For the Love of the Game

Within the Christians Men’s Sphere (and even in the larger Men’s Sphere) a theory holds sways when it should not. It is the idea that if a man will be virtuous enough, then it will overflow, and his virtue will overrun onto his wife and daughters. Those who believe in this theory are suffering under one or more errors. One of which is that every aspect of life can be explained with modern economic theories.

But the main error is this: They will not confront the truth that women sin because they want to sin. This is why the same man who says that he should be a better man so that his wife will be “attracted” to follow him (Hahahaha!) will–with his next breath–boast that he will teach his son to be virtuous. They do not believe that their virtue will trickle down to other men such as their son. No, no: Men must be taught virtue!

Do you smell the Traditionalist Feminism I’m stepping in?

It’s actually even worse than I have so far stated because the virtues of a man are not the same as those of women. Some expect that the man’s virtue of speaking a word in church will magically be transmuted into a woman’s virtue of silence in church. Others expect worse: That his women will take up manly virtue and raise their voices.

Every Christian men’s outlet I know runs away from this truth: The New Testament, especially The Epistles, explains to us clearly and forthrightly that:

  1. Men are the heads of women. Men are in charge and are to act like it; corporately and individually as the relationship defines. The Author of the Bible does not even say, “Christian men”, or, “Godly men”. It is so ordered through all Creation.
  2. Women individually are to be submissive and therefore obedient to their heads of households.
  3. Women are to be silent in church.
  4. Women are to pray with their heads covered as a sign of submission. There is to be no question about it. Everyone who sees a praying women should see a woman who accepts that her God-given role and glory is to be submissive to God, and her husband or father.

The impulse of men like Tim Bayly, Michael Foster, and Aaron Renn (Hey man, I been there.) is that men must be somehow able to fix themselves. They think this because they want to address our current distress, and because they rightly know that no one can control another person; we aren’t even good at controlling ourselves.

The truth is that American Christians have raised at least four generations of brassy whores[1] and all we can do is talk about how to be the kind of men brassy whores prefer to marry. Throughout these generations Christian leaders and men have been exhorting one another to virtue and godliness with the same terrible results. There are enough books and sermons telling men to be better to fill a hundred libraries. If we want more virtuous men and women, then order must be restored. This means church leaders (bishops, pastors, elders, husbands, fathers, older women [2]) must charge women to be submissive, and to display the signs of submission: covered heads and their silence in church.

The prudential nature of pastoral care demands that we consider the currents of popular culture swirling around us. Because of that I suggest for any leader who wishes to be taken seriously that no less than half of his engendered instructions should be directed at women to be quiet and have some respect.

Do NOT get distracted by the fact that many men within those generations were vicious rather than virtuous. This has always been the case. We’re Christians, we know this. There was not a sudden decline in male virtue which heralded in the generations of whores. Generation-wide whoring began after men signaled the sharing of headship when women were given the vote alongside us, and it accelerated when women stopped covering their heads at church. When American Christian women gave up submission and the sign of submission, their next step was to become whores..and not even for the economics. They are whores for the romance and excitement. They whore for the love of the Game.

If you need an economics tie-in to hear me: It’s the brassy whores, stupid.

[1] If she wasn’t a virgin at marriage, and she wasn’t raped, she whored around at some point. We used to discreetly acknowledge this with the phrase “make an honest woman of her”, but we’re way past the point now where discretion can be understood.

[2] As in, something like a grandmother. Paul wasn’t referring to a five years older bestie.

Thar Be Monsters in our Sea of Chivalry

Game/MTGOW and Feminism aren’t Christians’ problems except as they appeal to Christians because modern Christian practice is both anti-Christian AND a losing proposition. Our problem is that Christians don’t actually believe in the word of God. They don’t believe that–as whole beings–women are weaker than men…even though we all observe it every day. They don’t believe that it is good that God gave women fathers and husbands to rule them… even though we live in a society of liberated whores. They don’t believe that women are more easily deceived…even though marketing and scams are overwhelmingly aimed at susceptible women.

What Christians actually practice is chivalry because they believe that chivalry is “real” Christianity”. Chivalry is the water in which Feminism and Game/MTGOW swim; what is necessary for their existence. If we want Feminism and Game/MTGOW to go away, we have to destroy the cultural environment created by chivalry.

Repurposed from this comment at Dalrock’s.

An Example of the Difference Between Deception and Capitulation

For Donal Graeme, Moose Norseman, and Deep Strength; who are thinking through how men and women differently go astray.

Helen wakes and gets ready to see Tom; whom she desires. She does as she has been taught women do to get a man’s attention; what every woman she knows does. She shaves her legs. To her face she applies concealer, powder, lipstick, rouge, mascara, and eyeshadow. She films her dyed and highlighted hair with potions, and blow-dries it into a shape that defies its natural tendencies. Hose tightens and disguises her cellulite, while heels sculpt her legs and buttocks to appear longer and more pert. She puts on a bra that bulks her breasts before lifting and separating them. She tops it all with a frock which gives the appearance of bigger breasts, a smaller waist, and longer legs, and a spritzes herself with perfume to make herself smell different. She is pleased with herself, and thinks this is good for her and Tom; especially if it makes him love her.

Tom sees Helen. He is Texan and crass, and so he says to himself, “I believe I’d drink her dirty bath water.” Of course he believes nothing of the kind. It’s a funny thing to say (in a crass way, of course) because Tom knows drinking dirty bath water is foul, and wrong; just like fornicating with Helen. It’s an admittance that he’d give up his wisdom and respect for a chance to indulge himself in her deception, and her in her arrogance. He is not deceived about the nature of the event. He’s making a choice in full knowledge of what is right and wrong.

Did Helen deceive Tom with her appearance? Somewhat. He is aware it’s a show, and that it’s a show of an available woman. But keep in mind: In order to deceive Tom into believing she is more beautiful than she is, Helen has invested more than two hours in a campaign against her natural state. It is an elaborate and precarious setup which could not survive a washing. If Tom is fooled, then it is because the preparation was so intense.

To Helen he says, “What a lovely-looking lady”; whom he is not loving, and who is not a lady.

She falls immediately for his two-second line.

The Errors Among Us I: Vox vs. Chesterton

Recently I’ve been told again that I have an improper understanding of Game; that my definition is not great because I put a great deal of focus both on the word and on the concept of seduction; which is enticement towards evil. It is stated, implied, and assumed that therefore I don’t understand what Game means, or what it is; that if I actually understood Game, or if I actually understood its application that I’d be able to–as a Christian–understand that it’s a matter of seducing the right woman into marriage. Not convincing (that’s something losers do), but getting a woman to like a man so much that she wants to have his babies, and that continuance of this seduction will lead to a happy wife happy life (enjoying her life, and happy do his bidding) scenario.

To be fair: Pro-Game folks hate that phrase. They’d much rather turn it around and say that Game stops  a wife from being unhappy and from the man having an unhappy life. Damned if I can see the difference.

It’s also said–particularly by those of the Vox Day Alpha Game Plan persuasion–that an understanding of Game unlocks the secrets of a contented existence; not just in marital or sexual relations but across the human experience. In other words, it would open one’s eyes to the various things that the Neoreactionary and Dark Enlightenment folks have been going on about. With that in mind, let’s look at his definition of Game; written in response to my very first post in the Men’s Sphere, and hosted by my friend Dalrock.

Vox Day: A much better definition of Game is this: the conscious attempt to observe and understand successful natural behaviors and attitudes in order to artificially simulate them.

So, Game–in it’s broadest sense–is about looking at men who have found success in the world, calling that worldly success good, and then imitating it to the point that these habits of worldly success are internalized and then realized.

Now the first thing to accept if we accept Vox’s idea is that Christ failed at this. He was literally born in a barn (the very phrase we throw at those who have no civilization whatsoever) and slept where animals eat; symbolically, He was food for the stupidest animals, and not only animals, but the animals who are too stupid to remain wild. This all happens under suspicious circumstances, born to probably a teenage mother and a father who was not His biological father; without schooling, without wealth; indeed without ANY of the trappings that we consider worldly success. When He grew up He quit His job, and took up bumming around to tell a tiny beat-down nation of sell-outs, sheepherders, ragamuffins, and whores who cut on their sons’ genitals about a God they did not know.

At first, He got some followers; quite a lot of them. Then those throngs dwindled down to a mere 72, and then to 12 disciples; salt of the earth crackpots the lot of them. Eventually, each of those 12 would desert Him, and Jesus would be hung on the cross for (a whole lot of) something He didn’t do. After his death, the only one’s who gave a hoot about Him was a handful of spinsters. Pathetic.

I’m not the first to see this contrast between the story of Christ and the stories of worldly success, but I just wanted to lay it out very clear. Should any of my readers have the bad habit of thinking of themselves as conservative, reactionary, neoreactionary, traditionalist, etc. this old Chesterton chestnut should be right up your alley:

If the Jews had answered that question wrongly they might have lost all their after influence in human history. They might have sunk even down to the level of modern well educated society. For when once people have begun to believe that prosperity is the reward of virtue their next calamity is obvious. If prosperity is regarded as the reward of virtue it will be regarded as the symptom of virtue. Men will leave off the heavy task of making good men successful. They will adopt the easier task of making out successful men good. This, which has happened throughout modern commerce and journalism, is the ultimate Nemesis of the wicked optimism of the comforters of Job. If the Jews could be saved from it, the Book of Job saved them. The Book of Job is chiefly remarkable, as I have insisted throughout, for the fact that it does not end in a way that is conventionally satisfactory. Job is not told that his misfortunes were due to his sins or a part of any plan for his improvement.

But in the prologue we see Job tormented not because he was the worst of men, but because he was the best. It is the lesson of the whole work that man is most comforted by paradoxes. Here is the very darkest and strangest of the paradoxes; and it is by all human testimony the most reassuring. I need not suggest what a high and strange history awaited this paradox of the best man in the worst fortune. I need not say that in the freest and most philosophical sense there is one Old Testament figure who is truly a type; or say what is prefigured in the wounds of Job.

Time for a rewind. Here’s Vox again on the good that is Game:

A much better definition of Game is this: the conscious attempt to observe and understand successful natural behaviors and attitudes in order to artificially simulate them.

Here’s Chesterton again on the foolishness of calling success good:

For when once people have begun to believe that prosperity is the reward of virtue their next calamity is obvious. If prosperity is regarded as the reward of virtue it will be regarded as the symptom of virtue. Men will leave off the heavy task of making good men successful. They will adopt the easier task of making out successful men good. This, which has happened throughout modern commerce and journalism, is the ultimate Nemesis of the wicked optimism of the comforters of Job.

Next time you’re chuckling at Heartiste’s Beta of the Month entry: Chew on that. Whom did God imitate–what kind of man did God assume–when He came to Earth, and what does that tell you about what He believes success to be, and who should be called good?

If God is the god who made families, and if the Bible tells us about how both are ordered: Why isn’t courtship and marriage the topic of discussion for family formation? Why are we instead discussing how to seduce properly; how to seduce the right woman? Why are we encouraging and women to marry the men to whom they have the most exciting physical response? Even if they try to mitigate it by looking for good provider traits–what the Hell kind of temptation is that to set? The whole idea of checking for sexual response first is perverse, and not in keeping with the tradition or what is assumed in the Bible.

None of this has anything to do with those things a man will, should, and can do with his bride once he has one. Can you slap her on the butt? Yes. Can you tease her? Can it be good for her to have some dread instilled in her by someone who loves her? Yes. What we’ve lost is the archaic definition of the word husbandry; as in the craft of husbands, and we lost the definition when we laid aside the wisdom. Gentile (non-Christian) wisdom for getting laid is not the way to go about getting it back.

The Language of Seduction

The acceptance of the word seduction among Christian men is one of the things I had in mind when I wrote my post Unplumbed Wrongness. I think a good deal of men like it for the very reason that it does have a dark connotation, and therefore they imagine it is “really powerful”; unlike convinction; which strikes men as goody-two-shoes.

I’ll just go ahead and throw this out there now, but the next link in the chain back is: Why did we stop using matchmakers, betrothal, etc.? This is part of the breakdown; the wrongness. Yet if you say it you’re a quack. By and large, one cannot get Christians to repent back to mere courtship; much less step back to arrangements.

Yet, the Bible generally presents a man choosing his spouse as the thing he does that brings trouble down on his head: Jacob (with Rachel), David, Solomon, Sampson, Pharoah (with Sarai)…I can’t think of an example of a man picking his spouse and it going well.

*Re-purposed from this comment.

Decrease Your System is Noise Ratio

Aquinas Dad writes:

[yes, I *do* have the phrase ‘authentic Christian masculinity and femininity’ on my clipboard, why do you ask?]

This is it. This is why some Christians in the Men’s Sphere are wont to throw every bit of wisdom (about food, race, class, corporations, etc.) all under the heading Game. The obfuscation of the term Game is a misuse of shorthand because people see some correlations, and it’s just a lot easier (if wrong) to extend the definition of Game to mean whatever contradicts or combats an untruth or common misconception is floating through the culture. This redefining is born of both sloth and a love of systems…like the clipboard function.

As I said WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY back here, this is Game:

Game is the applied science of attraction, most commonly expressed as the art of seduction. It’s based on the supposed evolutionary psychology of human; with a special emphasis on exploiting the condition of hypergamy.

Whatever doesn’t fall under that is not Game. You’ll notice that wisdom (which means “understanding”) and Game are not the same, but that there are correlations.


My long view, unlike others, is not one where Christian principles take the world (or Western Civilization) by storm and through blood and smoke we right this ship of iniquity. God said that’s His domain, and that He turned it over to Christ, and that Christ’s good work is already being done. We’re just waiting while Our Lord tarries. Yet when Our Lord returns, He most surely will make an end to all those who have not heeded His call.

Before Paul writes to the Corinthians about marriage, he writes of a situation in their church where a man is sleeping with his father’s wife.

5 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Catch that? The flesh belongs to Satan (That’s why we’re all going to die before we are reclaimed and resurrected.), but the Spirit rightfully belongs to Christ. Not only that, but the job of the destruction of the flesh belongs to Satan; not Cane; not Cane’s children; not SunshineMary’s church; not the Roman Catholics; not some future earthly king. Satan. If you are in the business of the destruction of the flesh, you’re in league with Satan. This isn’t hard to understand. It’s hard to hear; especially when you feel like you’re alone. There is no Magnificent Seven coming to save our earthly shells. (Foreshadowing likely posts to come, here).

By the way: “spirit” here means both “why you do what you do”, and “your essence”.

Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

This is what Dalrock is talking about when he says,

Roissy and the other PUAs aren’t the ones who destroyed marriage. Feminists did with the enthusiastic support of modern Christians. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the very obvious sins of Roissy, but what I see very often is Christians focusing on Roissy’s sins as a sort of smokescreen to avoid accepting the profound failure of modern Christians to honor what God entrusted to us. “Look at Roissy’s sin!” is very often the prelude to “Nothing to see here (in Christianity) folks, move along!” That Roissy has anything to teach Christians about marriage should be deeply humbling to Christians. Very often instead the response is hubris and chest thumping about how morally superior Christians are to Roissy.

And this is true: Most Christians are eating not only with the old leaven of fornication and idolatry, but the new leaven of malice and wickedness; some by their desire to see their enemies dead, some by their desire to see others suffer, and some by their desire to imitate such activities from which we should rather desire to see them redeemed and forgiven.

This leaven was added to the fact that those Corinthians Christians were celebrating a member’s freedom from the Law in Christ to fornicate with his father’s wife since it wasn’t “against the Law”. Yes it was. The Law has been fulfilled, but it still exists, and fornication still goes against it. You might say you never do that because fornication with your mother-in-law is really creepy, but I wonder how many of us have congratulated a Christian brother on his marriage to a Christian woman who was previously married to another living Christian man? Is that man not sleeping with his living brother’s wife? How is it better to celebrate sleeping with your sister-in-law? Because she’s younger, hotter, tighter?

I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: 10 yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

Don’t kill yourself trying to get away from non-Christians. It’s a good thing to be among them. This, I see, as the good of the Men’s Sphere. It’s a place where Christian men who are intent on being a witness–a sign–for Jesus Christ can speak freely to non-Christians.

11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. 12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

So any man who professes Christ, but does not repent of the sins of those sins  should be anathema; he should be shunned. This means that a Christian who says, “I’ll quit later”, or, “Look, the world is the way the world is, and I’m just a squirrel trying to get a nut.” is not to share your company; not even to eat with him. In other words: It is better for you or him to starve than to accept this behavior; this spirit; this essence.

Note also that there is a running assumption that there are no non-Christians in the church of Corinth. You don’t bring a stranger to church to get Christ. You take the Gospel and your witness into the world, and you bring Christians to church for discipleship and communion. What concord does Christ have with Belial?

14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

Well, here the rubber hits the road for bringing Game into church. Is a church congregation’s problem that its men are weak in understanding women, or is their understanding of women weak because they do not actually believe what is revealed in Scripture that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; that all men and women are full of idolatry, licentiousness, fornication, murder, and other kinds of sin? Have those men been deceived by other men, or have they chosen to believe it because they want to curry favor with women in the hopes of attracting one and getting her drunk enough on pride that she’ll do him the favor of “marrying” (read: sleeping with) him? Now…that’s a different tactic than getting her drunk on pride for having the status granted by a man other women want to have sex with, but it sounds like an applied psychology for seducing women to me…albeit a far less effective one for the tastes of the sinners of our times.

So, now what?

An Eros-driven Christian replacing one worldly system of Game for another is simply a false and vain teaching if Game mean anything  separate than wisdom. In Mansophere terms: It is replacing the lie of Churchianity with the lie of Game. And if Game does mean wisdom, then call it Wisdom, and pursue her. She, unlike Eros and unlike his mother Venus, actually is truth.

20 Wisdom crieth without;
she uttereth her voice in the streets:
21 she crieth in the chief place of concourse,
in the openings of the gates:
in the city she uttereth her words, saying,
22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity?
and the scorners delight in their scorning,
and fools hate knowledge?
23 Turn you at my reproof:
behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you,
I will make known my words unto you.

I take True Love, Feminism, Chivalry, Egalitarianism, Liberal Democracy, Churchianity, and Game all as proof that far, far too much credit has been given to Athens. However; I have to give the Greeks credit for at least one thing: Mixing Eros[1]  and Athena[2]  was one androgynous step too far even for the man-boy-loving Athenians. Nor did they enthrone Hera[3] over Zeus. You need modern scholarship to go to rot if you want to fester this false choice between hermaphroditic and pagan gods. You need convoluted systems of thought manufactured by man, and to fail to abandon them when they break down. Honestly: Look at how hard it is to get people to define “Game”.

But you don’t need much scholarship at all to evade all of that and get wisdom, the truth, and the Truth. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and wisdom is the key to all these things; even lowly things like how to find and attract a wife. Wherever one would find instruction in the fear of the Lord, there is the answer for the question of how to find a good wife: wisdom. One might say good wives come from God.

Game is not the truth anymore than Eros, Athena, Psyche, or Zeus is the truth; none of whom are of Christ, who is the Truth. Yet wisdom is the truth. She belongs to and follows behind and serves the God of Abraham alone.

[1] The vagina-tingle generating fatherless son of the single mother Aphrodite, goddess of physical love, beauty, and pleasure

[2] The dutiful and martial goddess of wisdom and warfare; daughter of the father of gods, Zeus.

[3] Goddess of women and marriage; famous for hen-pecking Zeus. The animals associated with Hera are the cow (dumb women), the lion (beast of beasts), and the peacock (show-offs).

So A Jew and an Assyrian Walk Into a Bar

Your king went forward with his plans to cooperate with the Assyrians because it seemed like the thing to do at the time. Now that error has come to fruition, and the Assyrians have taken control over Israel and Judea.

You’re a beat-down Jewish man living in Assyrian Israel. Every day you watch the troops of you occupier march by on their majestic destriers; with their fancy clothes, thick armor, and big muscles. More than once you’ve caught your wife looking at them. Sometimes she tries to hide it, but other times she just doesn’t care if you see her or not.

Yesterday, an Assyrian soldier was carousing around town with his friends, and his robe fell open; revealing himself. That was one of those moments you caught your wife biting her lip. You wonder to yourself: Besides armor, horses, fine clothes, a big ol’ swinging dick, and an army: What’s he got that I haven’t got?

You went to the Temple and sought advice from the rabbis, but they were busy convincing a group of curious invaders that they don’t have to change anything about themselves to become children of the Israelite God. They can stay as they are, live as they have as long as they keep their idolatry to a dull roar, and YHWH will accept them. He will make them profitable as long as they bring some riches to the temple like a good Jew. You don’t have much in the way of riches, and no way to go about getting them; especially with so many martial forces entrenched around you.

Sad and envious, you wander into the market to go about your work. Everywhere you look, you can see the men and women bustling around at their chores. You notice, whenever an Assyrian saunters by, the Jewish women giggle and titter to themselves; trading gossip on which Jewess has shupted the more Assyrians in her day.

You need a drink and some solace. You walk into a tavern and grab a drink. Sitting next to you is one of the occupiers. You recognize him as one of the Assyrians that the Yentas like to talk about. He’s not one of the masterminds of the invasions; he’s just a sergeant off-duty. He offers to buy you a drink.

Surprised, you accept, and a conversation begins. You get to talking and discover that he’s got a good sense of humor, and a quick tongue. You decide he’s not a bad sort of fellow for an occupier. Perhaps he can make sense of why Jewish women are so eager for guys like himself, and he agrees to tell you.

He says that they dig the power, and all the trappings that go with it: the horses, armor, and insignias–but most importantly the attitude; just the sheer belief that because you’re Assyrian your are destined to rule. Naturally the fact that they are occupiers is a big turn-on. There’s also the strangeness that goes with being foreign because women value novelty. Not to mention the fact that Assyrians do have bigger shvantzs than Jews.

You ask him how he found all this out, and he says, “Well, by shtupping a lot of Jewish daughters. Not your daughter perhaps, but a lot of them.”

As you leave, you thank him and his people for their occupation of Israel, and for revealing the truth to you by fucking all the Jewish women they can; even if they couldn’t yet make it to your own daughter. Now–with this new secret information–you set off to be the most Assyrian-looking Jew you can manage.