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.]

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 day..by 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.

Retched

I’ve spent the last several posts (here, here, here, here, and here) in what must appear for all the world like a long-winded attempt to flip the script; an attempt at a grown-ups version of “She did it, too!” Consequently, the number of minds that have been changed, or even influenced, appears to approach zero. Those who immediately agreed with me still do, and those who did not, do not.

I think you misheard me. Because this is what I said: Porn is a womanly bad thing. I don’t mean that in a man-up sort of way. Matt Walsh is just the latest boob to corner that particular market when he wrote: “Real men don’t look at pornography.” Indeed they do. That’s the problem.

The reason increased use of pornography among men is concerning is because pornography use is something sinful women do, and it’s concerning because porn use by men is the fruit of the labors of decades of the intentional feminization of men.

The feminization of men is something that was done to them; that is being done to us. If you ignore everything I’ve written over the past week, you can still chart the rise of pornography which profoundly corresponds to the deliberate and increasingly successful machinations to make men more womanly.

Do you see how sick that is, to encourage women–those who benefit most immediately from this grotesque facade–to judge and ridicule and divorce these men, and to do so for the crime of acting like those women?

Do you see why women cannot pity, but only despise men who look at porn; why the mirror causes retching?

Do you see how imperative grace and forgiveness is?

Do you see how necessary it is for women to (at the very least) shut their bile-flecked lips when the urge rises in them to bash men for pornography?

Do you see what a black, pharisaical heart lies beneath the breast that says (without irony!),

“Real men don’t look at pornography”?

If not: Just pass by on the other side of the road. When you get wherever you’re going, there will be plenty of Downton Abbey.

Matt Walsh Gets Bored and Blows Up Families

I took a trip over to Matt Walsh’s blog today. His most recent post is about the scourge of male adultery in the form of pornography. Actually, that’s not quite right. It’s a condemnation of married men as adulterers if they’ve ever used porn. What follows here is my comment there.

The most likely explanation for the author’s post is that the author struggles with porn use, and his heavy-handed attack here is an attempt to convince himself take his desire for porn more seriously; that–deep down–he isn’t one of Those Guys. And, it is heavy-handed to throw the word adultery out there when women are chomping at the bit to rule over their husbands–as the Bible says they are. Once they’ve got the adultery bit in their mouths grace and forgiveness are thrown completely off.

It’s very true that in many households the husband is illicitly storing highly explosive porn. He keeps it tucked away; that’s why we have to “catch” them using porn, like A Girl reported above[1]. He knows its wrong. He probably hates himself after he uses it. A single match like that can really scar a man.

Forget Fifty Shades of Grey. There are gallons of incendiary Downton Abbey, sticks of Cosmo, molotovs of Teen Mom; gases of Maroon 5, and bricks of The Housewives of Wherever…and they’re thrown causally around the house. Really, it’s stacked to the ceiling.

Here’s come Matt Walsh to throw the bomb of adultery into the house. When it goes up like Hiroshima, what will he say? “Well, that guy shouldn’t have had a drawer-ful of TNT. Serves him right!” Where is the word against the pro-snark, pro-loud, ungentle, envy-raising, emotional porn (Not just “trash”, but trash meant explicitly to titillate the sexual senses. I’m looking at you, Crawley dynasty) that FILLED the house that Matt threw the bomb of adultery into?

Not a peep, Matt?

[1]In the comments, someone calling themselves “A Girl” wrote about walking in on her father viewing porn. I left the following remark addressed to her:

You need to read your Bible before you get on the Internet and retell stories about your father.

<i>Genesis9: 20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21 and he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.</i>

And it was so.

What Are We Doing Here II: That Rock Has Moral Value

Leave it to Dalrock to ask the hard questions. I’ve twice deleted 1500-plus words on this subject because both drafts went in the wrong directions. I’ve chosen to just go the direct route; taking it for granted that everyone understands I’m arguing ideas, and that I have tremendous respect for Dalrock.

In the comments of my previous post Dalrock asks some questions that highlight a clear distinction between myself and most of the rest of the Manosphere, and the majority of the Western world. I had wrote:

Should we blame mental/spiritual sickness on intrinsic womanhood? No, but that’s what the idea of the Feminine Imperative does. It’s the equivalent of blaming war on manhood.

To which he replied:

I don’t think “blame” is an accurate word to describe Rollo’s view. This is actually an area where I disagree with him. Rollo is very careful to avoid value judgments, especially when he is describing the actions of women. Beyond this, your argument resembles the feminist denial of nature in the nature vs nurture debate. Are you arguing that there is nothing intrinsic to womanhood (in general). Or are you arguing that there is nothing intrinsic to womanhood which when unchecked can produce bad (or even catastrophic) results?

As the paragraph goes on, Dalrock does the same thing I do: He digs through my statements to unearth the principle lying below; the frame of the argument. Another way to say that is he is discerning the nature of my argument.

1) Blame is the right word. It’s called the “Feminine Imperative”. The title (to which I obviously disagree, but I’m trying to not lose anybody in the argument) lays the blame directly at the feet of women, womanly behavior, and those who work with with. Rollo may claim that this is not blame, but it can be no other way. At best, it’s confused to call something “feminine” and not “blame” it on women.

In that same vein: We should be judging and assessing value. Aside from the (hopefully) common sense perspective that good is better than bad, and that profitable is better than unprofitable–we are Christians. We are followers of the son of the One True God, Creator of all, and we are made in His image. What does He do? He makes things, and then He judges them. “This is good”. “Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.” Lawlessness…lacking judgment…lacking value assessment.

Christ goes further in the Sermon on the Mount. He says:

16 “And when you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 17 But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, 18 that your fasting may not be seen by others but by your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

19 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, 23 but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!

24 “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.

In my thoughts, I keep coming back to this passage in my refutations of the desirableness of Game (as based on Dark Triad traits, or the 16 Commandments of Poon; both of which dovetail smoothly with the precepts of the Feminine Imperative as most specifically laid out.), but for right now I just want to look at the bolded part. Whatever we do not give value to is worthless. Whatever value we blind ourselves to–in a misguided attempt to be impartial or inclusive–is filling ourselves with emptiness…nothing…darkness–because the light is empty, valueless, and know-nothing. We should be extraordinarily careful in rendering judgment, but to refuse to value is as bad as valuing improperly, i.e., to choose evil over good. How we should value things could be another very long post, or it can be summed up as: value as God values, and not as the world does. No man can server two masters.

2) Nature-vs.-nurture debates are usually nothing of the sort. They’re almost always nature-vs.-nature arguments, with each side choosing to emphasize or detract from various natural components.

For example: Egalitarians almost always consider themselves nurture-over-nature; that the “environment” (peer-group, parents, education, etc.) around a person can override or overcome a person’s “natural” tendencies, strengths and weaknesses. First, humans are inherently social creatures. Environments are completely natural phenomenon, and part of the person’s make-up. It’s not extra-personal. Lots to be said here, but I’ll move on.

More importantly: Egalitarians are trying to bring cognizant and demonstrable equality to things that are nature-ally very similar already. Both men and women are human. They can mate. They have extraordinarily similar sets of organs, motivations, and environments. In turn, apes aren’t far off. In fact you have to drill down a few levels into the secular scientists’ animal kingdom before you hit truly different classes of creatures. What egalitarians say to themselves is “This woman-thing has a head and a brain and a heart just as man-things do. They can both learn and speak and read and do all the same sorts of things. There are really only minor natural differences. Therefore: we ought to see them as equals.” It’s not an argument based on nurturing at all!

The Judeo-Christian paradigm is very nurture-over-nature.

Train up a child in the way he should go;
even when he is old he will not depart from it.”

Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord.And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

And to Adam he said,

“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground because of you;
in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;”

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”

Nature is the flesh; which is death. Our way–Christ’s way–transcends death, and it does so by a nurturing process. In the beginning, the natural way was life in the Garden of Eden, but because we nurtured evil, that nurturing overcame the nature of life and wrought destruction on the whole planet.

See, when you’re talking about a nurturing thing that is not natural (else one cannot have a nurture-vs.-nature discussiono at all), what you’re really talking about is the spiritual-vs.-the natural, i.e, spirit-vs.-flesh. Egalitarians have NOTHING on Christianity when it comes to truly parsing out the powers of nature and the powers of the spirit.

“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.”

Paul is talking a nurtural war; not a natural one.

“Well, Cane, that’s not really what we mean when we say “nature” and “nurture”, and talk about their various influences.” I know. And I’m telling you that because of this you haven’t even really begun to consider the implications of nurturing and the spirit world because this whole way of thinking about nurture and nature without a spiritual context comes about because these things have been discussed for decades now without assigning value; without judgment…like secular scientists. The Christian ALWAYS has recourse to a definitive ruler on the value of things–all things–and it’s most readily available as scripture. If we’re not starting from the principle and presupposition that scripture is profoundly correct on the nature of man and his state, then we are living with darkened lamps. Everything is darkness to us. In such darkness, you might grope upon a trope like “Feminine Imperative”, and not have the light to see that an amoral genetic conspiracy theory is bunk. This becomes obvious once you realize that even the tree outside your window is NOT amoral, but has a moral value, and that value is probably good. It is intrinsically good–from the beginning it was good. We can know this because God said so. It’s in the Bible. Why we can trust the Bible is another post. For now, I’m assuming that if you can accept that a man who claimed to be the Son of God was raised from the dead and ascended into Heaven, then you can accept that God meant it when He invented trees and said “It is good.”

3) In this last bit, I’ll turn to the word intrinsic, and how I meant it. I mean “from the beginning”, or “by design”. The amoral view of the natural universe is inextricable from an amoral view of feminine nature, and vice versa: a moral assessment of the natural universe (And, again: “It is good.”) necessitates a moral assessment of the nature of women. Therefore, as a follower of Christ–Son of the Creator of the Universe–I must reject the amoral view of nature, and I must accept the goodness of the intrinsic (intended/designed) nature of women. By this light I can see clearly. And if, by this light, I see evil in women, then I must recognize that evil as something separate from their nature. It must be something that grows there, i.e., something nurtured by themselves or another, or both. Whether it is a psychiatric disease like narcissism, or “mundane” spiritual disease like lust, or something exotic like demonic possession–I can categorize them under the heading of “sinful nature”.

Don’t get me twisted: Females have a nature. Hypergamy is a real thing, and I wholly believe it’s scriptural. It’s also a decidedly good thing. Think about it: Her hypergamy drives her into your arms. She wants to “fight” with you, and she wants you to win. It’s a fixed fight! This sort of thing is illegal in real fights because the profits are simply too high! If you don’t like this, then the problem is you. Yes, things can go wrong and she can abuse it out of all proportion, but it is an intrinsically good thing.

This, finally, brings us back to the comments of Dalrock’s post that inspired my previous post, upon which Dalrock’s comment and this post grew. In an attempt to describe what a Masculine Imperative would looke like, commenter Bluedog wrote:

A human MI society would be a society where the MI has totally dominated over the FI, so again I’d look to lions as a template for this. You would expect to see high concentrations of women around highly dominant “alpha” males, and you would expect to see men “in between” prides – either because they haven’t established a pride yet or because they got kicked out of one.

The human nuance in this is that I think you would see both men who freely choose to not have prides, who “go their own way” as it were, as well as men who are between prides but wish strongly to have them. All in all, I would imagine this to be a fairly violent and dystopic society.

The assessments of most other commenters lined up with this greatly…which is hilarious because this is what the Feminine Imperative is purported to be! Especially the highlighted portion. That’s right: What we’re here complaining and trying to understand is as much about the society as men have ordered it as how women have…just not most men. Surely not you or I.

Which is what I’ve been saying all along. There is a conspiracy, but it’s not so much run by women as it is run by very rich and powerful (in a worldly sense) men, and perpetrated on average women (which is almost all of them) who don’t even rise to the level of co-conspirator. They’re simply not that smart, important , or powerful enough to be anything but CONSUMERS of the conspiracy. Actually elite women are some of the most hurt by this paradigm. Don’t believe me: Ask John Legend’s model fiance Chrissy Tiegen about Farrah Abraham. Her rage isn’t because somebody banged Farrah, but because all you have to do to make national news is get knocked up as a teen and then make a sextape. I’d never heard of Tiegen before this, but she’s apparently kind of a big deal–and here she is outshined by a common (6 looks; considering physique) whore at the whim of the owners of Viacom and Vivid–companies run by elite men. Warren Buffett is calling for more women in business? Why? Because he knows (whether he has the vocabulary or not) that hypergamy dictates that he’ll get his way and their money. He’s not about empowering women. He’s about enriching himself. To do this: he jumps to the middle of the herd bleating, “Bah-ah-ah! Women are great! Bah-ah-ah!”

Part of the Feminine Imperative stipulates that women gather around each other when enemies attack. Let’s be clear: Tiegen is in the majority in calling Abraham a whore. So trusting to the amoral knowledge of the FI we should expect that Chrissy Tiegen would support and herd-gather around Farrah Abraham. Society doesn’t approve of Abraham–so they’re not gathering around her either…until Tiegen tweets her as a whore in unison with society. Then all Twitter-Hell breaks loose. Why? The Feminine Imperative is at an amoral loss to explain it; unable to tell the sheep from the wolf, and so calling all both. But widespread narcissism–a fundamentally spiritual disorder of falsely assumed self-godhood–explains it. Tiegens critics: 1) assume she is talking to them. 2) assume she is talking about them 3) afraid that someone like Tiegen might reveal their inner-sextaping-teenmom tendencies. So they rage. Tiegen, too, is a narcissist–surprised to discover that her Twitter followers are real people and not just props–so she rages back at them. All the while, each sheep in this milieu (Tiegen, Abraham, and the Twitter followers are trying to jump closer and closer to the center of the herd; to sacrifice enough others to calm whatever and whoever the enemy is. They don’t really care because narcissists can’t be bothered to actually figure that out.

Ok, Cane. Why is this important? What does it matter whether we call this–whatever it is–the Feminine Imperative, or Sin Nature? One, because the truth is important. It just is. If you don’t believe that then stop reading this and everything else I ever have to say.

Two, because those elite men know what I’m talking about. We can’t even fight them for our kids if we don’t know what game they’re playing. This is spiritual warfare, and they know even if it’s too “religulous” for them to say. Maybe you think that too. You might think I’m talking about angels and demons and “invisible bogeymen”…and I am. I’m also talking about how one five year girl with 30 minutes and a bad attitude can transform a whole team of five year olds from content and happy to maladjusted assholes. That’s not the Feminine Imperative–that’s Sin Nature.

One day I’ll go back to posts under 2,000 words.

What Are We Doing Here?

That’s the question I’ve been asking myself. This blog had ceased to justify it’s own existence, but I still believed that it could. The reason is because I believe other people know better than I do; especially those who have shown themselves to be of sound judgment and good character; people like Dalrock, GKChesterton, Empathological, Elspeth, and several others. Many others? No, not many. I think there would very few mourners at this blog’s funeral. Regardless, it’s going to live on.

But I still didn’t really have an answer to what I should be writing because I was still having trouble understanding what in the world everyone else is talking about. I see the problems, and I understand enough of what others are describing to recognize that I can draw an outline of that description; enough to understand that we’re seeing the same phenomenon.

Then they start adding detail to their descriptions, and it’s just…not what I’m seeing. What begins as an artistic description of the universe changes form. It becomes philosophy, and they start talking about how matter is arranged the way it is because while we can sense four dimensions there are at least seven more.

And I say, “Wait a minute! You’re not describing what you see anymore, but what makes sense to you as a cause of what you see.” At best it’s like blind people trying to see by learning about photons. Much more often it’s a whole lot worse: It’s the theory of speciation by natural selection (less data spontaneously becoming more  [and new!] data. Huh?), or the postulation of infinite universes (among which must be a universe that is a singular universe. Poof!).

Let me give you some Manosphere examples:

  • The Feminine Imperative (and the now-comorbid Masculine Imperative)
  • Evolutionary Psychology
  • The Red Pill
  • Rabbitholes
  • Game

Tonight I’m going to write about the first one. From Dalrock’s blog*, he discusses what a man’s version of a story about “natural insemination”, i.e., arranged hookups for the sake of causing pregnancy. The framing and language of the article is certainly from a female perspective–what is called the Feminine Imperative–and so it follows (according to this paradigm of thought) that this is a calculated move by women to further enhance an already female-centric society.

If you protest that it’s too big and ill-considered to be calculated, they continue right on that it’s not calculated (as if they hadn’t just said it was a plan) that it’s just the Feminine Imperative at work. It’s the spontaneous combustion and re-combination of swirling fem-zymes and radical iso-tropes into what is obviously a new super-predator that feeds on men!

Really? Is it anyone’s experience that women desire (by volition) or need (naturally-occurring) more impediments to a one night stand with the male of their choosing? Because that’s what this is. “Natural insemination” is the addition of bureaucracy to the hook-up culture. That doesn’t strike me as female-centric at all. It strikes me as downright idiotic. If there’s one sort of positive, hooray-for-freedom thing we could say about the hookup culture it’s that it is free from oversight or obligation…that’s the appeal of it.

It’s also the problem with it, and up until this point it’s been one of very few defining and uniting criminal charges the Neo-Reactionaries bring against our feminized culture. This very lack of obligation in the hookup culture is blamed on women’s choices, or capitulation to them: no-fault divorce; abortion-on-demand; the Pill; delayed marriage… And I agree with the list. That’s what makes the decision to link natural insemination to the Feminine Imperative such nonsense. Even further: It (again) shows that the idea of the Feminine Imperative itself is nonsense. That means formalized natural insemination services are not a product of imperatives, but of insanity; of dis-order. It’s the result of widespread mental illness. We’ll come back to this, but is it not stated over and over that regulation, responsibility, organization–the traits of civilization–are the MALE domain? I wouldn’t be surprised to find out this is a ploy by men to create a stage upon which they can control the socio-sexual environment. If you’re a smart male 6, it’s a great idea to stock an inventory of “available” 3’s, 4’s, and 5’s to be compared against. Appeal is relative, remember?

So, what is this Feminine Imperative?

Novaseeker said:

“Rollo’s idea (he was the first to use the phrase [ed: Feminine Imperative], I think) is that it isn’t the genetic-based component of people’s individual motivations, but rather the construction of social, cultural, societal, legal, etc. norms, mores and rules concerning the interactions between the sexes, around the interests of one or the other sex to one degree or other.”

As far as I know it was Rollo, and indeed it was based in genetics/biological determinism. He predicated a good deal of it on the notion that eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap; combined with the social customs, climate, cues, etc. of the last couple centuries, and spiced with notorious acts of feminine vandalism against creation from throughout history. He further stated that there was in fact a biological basis for women’s natural cooperation. Specifically, that women are biologically hard-wired to work together to include or ostracize those who do or do not fit the group’s specifications. I would link to some place where he lays this out explicitly, but as far as I know there is no one place.

Since then the definition of the Feminine Imperative has morphed so that it means whatever behavior women do, or have done. Look at Novaseeker’s definition above: What in Hell does that mean? It could mean anything; even preference for men’s preferences. It truly would be just as helpful to say what our grandfather’s did: “Women’s Ways”. Except inventing new terms really appeals to exactly the STEM/DnD/nerd sort of guy who finds the Manosphere and looks to it for answers. This exasperates me because there are answers to be found here…but there’s so much bullshit, too. The answers aren’t in the definitions, but because they keep piling them on, you must first become an etymologist before you can learn to become manly. Being a man (the broadest and most benign definition forwarded for Game) is an art; not a science. There’s way too much time spent on critique, and not enough actually drawing circles. Consequently, the Mansophere is churning out art critics, and very few artists.

Art critics brings us back to the widespread mental illness because art critics are so often posers who couldn’t find enough appreciation among others for their own art. You know who likes to pose? Narcissists. Do you know what sort of people like to compartmentalize everyone and everything else? Narcissists. They’ll protest it’s some sort of science, of codification to enhance learning…but read what they have to contribute. It’s not the possible science they’re interested in so much as accessorizing their image of themselves. It’s life as set design and casting call.

Some of you want to say something like, “Well, Cane, actually the narcissist is the one who likes to boss others around. He likes to tell everyone what to do, and he thinks he’s the best.” No, not really. A narcissist is someone who can only really appreciate their own view. In their minds, only their existence and experience really matters.

  • You’re my funny friend.
  • You’re the strong friend.
  • You’re the slut friend.
  • He’s a beta
  • He’s an omega
  • He’s an alpha

You know the girl who self-identifies as the quiet one, and takes pains to let you know she’s not judging your behavior? Yeah, she’s a narcissist. What’s important to her is that everyone else (i.e., her audience) recognizes that she is “The Quiet One”, and that you know her manner is “Not Judging”. That narcissism enables the “lack of judgment” (i.e., lack of meaningful concern for others) about others because no one else matters to her but her. Since they don’t matter and yet they persist the narcissist copes by making them a prop; by directing them where to stand in the narcissists mind.

Here’s another example: A woman will rarely describe herself as a slut unless she actually calls herself a slut. “Well, duh!”, you say. No, hold on. Sluts are defined by their behavior. If it’s a woman, and she puts out to others for pleasure without obligation (marriage)–by definition she’s being a slut, right? Steph, a narcissistic woman looks at her friend Jenny, who goes from boyfriend to boyfriend, and interspersed that (just a couple times) with drunken one night stands (“learning experiences/mistakes”). Steph admits that Jenny is…sort of a slut. She puts Jenny in the slut box.

What Steph’s friends know is that Steph–though recently married in a beautiful and moving celebration of romance and flowers and dresses and Steph–went through the exact same “empowering journey of self-discovery” as Jenny! But, see, Jenny is already in the slut box, so there’s no room for Steph in there because Steph requires her own space. Anyway, in Steph’s mind it’s Steph’s show and Steph doesn’t want to be in the slut box. So she’s not. Steph and Jenny’s friends accept this because they’re ALL narcissists, and in each of their minds it is Jenny in the slut box, but Steph is not. It’s entirely likely that Jenny accepts this herself, and revels in being the slut friend. That’s how this group of women got to be friends: They each had their own box. There was no competition for space; leaving them all able to be the star of their own internal show.

If Jenny repents of her ways, they’ll have to kick Jenny out of the group (slowly, and with lots lying, flaking, and backbiting) because Jenny will screw up the program by getting out of her box. That will raise the question: “NOW who’s going to be the slut?” Because it sure as Hell isn’t going to be the other friends. Often times, whole groups will disintegrate once the integrity of the boxes has been compromised by change in one person’s life.

That’s what the Feminine Imperative is. It’s a Manosphere variant of the “slut box” concept. It’s one of many ill-defined but infinitely useful coping mechanisms in the Manospherian narcissist’s arsenal to deal with the narcissism of women. That arsenal is called Game. I’ll write about that later. For now, aside from online discussions about socio-sexual relations, reflect on how people identify themselves in other discussions; by the movies they merely watch; the type of music they merely listen to; the type of games they play. It’s about what they consume. It used to be about who was your father. That’s hard to do when the fathers aren’t around, or aren’t fathering. Narcissism is the secret sauce in corporate marketing, so they promote doofus fathers and empowered mothers to make sure there is always a new crop of loyal consumers. Those marketing reps may not even know this is how it works. In all likelihood, their own narcissism blinds them to the process. They are the stars of their own marketing shows, and they know that there are several dimensions of the human universe we can’t even detect. Besides: You’re in the idiot box; not them.

What’s more: A lack of meaningful concern for anyone else is incompatible with an over-arching imperative. Imperatives–even those oriented outward–make it very difficult for a narcissist to maintain a personal space where they are the star of their own show.

You might say: “Ok then, smart guy: What is this phenomenon of women gathering around each other for protection?” Well people–and especially women–are sheep. When sheep are frightened they head for the safety of the middle of the flock. So what appears to be huddling around each other is actually sheep hoping the threat is sated by those on the fringe of the group. It’s the swarming of individual selfishness. Will they admit that? Of course not. No selfish-unto-narcissistic person will confess she is willing to sacrifice others for her own safety. Those folks are in the selfish box, and she’s clearly in the caring-star box. We should know she’s caring, she’d say, because why else would everyone be orbiting her?

In closing: Historically men are more likely to be narcissists, and women are more likely to be borderline. As we continue on in this grand experiment of personal freedom, lack of accountability, and gender neutrality I think it will only be natural to see more role-reversal trends. Individually, I would expect to see younger men more narcissistic, and older men crumble into borderline. Meanwhile, young women as borderline until they get to be about 30; at which point they molt into narcissists. This would explain why a 35 years old megastar rapper with his choice of women would stoop to impregnate a twice-divorced 32 years old celebrity (most known for making a sex tape with another man) while she’s still married to another man.

*To be fair to Dalrock, he is as ecumenical as they come. This post is not meant to disparage him in any way. The point of his post is not that the Masculine Imperative or Feminine Imperative are real things that should be defined exactly as others have defined him, but that–using the MI and FI as signposts–to point out the obvious and omnipresent feminine frame of reference of all discussion in the media, and society-at-large.

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.

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.

There is no Poon I: Game as Tools

Whenever another references what I have to say about Game they always come back to the “Set of Tools” argument.

“No, no, Cane! You’ve got it all wrong. Game is not inherently wicked. Game is a tabula rasa-”

“Tabula rasa? That some kind of fancy Mexican table; like a Lazy Susan?”

Sigh. “It’s a set of tools, from which you can pick and choose what tool you need for which-”

“Yeah, like I said: a Mexican Lazy Susan.”

“-ever the occasion requires. You don’t have to use them all, and, yes, some of them should not be used by Christians.”

Balls, I say, to my worthy friend and trusty sparring partner, The Gentleman Poet.

The Sufficiency of Scripture

In the interest of delivering a full post-as-rebuttal experience, I need to address a foundational error in his thinking on the purposes of scripture.

The bible isn’t about being a man; it is not a training manual for humanity.  It is a book about God; not only the author but also the protagonist.  The bible is God’s story not man’s story.  The bible was given to man so that he might gain understanding about God, any understanding gained about man is secondary.  The bible speaks the truth about God.

The bolded bits I have no quarrel with. God is the protagonist, and why not? He wrote the blessed thing, and He wrote all the characters in it. But the unbolded statements pay short shrift to the mysteries linked there in the previous sentence. We should not underestimate that God made the universe so that He could make man. After he made everything in the universe, He said, “It is good”. Then He made man, and He said, “It is not good that man is alone.”

God just made everything besides Himself that can be known, and He’s already concerned for this one little speck of a man, on a speck of a planet, in a speck of a solar system, in a speck of a galaxy, in a universe that didn’t exist six days ago. He is utterly concerned with us from before there was an us.

All of this was recorded and given to us. The creation bit was given to us in the Pentateuch–the Five Books of the Law. What law? Why does God need a law? He doesn’t. The Law was given to man, yes, to help us understand God. Then there are the Psalms. The Proverbs. The words given to prophets for our instruction and edification, that, yes, we might know God better. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Sometime later, the Thought of God said: this man still needs help. He needs so much help that he is helpless before a just God. So the Thought–the Word of God that spoke the universe into existence–became a man to stand in for us as the man we could not be. Then there were the epistles; letters from men of God, to men of God, that were written by God, for man’s instruction. The Bible literally has everything to say on what is means to be a man. Game writers make this same claim of Game; though the authorship is given to evolution and genetics; the god of biomechanics.

Who Uses the Tools on Whom?

One of the misconceptions that comes from considering Game as a set of tools is that these tools are wielded by the man for work upon a woman.

No.

They are not tools in this regard; like tips, or insights. Game is a set of tools that operate on the man. They are more like exercises than tips. The tool of approaching many women is not to play vagina powerball until he hits the numbers, but through rejection and experience to extend the man’s endurance of expectations, hone his ability to read his opponent’s body language, and think on his feet.

The Neg is about demonstrating the man’s higher value, not diminishing hers–he’s a man of the world–seen a lot, knows a lot, and is too aloof to judge too quickly.

Kino is about getting comfortable with pushing your physical desires on a woman; projecting his frame of sexual desire onto her; boxing out her inhibitions.

There are at least three fundamental problems with this.

1) Women are not our opponents. They weren’t made to be our enemies. They don’t want to be our enemies. They want to rule over us. They act very foolishly. They are unruly…but they don’t want to be our enemies.

2) The law of diminishing returns will kick in; his need for escalation will build. Now, if this results in marriage then good. But the more capable he becomes with Game, the more that marriage will seem like a sacrifice instead of a fulfillment. This is especially true in the age of Feminism, and a reduced crop of marriage-worthy women.

3) Love is the prescribed tool for working on women; especially for Christian women; more especially for our wives. The problem is many women don’t want to be loved–they want to admired unto worship. They want to be men. This is because they are foolish and unruly and want to rule us. This is what the Knowledge of Good and Evil does for the creature meant to serve. It should be an expected evil reaction when the servant is confronted with the evil in the figure given authority.

The Efficacy of Game

Let’s go back to the Set of Tools:

Fornication and adultery are two of the most potent exercises/tools of Game. They are the power tools; the chainsaw and the flamethrower of Game, and they run on overconfidence. The Bible speaks of a man cleaving to his wife; the axe bite of love. That is very slow going when he has a forest to clear, and Game means to clear forests. It has to: Feminism has created this very black forest, and nothing will teach a man the value of a chainsaw faster than gawping at acres of dead trees. Virtually every woman before him is nothing but lumber waiting to be cut, or brush to be burnt, in his exercises.  There seem to be too few women worthy to make wives, for to save his Oneitis efforts.

Those two tools will get the aspiring master of Game to such mastery faster than anything else. They’ll teach the man that one woman is very like the next, and how to mow through the forest efficiently, for his sake. This isn’t true, but it seems that way since he can’t learn anything else over the din and blaze.

What the wielder of the chainsaw of fornication and the flamethrower of adultery will often not realize until it’s too late is that it’s upon himself that those tools operate, just as the others. Sexual sins are repeatedly noted as sins against the man himself because he is making two errors.

1) He is redirecting his love away from a worthy target to himself–that is: giving himself his Oneitis; that is: masturbation; that is: homosexuality.
2) He is diminishing his capacity to love overall. Game confirms this.

Even recognizing this, Game encourages it, and in the end: There is no room in the man to love anyone but himself, yet he is hateful to himself. He’s tooled and cut and burned everything off that can appreciate himself or a woman; not to mention a wife. He has arrived at nirvana: There is no Poon.

“Well,” a man might say, “I simply won’t use those tools.”  Yes, he will, and he does.

I noted before: There is only one cool religion left, and it is the one that can rest easy beside Feminism, solipsism, and self-destruction (nothingness).