You will notice that the Pick Up Artist Community and the Christian Reactionary movement get along mighty well, despite the fact that Heartiste claims to be a minion of Satan, and despite the fact that they are in total disagreement about ultimate ends.
The thesis that Game works is logically equivalent to what used to be the right wing view of women, before the right became the left that is lagging four to eight years behind the mainstream left in moving rapidly ever leftwards.
Rightists used to believe that fertile age women were uncontrollably and self destructively lustful, and therefore needed male adult supervision to prevent them from self destructively howling for their demon lover like cats in heat, that given half a chance, a woman will bang a total stranger like a barn door in a high wind, should he superficially appear sufficiently high status, with utterly disastrous results for her family, her children, and herself. And, of course, game is largely about superficially appearing to be sufficiently high status.
Conversely, if you are a Christian, you accept that Paul was right. (Note that by this standard, there are very few Christians, and the Pope is not one of them.) And if Paul was right, most women will misbehave, unless subject to the stern controls commended by Paul. In which case, you think that game works.
There are of course lots of charlatans and con men purporting to teach game, but equally there are lots of practitioners who have a truly astonishing notch count.
From 1820 to 1960, leftists held that women were sexless angels, reluctantly forced into having sex by evil men imposing on them, therefore it was completely unnecessary to enforce the marital contract on women, only on men. In 1960, having successfully disempowered husbands, they switched to abolishing fatherhood altogether, which allowed them to acknowledge that women have some very slight sexual character, while nonetheless remaining angels.
Which view of women, then, is correct? Angels or succubi? If you are in any doubt about the answer, see the video that I have so frequently linked in so many of my posts.
If you believe that game works then:
- You are darkly enlightened, since you believe at least one forbidden truth about human nature.
- You should logically conclude that women should never have been emancipated and never given the vote, thus logically, you should be reactionary.
My own observations hint that possibly the sexless angels account might be accurate for sexually inexperienced girls for the first two weeks following menstruation. They are interested in romance at all stages of their menstrual cycle, but not interested in getting dirty except during estrus/ovulation, and to a lesser extent following estrus/ovulation.
However it seems to me that women tend to imprint on whatever sexual activities they try during estrus, and are subsequently happy to repeat them at any stage of their cycle. I hope that some of my readers may have better data on this question than I do. (I am crowd sourcing the issue of the effect of estrus on female behavior, particularly imprinting, for I have a suspicion that there is an imprinting effect, though as far as I know this has never been scientifically studied.  We largely ignore the effects of women going into heat, or at least we largely ignore the impolite consequences of women going into heat, because we are still dominated by the ideology that women are sexless angels.)
Agreed: It is interesting that Gamesters and Christian reactionaries get along so well, especially considering their opposite views on promiscuity. (Though they actually agree on a lot of the effects of promiscuity.)
One reason is because they’re both empiricists. Reactionaries often get that way because they’ve been mugged by life (or by divorce lawyers or by political correctness commissars or just by black men); some people have collisions with reality so devastating it tears the bumper off their worldview. Gamesters–at least the ones who lead the way–get that way by a different path. The sheer power of sex drive endows them with a focus and a capacity for reality-testing that history has normally reserved for the most obsessive and brilliant of scientists. Game is somewhat resilient to self-deception–you can’t fool yourself about whether the girl had sex with you or not–and Gamesters, both as individuals and a community, have painstakingly teased out truths about women through repeated experiments and dogged persistence.
But once you’ve picked out enough truth, it’s like a loose thread in a scarf–it’s hard to stop picking. It’s a hard habit to acquire, but if you’ve acquired it, you’re liable to keep picking until you’ve unravelled the whole scarf. Once you see the impossibility of equality of the sexes, you’re liable to see race, culture, sexuality, and ability hanging from the same fraying threads. Eventually you realize you’ve become a racist sexist homophobic snobbish patriarchal carnivore who can’t seem to say quite the right thing in polite society anymore. If you begin to accept your outcast status, you resist the truth even less. You start talking about libertarianism or human biodiversity or jihad or paternal colonialism or other embarrassing subjects when you’re not busy praying or pulling.
So truth is the common thread. Some incarnations of Christianity (not the modern Churchian variety) have been particularly amenable to truth–let’s remember that science, the Industrial Revolution, and the world’s greatest art, music, and architecture all grew out of a Christian milieu, and they are all breaking down in its absence. Game in its modern form is, I think, genuinely new, made possible by the combination of the Internet and a declining civilization in which liberated women, like those of lesser hunter-gatherer tribes, choose their men on the lekking grounds. It provides an experimental laboratory in which men can isolate pure truths about female desire that were previously masked by rules that had evolved to keep civilization strong. From anti-Christian motives we have rediscovered some of the reasons why the Christian rules are as they are.
“From anti-Christian motives we have rediscovered some of the reasons why the Christian rules are as they are.”
This is the comment that I always anticipate, but it rarely appears. Many seem confused by the overlap of normally divergent groups. It’s easily explained; PUA’s unfettered by traditional boundaries are easily demonstrating the reason for those boundaries. Uncontrolled/unprotected women are easy prey. QED.
What does your wife think of all this? Or you don’t talk to her about serious stuff?
She thinks that wives should obey their husbands, except, of course, that she frequently does not obey her husband.
That’s funny. My wife happily obeyed her husband, but didn’t believe “women should obey their husbands” in general.
>my wife
>her husband
> Angels or succubi?
Organisms
> You should logically conclude that women should never have been emancipated and never given the vote
Because they are more lustful than men
I’m no suffragette but this isn’t the reason
“But once you’ve picked out enough truth, it’s like a loose thread in a scarf–it’s hard to stop picking. It’s a hard habit to acquire, but if you’ve acquired it, you’re liable to keep picking until you’ve unravelled the whole scarf. Once you see the impossibility of equality of the sexes, you’re liable to see race, culture, sexuality, and ability hanging from the same fraying threads.”
Yes.
Sex realism has some major advantages here. It is arguably the ugliest and (for some segments of society) the most shocking truth of the dark enlightenment. But it can be confirmed with practical experiments.
It probably depends upon your peer group, but it seems that the effort to mislead us about the nature of women was more successful than the effort to mislead us about the reality of race. Folk HBD was suppressed, but never entirely forgotten in most circles. Older proles would discuss it when they thought they could speak freely. HBD alone may not have been shocking enough to get me to start picking at other threads.
But with regard to sex realism, it seems as though my parent’s generation strongly bought into the blue pill version. I never heard a whiff of real talk. Complaining, but not real talk. So the reality was more shocking and more likely to inspire further thread picking.
This article does reinforce my problem of saying that we could limit the vote to homeowners and we’d fix a lot of the problem. Those pesky head of household single moms are everywhere. We’re going to have to scrap the system. I’ve been trying to read up on the Venetians to see how they handled it. Seems oligarchy of the rich, while feigning popular vote, was their default.
Corporations limit the vote to shareholders. They don’t care about your other characteristics or your history or circumstances. That works as good as as anything else. Shareholders have an aligned interest in the performance and quality of the corporation in proportion to their shares – and that’s how voting rights are allocated.
The question is to determine people’s interests, powers, and competence, and figure out how to dynamically allocate the voting interests. If you make the government a for-profit corporation, and taxes the “profit”, then you you don’t have to reinvent the wheel – or inquire into anyone’s personal life.
Shareholders have a common interest, because it is illegal and subject to social disapproval for the corporation to redistribute wealth from one shareholder to another.
Collectives, on the other hand, work very badly.
If the primary role and justification of the state is to secure property and enforce contracts, then it should be controlled by the kind of people who own property and make contracts.
Single women, by and large, do not accumulate property. Most women have a markedly shorter time preference than men. Limit the vote to property owning heads of households with a good credit rating. That gets rid not only of the single mums but also of 95% of blacks and mestizos. (or it would if the government did not make available loans with no downpayment and no credit rating.)
There are outlier females. They are not the norm. They are not the majority. But the rare unicorn I’m referring to is the INTJ type of female which is the rarest of all personality types. There have been some people who have tried to disprove the existence of the myers-briggs personality but empirically I find it to be accurate as whenever I find a new interest, chess for example, it tends to be dominated by INTJ personalities. One of the questions of the personality types is whether they are innate or environmental and I believe this is the line of demarcation for leftists. The right or reactionary sphere attributes behavior to congetial causes while the leftists all claim it’s only the environment. Leftist thought has found no greater home than in the psychological community which believes that ALL human behavior is established through child rearing.
“My own observations hint that possibly the sexless angels account might be accurate for sexually inexperienced girls for the first two weeks following
menstruationcollege attendance.”Fixed that.
2 weeks?
Are you kidding? If you’re looking to get laid on campus (clearly this is directly to the younger readers) the time to strike is the first week and weekend of the fall semester.
>You will notice that the Pick Up Artist Community and the Christian Reactionary movement get along mighty well, despite the fact that Heartiste claims to be a minion of Satan, and despite the fact that they are in total disagreement about ultimate ends.
I don’t think that Christian Reactionaries are meeting up with PUAs and sharing a friendly beer.
These two groups are willing to talk over the Internet.
If they actually sat down in person and tried to talk, I think there would broken bottles, at least one assault charge, and endless recriminations.
It is far easier to be friendly in person than over the internet. We have piles of schmooze software in our heads that fails to operate correctly over the internet.
Conversely, if you are a Christian, you accept that Paul was right.
If you are a Christian, you accept that *Christ* was right. We don’t call anyone “Paulians”. (Well, some people do, but that’s another story.) Really, Jim, Western Christianity does need a kick in the pants, but it is tiresome to hear you continually insinuating that people aren’t “real Christians” because they aren’t paying attention to your pet issue. You’re failing to make a distinction between “not believing in it” and “never thought much about it, not realizing that it’s important”.
Men being able to marry and keep their kids and wives is a pet issue? Family formation is the biggest benefit to strong religious community. Without it your religion will die off with in a few generations.
Yea shall know them by your fruit. Most Christians that I’ve known have not had particularly successful marriages and most Christians put their wives in charge.
Samson J.,
What our autistic host is attempting to do is re-frame Christianity. He is attacking Christianity. He is anti-Christian.
The best option, as every noteworthy Christian blogger has done so far, is to ignore him.
I’ve got a good friend who is a Christan. He’s been a usher for years is a pretty conservative church. Recently they kept a young women in the congratulation after she got knocked up by her drug dealing boy friend. The women of the church even threw her a baby shower to celebrate the child of her sin. Thanks to this expression of Goddly love more single mothers are joining my friends church every month. He’s basically stopped attending due to his disgust at the what his church has become. That’s corrupted husk that progressives have turned Christianity into. You hate Jim for pointing out the flaws in the construction of your churches while the progressive burn the very buildings you congregate in.
I recently attended a my grandfather’s funeral. The Lutheran female preacher was not only disrespectful of my grandfather’s life but she preached about random things that had nothing to do with the occasion. She clearly had no idea what she was doing. I found her very presence to be an insult and I despise the church that allowed her to be a minister.
Growing up in a good Christan home I found that sister(middle child) was in charge, her word was never to be doubted, and her ever whim indulged. There was no money forth coming for my college expenses, but my sister drained my parents dry by going to a private Christan college. Today my sister is well educated, has no kids and is pushing 35. My good Christan friend has a similar outcome with his sister. Good Christan families put their women first and this leads to reproductive disasters.
These are real problems that christens like you continue to put your head in the sand over. You attack the messenger because you hate the message.
Same here, and same with a good friend. Girls are coddled, boys mistrusted. The girls became tramps. The boys became reactionaries.
Progressivism used to be a Christian doctrine, as recently as the 1940s, though this more explicit if one goes back to the civil war era. Its program for Christianity is that all Christians should walk the path progressives walked, and indeed all religions should walk this path, that Christianity, rightly understood, is progressivism, a doctrine about this world, not the next.
Which almost all Christians are doing. If Paul was a silly old misogynist then Jesus is chief community organizer.
Even conservative churches which pay more than lip service to the epistles are failing. I have attended a theologically sound congregation of the Churches of Christ where the men couldn’t make the women cover their tits, let alone their heads.
Traditional Christianity was the foundation of Western Civilization, and though it did many bad things, all other religions were worse. In particular, progressivism, viewed as a religion, is a great deal worse.
Unfortunately, today’s “Christianity†… is helping destroy western civilization. Consider, for example, the latest Pope’s inauguration ceremony, where he piously demonstrates his humility by loudly trumpeting that he is even more humble than his immediate predecessor, and shortly thereafter gives a speech that leftism is holiness.
Liberation theology is Marxism, thinly spray painted with Roman Catholicism. It is clearly not Christianity, since it seeks redemption in this world, not the next, and intends to do so by political violence, to immanentize the eschaton. Pope Francis is not a liberation theologist, because not a Marxist, because a progressive. But his doctrine stands in the same relation to Roman Catholicism as Liberation Theology does. Pope Francis is the end of Roman Catholicism. Now, one achieves salvation by voting for Obama’s third term, and indeed Obama’s third term is salvation.
“Samson J.,
What our autistic host is attempting to do is re-frame Christianity. He is attacking Christianity. He is anti-Christian.
The best option, as every noteworthy Christian blogger has done so far, is to ignore him.”
Don’t be mad.
I can’t hear you la la la lzolzzl.
They are not paying attention to the fact that Christianity is being quietly turned into progressivism, new wine in the old bottles.
This, of course, has bad effect on the old bottles, thus we see churches becoming museums.
That’s it. I dub thee prophet, on par with Moldbug.
Moldbug for emperor, Jim for inquisitor.
http://malachi41.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/this-post-is-brilliant/
Jim as messenger is more effective claiming not to be a Christian. He pisses off more of the right kinds of people this way. Viz. Samson.
You are arguing that a church can hide Paul in the basement, and continue to be Christian in all the other, much more important, regards. Perhaps. But I observe that Anglicanism, Episcopalianism, and Roman Catholicism are not continuing to be Christian, but rather are suffering a general all points conversion into progressivism.
Heh, I will always love you for pointing this out. My own inclinations on the subject of apostate Christians lean towards the Elijah’s mountain solution. I’m also deeply grateful for your elucidation of the pharisaical holier than thou element of christianity/leftism, and how to stop it. Basically, by organized persecution of anyone who holy preens.
Hmm…
Some varieties of apostacy have no earthly externality, but holy preeners have a very serious externality, for which the remedy suggested by Daniel Defoe in The Shortest Way With The Dissenters is an appropriate Pigovian tax.
Got to love Samson. Obsessed with the horrible idea that christens might practice oral sex while perfectly fine with tossing out most of the new testament structure of the church. Got to keep playing them holier than though games while the church burns, eh?
There’s a term for people like you: Porno-Christan. You think men looking at porn or talking about sex is the most evil thing in the world, but a single mother knocked by a drug dealer is perfectly fine by you.
See also redlegben and Sarah’s Daughter.
Jim and Samson are both overstating the case. To be a Christian is to accept St. Paul as inspired by God and his writings, and the Church’s authoritative teaching about them for 2000 yrs, to be authoritative. Samson is wrong to pretend otherwise. To be a Christian is also to be a human, and therefore flawed, not least in being a creature of one’s own evil age, even if you’re pope. So Jim’s wrong… to equate “truly Christian” with impeccability.
Pope Benedict XVI was Christian. But Pope Francis just told us, not that salvation is in ourselves giving our own excess to the poor, but in a social order that distributes stuff to the poor.
Christian doctrine is that one is not saved by good works, but by Christ. Pope Francis doctrine sounds suspiciously as if one is not saved by good works, but by the progressive state.
Notoriously, Liberation theologists proposed salvation in this world through bloody Marxist revolution. Liberation theology was correctly declared a heresy, and Jorge Bergoglio piously opposed it, but it appears that his opposition was an inter left dispute over the minute differences that separate progressives from Marxists, not a Christian vs atheistic left dispute.
Jim, I think you follow the pope closer that I do, so I cannot effectively counter your arguments. The Church has survived bad popes, as she will until the end of time. I wish the Church would restrict herself to speaking only where She has a charism to do so… then people would be more likely to listen.
I smell a lying spirit. This is not the procedure described by the Christ.
So then, the Pauline epistles are optional?
Paul is incredibly important and also incredibly misunderstood in the minds of most people today in the US. They have this image of Jesus as a really nice milktoast guy and Paul as some hardass who wants to take away all of their fun.
Newsflash: Jesus talks about hellfire, weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth way more often than Paul. A more accurate portrayal is that Jesus comes and lays down the broad strokes version of—-this is what you are to do in order to follow Me and accept this covenant that I’m offering to you. Paul is operating in the role of a fully authorized (as an Apostle) author of the first Christian FAQs. How are we to apply Jesus’ words to particular situations—that is what Paul gives us in his letters. He is even fairly clear when he is speaking from himself as opposed to when he is speaking with Divine sanction.
It is one of God’s great jokes that the primary proselytizer of Jesus never met him in the [perishable] flesh.
[…] always, Jim Donald nails it: If you believe that game works […]
[…] Game, DE, and Reaction. […]
[…] James Donald talks God and game. […]
[…] James Donald talks God and game. […]
[…] Game, Dark Enlightenment, and Reaction […]
[…] Game, Dark Enlightenment, and Reaction […]
Actually, as a non-Christian, I see Paul as an absolute genius… If his words were divinely inspired, That makes him great, but the sheer amount of uncovering human nature and applying it effectively if he was NOT divinely inspired hints at a brilliance and foresight that puts paid to the concept of ‘ancient barbarians’
Theoretically he believed that Jesus would return very soon, but he built for future millenia
[…] ‘Game, Dark Enlightenment, and Reaction’ […]