Lightning Round – 2013/05/08

I’ve got been busy, so today’s Lightning Round is truncated, but fear not, that should only mean that next weeks is longer than usual.

Can man live traditionally?

There will be war.

The fall of the white man.

A long life.

Reflections on daygame.

A parable: the littlest feminist.

Early marriage: the environment matters.

Rebranding submission. Is giving in to rebellion really the best way?

Virginity and sluttery.

A hamster translation for y’all.

Narcissism in action.

Both Roissy and Ace have the same thought.
Related: She’s married? Wow. Also, seems Bill had the same thought.
Related: Rape hysteria and vigilantism.

Speculations on ‘one flesh’ and microbiomes.

5 minutes of alpha.
Related: The power of game.

Using the male pill to win an MRA victory.

Anime and reaction.

Why to start a journal.

The Westermarck effect.

29% of registered voters think armed revolution may be necessary.

A global food shortage?

Canada vulnerable to aboriginal insurrection.

“Comment of the year.”

(H/T: Instapundit)

 

A Respectful Response: Rights Don’t Exist

Ballista has responded to one of my more recent posts:

Related to this matter is the blog post here. While men need their gardens to tend and need them to bear fruit, the problem with Free Northerner’s premise is that it is couched in terms of responsibilities and not rights. Any responsibility undertaken without the complete freedom of choice (a right) amounts to slavery. This is the usual mistake of frame that the feminist man-hating traditionalist “Christians” make to justify their warped and twisted profane view of marriage. It is these same people who are producing the man-up rants when their man-slaves run off the plantation and deprive a woman of her rightful divorce and fabulous cash and prizes. As Antz writes (the first comment):

Ballista’s mistake here is simple, there is no discussion of rights without responsibilities.

Contrary to popular mythology, there is no such thing as a natural right. God does not grant anyone a right to freedom, a right to life, a right to happiness, or any other such silly thing. The existence of natural rights is simply the delusion of the liberal. On the other hand, the legal fiction of natural rights is a useful political tool, as it establishes a basis for a free society, the most effective form of social organization man has yet attained, but it is still extra-biblical.

True rights come from responsibilities. A right to something comes from man’s earning it. He who works not, eats not.

The delinking of the rights and responsibilities is one of the largest causes of societal dysfunction. From it flows the entitlement society.

True freedom is responsibility is simply the absolute responsibility for self. Man is only truly free when given the absolute responsibility to act for himself and bear the consequences and reap the rewards of said actions.

That being said, Ballista is right in this:

The lack of the freedom to choose (i.e. “you MUST marry, and I don’t care if it’s a land whale, slut, womyn, boy claiming to be a woman or otherwise, you WILL man-up and marry it you piece of scum”) – and yes it’s Scriptural, is the essence of the definition of slavery.

The ultimate end of the issue is that men need to be freed to undertake what is good, beneficial and right before them and before God.

Marriage is not a command, it is a gift from God. Men should be wise in choosing a wife and anyone who tries to pressure a man to marry, especially to a women in rebellion of the natural order, is to be condemned.

Also, men do need to be freed, but not because they have some natural right to it, but because only in their freedom can they find true responsibility. Only a man free to find his own way will find what he truly should be responsible for.

Ballista, if you reply to this, I’m busy and won’t be able to reply for a few days at least.

Words and Meaning

I’ve been going through the Trivium between other readings as a part of my reading list project. The book start with a discussion of grammar, in which this is asserted early on:

A word is a symbol. Its matter is the sensible sign; its form is the meaning imposed upon it by convention. (p.15)

The use of a word as a symbol is asserted throughout the grammar section, and sometimes it is referenced how the symbol may not represent the same meaning to differing people. The symbol may have ambiguous meaning due to different phantasms (mental images) that people have of the word.

Being more cold-bloodedly rational-minded, I’ve generally defaulted to a view of words where having a fixed, objective meaning, but what if words don’t have an objective meaning? What if words have subjective emotional meanings beyond the “objective” definition of the word itself the word itself?

If a word is simply a symbol of meaning rather than an objective definition, it can symbolize different things to different people.

For example, in this conversation I wrote of earlier, one of the things that set someone off was saying, “rape in marriage doesn’t exist”. By this I meant that Christian marriage is a consentual agreement in which the free giving of sex by both parties plays an integral part, so, from a Christian point of view sex had already been consented to simply by being married. Just like continuous mortgage payments have already been consented to simply by signing a mortgage contract.

What I heard back was a strong emotional outburst about violence and sexual torture within marriage. This derailed the conversation. My attempts to reason about the definitions of Christian marriage, consent, violence, and rape proved fruitless.

In retrospect, the word rape is emotionally loaded for some people. Had I used the phrase “non-consensual sex”, there probably would not have been a similar, unintended emotional meaning attached to the phrase, while still having the same objective meaning. The discussion may have proved more fruitful.

Another one that came up in the discussion thread for that post is the use of “men” and “women” instead of “males” and “females”. I never really thought there was much of a difference between the two, other than the latter being broader and including children as well as adults. But it seems to many, that the former are more “humanizing”.

I could probably improve my abilities to relating with people, especially women, by simply keeping this in mind.

The symbols that are words may have emotional meanings attached to them by beyond what I may intend for them to have.

****

Private Man has commented on something similar. He recommends referring to “traditional gender roles” as “natural gender roles” from now on.

I think it’s a good idea and plan to implement it in the future. While there is a slight difference in meaning, in most contexts I, and most reactionaries, would use the phrase “traditional gender roles”, “natural gender roles” would be equivalent.

Haley had a similar suggestion, that we rebrand submission as deference. I’d have to agree with ar10308’s and Deep Strength’s responses:

Scripture says “Submit” as a command. “Defer” implies that you have the choice to do so or not, yet still be aligned with God’s command regardless if you do not follow it or not. “Defer” still places the wife at the head of the marriage as opposed to the husband.

ar10308 has it correct. Deference, at least in colloquial term of the word, means you tend to “know better” or “don’t want to make the decision” and are just letting the other person have their preference. Sounds like feminism to me.

Although the definition of defer has submit within it, it is not a synonym of submission. Submission to leadership is different from this in the Biblical perspective.

The dictionary definition of defer is:

To submit to the opinion, wishes, or decision of another through respect or in recognition of his or her authority, knowledge, or judgment.
…
to yield (to) or comply (with) the wishes or judgments of another
…
to yield respectfully in judgment or opinion.

While submit’s is:

To yield or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority of another.
…
5. to yield oneself to the power or authority of another.
6. to allow oneself to be subjected to some kind of treatment.
7. to defer to another’s judgment, opinion, decision, etc.

This is a case where the dictionary definitions are almost the same, but the real-life connotations of the symbols are too different to be used.

If this took off, I can see it being used as a cover for sin, sort of like the media portrayals of girls who are  “virgins” because they were anally rather than vaginally penetrated.

Would it be good Christian theology for Christians to defer to Christ?

Defer yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

Kind of has a different ring to it, don’t it?

Men Need Responsibility and Reward

I was reading the comments over at Vox Day, which has the best comments section of any site I’ve yet read, and came across this:

If culture says “Men, you are responsible”, many will live up to it.

You’ve all read and mocked dozens of man-up screeds despairing at how young men are enjoying themselves rather than feeding themselves into the grinder.

As one recent example, at Sarah’s Daughter RLB has had an impressive streak of MGTOW shaming, catalogued by ar10308 here. To some degree I sympathize with RLB’s position, giving up and whining is not exactly a manly Christian response. On the other hand, deti’s response is rather on the nose, it is very hard for a young Christian man to find a virtuous wife.

Why do men act like children? Why do men not grow up? Why are men so adverse to taking responsibility? Where are all the good men? All these the so-cons and over-the-hill women ask.

I’ve already discussed the reason here, incentives. Essentially, there is increasingly less reason for the young man to try and increasingly more reason for him to be irresponsible.

While incentives is the primary driver it is not the only one. The lack of responsibility given young men is another.

Men need responsibility, they thrive on responsibility, and even if they don’t know it they crave responsibility.

Men are made, not born, and they are made through responsibility. There is nothing that makes a man, a man like responsibility.

You make a man by giving him his little area of life and telling him, ‘this is yours, you take care ot if, you are in charge of it, and you will reap the natural rewards and failures of your care of it.’

The man will rise to the challenge (or fail) and will be forged in the process.

This is man’s purpose, to have dominion.

You destroy a man and prevent him from being made by denying him this opportunity. He doesn’t even get the chance to fail, let alone succeed.

Guess which route today’s world takes with our young men-in-the-making?

Our young men are sent to school and university, where they are given no responsibility beyond handing in their work on time. For many men, even that is pushed on them by their helicopeter patents. The young men enter the workforce and are almost always put in low-level jobs where all their actions are dictated by corporate policy; there is no room for responsibility or personal judgment for the young man making his career. The average young man does not start a family until his late 20s, on average, and even then are no longer heads of their household, given responsibility over their family. Nowadays, a man can easily get into his 30s having borne no real responsibility for anything in his life.

How the hell are we as a society to expect young men to man-up and become men when there is almost no opportunity for a young to take responsibility.

We will not have men if we do not forge them.

Of course, once a man reaches his late-20s, the man-up rants come out. At this point, opinion leaders and women are more than happy to start demanding that men start taking responsibility (particularly by marrying that single-mother or aging ex-carousal rider).

But their definition of responsibility is a twisted and distorted one.

Under their perverted form of responsibility the man is given something, told to care for it, and told the penalties for failure will be levied against him should he not succeed. But, he is not given any power over the situation. He is cut off at the knees and his leadership is undermined, if not wholly denied. In addition, as my incentives post pointed out, he is not receiving the traditional, natural rewards of taking good care of his area of responsibility.

Society needs responsible men and men need responsibility. The obvious solution is for society to start giving young men responsibility, full responsibility. Give him his own part of life to have dominion over; give him a domain.

Demanding they man up is pointless. Demanding they feed themselves into the grinder is both sadistic and pointless. Making them accountable without giving them power is cruel and pointless, as is punishing failure, but not rewarding success.

Give men responsibility, then demand they be responsible, and let them know they will receive the natural rewards and/or penalties for their care of their area of responsibility, and you will get the men you want.

A man needs a domain of his own, any healthy society will ensure he has many opportunities to acquire one.

Lightning Round – 20130/05/01

Congratulations to nightskyradio and allamagoosa, two commenters from the manosphere who are to be married.
May God bless you both and may your quiver be full.
SSM gets results. Maybe I should get her to try to set me up next.

Love and respect.

Vikingism.
Related: Don’t fight it.
Related: There are no rules.

How to fight the Cathedral.

Some men don’t get the message.

Thatch with some advice for Christian men.
Related: Sexual dystopia.
Related: Zhai on how to handle men like Thatch.

Some Christian dating problems/advice.
Related: Don’t trust mainstream dating advice.
Related: Seems JB is also entertained by advice columns.

Traditional marriage versus Christian marriage.
Related: In support of early marriage.
Related: Arranged marriages result in more love than “love” marriages.
Related: Be realistic about marriage.
Related: Hating love.

Responding to Tradcons: Nope.

War only requires one side; don’t collaborate.
When even feminists can see the damage they are wreaking on the culture.
What happens when women want a traditional household, but don’t want to label it traditional.

Shifting the frame: Use the words “natural gender roles.”

Losing your way.

A few new blogs added to the roll:
The Radish: These posters are amazingly awesome.
The Karazamazov Idea, here’s an multi-post epic on women in the military.
Dr. Faust, here’s a recent post on female worship. He seems to be in the angry stage of the red pill.
Unorthodoxy: A neoreactionary aggregator.

Beauty is not skin deep.
Related: Beauty is not subjective.
Related: The face is everything. Agreed.

A women’s world can be a great place to visit.

Some ignorant woman has never heard of the apex fallacy.

Roissy has some good links.

Player burnout.

Anti-racism creates racism. Who could have guessed?

Those abusive homeschoolers.

CPS kidnaps child after mother gets a second opinion.

Gun control by executive order.
Related: The gun control advocates are out for blood. Hehe.
Related: The little bitches cry. Schadenfreude is fun.
Related: Sweet, delicious tears.

Democrats love guns.
Related: Who needs “assault weapons”? Koreans.

A lot of gun freedom arguments from Smallest Minority.

Odd how liberal’s concern for privacy goes out the window as soon as it’s one of their pet projects.

A liberal-asking-stupid-questions two-fer:
Why aren’t there more female sci-fi authors? Because they don’t like science.
Why aren’t more women at Coachella? Because most music made by women is pop/crap.

Believing in evolution.

Incentives help fat people lose weight. Willpower FTW.

Drink alcohol for good health.

Voter fraud is a myth.

Governments create problems, then inadequately “fix” them.

Austerity in Europe never occurred.
Related: Is the Cathedral starting to recognize the dangers of printing money?

The official narrative might not be true? Shocking.
Related: A response from the father.

Women shouldn’t guard men’s prisons.
Related: Female prison guards rape inmates. Where’s the punishment?

The stupidity of the internet sales tax.

Any race but Caucasian. Thanks taxpayer-funded public broadcaster.

(H/T: Phineas, Instapundit, Borepatch, Observer, Althouse, Blazing Cat Fur)

Pleasures of the Flesh

I’ve been noting in my Lightning Rounds that a few experienced players have been reaching the end of their run on the hedonic treadmill and are finding the whole experience unfulfilling. Last week, I wrote of how neither hedonism nor meaningless LTR’s will leave a man fulfilled. Now it seems Frost is suffering from player burn-out as well.

Except for a few men, playerdom will never be fulfilling in the end. Shallow pleasure does not bring contentment, only momentary happiness. Meaningless sex is simply the same effect as drugs, except one step removed (or more accurately, drugs are simply artificial inducements of effects similar to that which meaningless sex will bring). As with drugs, it will not satisfy, but it will become increasingly consuming as it becomes increasingly less pleasurable.

You will have sex, feel pleasure, then have but feel slightly less pleasure, and each time you will require more sex, more kinkiness, hotter women, and yet still feel slightly less pleasure each time. Meanwhile, you never feel the contentment you seek. The hedonic treadmill continues to roll until you either die or get off.

So, why not just ride for a while and get off at the right time?

The treadmill takes its toll even after you get off. Just as a carousel rider suffers as an alpha widow, so to does the ex-player suffer from the player’s curse.

A man who limits himself to one sexual partner has, by definition, the best sexual partner of his life with whom he is having the best sex of his life. The player, not so much. Any long-term relationship he may try will always be haunted by the ghosts of better sex and more beautiful partners of time past. The more partners he had prior, the more likely and stronger the hauntings.

There is no purpose to be found in hedonism, only emptiness.

I bought male and female slaves, and had slaves who were born in my house. I had also great possessions of herds and flocks, more than any who had been before me in Jerusalem. I also gathered for myself silver and gold and the treasure of kings and provinces. I got singers, both men and women, and many concubines, the delight of the sons of man.

So I became great and surpassed all who were before me in Jerusalem. Also my wisdom remained with me. And whatever my eyes desired I did not keep from them. I kept my heart from no pleasure, for my heart found pleasure in all my toil, and this was my reward for all my toil. Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had expended in doing it, and behold, all was vanity and a striving after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun. (Ecclesiastes 2:7-11, ESV)

Other men go make a different, but no less mistaken, extreme. Rather than pursuing meaningless sex from multiple women, they pursue meaning in a single woman. They find their identity and purpose in loving and serving another fallen person. This is as almost as empty as the meaningless sex, and will leave a man almost as hollow in the end. How is her value more than your own?

A man’s purpose of life can not be found in women or a singular woman.

If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, so that the days of his years are many, but his soul is not satisfied with life’s good things, and he also has no burial, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he. For it comes in vanity and goes in darkness, and in darkness its name is covered. Moreover, it has not seen the sun or known anything, yet it finds rest rather than he. Even though he should live a thousand years twice over, yet enjoy no good—do not all go to the one place? (Ecclesiastes 6:3-6, ESV)

So, where can purpose be in life be found?

For this, we can turn to Genesis:

And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

This is the first commandment; this is for what God made man.

Man’s purpose is to be found in filling and subduing the earth. Work was what man was created and/or evolved for. Man is meant to tame the land and to build from that which he needs and desires and to fill his tamed land with his own.

Man’s purpose is in building something greater than himself and then to create future generations to enjoy it.

Yet, there is a problem:

“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;
thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.” (Genesis 3:17-19, ESV)

I have read this verse many times in my life, but only recently did I realize the full measure of agony contained within these words.

It is only in his work that man can find meaning, yet rather than something pleasurable, work is something difficult, bitter, and wearying.

How bitter this cup, that man’s purpose is to toil, yet his toil is naught but pain to him. To his even greater agony, when his toil is through and he surveys the work gained by through the sweat of his brow, he always knows that from dust it came and to dust it will return.

To find purpose, a man must always be working, always in bitter toil, yet know that all his work will eventually crumble in ruin.

I hated all my toil in which I toil under the sun, seeing that I must leave it to the man who will come after me, and who knows whether he will be wise or a fool? Yet he will be master of all for which I toiled and used my wisdom under the sun. This also is vanity. So I turned about and gave my heart up to despair over all the toil of my labors under the sun, because sometimes a person who has toiled with wisdom and knowledge and skill must leave everything to be enjoyed by someone who did not toil for it. This also is vanity and a great evil. What has a man from all the toil and striving of heart with which he toils beneath the sun? For all his days are full of sorrow, and his work is a vexation. Even in the night his heart does not rest. This also is vanity. (Ecclesiastes 2:18-23, ESV)

What is a man to do when all is vanity? How can man continue on, when all about his is rust and decay

Here is all for man to do:

Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do.

Let your garments be always white. Let not oil be lacking on your head.

Enjoy life with the wife whom you love, all the days of your vain life that he has given you under the sun, because that is your portion in life and in your toil at which you toil under the sun. Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going. (Ecclesiastes 9:7-10, ESV)

A man accepts that life is vanity; he accepts that life is toil, but he continues. He finds what joy he can, knowing joy is illusionary, while working to build, knowing that his works will fade and decay.

A man’s purpose is to continue to build and enjoy the fruits of his labour even when he can not find meaning in the building or its fruits.

The White Conservative Male

I recently watched Django Unchained, a movie I thoroughly enjoyed. At one point, slave-owning Leonardo asks concerning the blacks, “why don’t they just rise up?” The Last Psychiatrist already addressed this better than I could:

Anyway, perfectly ordinary slaveowner DiCaprio asks a rhetorical question, a fundamental question, that has occurred to every 7th grade white boy and about 10% of 7th grade white girls, and the profound question he asked was: “Why don’t they just rise up?”

Kneel down, Quentin Tarantino is a genius.  That question should properly come from the mouth of the German dentist: this isn’t his country, he doesn’t really have an instinctive feel for the system, so it’s completely legitimate for a guy who doesn’t know the score to ask this question, which is why 7th grade boys ask it; they themselves haven’t yet felt the crushing weight of the system, so immediately you should ask, how early have girls been crushed that they don’t think to ask this?   But Tarantino puts this question in the mouth of the power, it is spoken by the very lips of that system; because of course the reason they don’t rise up is that he– that system– taught them not to.  When the system tells you what to do, you have no choice but to obey.

If “the system tells you what to do” doesn’t seem very compelling, remember that the movie you are watching is Django UNCHAINED.   Why did Django rise up?  He went from whipped slave to stylish gunman in 15 minutes.  How come Django was so quickly freed not just from physical slavery, but from the 40 years of repeated psychological oppression that still keeps every other slave in self-check?  Did he swallow the Red Pill? How did he suddenly acquire the emotional courage to kill white people?

“The dentist freed him.”  So?  Lots of free blacks in the South, no uprisings.  “He’s ‘one in ten thousand’?”  Everybody is 1 in 10000, check a chart.  “He got a gun?”  Doesn’t help, even today there are gun owners all over America who feel that they aren’t free.  No.  You should read this next sentence, get yourself a drink, and consider your own slavery: the system told Django that he was allowed to.   He was given a document that said he was a bounty hunter, and as an agent of the system, he was allowed to kill white people.  That his new job happened to coincide with the trappings of power is 100% an accident, the system decided what he was worth and what he could do with his life.  His powers were on loan, he wasn’t even a vassal, he was a tool.

This is not to minimize the individual accomplishment of a Django becoming a free man.  But for the other slaves, what is the significance?

Of course Tarantino knew that the evil slaveowner’s question has a hidden, repressed dark side:  DiCaprio is a third generation slave owner, he doesn’t own slaves because he hates blacks, he owns them because that’s the system; so powerful is that system that he spends his free time not on coke or hookers but on researching scientific justifications for the slavery– trying to rationalize what he is doing.   That is not the behavior of a man at peace with himself, regardless of how much he thinks he likes white cake, it is the behavior of a man in conflict, who suspects he is not free; who realizes, somehow, that the fact that his job happens to coincide with the trappings of power is 100% an accident… do you see?   “Why don’t they just rise up?” is revealed to be a symptom of the question that has been repressed: “why do the whites own slaves?  Why don’t they just… stop?”  And it never occurs to 7th graders to ask this question because they are too young, yet every adult thinks if he lived back then, he would have been the exception.  1 in 10000, I guess.  And here we see how repression always leaves behind a signal of what’s been repressed– how else do you explain the modern need to add the qualifier “evil” to “slaveowner” if not for the deeply buried suspicion that, in fact, you would have been a slaveowner back then?  “But at least I wouldn’t be evil.”  Keep telling yourself that.  And if some guy in a Tardis showed up and asked, what’s up with you and all the slaves, seems like a lot?  You’d say what everybody says, “look wildman, don’t ask me, that’s just the system.  Can’t change it.  Want to rape a black chick?”

Then I read this. According to the statistics given about one in four women suffers violence/rape at the hands of men, although, I have read elsewhere that this number is exaggerated and one in eight would be more accurate. But either way, tThe original giver of these numbers seems shocked that these numbers are so high.

I think the better question is why are these numbers so low?

When men are dominant over women in absolutely every area of power: physical strength, political strength, economic strength, capacity for violence, etc., and these same women hold control over the one base desire to rule them all, why isn’t there more use of force by men to take what they desire?

Women have what men desire and there is little they can do to stop men from taking it. Yet, only a small minority do.

Why isn’t there more violence and rape?

Then I read this: white men are scary. The title says it all. Down in the comments Vanessa stated this:

White men gained power, not because of violence, but because of innovative technology and organization

That’s precisely what makes them scary. They’re not just violent, but clinically focused and horrendously efficient.

I’m German, you know. People think German men are cowards, but they’re not. They’re just very slow to anger, and thank God for that. It is as if the white men of the world have been asleep, and they’re starting to wake up. It’s going to get very scary very fast.

I’ve written about this before. The human male is the apex predator; the single greatest biological killing machine God and/or evolution ever brought forth. White men have brought this violence to levels of horrificness and efficiency previously unknown (except possibly Ghengis Khan).

And yet the question remains, as Vanessa points out:

I think the idea of “white male privilege” is the ultimate Frechheit. It’s not that white males privilege themselves, you ingrates, it’s that they privilege everybody else. They go out of their way to give help everyone else to the same standard of living that they have.

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

I don’t know if this is ignorance, or their hate talking, but it makes them sound like clueless idiots.

I’ve written about this before as well. The white man created the greatest civilization in the history of the world and he has the unrivaled power to dominate any who oppose him and take anything he desires. Yet, instead of using this power for absolute domination and enslaving those who aren’t the white man, he allows others to become a part of his civilization.

Why is this? With this unrivaled power, Why does the white man not take more than a few nebulous “privileges”?

Then, we come to another roadblock: even among white men, there is a power differential, an ideological one.

Simply put, almost the entire capacity for violence among the white man rests in one ideological tribe, which, for simplicity’s sake, we’ll label conservatives. The military is conservative, the police are conservative, gun owners are primarily conservative, white males. This ideological tribe controls every level of violence in society.

Yet, in white society, these conservatives are the outer party. Almost the entirety of the government, the media, the education system, etc. rests in the hands of the conservatives’ rival tribe, which, for simplicity’s sake, we’ll call liberals.

This seems odd. The white, conservative male controls the hard power of society by a large amount, but invites others to share in his civilizational inheritance and allows the other white tribe to control the soft power.

Why doesn’t the white male, armed and capable of violence, take control of institutional soft power from the type of people who believe a moral lecture is “hardball”?

What is it about the white, conservative male that causes him to not use the power he has to dominate others?

Why doesn’t he rise up?

Following that: what happens if the white, conservative male sees he controls hard power and has the capabilities to completely dominate others? What happens if he decides to use it?

What happens when the white, conservative male realizes how the system is set up, and decides fuck this?

The system may seem invincible now, but as Vanessa said:

I think you are underestimating how angry young white men are and how little some of them have left to lose. They used to feel like they were the good guys, and they wanted to protect their reputation, but now they know everybody hates them.

Lightning Round – 2013/04/24

Remember the fundamentals.
Related: The basic goal should be the self-improvement of the comprehensive man.

A new blog’s come to my attention: Vigilante R. He seems to be more in the Reactionary camp than the manosphere proper and has embarked on a reading project, which I support. As with many of us, he’s asking what is to be done?

Black Knighting.

The red pill quiz. I scored a 7; I’m a nihilistic, reactionary, Christian, it seems.

The pain of watching the dream die.
Related: Ian with a look at the future.
Related: The end of paternal investment.
Related: For men, it gets better.
Related: Danny pulls out some good comments by deti.
Related: The original thread.

Probably my favourite Mentu piece, reposted.

Judge harshly.
Related: Reasons to marry a non-virgin.

Men are not victims.

Christian’s perverted view of marriage.
Related: “Christians” arguing for the morality of fornication. How the church has fallen.

The “good man store” does not exist.

Feminist realizes the reality of “women’s rights”, but only when it affects her.

The evolution of game.
Related: This made me chuckle.

Have sex.

Edward Thatch hits the end of the hedonic treadmill.
Related: Do not chase happiness.

Seems Matt Forney was Ferd. I didn’t know; it never even occurred to me to try to guess if Ferd had a new site. Not too surprising though.

Civil war among the rabbits.

White men are scary. With interesting comments.
Related: Gun control is male control.
Related: Woman want to disarm America.

“Let’s face it, if you found yourself living amongst the sort of moronic liberal pseudo-intellectuals that live in Cambridge, MA, you’d probably be more than a little tempted to turn indiscriminately homicidal too.”
Related: “Empathy without preference is psychopathy.”
Related: A bomb goes off in Boston and shows why America needs men.
Related: Let’s hope the Boston bomber is white.

The difference between love and supplication.

“The era when you could just show up to church for your weekly dose of sacraments and a sermon, then return to your ordinary, humdrum life of basic virtue and decency is over. Cultural Marxism has declared all-out war on basic virtue and decency, and it is winning.”

Neoreaction for dummies.

Praise is not pay. As for why I do it, it’s a combination of #1 & 3. As well, it gives me a place to rant and a place to think out loud: I found I was wasting time commenting elsewhere to no avail; I actually spend less time on the blog, while having more coherent and effective thoughts.

It rapes a village to take a child.

“The psychology of the looter and that of the hard core Leftist, the sort who were eager to dance on Mrs Thatcher’s grave, both share this common point: To them wealth is not created, it simply exists and should therefore be shared out. “

Orwell vs. Huxley.
Related: Chris pulls some good comments.

The myopia of the leftist.

Destroying the moderate middle.

Two perfect pictures of the zeitgeist.

Women converting to radical Islam at an alarming rate. Yet modern churches should water down the message to bring converts.

Rejoice in their tears.
Related: Keeping guns from “crazy” people. Who decides who’s crazy?
Related: Leftists explains the idiocy of gun control to other leftists.
Related: Good for them.

I’m beginning to like this minister.
Related: Should a Christian man be single or get married?

Where’s the feminist self-improvement counterpart?
Related: The uglification of modern women.
Related: Feminist commenters are fun.

Why you never attempt to appease the feminists.

Seems China has similar marriage market problems to us.

Divorce math.

Women with elite educations drop out of the workforce at high rates.
Related: The end of women.
Related: Agree and amplify: in labour market policy.
Related: Bring more women in to STEM by dumbing it down.

The double-standard of sexual harassment.

Why Tolstoy rejected the church.

Jesus loves you; God, probably not so much.

Denmark may reduce their welfare state.

White dudes need not apply. I was going to write on this but EW did first, so I won’t.
Related: University discrimination against males and cover-up.

I revel in showing my son that I could have slaughtered him before birth.
Related: Generation Death.

On Gosnell and the banality of evil.

Remembering through visualization.

Canadian politics are like high school.

Good news on the climate front.

This is what a feminist looks like. I survived 5 minutes, how about you:

(H/T: Althouse, Borepatch, SDA, the Captain, Patriactionary, Frost, Foseti, Instapundit)

A Leap Forward

I’ve been occasionally approaching when conditions are right over time, but today I probably pulled the most alpha approach I ever have, and I felt like sharing with somebody who wasn’t there, so here it is. The experienced alphas may not find it all that impressive, but for a former omega like me, this is amazing.

Anyhow, I was out for coffee with a friend and we were discussing my life mission and my general apathy. We were discussing how I should start to ‘just do it’ to meet girls so I can find my wife. He told me to overcome my apathy. So I hesitated, took a drink, hesitated, took a drink, then I overcome my apathy.

There were a few girls sitting together nearby, one of whom was really cute. Earlier I had overheard them talk about something related to church, so I moved.

I walked over cool as ice and just sat down with them. After sitting, began with absolute self-confidence, “Hi, I’m Free Northerner. What’re your names?”

Firm handshakes and each introduces themselves to me.

“I think you’re cute and wanted to meet you.”

Girl: “Thank you.” [smiles].

Girl’s friend: “She gets that a lot. She’s always telling us how she’s always cute, never hot.”

“That’s good. Cute’s better than hot. Take it from me.”

“I overheard you discussing [denomination]? Are you a Christian?”

Friend: “You heard that. I could tell; I keep track of things like that.”

“Sound tends to travel in this place.”

Girl: “Yes. I go to [church].”

Friend: “Where do you go?”

“[Church]”

Friend: “Where’s that?”

“Near [school].”

“Can I get your phone number?” Take out phone; hand it to her.

“Sure.” She puts it in phone. “Your phone’s old I got it wrong and put it in twice. I can’t find the back button.”

Take phone. “Yeah, I I don’t really keep up on phone technology. Your number was ####? You name was [girl], right?”

“Yeah.” Finish adding number.

“I’m phoning you. Now you have my number.”

She checks phone. [Not a fake #.]

“I’ll phone you in a while and set up coffee. Good to meet y’all.”

Handshakes to all. Girl occasionally giggling and smiling throughout. Walk back to my friend. Get on jacket, leave shop. Friend is amazed at how alpha I was.

There was a bit more to it, and she talked a bit more, but that’s the jist of it.

About 5 minutes from start to finish. All done the half-smirk/half-smile I often wear; full-tilt, absolute confidence. No hesitation, no stumbling, no hemming and hawing; straightforward and to the point. Controlled the conversation, controlled the frame, never veered off. Direct game, no manipulative BS.

I feel alpha.

Go Big or Go Home

In my last post, I gave my thoughts on long-term relationships and came down against them. I started writing the piece last week, then left it for a few days, and because of this it became somewhat disorganized, and I couldn’t get it quite right before I posted it. Since posting and reading some of the responses, I realized that this was because I was only writing about the end conclusions of my reflections, while glossing over the premises.

So, I’m going to expand a bit on the post here. The purpose of the post was not to dismiss long-term relationships, in and of themselves. It was to dismiss purposelessness and mediocrity in relationships, which are exemplified by the trends of increased shacking-up and LTR’s.

I’ve noted on here before that a man should have a mission to live for (vaguely hypocritical, in that I am kinda lacking a mission myself, but this blog is somewhat aspirational). Relationships with women should be an augmentation in your life to best help you reach your purpose in life.

Therefore, when pursuing relationships, you should have a clear goal of what you want out of the relationship and how it will help you achieve your mission. Plan out what you want.

If your goal is a family and a committed relationship, then find the right girl, seal the deal, and get married. Do it purposefully; do it right. Don’t fall into a long-term relationship half accidently, then move in together and/or get married after a few years because that’s how things go. Plan it out.

If your goal is hedonism and avoiding commitment, do it right; be a player, start gaming, and have the wildest ride you can. Don’t limit your hedonism to a “safe”, mediocre LTR.

My problem with LTR’s is that they are not succeeding at serving any particular mission all that well. It is a mediocre half-solution that seems to simply try to fill a gap in life without any particular greater purpose behind it.

Essentially go big or go home.

****

Smoothreentry also commented on this piece.

I would accept most of his qualifications, with the following caveats.

He is right that the sex for the PUA is not about fulfillment, it’s about hedonism; pleasure. It will often leave a man unfulfilled, as anybody who’s been reading Roosh these last few months can easily see for themselves. It looks like he’s about to try something new, but I doubt he will find the fulfilment he seeks in this new plan.

For fulfillment though, the LTR would not be an answer either. It may feel somewhat more fulfilling in the moment, but tt builds nothing of long-term value. Only the stability of a marriage provides the leverage necessary to build a meaningful home and family. A meaningful life can be built outside of sexual relationships, but in that case it will be apart from sexual relationships, which will be a distraction or at best a simple sideshow.

In today’s modern sexual marketplace, the LTR as a transitional phase towards that of wife is almost always necessary. It should not be the end goal though. As well, it should be carefully watched that these transitions do not “just happen”. You should be transitioning purposefully with a plan. If you start walking without a map you may find yourself in a place you don’t want to be and don’t know how to leave.

****
Sarah’s Daughter asked:

I understand you’re saying (as a Christian) you aren’t advocating for one situation or another. I wonder, however, if you would agree that it is equivalent to an analysis on which abortion clinic/procedure is the most appropriate for the non Christian.

It would be equivalent to saying that an abortion by a doctor would be less painful than doing it yourself with a vacuum cleaner. Which I would not hesitate to say, as it is simple reasoned conclusion that does nothing to further an abortion.

I would avoid, say, actively researching which clinics were the best price, or what doctor had the best bedside manner, as these are all actively helping further someone along the path to an abortion. In the same vein, I wouldn’t actively give out tips on which club was the best to find easy chicks or who’s the best value hooker in the area, as these are actively furthering someone along the path to sexual sin.

It can be  a fine line at times, I know, but I think there’s a difference between a simple reasoned observation and an analysis which pushes a person farther towards sin.

****

As a final note: The primary purpose of this blog is for me to work out my thoughts on life in relation to finding my purpose in life. I try to keep the blog either analytical or positive and aspirational. I try to with Christian charity. I do try to avoid being overly negative, bitter, or unChristian. Despite this, I am but fallen man, my thoughts are not always Christian or charitable.

I’m naturally cynical and pessimistic. In addition, I am struggling with being unsuccessful in finding a wife while still trying to maintain Christian sexual standards. For a man in his late 20’s, this can, at times, lead to loneliness and sexual frustration. Finally, I have always been a rather pro-civilization type and seeing the civilization I love crumbling around me can be frustrating.

The combination of these factors can sometimes lead to bitterness and unrighteous anger welling-up in my soul, to my discredit, which may occasionally creep into this blog. On top of this, the temptations of nihilistic hedonism are very enticing; thoughts of simply embracing apathy and going poolside while it all burns are not uncommon. This flirtation with nihilism may also creep into my writings.

So, forgive me if occasionally I give into temptation and be somewhat unChristian in word or tone.