jimmy Walker)
  6. John Travolta (as himself)
  7. Robert Plant (of Led Zeppelin)
  8. Evel Knievel
  9. The Fonz, again
  10. Steve McQueen

Burt Reynolds didn’t make the top ten, but this top twenty result was published in 1972:

burt reynolds

The pic was taken from this BBC article celebrating its publication. According to the article, it turned him from a movie star into a celebrity. In other words: He was loved for it. Who loved him? Well, we did. Not “me” we, but “we” as in the generation of the 70s (again: not me. I just missed the blessings)–those who knew how to value a dirt-bag loser when they saw one…by buying a crapload of their albums and movies in amounts inversely proportional to how low they scored on the clear-headed 70s value scale. Who can gaze on that and not recall the quiet blessings of the that bygone cultural milieu?

If you’re going to reflect on the sensible old days: Stop.

Better is the end of a thing than the beginning thereof:
and the patient in spirit is better than the proud in spirit.
Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry:
for anger resteth in the bosom of fools.
1Say not thou, What is the cause that the former days were better than these?
for thou dost not enquire wisely concerning this.

11 Wisdom is good with an inheritance:
and by it there is profit to them that see the sun.
12 For wisdom is a defence, and money is a defence:
but the excellency of knowledge is,
that wisdom giveth life to them that have it.
13 Consider the work of God:
for who can make that straight, which he hath made crooked?

If I merely wanted to pick on Zippy I would have stopped at verse 10, but the fact is that there are a lot of well-meaning and knowledgeable men out there who are of the conservative bent, and they are not-quite aware of how they hoard respect for others while imagining their own past glories, innocence, and cunning. They give neither inheritances of knowledge nor wealth to the sons they did not go to the trouble to have[1], and they are quick to reflect on their own imagined genius. It’s reflexive of conservatives, and it’s a big part of the culture of miserliness; the bust-to-bust cycle of the modern Economy of Respect.

You can tell that’s the sort of dismal market you’re in when no one has anything to offer, yet they ruthlessly protect what it is they don’t have.

[1] To be read in the same spirit as this statement: “I don’t know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.” ~B. Baggins

[edit: Somehow, I forgot to post a whole sentence at the beginning. Fixed.]

Sham-rocks and Other Fables

Well I stopped posting for a bit, and found that I liked it. Alas! All good things must come to an end and so it’s back to the mind-stone. My plan was to continue my series on how things like TV shows, swimwear, and pop songs affect women, why they affect women, and how women actually prefer to be affected by them; that licentiousness is not something merely foisted upon them, but actually desired by them. (It’s an important bit of knowledge for a man who desires to lovingly wash a woman with the water of the word; as his own.)

Yet I was happily diverted from the specifics by a post Zippy made about the mathematical illiteracy often present in discussions about Game; i.e., how to “get” women. While Zippy’s intent is to explain a general truth, I found his statement to be precisely true, but actually inaccurate. It’s a short post, so with apologies to Zippy I’m going to copy the whole thing here.[1]

Suppose a group of men hunts four-leaf clovers.  With time and persistence they learn intuitively where to go, how to scan for them, etc.  It gets to the point where these men are each collecting many four-leaf clovers in a given year.

Because of their success in collecting four leaf clovers these men go around pronouncing that most clovers have four leaves.  For some reason lots of other men – men who, rather ironically, especially pride themselves on dispassionate logic and rational thinking – believe them.

I’ve made the same charge myself…with one important difference.

Zippy’s choice of the four-leafed clover as sluts in his metaphor is backwards both numerically and aesthetically. C’mon: Four-leafed clovers are lucky! They are a good and difficult thing to find. The Author of Proverbs says

Who can find a virtuous woman?
for her price is far above rubies.

WHO can find! As in it takes skill, perseverance, and diligence. Sounds like a four-leafed clover to me. The alternative meaning would be: She does not exist; at least not as found.

I assume Zippy’s choice to equate sluts with fortune and rarity was probably more an (ironically) unfortunate result of haste than deliberation, but it appears to reveal that manly bias (In the sense that men seem to be born with it; not that it’s good and desirable.) to assume most women are fine the way they are; instead of  sin-full creatures who are each informed by a heart that is deceitful above all things…just like the rest of us. In Game parlance: It’s a form of pedestalization of women.

The truth is that four-leafed clovers don’t occur in the human wilds, and by human I mean spiritual. They are never found, but only cultivated…that is: lovingly washed. Roman Catholics celebrate the Immaculate Conception[2] precisely for the fact that it took the Original, Ultimate, and Only Maker of Perfect Gardens to produce[3] the Blessed Virgin Mary[3].

In one of his comments, Zippy opines on some of the tactics and signals a cad or pick-up artist would use to hunt for four-leafed three-leafed clovers, and how Game math works (or doesn’t).

[W]e know that PUAs don’t hit on all women. They have various explicit (tattoos, dress, makeup, venue, companions, etc) and implicit (many of which they are probably not aware of themselves) ways of deciding which specific women to target – much as the clover-hunter has his implicit and explicit ways of deciding where to look for four-leaf clovers. While we don’t know what the PUA’s preselection filter is formally, we do know that the set of preselected women is a subset of all women. Another way to say this is that PUA use Game on a sample of women which represents less than 100% of all women.

We know from the self-reported data of PUA that out of all preselected women  upon whom PUA attempt to apply Game, they succeed some small percentage of the time – 2.7% in the report linked in the previous post.

Given all that, we know that the set of women upon whom the PUA’s process – which we have labeled “Game” – actually works is something substantially smaller than 2.7% of all women. Given the preselection bias – because lets face it, he is going to approach the girl in tats and miniskirt before he approaches the modestly dressed woman, and the preselection function probably whittles down the pool by at least 10x – it is likely substantially less than 1%. [ed: some math redacted, but I have kept the meat of the excerpt. Follow the link above for the full text.]

What Zippy does not address (and what ties this back to my series on cultural detritus) is that virtually all women–even modestly dressed housewives–are imbibing fourth-leaf preventative; by TV show, after advertisement, after magazine article, after song, after movie, after TV show, after advertisement… each one dosing women to choose narcissism and sin while rejecting repentance and righteousness. The result is to prefer licentiousness and cads. Yes, I mean in most women, even among Christians.

The result is that we are both born into and confirmed towards a world brimming with three-leafed clovers, and so three-leafed clover tactics often work. Often especially on churched women with a modest appearance who are bolstered by that manly bias to pedestalize women; to assume innocence and goodness on no basis whatsoever. This is even more true once we admit that most men can’t differentiate a modest woman from a hole in the ground. More on that below.

The perversity of so much Game discussion is not a mathematical illiteracy which will not produce results; if by results we mean get a woman’s attentions. Game is reliable because the cultivation of four-leafed clovers is outlawed by our natures from birth, and by the tastes of our the course of this age (some translations say “spirit of this age”).

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

The perversity (of many Game discussions) is actually two-fold. First, that the intent of the the great majority of Game discussions is how to prevent clovers from ever flowering that fourth leaf. It’s second intent is it’s Satanic twin: To condemn three-leafed clovers for their poverty.

The root of these foliage fooleries is best summed up by the blogger Rollo Tomassi, who accidentally struck gold while mining for pyrite:

The problem with your [Zippy’s] math is that everyone still wants a four leaf clover.

He meant to say that men want women of high value, but when we untangle the analogy, we see that what he said was entirely different, but more true: Most men believe sluts to be of high value, and do want them. It’s not surprising to me, but nevertheless still astounding because it not only flies in the face of the Scriptures, but–somewhat more stupefyingly–in the face of the evidence of our own eyes, and what the Game writers themselves preach!

From another angle: In contrast to the natural bias of most men to pedestalize women generally; to see them only as they ought to have been; never as they are. The bias of those who are enthralled with Game (as opposed to consider it, or even study it) is to see them as the sinful creatures they are; never as what they are meant to be. It is to confirm and retard women as sluts. As I said: Satanic. Christ came to redeem them.

While not all topics and discussions that are given the label Game is or has to be such, they largely are.

[1]If this post interests you, it is definitely worth your time to follow the link to Zippy’s to read both the comments, and his immediately preceding (and also short) post.

[2] Not a subscriber, myself.

[3] To both of which I am most definitely subscribed.