Conservatives enabling feminism

From the definition of enabling at Wikipedia:

A common example of enabling can be observed in the relationship between the alcoholic/addict and a codependent spouse. The spouse believes incorrectly that he or she is helping the alcoholic by calling into work for them, making excuses that prevent others from holding them accountable, and generally cleaning up the mess that occurs in the wake of their impaired judgment. In reality what the spouse is doing is hurting, not helping.

I think the mind frame of an enabler helps explain why many* conservatives act the way they do.  They see themselves as the responsible ones who have to hold it all together.  Whatever scheme feminists cook up, enabling conservatives find themselves trying to make it somehow work, or at least to minimize the pain experienced by those who follow the scheme.  Ultimately of course the end result is enabling the feminists by making sure their bad ideas don’t result in immediately noticeable consequences.  This also explains the angry conservative response to criticism of their efforts to enact a working form of feminism;  they see themselves as the sane ones who are holding it all together.

*NACALT

See Also:  Greasing the marriage rope.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Denial, Feminists, Foolishness, Traditional Conservatives. Bookmark the permalink.

240 Responses to Conservatives enabling feminism

  1. Social conservatives are white knights in disguise. They believe that women are not fully human yet put them on a pedestal, regardless. They treat women like children.

  2. Sharrukin says:

    Society no longer allows, or equips men to judge women negatively without being seen as low class. You cannot mention how many men they have slept with previously without being called a sexist and unmanly. You cannot mention their divorces, their lack of manners, or their lack of accomplishments without opening yourself up for attack. They are always portrayed as a victim of men or circumstances. This coupled with the ‘Rescue The Damsel In Distress’ impulse, and a play to make a vain demonstration of mating suitability, make for a very powerful drive to shield women from the consequences of their own behavior.

  3. Anonymous says:

    theprivateman says:
    September 22, 2012 at 3:44 pm

    Social conservatives are white knights in disguise. They believe that women are not fully human yet put them on a pedestal, regardless. They treat women like children but without any intention of disciplining them for acting out or allowing them to face the consequences of their own actions.

    I fixed it.

  4. It’s not just that conservatives have the mind frame of an enabler. Among conservatives the definition of feminism is effectively along the lines of “something lesbians do” or abortion. If you aren’t a lesbian or pro-choice, then you’re not a feminist by the typical conservative definition. This allows the 99.9% of feminism than doesn’t have to do with lesbianism or abortion to not be recognized as such by conservatives.

  5. Cane Caldo says:

    @theprivateman

    It’s worse than you think. The white knight is the disguise. Under the heraldry is an apron and a Snuglie on the body of a man posing as a mother. There are layers of transvestitism afoot.

    Players are no better. Men coveting their sister’s matching bra and panties and just-so shoes; while wishing they, too, could be on the Pill.

    Looooo–la! L-O-L-A! Looooo-la–aaa!

  6. Maybe I just cant remember and you have answered this before, I just woke from a nap….Dalrock, which ideology do you represent for the most part?

    This is not about NACALT.

    Yes, conservatives are accidentally on purpose champions of feminism, some maybe for the sophomoric reasons laid out here, but someone else added something very important. The conservatives do not view those things as feminism, only lesbians and abortion and a few other things that are even more hard core. The conservatives have taken the rest, the truly operative aspects of feminism, as a legit part of societal evolution. They are stupid for doing so. VERY stupid, and it is frustrating to those of us who are not doing that.

    Here is the massive flaw though. First, its NOT a natural fit for conservatives to do this…..NOR is it NOT a natural fit…..it is neither. It just is, the things of feminism are the water we fish swim in.

    And who is masterful at painting an ever evolving landscape as the norm? Who can go “snap” and take a picture today, and say see, normal life, and hell yea its different than yesterday because we are soooooo informed and smart and oh yea….open minded man.

    Liberalism FITS feminism. Liberalism FITS the molecules that come together to form feminism. Liberalism FITS the forces that break down yesterday and reshape tomorrow and make sure it is very different, colored outside all lines, lest it be repressive and stodgy.

    Dalrock, why? What is at the very root of your urge to work this into so much of your writing?
    Are you a mid 30-40 year old Christian liberal? I am not predicting, just guessing, I keep finding liberalism buried in that demographic, buried well, but there. I’m not baiting an ideological debate….plenty of places to have that elsewhere. But this is clearly a rock in your shoe and I am curious why. If it was just doing the needful work of showing Christian men that the men around us in church are deceived…..that is important work. Its true, the Christian men are mostly stuck in deception.
    But this quick entry about conservatives in general is not incorrect because of NACALT….though NACALT is a far more statistically valid interjection than NALiberalsALT would be. Feminism and societal evolution disguised as “nuthin happnin here its ALL GOOD” , These are the quarks of liberalism which is the Higgs Boson of these things.

    I was at a botanical garden with my little girl, she was 4 or 5, and a woman gave a talk there repeating over and again, nasal sounding, “plants and animals need each other”

    Substitute liberals and feminists for plants and animals and its no less true. Conservatives may carry the water to/for feminists……liberals ARE the damn water.

  7. zorroprimo says:

    @theprivateman: EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Women are children, and we need to accommodate them ad infinitum.

  8. The point emp, is that both sides of the political spectrum serve the feminine imperative. On a side note, conservatism seems destined to lose the political war. Liberalism keeps making changes in their direction, but conservatism doesn’t seek to reverse the wrongs of brought on by liberalism, but only to slow down their progress. This means that all the change that occurs, however slow, is in the liberals direction. I don’t align myself with either side, its all shit, or as Solomon would say, “all is vanity”.

  9. JoeS says:

    ” but conservatism doesn’t seek to reverse the wrongs of brought on by liberalism, but only to slow down their progress. ”

    Yes, the problem is leadership, and the half-heartedness and even double-mindedness of “conservative” leaders.

  10. flybynight says:

    I think Dalrock is just setting the table for something bigger.

  11. hisoj says:

    I think, deep down, conservatives know that if they openly oppose feminism then they are abandoning all female voters to liberalism/leftism. I don’t approve but I understand the motive at least.

  12. Rotten says:

    Conservatism is just your grandmother’s feminism. That’s why conservatives cannot truly fight feminism, because they accept a lot of the premises of feminism.

  13. Cane Caldo says:

    Substitute liberals and feminists for plants and animals and its no less true. Conservatives may carry the water to/for feminists……liberals ARE the damn water.

    This is very confused, empath. I think you need to rework the metaphor to include the two temperaments/political sides as equitable items.

    My version would say that society is gathered around a spring, and on one side the liberals are pissing and drinking directly in and from the same water. Conservatives are using a bucket to carry that same water back and forth between their tables and their latrines; you know, like civilized people.

    Look: we are known by our fruits. What are our fruits? What direction are we heading? We must accept that conservative groups and churches are not filled with Christians; at least in a temporal sense. I do not presume about the salvation of their soul. We may go to heaven, but I strongly believe we will have rather unadorned crowns.

  14. empathologism wrote:

    Maybe I just cant remember and you have answered this before, I just woke from a nap….Dalrock, which ideology do you represent for the most part?

    Dalrock is confused about what conservatism means. So are his readers…

    Alpha Mission wrote:

    The point emp, is that both sides of the political spectrum serve the feminine imperative. On a side note, conservatism seems destined to lose the political war. Liberalism keeps making changes in their direction, but conservatism doesn’t seek to reverse the wrongs of brought on by liberalism, but only to slow down their progress.

    No, “both sides” don’t serve feminism (presumably what is meant by the ill-defined concept of “the feminine imperative). Insofar as a man who calls himself conservative serves feminism, he is not conservative. What a man calls himself is not what he is. Obama can call himself “good on the economy.” That doesn’t mean he is.

    Rather than attempting to redefine long-established, widely understood concepts (a near impossible task) and rejecting allies (a pointless strategy), why not do the more obvious thing and call false-flag poseurs out for their fraudulent advertising? And while that may cause a schism in what appears to be a united front, it will force the wishy-washy wavering contingent to reexamine and reapply the principles they purport to espouse. The remnant, however small, will be more unified, more enthusiastic, more consistent, and less corrupt.

    I am a conservative. And not only aren’t “All Conservatives Like That,” no conservatives are like that. The ones who say they are are as confused as Dalrock about labels, and they give conservatism rightly understood a bad name.

    Matt

  15. Dalrock says:

    @King A

    I am a conservative. And not only aren’t “All Conservatives Like That,” no conservatives are like that. The ones who say they are are as confused as Dalrock about labels, and they give conservatism rightly understood a bad name.

    I promise to stop referring to them as conservatives as soon as you are able to convince them to use another label. Or at the very least, those conservatives who are not like that come up with an obvious way of distinguishing one from the other. As it stands, you would have me stay quiet about the whole matter for lack of terms you would permit.

  16. herbie31 says:

    I agree Matt. Well said.

  17. Dalrock says:

    @Empath

    Dalrock, why? What is at the very root of your urge to work this into so much of your writing?

    I explained this to you just the other day. I expect the coyote to try to steal sheep. That is his job. The problem with so many conservatives is they earnestly think they are sheep dogs and haven’t considered the problem with them stealing sheep.

  18. MackPUA says:

    Theres nothing civilised about a conservative …

    Theyre all prehistoric luddite throwbacks, sheep following corporate lackeys

    Heres to Dalrock putting the boot into these backstabbing, male betraying for centuries scum …

    Theres a huge difference between a Traditionalist & a Conservative

    Conservatives are corporate lackeys, dedicated to upholding popular opinion & junk science

    Next to feminism, conservatives are the scourge of any civilisation, theyre mainstream fanaticism for corporatism & mainstream fanaticism, makes them the perfect drone

    The number one consumers of info-mercials & junkmail are conservatives …

    Nobody worships the mainstream & corporatism as fanatically as a conservative …

    The mangina, or anti-gamer is most probably a conservative, its not about rationality, its about the perception following the herd, which is why most conservatives are so despicable

  19. infowarrior1 says:

    @hisoj

    Attract the young men then instead.

  20. The moral godless says:

    They have always designed society to serve the interests of women. Now that women want no rules with perfect safety, conservatives jump at attention.

    Even though the vast majority of women are not fully-functioning adults, we need to start treating them like they are or everything’s going to come crashing down.

  21. The Continental Op says:

    I’m not conservative. What’s to conserve? I’m a reactionary, and hard-right to boot.

  22. The Continental Op says:

    Conservatism in America is pretty liberal. Most conservatives believe in equality and lots of human rights which pop up like mushrooms in the fall.

  23. sunshinemary says:

    I promise to stop referring to them as conservatives as soon as you are able to convince them to use another label. Or at the very least, those conservatives who are not like that come up with an obvious way of distinguishing one from the other.

    I would like to know an alternative word to use if anyone can suggest one. In fact, it seems like a lot of the issues discussed in the manosphere end up like this – we don’t seem to have the right words. It makes clear discussion difficult because we have to keep explaining our ideas in detail because we have no convenient labels. And in some ways it is even worse for women – at least men can be part of the manosphere. But we’ve got nothing. Women who share the general beliefs that many of us do really have no way to refer to themselves that means anything to the average listener.

  24. okrahead says:

    Alright, I’ll go out on a limb here…
    I’m a Conservative…. Socially AND economically (Austrian economic school, I think Ron Paul is on target about the Fed, etc.).
    I am pro-life.
    I favor repeal of the 19th amendment.
    I favor a return to fault-only divorce, fathers as default custodians of children born into the marriage, and the criminalization of adultery (breach of contract and definitely against the common good of the nation).
    I believe a woman who commits adultery does it for the same reason as a man, and just pretends it’s not really lust because she lacks a masculine erection.
    I believe what the “churchians” are doing is not only misguided, it is blatant heresy; namely, the doctrine of Balaam.
    I believe that Balaam’s donkey had more sense than Mark Driscoll.
    Dalrock, your argument is not with conservatives, it’s with progressives who wish to re-make marriage and the family in Marxist form; which, in the end, is no form whatsoever.
    Cordially,
    Okrahead

  25. Legion says:

    sunshinemary says:
    September 22, 2012 at 9:25 pm

    Conservatives it should remain. Given what man berating scolds the conservatives on this site are, it’s a good insult for all of them.

  26. lzozozozlzlzozllzo

    hey dalrockakakaas!! welome to da party lzozlzozozlzozo

    neeococns love femimsisnsnsnsm preemetive wars (Which fmeinsisnmsz is as it wages war aaginsst da unbronz zllzlzozzolzzo)

    http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/jonah-goldbergs-primal-lord-of-the-flies-savagery-tamed-by-his-beuatiful-wife/

    nd Jonah Goldberg’s Primal “Lord of The Flies Neocon Savagery” Tamed by His Beuatiful (lozl) Wife!!

    omg lozlzl chekc out jonah goldberg’s wife!!

    http://www.charmaineyoest.com/goldbergs.jpg

    “nuff said!” lzozlzl!

    a most civilizing force that tamed the savage, primal jonah goldberg!!

    jonah writes:

    “March 10, 2010 12:00 A.M.
    Where Feminists Get It Right
    Women civilize men. ’Nuff said.

    “nuff said!” lzozlzl!

    The reason strikes me as fairly simple. Women civilize men. As a general rule, men will only be as civilized as female expectations and demands force them to be. “Liberate” men from those expectations, and Lord of the Flies logic kicks in. Liberate women from this barbarism, and male decency will soon follow.

    –http://article.nationalreview.com/427383/where-feminists-get-it-right/jonah-goldberg

    without jonah goldberg’s wife’s arresting beauty (lozllz!), neocon woman expectations, and neocon woman demands (lzozll! omg lozlzlz!), jonah goldberg would be out playing lord of the flies, running around with no shirt on down K street, rockin’ out with his goldberg neocon cock (neocock) out, ducking into bars to ravage all that his rightfully his as an untamed beta-male neocon. lozlzlzl!

    why do neocons think that we are all like them?

    also, throughout the history of mankind, it has been men who have laid down the law–from homer and moses on down–not pussified neoconning goldberg’s wife & her feminist friends. lzozll! i mean lookw hat the fmeinist movement has done to the family lzzozlzl! WTF is goldberg thinking????? Single mother familes r good?? Have you ever dated a few chicks with no fatehrs goldberg? If so, and you still wnat fatherless families, where teh neocons repalce teh father with debt-based fiat dolalrs, you hate women & love ur kinky kink & shiznit yo.

    The cherubic, fat-faced Jonah Goldberg writes,

    “March 10, 2010 12:00 A.M.
    Where Feminists Get It Right
    Women civilize men. ’Nuff said.

    The reason strikes me as fairly simple. Women civilize men. As a general rule, men will only be as civilized as female expectations and demands force them to be. “Liberate” men from those expectations, and Lord of the Flies logic kicks in. Liberate women from this barbarism, and male decency will soon follow.

    –http://article.nationalreview.com/427383/where-feminists-get-it-right/jonah-goldberg

    hahahahah! what goldberg is saying that is if his wife didn’t lay down the law, he would be a beasty man alpha male, smacking women around, rocking out with his cock out, as that is in Jonah Goldberg’s true, deep, neocon nature. lozllz! he admits it! and then he projects his neocon nature on the entire world as neocons do to justify their pre-emptive, illegal, unconstitutional wars! lzozll!

    you guys do understand that feminism is an illegal, pre-emptive war waged against men, the family, and children to profit the fiat neocons, right? lozlzl!

    http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com/

    for they make their profits by debauching currencies and cultures. lolzlzl! neocons r funny!

    jonah goldberg states we don’t have enough feminismlozllzlz! how many more families must be destoryed by feminism. how many more babies might be murdered by the neocon’s/feminist’s abortion regime?

    how many more fathers must be incarcerated by teh neocon fiat state and have tehir children taken from them by goldberg et al.’s feminist police state, before it is enough for goldberg?

    does the neocon’s lust for debauchery, destruction, and dehumanization know no bounds. or what? lzolzl!

    everyone ought read this book!

    http://www.amazon.com/review/product/1581825943/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt/104-4861295-3739101?_encoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

    “59 5-Star Reviews on Amazon: “totalitarian,” “reign of terror,” “Nazi,” “bolshevik,” say readers about the divorce machinery” writes baskerville @ http://stephenbaskerville.blogspot.com/

    OMG! LZOZLZLZLL!!

    bolshevik!! that is soooooooooooo neoconnish!!

    google:

    http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=neocons+bolsheviks

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104×721862

    “Neo-cons: the modern day Bolsheviks”

    Jonah Goldberg is soooooooooooooo Bolshevik. lzozllz.

    “To say that liberalism is rooted in fascism because Mussolini had once been a socialist says that Goldberg’s …neo-conservatism must be rooted in Communism. Look at the roots of prominent neocons: Irving Kristol is a former Trotskyist and Josh Muravchik is a YPSL alum. …Jonah Goldberg …therefore Bolshevik Conservatives? … ” –http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/117981

    finally, check out on how the fiat masters re-engineered women via feminism–the feminism jonah goldberg exalts lzozllzlz!!

    http://www.savethemales.ca/001904.html

    Feminism is an excellent example of how the Rockefeller mega cartel uses the awesome power of the mass media (i.e. propaganda.) to control society.

    In 40 short years, many women have lost touch with their natural loving instincts. Consequently, the family is in disarray, sexual depravity is rampant and birth rates have plummeted.

    –http://www.savethemales.ca/001904.html

    Goldberg sees depopulation and the decline of birth rates as a good thing. lozlzlzlzl !!!

    “Forgetting the question of decency and morality for a moment, there’s the matter of national interests. Female equality seems to be a pretty reliable treatment for many of the world’s worst pathologies. Population growth in the Third World tends to go down as female literacy goes up. Indeed, female empowerment might be the single best weapon in the “root causes” arsenal in the war on terror.” –http://article.nationalreview.com/427383/where-feminists-get-it-right/jonah-goldberg?page=2

    as a neocon it is jonah goldberg’s DIVINE RIGHT to plan and effect the world’s population. lozlzl!

    is it any wonder the trotskyite, power-hungry, neocons had to kill the memory of edmund burke, moses, jesus, homer, and russell kirk? lozlzlz! to make room for jonah goldberg’s chubby face & endless neocon betamale prattling, as his wife keeps him tame, dulling his true, inherent, lord of the flies nature? lozlzl

  27. http://bonald.wordpress.com/2011/04/03/worthless-pseudoconservatives-jonah-goldberg-jacobin-feminist/ lzozlzlzozozlzoz

    “I can’t stand the creep myself, so I’m grateful to Mark Richardson for reporting his latest monstrosity: Goldberg praises the wonderfulness of feminism, but thinks that its most important future applications will be abroad. Yes, divorce, contraception, promiscuity, abortion, female careerism and absentee parenting, the normalization of sodomy, the marginalization of our historic religion, and the utter annihilation of the family as an authoritative institution (and concomitant rise of the therapeutic state and impersonal market as sole arbiters of the social world) are such obvious goods that the only thing left to do is to inflict them on the Muhammadans!”

    zlzozlzozozlzozlzozlzlozozoz

  28. jonah goldberg: making the world safe for fmieniststzzt butthext, one buttholelio at a time zlozzlzlzlzlozlozz (dey will send armies of tuvcker max rheyems iwth goldman sax to fly oever to da coutnetries invade them, kill da menz and buttehxt the womebz zlzlzlzoooz and tape it sectreteely zlozozlzozlz)

  29. sunshinemary says:

    But Legion, what about those of us who believe everything that Okrahead wrote above, but don’t want to be associated with feminists and man-scolds?

  30. Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You: I Have Arrived | Society of Amateur Gentlemen

  31. Legion says:

    SSM, they should go after the other conservatives and not us.

  32. greyghost says:

    Dalrock, why? What is at the very root of your urge to work this into so much of your writing?

    Dalrock
    Stay on focus you have a very important role to play and I think you are doing an outstanding job. The topics of your post here are about the people we are supposed to turn to for guidance and they are in on the madness. Light needs to shine on it. Churchian has now become a term used at leaste by the christian posters on the internet. We need to keep at, I got your back.

  33. greyghost says:

    Okrahead
    i can sign on to that

  34. sunshinemary says:

    greyghost
    Churchian insanity is currently the hot topic over at my place, too, in a manner that I think would appeal to your enjoyment of the this-is-too-absurd-to-be-real vein.

  35. Bob Wallace says:

    Liberalism is inherently female, which is why I believe all male liberals neve grown up. They’re about four years old emotionally. What passes for conservatism today doesn’t work. We need a New Right, and I don’t mean neo-conservatism, which is liberalism pretending to be conservatism.

  36. Chris says:

    Definition time. Pile of words you all may have forgotten.

    Tory. A beleiver that tradtiion is important, and that what works should not change. Religiously, if not frankly AngloCatholic and Royalist, has a soft spot for liturgy, Bach and Ritual. Skeptical about democracy: beleives in an elite (the hard version is royalism and the divine right to rule). Now rare: the closest modern example I can think of is the Orthosphere.

    Whig. Considers the people soveriegn. Disovows any link with tradition. Looks at core values. Argues reflexly for freedom. Assumes this leads to progress. Considers the American Declaration of Independance as the epitome of philosophy, if not theology. THe libterterian end of the Republican Party: In New Zealand the ACT Party.

    Progressive Conservative: Centre- Left. Beleives in self reliance, but accepts the need to compromise with statist and leftist forces. Ranges from personally liberal to conservative values, but unite on being sober tecnnocrats that try to make the curent system work. Unlike the two previous groups, consider a government that has a significant part of the economy (the mixed economic model or social democracy) as a neutral thing. The Canadian and UK Conservative Parties, The Australian Liberal Party, The NZ National Party, Most Republicans.

    Socail Democrats. Centre Left. Firmly beleive in mixed model economies: that the government can modify the outcomes of a capitalist system by redistributing monies and actively managing or planning industrial systems. This became the default state system in the long war (1914 — 1990) as the State needed to (a) continually innovate weapons systems (b) keep a fairly large standing army and navy and (c) ensure that the inevitable widows from the continual wars of the period were provided for. Joe Leiberman and the Democratic Party of Truman and Kennedy: the right wing of the NZ and Australian Labour Parties, UK New Labour. German SDs and Christian Democrats. Right wing parties in France.

    NeoFeudalists AKA Greens and Identity Socialists: AKA Gramscian Socialists AKA Saul Alinsky. LIke the social democrats, beleive that the capitalist system is best managed by redistribution, but instead of this being universal or based on need, it is based on historical or percieved oppressions or needs. There is thus a greater ideological priority that over-rides any empirical data. The oppressed group has a right to be supported by the output of society. Most if not all feminists, Greens, Race Hucskters. Clinton and the current mid range Democratic Party: the Green Parties elsewhere and the left wing (or rainbow/gay wing) of Most Labour Parties

    Fascists. Those who argue for a separation of the population into groups that deserve support and those who should be encouraged to leave, and whose priorities can be undermined. French Ultranationalists, Most Islamic moderates, Radical feminists, Communists (Stalinists) and the more radical race hucksters such as Louis Farrakahn. The key point is that all should work together for one goal… but private ownership is OK (because they want to control your soul)

    Statists or more correctly, Stalinists. Like the Fascists, think collectively, and idolize the state. But there is no group that is favoured, and this is combined with the colelctive ownership of all the means of production and (generally) a cult of personality aroudn the dear Leader. Many leftitsts, in decline, end up in this position. Obama, the Baathists, the current leadership of North Korea, Venuzuela, Argentina under Peron…

    Now, I am a Tory.

    Chris

  37. Johnycomelately says:

    Conservatives are the enforcers for whatever prevailing ideology and elite are running the show at any given time. They’re the Luddites of social movements and like the Luddites they’re out to protect privelage, the only difference is that they have the audacity to invoke the Devine in doing so.

    They pretend to speak from some mystical font of authority but when pressed to defend themselves they offer nothing but tradition, for all I care they can all go and kiss the Pope’s toe.

    Reasoning with the sanctimonious is futile even as Jesus showed, “Even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand.” They’re nothing but modern Pharisees.

  38. 3rd Millenium Men says:

    Always respect and enjoy what you say privateman, but this doesn’t resonate with me. Conservatism by its nature wants to protect the bedrock institutions of society. The first and foremost of these is marriage. How is it white knighting to agree and promote the things in this article, even if not said directly? http://3rdmilleniummen.wordpress.com/2012/08/26/manosphere-virginity/

  39. greyghost says:

    3rd Millenium Men
    what you are failing realize and the whole point of the article of enabling evil is reguardless of good intentions your are making things worse. Social Conservatives are pure blue pill pedistalizers to even take the approach they are taking. Dalrock has a couple of articles on the subject with the subject of the gilligan analogy. It goes along with the evil sin of being nice. (Pleasing to man). As bad as it sounds with ears from lost people (Churchians) MRA’s and PUA have with there thoughtful and clear headed developemnt of game(actual female psychology) have shown the way to end this. None of it was done in secret the concepts and thought processes and arguements to come to the conclusions are openly on display for anyone.
    The Christian church needs game very badly. All religious professional training she have as part of its schooling 2 full semisters on maosphere topics and feminism. The sin of nice and social techniques to avoid pedistalizing women. From there actually teach ways to make that a viable way to be self sustaining.

  40. WHS says:

    Why won’t churches that purport to be bibilical agree to marry couples without a state-issued marriage license? The secular license requirement is not bibilical. Its effect is to give the state family court authority to award alimony and transfer assets in the event of divorce. If a couple wishes to be married but not get a marriage license, why do churches have a problem with this? The only conceivable answer I can think of is that churches wish to preserve womens’ ability to get alimony and assets in the event of divorce, which isn’t a good reason at all. And since churches won’t follow the Bible and marry couples without a state license, it seems to me that there is no biblical obligation to have sex only in the confines of marriage. Churches can’t have it both ways. They can’t tell men they have to get married yet refuse to marry them unless they comply with conditions that aren’t biblical. Well, they can, but men can also ignore the entreaties to get married too.

  41. I wrote:
    Substitute liberals and feminists for plants and animals and its no less true. Conservatives may carry the water to/for feminists……liberals ARE the damn water.

    To which Cane responded:
    This is very confused, empath. I think you need to rework the metaphor to include the two temperaments/political sides as equitable items.

    No Cane, it isnt. You are making the same mistake I have seen make countless times when reading analogies and or metaphors, a mistake I probably make myself when I read them…..you are misunderstanding the operative part of the metaphor, and seeing something other than what I intended AS the operative part.

    The first part , about plants and animals “feminists and liberals need each other” is totally separate from the rest, even if I didnt start a new paragraph.

    The other one is exactly as I intended it. It suggests nothing about the equality or inequality being weighted equally or not, like a scale of heft or something, that for comparison sakes we have THIS on one side and THAT on the other. That’s not germane to my comparison.

    One could say that today, ideologically, liberals and conservatives need each other, because its in the main, so incredibly shallow they each define themselves by being against a parody of the other.

    The “water” is what is carrying us along, and that is decidedly liberalism. If anyone can make a credible case that we are or have ever been under threat to make any type of movement to ANY of the definitions of conservatism being the foremost societal ideology, well, cut the crack back because that’s ridiculous. Todays conservatives….those people we call conservatives, those the media calls conservatives, most Republican leaders…..they carry the water for the liberals with regard to feminism, and the water they carry IS liberalism. Pick your metaphor, but I’d really like to see someone make a sound case for the fact that liberalism isnt bread of life to feminism and vice versa.

    As to labeling, I am not going to get bogged in that argument. The folks Dalrock is referring to as conservatives refer to themselves as such as do people in general…whether they are right or wrong per definition (and I agree with Matt on his statements on that, I just find enough wrong with the post even regarding Dalrocks target group to which he refers.

    Grey ghost Im not sure anyone needs to get Dalrocks back, or buttress his right or resolve to post a certain thing. He has the big screen, I for one have not deigned try and change whats writ on it. Rebutting it however is good for the whole group. To the degree the impression is offered here that enemy number 1 is conservatives, I cannot disagree strongly enough.

    Yes I get the sheep dog wolf thing. That doesn’t really explain it in this case. This post and the amalgam of others , together, walk and quack like a duck….the duck is a liberal finding a wedge issue that can pick away at conservatism using the fact that so many are deceived, especially in church. This post doesnt talk about church. Its about conservatives, the wider bunch, its still fair to say they/we are deceived re feminism.

    But whats the bottom line? Describe for me in general terms that hopefully do not generate a Keynesian vs Austrian , or von Mises Paulist argument, describe the end. Is it a libertine society with no feminism? If suddenly every deceived conservative was no longer deceived…..then what? What does that leave? What would you write about? Would you write about feminism? Or would you THEN include the gorilla glue that binds feminism to liberalism in the topic?

  42. PA says:

    “The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.”
    – G.K. Chesterton

  43. whatever says:


    The “water” is what is carrying us along, and that is decidedly liberalism. If anyone can make a credible case that we are or have ever been under threat to make any type of movement to ANY of the definitions of conservatism being the foremost societal ideology, well, cut the crack back because that’s ridiculous. Todays conservatives….those people we call conservatives, those the media calls conservatives, most Republican leaders…..they carry the water for the liberals with regard to feminism, and the water they carry IS liberalism. Pick your metaphor, but I’d really like to see someone make a sound case for the fact that liberalism isnt bread of life to feminism and vice versa.

    Even now the Federal Reserve has begun yet another “helicopter money drop for rich people” Have you heard of a nation called Iraq? Have you listened to the mouth-breathers about “Muslim hoards” and the “imah” or whatever? Republicans are the screaming idiot tards for rich people. Foseti was raving about how BP was being oppressed because it might have to pay 1/100 of the ECONOMIC damage the Gulf oil spill inflicted. I told him that I would be fine removing civil penalties if we could impose CRIMINAL penalties. And that this meant the BP CEO had to go to jail. I then check-mated the Conservative screaming insanity that “BP was innocent” by asking them how they knew that. Did GOD come down and tell them? I was unaware there had been a trial or even a credible investigation.

    It is very clear that when the rich are coddled and admired and allowed to do whatever idiot thing they want, the Conservatives are the screaming idiot tards behind it. Because they EARNED that helicopter money drop.

  44. imnobody says:

    I promise to stop referring to them as conservatives as soon as you are able to convince them to use another label. Or at the very least, those conservatives who are not like that come up with an obvious way of distinguishing one from the other.

    I think “conservative” is a good word. In fact, the only correct word. For people who follow the Bible or the Quran the way it was intended to be read the right word is “reactionary”, as Bruce Charlton and other guys in the orthosphere have pointed out.

    The word “liberal” was born in Spain. The liberales were the members of the Cádiz Cortes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%A1diz_Cortes) who wanted to abolish the Spanish Ancien Regime, that is, the regime inherited from the Middle Ages based on the divine rule of kings. They wanted to replace it by a regime based on the ideals of the Enlightenment (a constitutional monarchy). The ones who wanted to preserve the Ancien Regime came to be eventually called “reactionaries”.

    Very soon, the liberal movement became quickly radicalized and a wing of the liberal movement started demanding more and more radical measures. A part of the original liberal movement recoiled with horror before this measures. They wanted to preserve the best part of the tradition received but, unlike reactionaries, they also wanted to preserve the liberal regime. They were called “the conservative” and they were the moderate wing of the liberal movement. The radical wing of the liberal movement was eventually called “liberals”.

    So, as you see, the conservatives are only the moderate wing of the liberal movement. This is why they end up accepting every innovation introduced by radical liberals, once it has been accepted by the society as a whole. In fact, their theoretical bases are the same as the ones by liberals: for example, the ones written in the American Declaration of Independence. They only want to remove the excesses of the liberal project.

    Or as a Chesterton (a famous reactionary) said (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton):

    “The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected”

  45. Feminist Hater says:

    There are so few actual worthwhile women in your FemStates today, that it really doesn’t matter what Socons, Tradcons or any other conservative tries to do. The system is awash in females who will do whatever it takes, bar nothing, to keep the femquo going just a little while longer. The system panders to them; and there isn’t a damn thing anyone can do to stop that. They will scream, bite and holler about ‘their choice’ as they literally abort future generations, whilst spending all their time and money on looking ‘glam’ or ‘presh’ or whatever other shortened word is the ‘lingo’ this stupid week, instead of being the wives and mothers that God intended them to be.

    As the above advert demonstrates, “We can’t go back!” and going forward is the only way. More debt spending, more abortions, more legal hang-ups, more spinsters and cats; and then total economic failure, sufficient enough to wipe out the entire entitlement era.

    And this just made me laugh..

    Disney really needs to stop with these air-headed princesses. What happened? Miley looks like trash, as common as they come really, and that cannot be allowed as a ‘role model’ for young girls. Seriously, is that what Americans want their daughters to grow up as?! God have mercy!

  46. Cane Caldo says:

    What is important to me is that good comes from Dalrock’s rebukes and questions of those who call themselves conservative, or have what are considered conservative sympathies.

  47. Whatever
    you’ll be fine in the feminist utopia you want bub.

    I hope people can see the level of deception he demonstrates is as bad or worse than that of the useful well intended idiot churchian men who support evangelical feminism.
    Your rant is a long bumper sticker of absurdity….and im of the evil rich, raised by single mom on welfare and foodstamps made me that way.

    Let me guess, middle class, 30ish, liberal arts degree, and wowser those OWS gatherings were totally cool.

    I could not care less what any specific moron you quote said…..try and see a bigger picture. There is not ANY money……none…..and take all rich folks money, ALL….every dime…..gets you a few weeks

    Then what?

    Why must such simple concepts be explained?

    because you are excited by talking points from bumper stickers

    Matt is correct about what conservatism IS, and others are correct when they say the present conservatives are liberals lite version, and none of that is good, none.

    I wish I could forgive you whatever because you know not what you are saying……

  48. it all goes like this

    “we are conservatives! we support the free market and the traditional family. but a little but of cnetralolanning and money printing is ok. and premarital butthext is cool as long as just da tippy tip of da cockas goes in lzozzollzlzlllz unless it feellss godd if it feelss godd yah ayah put da cockas a bit furteher in and inner and more in and ya ha yah ayhah ayahayahhahahahhaahahayaya we are CPONSERVATIAVES!!!!!!” –wiliam bennet

  49. The thing I think is funny is how illiberal people such as Obama supporters have hijacked the word “liberal” how they claim to be “progressive” but are still stuck in Keynes or Marx’s “Road to Serfdom”. How can you claim to want to let government be the core of every blessed thing under the sun, the central planning committee deciding what you will have for breakfast and how many children you will have and still claim the title “liberal”? The same goes for conservatives. Word games to delude the inattentive.

    The west has swallowed the “Femmo-Marxist” bait, hook line and sinker, and it shows up in the convolution of every debate, and the co-opting of our traditional lexicon. They have 1984’ed the language and we are left to build up and protect an entirely new and uncontaminated vocabulary. Just know that if you hear a “Femmo-Marxist” (such as Amy Goodman) speaking, that they are lying as much with the meanings of words as they are with their thoughts.

  50. protagonist says:

    every mangina i’ve ever met falls under the liberal-democrat banner.

    no exceptions.

  51. Dalrock wrote:

    I promise to stop referring to them as conservatives as soon as you are able to convince them to use another label.

    You “convince them to use another label” by first using that label yourself. Try calling them “feminist.” It’s what they are, and they will not object. Rather than denying the term, they will attempt to convince you that it is a conservative notion! And that’s where they expose their neck for the chopping.

    Look, labels are mutable. Just look at the term “liberal.” I try not to refer to leftists or “progressives” as liberal as much as possible, and yet the preponderance only allows my one-man consistency to extend so far. I have to use what terms are in common currency.

    Unless and until “conservatism” becomes primarily known for its feminist sympathies, in philosophy and in practice, you are either confusing uninitiated bystanders and erstwhile allies, or even more ambitiously, you are attempting a wholesale redefinition, as happened to the term liberal. That would be understandable — if conservatism weren’t generally known as anti-feminist.

    While the Big Tent phenomenon is real, and ideological quislings abound, which tendency is generally considered to be more anti-feminist? Liberalism in the popular imagination or conservatism in the popular imagination? Conservatism is broadly understood to be anti-feminist in principle, if not always in practice or among everyone who labels himself “conservative.” Therefore your crusade becomes quixotic, to assure anti-feminist purity among conservatives by labeling the entire political philosophy “feminist.” It is simpler to correct the feminist outliers’ error. This requires a firm grasp on what makes a person conservative beyond the self-labeling.

    The correct response is to say, “Your feminist position is not a conservative one — not that there’s anything wrong with that! Since conservatism is broadly understood as anti-feminist, the burden of proof is on you to make the case for a conservative feminism.” This does two things. It calls shenanigans on their shallow understanding of their self-labeling, forcing them to reconsider the easy, thoughtless, pro-feminist propaganda they received in elementary school, imagining it can be reconciled to traditionalism (which, we agree, it cannot). And/or, it flatters the moderate moron’s ego, who believes his “independent mind” is proved by his cafeteria selection from all sides of the political spectrum; i.e., “I agree with the Republicans about this, but the Democrats about this, what an independent thinker am I!” He will no longer confuse conservatism with feminism, but rather begin to say, “I am conservative in all ways but their anti-feminism.”

    Either way, it encourages truth-in-advertising. They become aware that they must be either conservative or feminist, but not both.

    Or at the very least, those conservatives who are not like that come up with an obvious way of distinguishing one from the other.

    That will not do. When I read your article, it claims that I, a conservative, am enabling feminism. I seek your explanation, and you weasel out of it with a NACALT. But applying Occam’s Razor, it becomes clear that your mistake is to judge a philosophy through self-reporting labels rather than by principles. Not only am I a conservative, I understand what conservatism means. What’s more, I understand what it means to say “conservative” to the typical, quasi-political citizen who does not fuss over precise definitions of labels. They already know, friend and foe alike, that we stand athwart feminism — but for your ambitious attempt to tinker with definitions behind the scenes.

    This is a waste of the precious energy of an important strategist (you). This fractiousness keeps the regime in place: the reigning harpies need do nothing but hold the ramparts. We are the invaders, we are the initiative. The default condition next Tuesday will be a feminist one, unless we breach the walls. And there is no better way to fend off an attack than by dividing the attackers. In which case, not only does feminism win, they win without cost. Compare Babel, The Great Jewish Revolt against Rome, and next Sunday’s liturgy of the Word: “Would that all the people of the LORD were prophets!” and “For whoever is not against us is for us.” The attacker cannot afford more enemies. If we cannot persuade/seduce them into alliance, we must at very least encourage their neutrality.

    As it stands, you would have me stay quiet about the whole matter for lack of terms you would permit.

    Absolutely not. Shout it from the mountaintops, brother. Hold the feminists accountable wherever you find them, especially the cryptofeminists otherwise on our side and otherwise disposed to the rest of our program, who are too unaware to understand their inconsistencies. You are their conscience. Force a choice upon them. If they really believe in conserving traditional principles, make them articulate those principles and show how they jibe with feminism. When they cannot, they must side with the regime (the default feminism) or with the regicidal revolutionaries (us), rather than this fence-straddling based on ignorance of the stakes.

    Forget Mark Driscoll! He has lived with inconsistencies for so long that they are impossible to dislodge except by a miracle of the Holy Spirit. Bypass him and speak to his younger, impressionable audience instead. They have the conservative instinct, which draws them to charlatans like Driscoll. They are thirsty, he promises water but delivers sand. Show them the water.

    Matt

  52. Did you watch the Republican National Convention protagonist?

    Every “liberal”-democrat may be a mangina but they don’t have the market cornered.

  53. sunshinemary wrote:

    I would like to know an alternative word to use if anyone can suggest one. In fact, it seems like a lot of the issues discussed in the manosphere end up like this – we don’t seem to have the right words. It makes clear discussion difficult because we have to keep explaining our ideas in detail because we have no convenient labels.

    We are not delivered by words or proper labeling. We are delivered by action.

    The problem with Dalrock’s mislabeling is that it unintentionally alienates casual observers who are not in tune with his subtle alterations to words in common currency. If “conservative” or “traditionalist” or “TradCon” or “social conservative” must also be understood as “feminist,” you have rejected the market for your thoughts from the start. And if you just invent a label, like “Femmocon” or “Driscolite,” you alienate potential allies with occultism and arcana: “What the hell is a NACALT?” The weird persecution of Bill Bennett, for instance, whose purported feminist sympathies have become a kind of shorthand around these parts (??), only places enmity between you and the like-minded people of his much greater audience. You are behaving like a cult when you tell the uninitiated that “man up” actually means the opposite, and then snicker at those who weren’t aware of the term’s inversion. That posture is enormously self-limiting.

    You desire a magic word to deliver us from the hard work of persuasion. We have to convince the men who call themselves conservative that they erred in the self-labeling. Not easy! not least because of pride. So in your rhetorical lassitude you want to claim new meanings for words or invent new ones, and think that will aid the effort to gain common legitimacy. Or worse, like a cult, you are more concerned with purity — with the perfect being the enemy of the good — than you are engaged in the difficult slog of making your principles palatable to the mainstream.

    The small and jealous cult is too afraid of watering down its principles to ever advertise them broadly. If we try to appeal to the typical man (who is by default a feminist), they may influence us more than we influence them. This is a crisis of faith in one’s principles masquerading as protectiveness and purity. If you understood that your controversial principles were in fact the truth, and that “the truth will prevail,” then you would risk them out in the public. It is safer to keep them in the ghetto, with secret words and secret knowledge, rather than sullying them by translating them into the common language.

    Matt

  54. Sharrukin says:

    Cane Caldo says:
    What is important to me is that good comes from Dalrock’s rebukes and questions of those who call themselves conservative, or have what are considered conservative sympathies.
    ———————-
    I think it does some good in provoking thought about what conservatives are actually defending and if that should in fact be defended. What is the long term good being served in shielding certain behaviors, and if there isn’t one, if in fact harm is being done, then perhaps as a conservative I should re-evaluate my actions?

  55. JoeS says:

    Feminism is a social revolution that is intimately connected to the social revolutions that have occurred since the French Revolution. It is part of world revolution. Now historically, it has always been possible to observe the reality of the subversion of resistance to that revolution. It has always been possible to observe ostensible resistance eventually accepting the changes that have been brought about.

    “Conservatives” are aiding feminism because their resistance is to a large extent subverted and phony. That is very important to point out. Of course, the classic liberal conservative response to this is to start name-calling, to start saying the critics don’t make sense, or are too extreme, or are crazy.

  56. What is important to me is that good comes from Dalrock’s rebukes and questions of those who call themselves conservative, or have what are considered conservative sympathies.
    ——————————
    Thats fine Cane, I agree, it is absolutely ON the table.

    What bothers me is that those who are double wrong, liberals, are munching popcorn and taking encouragement from this. Sadly one cannot thing things THROUGH…..if one is liberal, and remain so. A liberal can convince themselves that esoteric pontifications are thorough thinking, or they can (and mostly do) rattle off anecdotes and some clever slogans created from stupid things a self anointed conservative said.

    Lets not forget the other group, these are the liberals who got churched real good as young adults, and realize they cannot hold certain beliefs simultaneously, and it hurts…..bad. These will try the “both parties/ideologies are the same , no differences, etc etc., giving off an aura of different-ness, lofty, did I say lofty thoughts prevail and they will pontificate endlessly on this. Thing is they are correct sadly….but realizing that AND actually having true beliefs on something doesnt let you get by just being above it all, watching us pedestrians go about our little lives
    (this is not all at or about you Cane but I sense you may be either a liberal or a Third-Way-er.

    Avoiding this is not going to make it go away.

    I do know white knight mangina conservatives.. That liberalism has been so effective selling itself to the feminine side of men doesnt make conservatives naturally complicit with feminism. They are so deceived they are simply stuck on the weaker vessel stuff, and how that makes them FEEL.

  57. whatever says:


    Let me guess, middle class, 30ish, liberal arts degree, and wowser those OWS gatherings were totally cool.

    I have a degree in electrical engineering and can program in a large number of not particularly favored at the moment programming languages. And I wish the Conservtards would shut up so we can just jail Romney for one of his many crimes.

    So yeah, you are a Conservtard.

  58. And/or, it flatters the moderate moron’s ego, who believes his “independent mind” is proved by his cafeteria selection from all sides of the political spectrum; i.e., “I agree with the Republicans about this, but the Democrats about this, what an independent thinker am I!” He will no longer confuse conservatism with feminism, but rather begin to say, “I am conservative in all ways but their anti-feminism.”
    ——————————————————
    This is great. These are the 3rd way-ers I’m talking about, who give off the appearance of being thoughtful, but if you were to actually ever see them take a stand on one specific issue, then another, then another, they would easily fit one of the two primary ideologies…..mostly.

    The moderate independents the media and the parties are slobbering all over are actually the apathetic and or the ignorant. There are very very few true independent moderate whatever….no where near enough to chase as a demographic.

    But regarding the rest of Matts post(s)….exactly dead spot on correct. THIS:

    “”Unless and until “conservatism” becomes primarily known for its feminist sympathies, in philosophy and in practice, you are either confusing uninitiated bystanders and erstwhile allies, or even more ambitiously, you are attempting a wholesale redefinition, as happened to the term liberal. That would be understandable — if conservatism weren’t generally known as anti-feminist.””

    This is why I will go on a limb and guess this is done for a liberal audience, because frankly the things that are generally discussed here, and the main opinions espoused about them, would send liberals apoplectic. Forget for a moment that a candidate(s) and a policy(s) does one thing while claiming to believe differently……I agree……but what the hell, as Matt says here, it seems we are doing this politically (in venues that are not manosphere sites) as well as here in these quarters. Take this example, its quick so shoot holes, Im sure there are many

    Conservatives play a role in growing the expenditures of the government, big time. I didnt say debt or deficit, I said expenditures which may or may not lead to the other….If one is TRULY against growing the spend side of government, yet our party thats supposed to represent us not only fails but aids and abets….what shall we conservatives do?

    Ignore that this spending side of the debate is a DEFINING matter for liberals…its oxygen for them….and in PRINCIPLE is is NOT oxygen for the other side.
    We can go all out to attach the label of CONSERVATIVE to anything that smells of bigger and bigger spending, Do we just say “conservatives are FOR more and more spending?

    What is the impetus here? Liberals here, please identify yourselves, I think the conservatives have. And once we do identify ourselves, lets realize that NO, we do not, AS conservatives, enable feminism. Conservatives who do, and in particular churchian ones who do are badly deceived.

    Liberals however are doubly deceived if you think you can lay feminism at conservatives feet

    Rambling…..just major hats off to Matt….Matt you explained this perfectly, and you played down the whole definitional thing, where the last time you wrote about this you focused more on that.

    Until feminism is a tenet of many/most conservatives…..its absurd to make a statement that conservatives enable feminism.

  59. whatever says:


    I could not care less what any specific moron you quote said…..try and see a bigger picture. There is not ANY money……none…..and take all rich folks money, ALL….every dime…..gets you a few weeks

    Then what?

    Then the rich people no longer own factories to shut down in American(you know, like Romney did), and no longer have the money to export technology and factories that their animal minds couldn’t even understand to another country(like Romney did).

    You are the animal that doesn’t even understand the actual physical economy. The sun does not rise because a rich person farts. Rich people did not invent the helicopter. Bill Gates stole everything he ever “invented” and is why computer operating systems have not improved in over ten years as Bill no longer has people he can steal ideas from.

    Conservtard.

  60. What does jailing Romney have to do with an entire ideology?

    Typical, and I wont be baited into a display of bumper sticker stupidity.

    We are discussing ideology.

  61. whatever got lost between Daily Kos and MSNBC Online. I’m wondering what you think about government subsidies to outfits like Solyndra and the outsourcing of “green” energy jobs to China (as compared to the “crimes” of Romney). I don’t expect an honest answer so I’ll just presume intellectual dishonesty based on you previous statements.

  62. UK Fred says:

    There are two aspects of this post that have struck me as I read through them. Firstly, labels can be used to disguise what is on offer. In Britain we have a coalition government of Liberal Democrats (social democrats, effectively) and Conservatives which is far more “progressive” than the governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown which preceded it. But do not try telling someone who has always voted for the Conservative Party that it is not conservative because they just will not believe you.

    Secondly, again using British political history, we had Labour (socialist) governments from 1945 to 1951 and from 1964 to 1970 and again from 1997 to 2010. Until 2010, all other governments had been Conservative. Only Margaret Thatcher’s government did anything to reverse the policies of the socialists, and the extent to which her government did so is questionable. The other “Conservatives” sere content to manage the decline, or slow down the rate of descent. The nature of a conservative is to hold on to the status quo. I see the same thing happening in the US with your ‘conservatives’.

    The problem you have with white knights is that too many people do not understand the difference between hurt and harm. The sugary drink harms your teeth, but the dentist can hurt you when he repairs the harm. white knights do not want anyone to feel hurt, but it is a necessary part of the feedback process to educate people to make wiser decisions next time.

  63. MackPUA says:

    “Conservatism by its nature wants to protect the bedrock institutions of society.”

    Wrong, Traditionalists protect the bedrock institutions of society, conservatives are the bootlickers & sellouts to whatever ideology is mainstream

    Conservatives are fanatical luddites, fanatically following the mainstream herd at any cost

    In short mainstream drones, out to enforce & destroy anyone not conforming to their version of popular junk science, culture

    In short, scum

    Again dont confuse conservatives with traditionalists, conservatives arent conservative about anything, their only conservative about their deliberate denial of how society really operates

  64. In short it seems most here agree that conservatives are the right wing of the “progressive” movement, right?

  65. Cane Caldo says:

    Matt’s reasoning is solid, but I don’t know if slogging it out for the “conservative” label is worth it. I have enough to do fighting for the “Christian” label…and “manly”, for that matter.

  66. IAL

    Yes, however one describes it, whatever clever rapier wit filled mini rant is used to say it, yes, the party that calls itself conservative is at the very best case slowing the progressives….I do not know why that notion is presented as if

    It is news
    That few know it
    That it is deep insight
    that those who see it and point it out frequently have broken the code to some above the fray 3rd way

    I repeat my last post, the sub sub topic was ideology….not that some who claim to hold it do not hold it, not that some are poseurs, not that some are outright liars, not that some are just too dumb to see it, etc. etc. Its gotten to the point where pointing out the hypocrisy of Republicans/conservatives has become an ideology in and of itself….what Im saying is that that , for many, actually represents the ideological thinking they have done….in total. That’s the thing they can quote off facts and figures, dates, names and times about….period end of story. Try and discuss anything that is really happening, a tangible thing , a policy, whatever, and you rec in return just snark about how they are all alike, even if you had not raised an individual OR a party or an election as the topic….it truly is an ideology now to simply ay “they are all alike”.
    What it represents, some on purpose and some unbeknownst, is a way to defacto be liberal but stay out of the mud pit with the pedestrians.

    (the stuff whatever is on about is a whole separate other ideology, though the two overlap in many ways)

    What Matt is saying, I think, is that no matter about any of that noise…..whatever a conservative is is a separate thing, not subject in truth to how those who claim the label behave because the word represents an ideology. We can debate what that is….surely…..but it is utterly irrelevant to the debate to rattle off what this one or that one did while calling themselves a conservative (or any other ideological label). The thing IS what it IS.

    I saw the debate her awhile back go off about what exactly a wind sock does , for example as if contradicting that, as an image, somehow spoke into the debate about the ideology itself. It doesnt, not in the least.

    Progressives or liberals or choose your label, i do not care….I am talking about a certain ideology, not hung up on the name…..and they have done a masterful job of deception, playing emotions, etc….not so unlike that certain serpent we know about. And when you read the pontifications of the more lets say learned, or perceived (self and by others) learned of these who make this 3rd way a thing that only those above the fray and those who have done the CERTAIN research can grasp, is that not just like the serpent and the knowledge in its appeal? T(I say CERTAIN research because research per se is insufficient. its too simplistic or something….always something)

    Politicians called Republicans are enabling much of what we call feminism. If we start through a set of beliefs or policies that we would say are a part of feminism, in its cumulative waves, like
    abortion for example, and we can name several big ticket things like that…..as the list grows, the number of Republicans supporting them shrinks, sadly some names will remain. But it gets very sideways here when we are I thought mainly talking about evangelical churchian type feminism and its codified offshoots in family law…..I dont see us here debating abortion much…..and frankly, we stay more on the non codified things.

    We discuss sluts, PUA’s, game, man bad woman good, the lies from the pulpit ON THESE THINGS, as we then rightly excoriate the white knights. I frankly cannot get the leap to such a huge general statement that “conservatives enable feminism”….not only its it not a valid generality, its topically awkward here among us because the scope is far and away beyond what we even focus on here.

    So, it makes me wonder why? Why the extrapolation from churchian manginas and evangelical feminist men and women in the church, to what appears to be a huge broad brush across all functional areas of an ideology….in this case conservatism.

    Its a light bulb moment. I could be the beginning of a culmination, intended or not, of yet more extremely clever discrediting of anyone who wears the conservative ideology badge. And its not just unfair, in the sense that it is not deserved, its self-destructive.

    For the Christian man here, the one with powerful grievances against the churchian apparatus and the twisting of the basic tenets of our faith in order to advance evangelical feminist goals….where does that man go? What does he do? Who comprises the friendly crowd for him?

    For the non Christian man…..I’d ask the same question? How can a liberal utopian society exist that has no form of feminism at all, no rudder that is controlled by the feminine agency?

    This is not some simple complaint saying hey Dalrock don’t write about that because Im a conservative and that bugs me…..not at all…..I had to come to terms with the fact that this dichotomy was and and is part of any mens-rights-ish gathering. What is concerning is that I thought the 3rd way crowd, the above the fray-ers represented one of the more clever and sneaky wins for liberals, but I think its worse than that, way worse.

  67. Cane….he isnt trying to slog it out for the conservative label. In fact, according to what he is saying there would be no need to slog it out…it is what it is.

    This isnt about wrangling about the labels. Its about not using the labels as a way to corral some imagined cohesive subset of bad actors.

    The ideology will be there. Well intended idiots and ne’er do wells alike will do what they do. The ideology….as it IS, is not the motive, and its not the problem. Making it the problem is ass backwards and plays right into the hands of everyone except the right ones

  68. Cane Caldo says:

    @empath

    Cane….he isnt trying to slog it out for the conservative label. In fact, according to what he is saying there would be no need to slog it out…it is what it is.

    I’m not putting words in his mouth.

    Matthew King said: Or worse, like a cult, you are more concerned with purity — with the perfect being the enemy of the good — than you are engaged in the difficult slog of making your principles palatable to the mainstream.

    So, yes, he is. And he’s encouraging us to do so; which I think Dalrock should hear. From what I know of Dalrock, he does–or will!–hear.

    I don’t have that impetus because I’ve already moved on to another front. I’m way out in fantasy land with a bunch of women and a few men; trying to clear the Churchian overgrowth away from chivalry, and scripture generally.

  69. Justin gaged says:

    Im a conservative but i don’t do any of the things the conservatives thatare being talk led about do….

    I think these “conservatives” that are feminists think the feminist movement is the same as first wave. Now it’s all about power and statism, feminism wants females to be taken care of government, in essence the government becomes the husband, and thus satan’s goal of destroying marriage is complete.

    Im still confused though, the people dalrock is calling “conservatives” sound like liberals calling themselves conservative. Oh and im a pretty big social conservative, pro-life, pro-traditional marriage etc.

  70. I would argue that the palate of the mainstream can’t distinguish between shit and ceviche. By Matt’s logic would I have to crap on every plate to make it more palatable? Do I care about democracy and the consensus opinion of the delusional? Do I bury the dinning room table in blue pills? That is what the mainstream is going to find “palatable”. Pull a few burning brands from the fire and therein be content, God is going to burn this whole show down, it’s His show. Who am I to argue?

  71. I do see a broad brush Emp, but I am past wanting to argue about the finer points of conservatism, so maybe you’re right. So much of what is considered traditional and conservative has been co-opted by the political class so often it hard to define it any other way. Abortion is no longer a moral travesty so much as a political football to be kicked around every 4 years, same goes for immigration, and soon VAWA, free birth control and every other feminist agenda item to roll up the pike.

    If Mitt Romney and George W. Bush are “conservatives” then I’m not. I don’t think I’m the right brand of religion.

  72. Buck says:

    I’m not a big Romney fan, and he is no classic “conservative” BUT in this election there really is no choice.
    I am compelled to ask a few questions
    Is he a gentleman?
    Does he love the America?
    Is he a capitalist?
    Has he ever held a private sector job?
    Has he ever met a payroll?
    Romney yes, the ghetto punk from Chicago no!
    I wish my choice options were better, they aren’t. If you love America, you must fire the punk!
    You are not voting for Romney, you are voting against Obama!

  73. unger says:

    I wish I had such low standards for people I want to be my king. It’d sure make life easier, or at any rate, make me more fun at cocktail parties.

  74. unger says:

    “I don’t vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, ‘If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain,’ but where’s the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, why, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote – who did not vote – who did not even leave the house on Election Day! – am in no way responsible for what these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created that I had nothing to do with.” -George Carlin

  75. numnut says:

    You certainly cannot call them “Republicans” because they care not for the Republic,but for their corporate and bankster paymasters.Call them greedy,just like the other.

  76. @greyghost

    what you are failing realize and the whole point of the article of enabling evil is reguardless of good intentions your are making things worse. Social Conservatives are pure blue pill pedistalizers to even take the approach they are taking. Dalrock has a couple of articles on the subject with the subject of the gilligan analogy. It goes along with the evil sin of being nice. (Pleasing to man). As bad as it sounds with ears from lost people (Churchians) MRA’s and PUA have with there thoughtful and clear headed developemnt of game(actual female psychology) have shown the way to end this. None of it was done in secret the concepts and thought processes and arguements to come to the conclusions are openly on display for anyone. The Christian church needs game very badly.

    I agree with everything you have said, except for your first sentence. I’m not sure what point you’re making.

    So much of the Manosphere is reverting to game… ie the science of attraction. What makes women attracted and men rediscovering what being a man is. How being masculine attracts the feminine. How being alpha naturally attracts women. This is stuff that was known several decades ago, before feminism and society tried to beat it out of men. So how is ‘conservatism’, promoting those things (including women being virgins and men being manly), making things worse?!

  77. Buck says:

    unger says:
    September 24, 2012 at 1:33 am

    I wish I had such low standards for people I want to be my king. It’d sure make life easier, or at any rate, make me more fun at cocktail parties.

    I live in a State that forever compels me to choose which A-hole will harm me least, I don’t like it, but it is what it is.
    Your principled decision not to participate is of course your choice, but when elections are decided by hundreds of votes, when 1/2 the electorate are too “principled” to make some choice, even if it is the lessor of two evils, this is what we get.
    My sainted mum is pro-life and in a recent election, she and the zealot pro-life movement would not support a mildly pro choice candidate (rape-incest-life of mother,… hard cases)…SO…our state got a liberal partial birth abortion maniac, who is also wrong on guns, taxes, national security, etc…so the desire for purity over “good enough”, gave us evil, her stand on “principle” actually contributed to more children killed!
    I know many soccer moms who voted for Obama because they thought McCain was a warmonger and too focused of foreign policy and would draft their sons and send them off to die in the Middle East. Well, this past week we have watched this buffoon Obama dither as the Middle East exploded, we are now on the brink of WW3 and these same soccer moms will find their stand on “principle” is a death sentence for their sons…congrats!
    Mubarak, Gaddifi, et al, were not nice guys, but the people of their respective countries at least had a semblance of stability with them in power…what do they have now???
    Riots, executions, religious persecution, collapsing economy, and an almost certain regional war.
    In the case of Obama vs Romney, we have an absolute failure as president with Obama; with Romney we have a person who has successfully operated businesses and the Olympics…he is a worthy risk at this point.
    When presented with two people who strive to be the leader, it requires effort to glean which one has the ability to at least do no harm, to sit on the sidelines and snipe as if somehow you are the more thoughtful, the more “principled” one, is actually evidence of intellectual cowardice; it’s only proper that your guiding philosopher is a raunchy comedian.

  78. Pingback: A Final Word on Sluts… for now. « M3

  79. Dalrock says:

    @Justin gaged

    Im still confused though, the people dalrock is calling “conservatives” sound like liberals calling themselves conservative.

    I have pointed out large numbers of people who identify as traditional and/or conservative and are very much feminists. Since I’ve shared what you appear to be asserting are all strange exceptions to the conservative rule, I will turn this around. Where do the non feminist conservatives gather (outside of the manosphere)? What are the names of the well known conservative leaders (elected or otherwise) who aren’t feminist? Can you show me examples of these non feminist conservative leaders seriously calling out the feminist ones (again, outside the manosphere).

  80. deti says:

    “I have pointed out large numbers of people who identify as traditional and/or conservative and are very much feminists.”

    This is quite simply because the more “reasonable” aspects of feminism are part and parcel of American culture. Women have the right to vote. It’s considered a fundamental constitutional right. But it was not always thus. In early America, only white male property owners could vote. Then it was only white men, then only men. The objection was that women have rational minds like men; could hold jobs like men; and laws and regulations affected women just as much as men. So it was only fair that women be allowed to vote per the 19th Amendment.

    Then it was women should have the same access to the professions. They can work like men if they want, can think rationally, and can still do the same kind of work (mostly). Plus, some women don’t marry and if they cannot support themselves, they will be a burden on the system. That’s only fair.

    Then women should get paid the same for the same work. If they are doing the same work as a man (regardless of experience level, proficiency or merit), the pay should be the same. It’s only fair.

    So it wasn’t too far a leap for conservatives and tradcons to continue adopting feminist principles into everyday life.

    But we’ve gone far beyond that now. Now we are told men and women are exactly alike in all ways except genitalia. Feminism holds that women have the right to have sex exactly as men do; can rack up high partner counts with no ill effects; that they must never be judged for their sexual conduct; and they are entitled to marriage when they are ready.

    Conservatives, tradcons and religious cons got pulled into this and have been in a tough political spot for decades. They can only really draw the line against feminism at abortion on demand; but have capitulated to just about everything else. Religious cons/churchians say they draw the line at premarital sex and adultery but they really do not. They tsk tsk at it while looking the other way and grasping at anything they can to excuse and justify it. All this is done in the name of not alienating a big voting bloc: married women with school age children, divorced women with children, Catholic women, and mainline Protestant women.

  81. greyghost says:

    So much of the Manosphere is reverting to game… ie the science of attraction.

    This is just one application of game. Game is in the big picture the psychologogy of females. It was discovered and quantified by a PUA due to sex being the motivationto find out what worked. Other disciplines on female psychology were easily corrupted by PC and feminism because no real results of the study was needed. The PUA had to fuck the bitch and actually get the behavior he wanted. But the “science” is valid in general in it’s overall application to women beyond getting pussy. What is happening here is reasonable men are still hanging on to the women are good theme. Women are not naturally virtious but will natural behave so in their own selfish interest.
    Once the churchians get past the “PUA science” connotation of game and see it for what it is as the actual psychology of women with the full understanding of motivations for behavior. They will be in a postion to restore christianity to the church with full faith.
    What the conservatives are doing is keeping up appearances. They are blindly following sustaining cultural values and traditions with out the wisdom and understanding of why. An example would be with out game to advice men to marry and father families is foolishness and is basicly rewarding bad female behavior. http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/losing-control-of-the-narrative/ This is what we have now and even the chiristian church is in on it all with good christian biblical intentions of course. All is done with a blue pill subroutine while on the surface is right and proper is not at all right and proper based on the resulting behavior and outcome in society and civilization.
    Go to the spearhead or any mens blog and post up an article about mannig up and waht is done to men that do. Most if not all of the divorced men that comment on mens blogs I would have no problem introducing my daughters to. yet these same men that are basiclly living up to the churchian and conservative mantra are the most visciously attacked and punished by the very society that makes the conservative demands on them. It is horrifying for a civilized man or christian to fully realise that and will shame the best female hamster in excuses to deny it but once the horrifing flush through your soul passes you will have a clear head on a correction. You will then be on the red pill.

  82. ukfred says:

    @Dalrock
    In short, I can’t. If anyone else could, I’m sure they would have responded.

    @Unger, @Buck
    There is no easy answer to the dilemma. If you consider no candidate “good”, then do you vote for the “least bad”. Sometimes the answer will be “No”, when there is little difference between the two, but if one is much worse than the other, then it becomes much more difficult. In Britain, I would vote for a candidate I otherwise supported who was willing to reduce the time limit for abortion from 24 weeks as it is right now to 20 weeks or less, unless the opposing candidate was very similar and was willing to vote for a complete ban. To be perfectly honest, in a representative democracy such as we have in the UK and in the US, one must consider the character of the candidate as much as the policies, because the policies will be derived from the character. For example, I voted for a UKIP candidate (whose manifesto I was in agreement with) in the last general election in 2010, because the Labour candidate was a man who was closely identified with Gordon Brown’s practice of unattributable smearing of opponents, a practice I thought was immoral, and the Conservative Party candidate had a drink problem. Had there been no UKIP candidate, I would probably have held my nose and voted Conservative.

  83. Cane Caldo says:

    Deti said:“Conservatives, tradcons and religious cons got pulled into this and have been in a tough political spot for decades.”

    This is a lie. Those folks (to be clear: my folks) didn’t get pulled into it, they CHOSE it. To not see this is to give them cover to continue doing it, and to deny them the ability to stop. The groups and ideologies of feminism are not pulling or pushing by force–like men. They are seducing men into thinking that they don’t need to assume their authority and responsibility–like women. To the extent there is any force applied by feminists, it is by seduced, lazy, and apathetic men that are in the police force, and churches…but I repeat myself.

    I don’t think it should be Dalrock’s purpose to rightly delineate who the conservatives are. They know who they are, and they are hiding. He is calling them out, like a prophet. Someone else must take up the preaching–which will necessarily sound like a call to masculinity, and will offend effeminate men who don’t like the picture in the mirror. This is Matt King’s (very small) error: he is asking of Dalrock what has not been given to Dalrock to give. It’s not his purpose.

    That said: we need more of Matt King.

    As for who are the conservative and Christian leaders that I know of: Voddie Baucham and Jesse Peterson. We should not be surprised that they are black Americans, as that demographic was the first targeted for destruction by liberals and feminists. Nor should we be surprised that Game in the wild (not from blogs or books) is found within the same demographic. Our choice: fathers or single-mothers; civilization or barbarism; chivalry or nihilism; Christ or Satan.

  84. Jimbo says:

    “Where do the non feminist conservatives gather (outside of the manosphere)?”

    I ask where are the boarders of feminism that you abhore?

    There are conservatives that have adopted feminist priniciples that are Biblical based. Where did you draw the line?

    Christian conservatives and traditionalists are “liberal” to distinguish between the law of Moses and Christianity. There needs to be a line drawn between the liberalism of Christian conservatism and atheistic liberalism.

  85. deti says:

    Cane:

    You’re right. Your people CHOSE it. I thought I made that clear. Perhaps you missed where I said this:

    “but have capitulated to just about everything else.”

  86. greyghost says:

    Well deti they were just being “nice”

  87. Temporal says:

    Conservatives love the idea of “Law and Order” until “Law and Order” lay their hands on them. After that They become “Libertarians”

  88. patrick kelly says:

    Matthew King said: “You “convince them to use another label” by first using that label yourself. Try calling them “feminist.” It’s what they are, and they will not object. “

    What idiotic, self indulgent, bs. When you say or write “feminist”, hardly anyone who currently self identifies as “conservative”, especially those Dalrock writes about, will have any idea you are addressing them. They will reflexively assume you are addressing some hairy, hippy, lesbian, pro-abortion group.

    This is a non starter outside of any ideological circle jerk. Your beef is with the people calling themselves conservative who are different that what you consider conservative. Whine about it on your own blog, Dalrock’s is fine without such mental gymnastic hand wringing.

  89. Dalrock says:

    @Jimbo

    I ask where are the boarders of feminism that you abhore?

    There are conservatives that have adopted feminist priniciples that are Biblical based. Where did you draw the line?

    Christian conservatives and traditionalists are “liberal” to distinguish between the law of Moses and Christianity. There needs to be a line drawn between the liberalism of Christian conservatism and atheistic liberalism.

    I’ve covered this in many posts. I’m not criticizing Christians for following the Bible. I’m criticizing them for turning the Bible upside down to fit their feminism. If you asked the average American who are the most conservative Christian groups, they would answer some combination of Southern Baptists, Pat Robertson/700 Club, and Focus On The Family. See the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary invert the concepts of headship and submission here. See the Director of Family Formation Studies for Focus On The Family explain that girls naturally grow into moral women but boys need guidance to do so (hear him in the podcast here), and see him call unwed mothers “heroic” here. See the 700 club championing single mothers.

  90. I have pointed out large numbers of people who identify as traditional and/or conservative and are very much feminists. Since I’ve shared what you appear to be asserting are all strange exceptions to the conservative rule, I will turn this around. Where do the non feminist conservatives gather (outside of the manosphere)? What are the names of the well known conservative leaders (elected or otherwise) who aren’t feminist? Can you show me examples of these non feminist conservative leaders seriously calling out the feminist ones (again, outside the manosphere).
    ————————————————————————————
    Maybe this is where the issue can be better defined. Yes, there are these massive numbers of conservative men, Christian, or churchian, as well as secular conservative men who, by the sin of omission, are kinda sorta feminists. They absolutely pedestalize women and offer succor to those with a man bad woman good paradigm. I think you lose me and several others by stating it like this :

    “Conservatives are feminists”

    Add whatever qualifier NACALT, “many”….”some”….whatever, the proclamation fails because it is in-congruent with the imagery that the word feminist calls to mind.
    They sin (or if that term makes some feel like they are being preached at then use “they are wrong” in its place) by omitting women in their sense of what accountability needs to be in a society. These men are badly deceived. They are DOING the things you are calling them out for….better said they are NOT doing things like holding women to account….they are guilty as charged functionally. But other than rhetorical flourish, it serves zero purpose, and is technically incorrect to say they ARE feminists.
    (yea yea go ahead and accuse me of splitting hairs and/or defending them , Im sure someone will pop in with that)
    This is not remotely a defense of their (in)actions. Its just that saying they are feminists is not very accurate.

    You ask “What are the names of the well known conservative leaders (elected or otherwise) who aren’t feminist? ” My answer would be pretty much all of them. they are not feminists. However if you asked for the names of those who are deceived enough* to enable feminism, Id say that list would be small to non existent.

    *[, using the same tools (adapted to a different audience) the left have used to deceive their brightest thinkers (no comment on the rest, and no excuse for the rest) into the things they support. ]

    The conservative and the liberal…..if offered ever escalating rigor or proof, the conservative will acquiesce sooner than the liberal, because IF they are a conservative, somewhere buried in them even if they don’t know it is a nod to empiricism’s supremacy over emotionalism.

    Second point….I’m very curious, where are the liberals in this? If conservatives enable feminism….what is liberals functional relationship to feminism? Do they UBER enable it? Or, are they culpable at all? If these conservatives all turned on a dime…..are we done here, nothing to see move along?

  91. Dalrock, the things that 700 Club and Focus on Family and Family Life etc push that you call feminism or only lumped into feminism by US. WE defines feminism far far more widely than anyone else.
    How about this, please list off all the prominent feminists that claim the 700 club and Family Life etc as the massive allies you suggest they are?
    You cannot, and the reason you cannot has my beef buried in it somewhere

  92. This is a lie. Those folks (to be clear: my folks) didn’t get pulled into it, they CHOSE it. To not see this is to give them cover to continue doing it, and to deny them the ability to stop. The groups and ideologies of feminism are not pulling or pushing by force–like men. They are seducing men into thinking that they don’t need to assume their authority and responsibility–like women. To the extent there is any force applied by feminists, it is by seduced, lazy, and apathetic men that are in the police force, and churches…but I repeat myself.
    ————————————————————————————————–
    I think you and deti can split the difference here, because it doesn’t matter, in either case, force or seduction, they did not straight up choose it. Maybe choose means they were sold! it. The serpent sold some crap too. And all the buyers did the wrong thing.
    Not to push the analogy too far, and I risk doing so, but what is happening here (it seems) is equivalent to some Pharisaical thing, where as a conservative I am going to be held actually to a standard of gender relations perfection that is unattainable, and that will be repeated over and again not to illustrate the bad choice on the gender relation thing, but to make it about the other 99.9% of me that is what……..conservative. We cannot have a flawed conservative. We must have just a conservative, which, since it is so easy to spot that ones that capitulate to feminism, and so hard to find and example of one who doesn’t…..their work here is done…..conservative is not just bad because we (liberal leaning folks) think its bad….but they are VERY bad on these gender things too…..they are very very bad indeed.

    I have to fight against having conspiracy theories, but goodness the left is a patient bunch.

  93. Lovekraft says:

    Is the jury in on The Tea Party? Seems one of two possibilities:

    1. they have frightened the powers-that-be and so have been marginalized by MSM and their leaders have been neutralized, or.

    2. they were fully of hot air and eventually became co-opted by the Republicans.

    Or perhaps none of the above. Perhaps the Tea Party is the future, or something similar to it.

  94. Cane Caldo says:

    @empath

    You ask “What are the names of the well known conservative leaders (elected or otherwise) who aren’t feminist? ” My answer would be pretty much all of them. they are not feminists. However if you asked for the names of those who are deceived enough* to enable feminism, Id say that list would be small to non existent.

    I strongly disagree that they are mostly deceived. They are a only alittle deceived, but they love the deception. It makes them feel nuanced and fair-minded to say that they are not advocating that women need to get on their knees and repent to God AND their husbands. They love the pathetic attention women give them for not saying this. They find it gratifying to have women watch their programs, attend their churches, and attend their schools when they should be obeying their husbands and raising their children.

  95. Dalrock says:

    @Empath

    Add whatever qualifier NACALT, “many”….”some”….whatever, the proclamation fails because it is in-congruent with the imagery that the word feminist calls to mind.

    So if I have this correctly, King A has forbidden me to use the word “conservative” for these folks because they obviously aren’t so, they are simply feminists. You on the other hand wish that I wouldn’t call them feminists because they don’t view themselves as such.

    And yet, at the end of the day, they tell us that women are morally superior and must keep evil men in check, and if a few (or a lot) of very clear Bible verses need to be turned upside down then so be it.

    But they aren’t feminists. Or is it that they aren’t conservatives?

    Whatever they are (or aren’t), would I please stop writing about it!

    Because everyone already knows this.

    Plus everyone already knows it isn’t so.

  96. whatever says:


    I know many soccer moms who voted for Obama because they thought McCain was a warmonger and too focused of foreign policy and would draft their sons and send them off to die in the Middle East. Well, this past week we have watched this buffoon Obama dither as the Middle East exploded, we are now on the brink of WW3 and these same soccer moms will find their stand on “principle” is a death sentence for their sons…congrats!

    Conservative, let me explain something to you. Iran already has the bomb. I mean bombs, plural. Please factor that in to whatever crazed genocidal fantasies are going through your head. You know, the ones involving killing huge numbers of innocent people.

  97. greyghost says:

    The truth is too horrifying to bear. Dalrock. So don’t speak of these things. The essnce of peoples well being and foundation is being challenged here. (good) These people in denial have placed their faith in man and not god. Mans institutions are tools for serving (I’m sure caldo will correct any errors) But over all it is really interesting to see.

  98. Dalrock
    You on the other hand wish that I wouldn’t call them feminists because they don’t view themselves as such.
    ——————————————————————
    No, that’s not the point, nor is it what I suggested.
    I dont care if you call them JimBob.

    And yet, at the end of the day, they tell us that women are morally superior and must keep evil men in check, and if a few (or a lot) of very clear Bible verses need to be turned upside down then so be it.
    —————————————————————————
    You are I think responding too hastily. I agree with all of this EXCEPT the “so be it”….that is just not like you to say such a thing.

    Whatever they are (or aren’t), would I please stop writing about it!
    —————————————————————–
    Is this to me? Did I suggest this? OR did I expressly state, clearly, that I was not nor would i ever presume upon what you write or do not write

    Because everyone already knows this.

    Plus everyone already knows it isn’t so.
    ——————————————————————-
    A little sarcastic which is fine, but not your style

    Am I saying something in particular that is causing this kind of reaction? It is very far from normal, and its not really very accurate in that what the sarcasm and other remarks seem to infer has been said, well, it has not been said.

    I have no leverage nor does any one else. But I did hope however to see a couple of the actual questions I asked (which were asked in the spirit of trying to understand, find common ground, something like that) would be addressed.

    Cane
    I strongly disagree that they are mostly deceived. They are a only a little deceived, but they love the deception. It makes them feel nuanced and fair-minded to say that they are not advocating that women need to get on their knees and repent to God AND their husbands. They love the pathetic attention women give them for not saying this. They find it gratifying to have women watch their programs, attend their churches, and attend their schools when they should be obeying their husbands and raising their children.
    ——————————————————–
    I’m going to go with you on this. What you are saying is correct and well said in my opinion.
    I may say that them enjoying that feedback, the approval of the women for the supplication they give IS a form of deception though……..eat this fruit…..IT TASTES GOOD……it is deception but I like your description better than mine

  99. dragnet says:

    @ Dalrock

    “But they aren’t feminists. Or is it that they aren’t conservatives?

    Whatever they are (or aren’t), would I please stop writing about it!”

    Matt has some good points, but I think it’s obvious that he has No-True-Scotsman’d himself here.

    And the analogy posited by this post is really inspired—nicely done.

  100. Buck says:

    whatever says:
    September 24, 2012 at 1:41 pm
    “Please factor that in to whatever crazed genocidal fantasies are going through your head.”
    Just to be clear, I think this brinksmanship with Iran is insanity, I would like to know which powers want a war with Iran? I don’t!!!!
    The Democrat party has been in charge and got the US involved in every war since WW1, (other than Mr RINO Bush and Iraq, a war I did not support. I defy anyone to explain to me what vital interest America has in that conflict!)
    I’m consider myself very conservative, but I would like to know why the US has a military presence in over 160 countries?
    Why are we still defending Germany and Japan, when we’re broke?
    Can anyone explain why we are in Afghanistan? (you know, the war Obama agreed with).
    I am an Eisenhower Republican, I do not think it is America’s job to democratize the world, play world policeman, world bank, world welfare distrubuter. We have too many problems right here at home. I do not think American blood should be spilled with a shrug (Obama and the 4 killed in Libya).
    I want America to have a strong military that is only used in an emergency and only in America’s vital national interest.
    I believe in star wars, space shields, intelligence gathering and precaution so that we can know our threats and enemies and can properly defend ourselves. If this “crazed genocidal fantasy” then so be it.
    A dithering weakling has always posed the biggest threat to world peace.

  101. greyghost says:

    empath
    I bet Dalrocks wife killed him and is still collecting his paychecks and is posting under his name to keep up appearances. It looks like you have found the murderist out.

  102. grey

    I already said that several posts back……or……did I

  103. greyghost says:

    ha ha ha ha ha gotta have that sense of humour

  104. Bob Wallace says:

    @ Buck,
    “The Democrat party has been in charge and got the US involved in every war since WW1, (other than Mr RINO Bush and Iraq, a war I did not support. I defy anyone to explain to me what vital interest America has in that conflict!)”

    George Washington’s Farewell Address;

    “So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld.”

  105. If we’re talking FOTF conservatives, I’d agree. They promote controlling the male libido to serve women’s desires while doing this under the banner of “this is good for men.” It’s sad, but true because I fall on the conservative end of many things.

  106. unger says:

    @Buck: I wouldn’t call him my ‘guiding philosopher’ – though I have to ask, what in God’s name are you doing in a place like this if you have such scruples, considering that half the point of this site is to teach Christians wisdom at the knees of whoremongers? Sometimes even bad men get something right, and say it in a clever and memorable way.

    You’re terminally naive if you think the country has ‘a chance’ with Romney. It doesn’t. I don’t know that it’d have a chance if it elected anyone short of Jesus (who would never win an election anyway); I can, however, assure you, with absolute certainty, that Romney cannot and will not add one hour to the life of this country. If you’re not willing to write in the name of someone who halfway defensibly would, or stay home and thereby give a vote of no-confidence, you’re part of the problem.

  107. Dalrock wrote:

    I have pointed out large numbers of people who identify as traditional and/or conservative and are very much feminists. Since I’ve shared what you appear to be asserting are all strange exceptions to the conservative rule, I will turn this around. Where do the non feminist conservatives gather (outside of the manosphere)?

    The “non-feminist conservatives gather” where all conservatives gather, for to be conservative is to be non-feminist. Now ask yourself: how prudent is it to fully identify oneself with non-feminism in the general culture?

    What are the names of the well known conservative leaders (elected or otherwise) who aren’t feminist? Can you show me examples of these non feminist conservative leaders seriously calling out the feminist ones (again, outside the manosphere).

    You are missing a major factor in this, the factor that causes you and other anti-feminists like Roissy to remain hidden under pseudonymity (indeed hiding his identity with such circumspection that he is onto his second nom de internet). The key difference between you and the “large numbers of people” you condemn is not necessarily your disagreement about feminism. It is the stakes of identifying themselves as publicly against a totalitarian “PC” regime that lead them to pay minimal deference to the regime. The punishment for siding against the commissars at the commanding heights of culture is severe ostracization and career ending calumny. Who can blame you for only speaking the truth pseudonymously in this environment that persecutes truthtelling?

    From your hiding place, you too easily condemn the “large numbers” who must consider their livelihoods and reputations. If they do not wish to be socially-annihilated like Don Imus or Michael Richards or Fuzzy Zoeller or Lawrence Summers, et. al., they must communicate esoterically. They have made a prudential judgment to communicate a similar message to yours but in a pre-revolutionary idiom for purposes of mass communication, and the masses will have to be rallied some way in any event. Otherwise, they will be marginalized, lampooned, and made into a cautionary tale signalling what happens to those who thwart the reigning religious creed of political correctness.

    Roissy is a piece of cowardly shit for assailing Bill Bennett — and further, for turning him into a punchline — whose only crime is to finesse a pro-man message past the censors. I would say the same of you about Mark Driscoll, but I do not know the preacher’s works well enough. He could be a real saboteur. On the other hand, he could simply be laying the groundwork to one day make the atmosphere safe for men like you (like us) to come out of exile.

    Either way, “nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime” (Niebuhr). Even if there is feminist residue clinging to their souls, it is not enough to pronounce them worthless to the cause, not as individuals, and certainly not as a class whose ill-defined boundaries you make up as you go. They can be John the Baptists, harbingers of the counterrevolution, who “make straight the paths.”

    You need more imagination, more creativity, less paranoia, less jealousy, fewer litmus tests. Imitate the first Caesars, Julius and Augustus — who established new modes and mores by finding ways to align their flawed opponents to their mission, rather than preemptively alienating them from your stoop down here in the ghetto. “For he that is not against us is for us” (Mark 9:40).

    Matt

  108. greyghost says:

    King Matt
    I think it is awesome to have this conversation on the subject of feminist conservatives.

  109. greyghost says:

    BTW BIll Bennet is a piece of crap. I say that in my own right. The man is completely clueless about the reality of being a man today or is just purposely being blind. Either one is no cause for respect. The horror of having ones foundation rocked. the horror.

  110. Anonymous Reader says:

    If King A (Matthew King) is claiming Bill “Man Up And Marry The Sluts, Kneel Down Before The Woman On The Pedestal” Bennett as one of his, then that pretty much proves Dalrock’s original posting completely.

    Dalrock: It appears the anti-feminist Conservatives are too busy riding unicorns up and down the rainbow to have the time to say anything useful.

    All: National Review bills itself as the flagship publication of conservatism. The only form of anti feminism that can be found there routinely is opposition to abortion. One can look long and hard for anything else; there are a few token bits of opposition to women in combat roles, and that is pretty much it. Men’s-fault divorce? Not an issue. VAWA? A bare mention, and only in the context of illegal alients. Bradley and men’s debt prison? Huh? False rape? Huh? Prison rape? HUH?

    The same thing can be said of American Spectator, and all the other conservative publications.

    So it’s time for King A (Matthew King) to man up and go to NR headquarters & inform Rich Lowry and his staff that they aren’t conservatives. I expect that would be an amusing, if rather short, dialogue.

  111. Anonymous says:

    Social conservatives have a Blue Pill addiction with all their man-up-and-marry-those-sluts ideas… too many have old-school Marriage 1.0 setups and haven’t been burned bad by “divorce rape” and hypergamy. (Like folk say… “You weren’t there, man!”)

  112. Buck says:

    @unger:

    Romney would not have appointed brain-dead political hacks like Kagan or Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.
    Romney would not have banned Gulf oil drilling for Americans, but give 5 billion to Brazil to drill in the same Gulf, then sell the oil to us.
    Romney would not have a buffoon like Geithner, a tax cheat, as treasury secretary.
    Romney would have approved the Canadian oil pipeline.
    Romney would not have closed 127 coal fired power plants.
    I don’t see a fast-n-furious with Romney.
    Romney would not have a racist Attorney General who refuses to prosecute black people because he is down with the struggle!
    So, although I may be “terminally naive ” I fully understand that a flawed Romney is far better than a white hating, America hating, commie like Obama.
    Where we will agree, America is finished, it’s just a matter of when this house of cards collapses.
    I do believe in Jesus, and he says a thousand years is as a day, and a day as a thousand years, and “if my people, which are called by my name, will humble themselves, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear their prayer and heal their land “.
    The bible is full of examples of God staying his hand of judgement because the people of God confessed their sin, humbled themselves and turned from their sin.
    I do believe Romney is a decent honorable man and Obama is a punk, that alone is worthy of my vote for Romney. Anyone who stays home or votes for anyone other than Romney in this election is voting for Obama, and that is an act of treason!

  113. TFH says:

    King A,

    Roissy is a piece of cowardly shit for assailing Bill Bennett — and further, for turning him into a punchline — whose only crime is to finesse a pro-man message past the censors.

    Absurd. Bill Bennett is about as ghastly as a groveling mangina as you will ever find.

    And it was not just Roissy, but Ferdinand, WF Price, and many others who correctly slammed Bill Bennett, and turned him into the shameful punchline he deserves to be.

    Anyone who strenuously defends him is exhibiting good cause to be categorized as the same.

  114. unger says:

    I won’t dispute the idiocies regarding fuels, but I have no doubt that a Massachusetts liberal beloved of the banksters won’t offer much of an improvement, if any, on Kagan, Geithner, Our People, or Wise Latina. And at least they’re open and honest about their hostility to the old idea of America; the people Romney will empower will say all the right words, even as they bleed us, the way Reagan and both Bushes did.

    As for Jesus, heh…exactly why is Jesus going to spare us the consequences of a century’s worth of profligacy and immorality if we elect an avowed apostate who happens to have some business savvy? Ah, if only that were all it took to count as humbling one’s self, seeking God, and turning from wickedness…

  115. Lovekraft says:

    We could try telling women to “Woman Up” but this meaning has become so convoluted that it would only result in another wave of antics and self-analysis misery.

    For a conservative woman to reject feminism would require years of sustained mental effort in de-programming. As for the liberal woman, I sadly feel she is beyond saving. Her conversion would require massive damage to her ego and that of others in her influence.

    Perhaps the answer isn’t in trying to push oneself out of this view and into that, but rather having people understand that our lives are a gift and evil’s grip cannot touch us when we follow principles of love, mercy and compassion.

  116. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    King A,
    I understand what you’re saying, but if their attempt to get a Pro-Man message through the censors only further confuses men or, worse, reinforces certain feminist messages, isn’t that an issue others should note?

    Maybe “take the ball and run with it,” but certainly note the weaknesses or misconceptions.

    Is your issue with the tone/style of the reaction to folks like Bennet (on this site, only for the sake of simplicity) or the substance of the reaction?

  117. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    Regarding NR, they do tackle issues, such as prison rape. I studied prison rape several years ago, as part of my job. The NR staff is actually fairly small, but they have a number of contributors. It keeps the payroll low and allows them to tap into subject matter experts in various fields. So, when the subject makes the spotlight, they do rech out to experts in the field. When Bush signed the Prison Rape Elimination Act, I specifically remember a number of articles in NR dealing with it.

    Now, can they be knocked for not banging the drum steadily? Sure, but they have to operate a business and their business is topical. Inside the conservative criminal justice movement is a strong current of, “More guards and more bars doesn’t work” along with rejecting hug-a-thug programs and treatment programs (which have been statistically proven to increase recidivism in medium to high risk inmates. Specifically, Pennsylvania’s Dept of Corrections is headed by a Secretary committed to reforms to lower prison populations, reduce costs, and improve the safe guarding of inmates. John Wetzel, whom I do not know personally but did meet a couple times, works with a solid team and reaches out to local and national conservative think tanks for the best ideas. My point is that the conservatives (however defined) are doing a good deal of work on areas, such as prison rape. It just isn’t a glitzy headline and isn’t part of the national conversation, so news mags won’t give it extensive attention.

  118. Opus says:

    I am afraid this is off topic but I think that Dalrock, at least, may find it interesting.

    When I was a schoolboy there were a series of books which were very popular, and funny, not that I ever read any myself – I don’t think. They were written by Stephen Potter; the first was called Gamesmanship, (all about shafting your opponent) this was followed by Lifemanship and so on. Lifemanship (later filmed as School for Scoundrels – scripted by Peter Ustinov) is all about – yes – gaming women (and shafting your opponent). Eric Berne who wrote Games People Play acknowledges its influence, (transactional analysis) and so I am guessing that these books were not unknown to Neil Strauss. In other words Game is a rather dated concept – and appears to be snake-oil in origin – but Potter was not meant to be taken seriously, and I certainly do not recall anyone ever saying that their success with women was as a result of adapting the techniques discussed – certainly mine weren’t.

  119. Bob Wallace says:

    @ Opus,

    “In other words Game is a rather dated concept – and appears to be snake-oil in origin”

    The Lost Boys of the Manosphere believe they have taken the Red Pill and now see reality. They haven’t. They’ve created a new Matrix and enthusiastically jumped in.

    “Alpha,” for instance, comes from the study of wolves. There was an Alpha couple, which was the only ones that bred. Lower-ranking wolves could overthrow them. What would happen among people if there really were Alphas and Betas? The Betas should kill the Alphas?

    And among wolves, the lower-ranking ones would sometimes move away and form new packs, Small packs, not countries with hundreds of millions of people.

    People unfortunately imitate people. Someone came up with these inaccurate and sometimes dangerous concepts of Alpha, Beta, Game, PUA, etc., and the Lost Boys enthusiastically imitated them and memorized all of it. When people are lost, they’re fall for every narcissistic blowhard who claims he Know the Truth. Try William Bennett for an example.

    The day will come when some of the “leaders” of the Manosphere will say, “I’m sorry I’m mislead all of you…I didn’t know what I was talking about.”

  120. Opus says:

    @Bob Wallace

    You may be right – and I am rather attracted by your idea that Red Pill is a new Matrix. I would be more impressed by Game, if, firstly, the Greeks and Romans had written of it – there being little new under the sun – but although they (beginning with Homer and Hesiod) write about women and their foibles I do not recall any Socratic dialogue on Game – though there are a couple on Sophists which might seem close. Second if Game is the key to instant Pussy, then I would like to hear of some former nerd who is now scoring reguilarily. You may think Krauser is that man, but even if he is as successful as he implies, he is merely of that sort of age and life experience that non-stop Pussy hunting is bound to achieve some success – and one swallow does not make a summer. The problem with self-help books (like the Strauss books) is that they give one a half-hour glow and then when one goes out, one instantly forgets what one read as real life takes over. Others such as David Collard and Dalrock, seem to think differently and so I keep an open mind, but I thought having just come across it for the first time in a few years and having forgotten all about it, that School for Scoundrels was a proto-version of what we write about as a new thing. The film is presently up on You Tube and so it can be viewed now.

  121. Bob Wallace says:

    “The PUAs and Gamers…are comprised mostly of men who bear the deepest afflictions of a fatherless culture. Abandoned to feminist governance by their male elders and bereft of masculine guidance, they have been dropped into the solipsistic void that was the only existence feminism ever could have offered them outside direct servitude. Stripped of values and consciousness and the ability to be circumspect, they have turned feral; so unable to form community or embrace brotherhood that they have shrugged off the desire for either.” – Paul Elam

  122. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    Opus,
    I don’t think it is a hlaf hour glow. In fact, I think the reason game resonates with me is that I was raised in the traditional household (none of this “fatherless, non-masculine” garbage some people push to shame men) and had times when I followed natural tendencies and times when I followed the script offered by society.
    So, when I read books on game, I had 20 years of experience operating in both worlds. The PUA guys who “sell snake oil” really only observed and recorded the positive encounters, saw what worked, observed and reflected on the negative encounters and made a comparison/contrast.
    The reason older philosophers didn’t write a lot on game isn’t because female psychology has dramatically changed as much as they were interested in other things and because the marriage contract/paradigm was reinforced by society.

  123. Anyone who strenuously defends him is exhibiting good cause to be categorized as the same.

    You self-marginalizing blowhards practice guilt-by-association, and you deserve the incestuous ghetto you create for yourselves. No one is listening to you. No one cares about your small-souled, overheated emoting. I will have no part of this fourth-rate strategizing and impotent chest-beating. You do not impress.

    Bill Bennett deserved crtiticism. For you to tear a single fragment of the man’s oeuvre out of context to make the man a poster-boy for feminist supplication is to expose you as the shallow idiotes (ἰδιώτης) you are. Out of my sight with you.

    Matt

  124. Rock Throwing Peasant asked:

    Is your issue with the tone/style of the reaction to folks like Bennett (on this site, only for the sake of simplicity) or the substance of the reaction?

    I don’t quibble over perceived tone on written fora like these. That is a known limitation of the medium, and we can all do much better expressing ourselves. It is factored into the interpretation.

    Yes, I reject the substance. The thinking is entirely too reductionist in a challenge that requires our agility. More light, less heat. But the heat is too cathartic for certain unhinged types, and they will continue to melt themselves rather than be productive to the mission. They are searching for punching bags and relief from frustration. They do not have the minds of generals or NCOs.

    The Bennett Derangement Syndrome, this Emmanuel Goldstein-figure fashioned as the object for the two minute hate, has no part in a cool analysis. For all I know, the satanic image of Mark Driscoll Androphobe was conjured for the same purposes. I don’t care to examine the preacher’s works minutely, but I am familiar with Bennett’s flaws and strengths enough to find the caricature of him preposterous. Which makes me suspicious of this community’s credibility to judge anyone in this regard.

    If you want to eliminate feminist sympathizers and fifth columns, you’re doing it wrong. But, like women, it’s all about emotional expression and relief from easily-incited demonic stress. Not my scene, daddy-o.

    Matt

  125. Opus, appreciate the book recommendations. Our deliverance will come via the ancient and near-ancient masters, through the gods of the copybook headings. We will need educated men for this twilight struggle, this site’s host being an exemplar of the type. There is nothing new under the sun.

    Now who can recognize and cite the three paraphrased references in the above paragraph without deferring to the Google Machine? Those are the men of this Kairos (look that one up too). Otherwise, we are consigned to expending critical resources avoiding the mistakes of our equally impassioned ancestors.

    Matt

  126. hey matt (akak king ahole)

    i think that what dalrock is trying to say is dat when jonah goldberg uses the national review to promote feminismis and the weekly standeard sings praises to sectiev taper of buttehxt tucker max rhemeys with goldamn sax repeating his lies that he is aisx foot tall heroric buttehxter, that neoconservtaism is not the ame as the jeffersonian/kirkian classical consetreievistsm lzzlozozlzo.

    lzozoozzo

    also king ahole, why do you spend so much time attacking attactink dalrock and attacing roissy when so many innocent feteuses are being aborted today? Why do you attack cocnserteievs like dalrock and heartitesse while never standing up for the aborted all de innocent avortedz aboettrtedz?

    i have a teheory dayt you are william bennetz in disugues disguise

    dat would expalin it!

    lzozlzlzozlzzol

  127. [A]lthough they (beginning with Homer and Hesiod) write about women and their foibles I do not recall any Socratic dialogue on Game…

    Your search is limited by neologisms. These concepts have been explored not just by the ancients, but by every single generation from time immemorial. It helps to know the glossary code: “game” in your idiom is synonymous with manliness/confidence/virtù, and “alpha” with leadership. Men and women have always been interested in manliness: it is the keeper or destroyer of civilization, depending on how it is channeled from birth.

    Our generation’s primer? Manliness by Harvey Mansfield. (“Man” in the title and “Man” in the name, how can you go wrong?) In there you will find all the ancient references to “game” you need in the civilizational run-up to our moment. The only difference is our era’s unseemly obsession with the cunt. Our progenitors would weep at our fixation and whippédness, particularly in the PUA attempt to usurp “alpha” for purposes of mere vaginal friction. They pedestalize the pussy like teenage poetasters.

    Matt

    P.S. The Elam quote is spot on.

  128. Bob Wallace says:

    @ King A,

    “game” in your idiom is synonymous with manliness/confidence/virtù, and “alpha” with leadership.

    “Virtue” means “the powers of men.” There is 3000 years of history of what a man is supposed to be. It is a vitally important discussion, since men created and maintain civilization.

    “Alpha” does mean leader, although Alpha is close to a worthless word. When applied to Game/PUA, it means “cad.” All the cads I’ve known have been cowards and liars. Although, right now, all the Male Rationalism Hamsters are madly spinning in the wheels to delude themselves it doesn’t.

  129. Feminist Hater says:

    Bob Wallace, that Paul Elam quote is accurate but it offers no substantial help at all. It basically says these men are worthless. I’m really interested as to what you and Matt think would be appropriate action for these men to take. Society doesn’t care about them, women don’t care about them, men don’t care about hem, you and Matt don’t care about them. In fact, NO ONE, cares about them at all. Should they kill themselves? Being deadly serious here, death is a better substitute than living a futile existence. Or should they live life as they see fit?

    Matt has already told them all to bugger off and since he knows better and it seems that you do too, can you provide any helpful advice as to what they should do?

  130. deti says:

    Matt and Bob W. are too alarmed at the PUA wing of the sphere. There have always been PUAs, players and cads, and they, like the poor, will always be with us. They have always been attractive to most women, and some women spoil themselves with them. Be that as it may, the PUAs are a tiny minority of men. Most men won’t ever become PUAs even if they want to and spend years trying. Neither this country nor any other will ever have roaming bands of Roissys and Rooshes and Mentus and Bronans deflowering all the sweet, innocent paragons of female virtue.

    Unlike Matt and Bob W., the PUAs do not concern me, for they will have little effect anymore on the future of society or its cultural or moral health. They remain on the fringes of society, a small minority. It is where they want to be, so they can ply their trades and the sluts in relative secrecy.

    Most men in the future will find themselves married with an increasing number GTOW and remaining single. Feminist Hater raises a good point. How should they live their lives in a manly, virtuous manner?

    how shall a married man live his life with a contentious wife who threatens him with divorce, rip his children away from him, divest him of half his wealth, and transform him into a wage slave working for chilimony for the better part of two decades? How shall he live with all the laws and cultural apparatuses arrayed against him?

    How shall a single man live a virtuous life when he cannot take two steps in any direction without having misandry and hatred flung at him? How shall he work, engage in leisure, or rest?

    Perhaps this sounds like whining or complaining, but in light of the arguments you’ve raised that PUA and Game are morally and intellectually bankrupt, what are such men to do? If the only tools that men have at their disposal are figments of our fevered imaginations, what do you suggest?

    What say you, Matt and BobW ?

  131. Justinian says:

    Feminist Hater: In fact, NO ONE, cares about them at all. Should they kill themselves?

    Some of them have come to the conclusion that they are now free to use any means at their disposal to take what they want from the world.

    Every man for himself. The social contract is broken,

    The ones who tore up the contract are the physically weaker members of society (women, old men) whom the contract was written to protect.

    It will be might makes right, and young men have the might.

  132. Some Guy says:

    @Justinian — On that note, I repeat John Brown’s last note:

    “I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood. I had, as I now think vainly, flattered myself that without very much bloodshed it might be done.”

    You eliminate the incentives for pursuing married life… you scapegoat a man every time a woman feels unhaaaapy… you vilify the people who build and maintain civilization… and then what…? If you categorically withdraw respect from men in this fashion, don’t be surprised if younger, less principled men withdraw their respect from women and the elderly. This is the natural result of punishing the guys that played by the rules….

  133. deti says:

    I’m really not being flippant with my questions to BobW and Matt.

    I would seriously like to know what alternative there is to Game or GTOW.

  134. Bob Wallace says:

    @All

    I think Carl Jung got this right about some of the key ingredients to happiness:

    1. Good physical and mental health.

    2. Good personal and intimate relationships, such as those of marriage, the family, and friendships.

    3. The faculty for perceiving beauty in art and nature.

    4. Reasonable standards of living and satisfactory work.

    5. A philosophic or religious point of view capable of coping successfully with the vicissitudes of life.

    Concerning 2: I work for myself and I recommend it for anyone who can do it. There is fear involved in getting started, and I define courage as doing something even when you’re afraid. I’ve worked for women and will never do it again. For many of them, working is talking while the men support them.

    Doing the PUA/Game gets old fast. Every guy I’ve known who’s lived that life has regretted it. Some end up alone. Most, actually, unless they gave it up.

    The phrase “pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence is from the Greek “eudaimonia,” which translates as “well-being,” or better yet, “flourishing.” It’s achieved through “arete,” or excellence in what you do. I believe it’s why there exists the phrase, “living well is the best revenge.”

    I do not believe it’s men who have the problem today, not really. It’s women, and their advantages are enforced by law. Samuel Johnson noticed this hundreds of years ago when he wrote (not an exact quote): “Nature has given women so much power the law wisely gives them little.”

    A lot of men I know have got around this whole American women/cunt/bitch problem by marrying foreign women.

    A woman I know told me this is what she finds attractive in men:

    1.Courage and Confidence

    2.Self-respect

    3. Skills and ability

    4. Humor

    Society is trying its damnedest to beat the first out of men.

  135. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    Secret to happiness is to listen to what women say and shape yourself in the mold they provide…

    We’re full circle now.

    Good luck with that, guys.

  136. sunshinemary says:

    A woman I know told me this is what she finds attractive in men

    Sir, women are not very good at identifying what they find attractive in a man. We know the things that we are supposed to find attractive, but they seem often not to be the things that actually get our panties wet.

    The thing is, when women come to their marriages with 20, 30, or more previous sexual relationships, her perception of what is attractive has really changed. Any man who marries such a woman has a lot of ghosts from her past to compete with. What can he do but Game her to maintain her attraction to him? What advice would you give him?

  137. Even though I’ve somehow become the language nazi around here, I have no gripe whatsoever with Dalrock’s use of “conservative”. Until such time as the typical “conservative” openly favors repeal of the nineteenth amendment, the shoe fits.

  138. Bob Wallace says:

    @ Sunshinemary,

    “women are not very good at identifying what they find attractive in a man.”

    Some are, and some aren’t. The same applies to men. Some are and some aren’t.

    Those who aren’t very good tend to have relationship problems. Those are who good tend to be better at relationships.

    “Gnōthi Sauton”- “Know thyself”

  139. deti says:

    Bob W.:

    Your advice sounds like GTOW.

    I don’t understand how you can say that men don’t have the problem today. Because of feminism and the fact that all its legislative and cultural demands have been met, men do have grave problems today: in personal relationships, employment, legal liabilities, professional interaction, sex, and a host of others.

    The only problem women have is that there are enough hot alpha studs available for sex as long as they want it, but there aren’t enough hot alpha studs for marriage when they want it.

    As far as advice from women on what they find attractive? Pass.

  140. deti says:

    SSM: “women are not very good at identifying what they find attractive in a man.”

    Bob W: “Some are, and some aren’t. The same applies to men. Some are and some aren’t.”

    Disagree.

    Women in general don’t really know what they find attractive. They just know it when they see it, but they cannot articulate it or put it into words.

    When asked what they find attractive in a man, they almost without exception give one of the following categorical answers:

    1. What they want in a husband (not a sex partner)
    2. What they have been told they SHOULD find attractive
    3. What they have learned is a socially acceptable answer
    4. What their friends find attractive.

    So if you ask a woman what she finds attractive, here is what women in general say:

    “Nice guy”
    “Treats me well”
    “Is nice to me and my family”
    “Funny”
    “Good sense of humor”
    “Likes to do fun things”
    “Confident, sure of himself”

    What she actually finds attractive, what she wants to have sex with, who she wants to f**k, and what she NEVER says when asked:

    1. cocky, almost arrogant (the “lovable asshole”), acts as if he doesn’t care what others think of him
    2. dominant personality, larger than life personality
    3. lean body, muscular, toned, classic “V” shaped body
    4. high status as established by money, possessions, accomplishment or high profile job

  141. deti says:

    Also:

    Men know better and can articulate better what they find attractive for two reasons:

    1. On the whole, men are more adept at using the written and spoken word for expression than women are. There are exceptions, but by and large. men are better at expressing themselves clearly.

    2. Men think about, analyze and determine what they like and don’t like in a woman. We have to. We have to figure out what we want and then try to go out and get it.

    By contrast, women don’t think about or try to become conscious of what they find attractive. They don’t really have to, and so they never really learn how to, for the most part. They have all kinds of men vying for their attention. The woman only has to select the one or ones that look or just “feel” the best to her. She doesn’t have to think about it or hone technique or figure anything out. She just acts on what she feels is best or right or advantageous at the time, because that’s really all that’s expected of her.

  142. Cane Caldo says:

    @RTP and Deti

    Don’t forget that wisdom is described as a woman; as is folly.

    It is not that most women don’t understand what most women want in a man. It’s that most of them don’t understand what they, themselves, want in a man; nor do they know how to recognize the traits for which they are looking. It is observable by both sexes that women want brave, confident, able, and funny men. What is harder to see is: If that is what she wants, why is she with him? Why does she think he is brave, confident, able, and funny? You see it all the time: Women laughing at the lame jokes of really dumb guys. Is it a fake laugh? Maybe, but more often than not she’s become attracted to him, and so assigned him a more humorous “rank” than he really merits. Love/lust goggles.

    So, the woman Bob referred to is right; even if she, herself, might be bad at picking men.

    To answer SSM and Deti’s question: What is dawning on them is the major failing of Game. Game is learned by interacting with sluts. We could postulate that it works on women generally, but what married, chaste, women are we talking about? Who is doing real exploratory work on the efficacy of Game with a woman who is and was chaste?

    By definition: if Game works she’s a slut. This is because we can only know with certainty that a man’s Game works if she gives it up. If his Game doesn’t work then it’s possible that she’s chaste at heart–we should recall Brendan’s definition of a slut. So, Game is useful for weeding separating sluts from the chaste, but that’s about it. Insofar as women are sluts, then Game is perfectly acceptable and even useful system of tools (though evil) to bed them. For anyone considering marriage, at best it’s a stress test, or which failure should mean automatic rejection.

    Even several professed Players say this.

    Between this logic, and the the accepted wisdom that women don’t know what they themselves want: It should be clear that women advocating Game are the most treacherous for the man who would be wise. Truck with them at your peril.

  143. deti says:

    Cane:

    That’s it? That’s your answer? “Game only works on sluts”?

    Being a confident, dominant, Godly man (i.e. being the kind of man Matt King advocates) doesn’t attract women? What kind of women does it attract?

  144. MaMu1977 says:

    Classic example of conservative enabling-housing projects.

    Moynihan Report: 20% of all African-American children are raised in single homes (note the term “raised”, not born into or created by.) 75% of African-American multiple offenders and 90+% of all African-American violent offenders are the result of single motherhood.
    Feminist response-“Let’s give those single mothers free housing and enough money/food vouchers to live on! A.d let’s make divorce no-fault, so that the children who have abusive fathers won’t learn rage at their hands! This way, the mothers won’t have to be working parents and they’ll be home to teach those children to live decently.”
    Conservative response-“It makes sense. By freeing single mothers from abusive patrons, and by making it easy for abused African-American wives to leave their husbands, we can solve the problem of black crime forever!

    Housing projects are built. Unwed fathers are penalized for the crime of “not being sexy”, while still wanting to be around their children. Stable men are divorced for the crime of “not being sexy enough” or for being too poor to keep a roof over their heads *and* afford nice things. Low-level criminals take over de facto fatherhood roles, successful criminals become the “go to” husband targets as the low-level criminals are aided and abetted by “gina tingle”-led women.

    Feminists call for “more welfare” to fix the problem. Conservatives agree, because “Maybe, we aren’t giving them enough money to truly free themselves from the ‘bad men’.” More children embrace criminality or sloth (because the single mothers now have even more money to siphon.) Violence increases as the low-level criminals try to become high-level criminals (for profit and/or women.) Black enlistment rates increase (as the kids who aren’t into crime who don’t get shot and aren’t thoroughly demoralized by worsening schools use any means to get out.) More stable black men leave the projects, more criminals use charm/”Game”/access to drugs to move in. And so it goes…

  145. Cane Caldo says:

    @Deti

    Being a confident, dominant, Godly man (i.e. being the kind of man Matt King advocates) doesn’t attract women? What kind of women does it attract?

    Confident? Yes. Dominant? Yes. Godly? No

    The kind of man Matt King (and if I may second his opinion) does attract women–of all stripes. All women want the traits Bob echoed: Courage, confidence, humor, and ability.

    The bits of Game that work–really work, and will fill her attraction account–are not Game. For example: You can’t just get a mindset that you have a V-shaped torso. You actually have to have the ability to do that. You can’t fake having resources. You can’t fake being funny. You can’t fake courage.

    Let me be clear: You can fake these things for awhile. Well-fitting clothes will make a big difference…until you take them off. You can fake courage, until someone starts AMOG-ing, and then you have to deal with it. You can fake confidence, until you actually encounter something that tests it. That’s why if Game works on a girl, you shouldn’t keep her around for very long, or why you should keep two in the kitty; which is actually a revolving kitty.

    These things will not do for the man who wants to marry. You will be found out, and when you are, you will definitely want to be uncovered by a woman of good character, and not one who made her decision to marry you on account of your great pecs–even if that’s what she first noticed.

  146. Bob Wallace says:

    @ deti

    “I don’t understand how you can say that men don’t have the problem today.”

    I didn’t phrase that right. Men have a problem; women have more of a problem. A lot more.

    One of men’s biggest problems is letting women get out of control out of a misguided sense of fair play. I’ll repeat what Samuel Johnson said hundreds of years ago: “Nature gives women so much power the law wisely gives them little.”

    Since men created and maintain civilization, the fewer men who wish to do this will lead to civilization going backwards. Women can’t maintain it own their own, no matter how much they delude themselves they can.

    I use two examples; the humorist P.J. O’Rourke said that without men civilization would last until the next oil change, and Camille Paglia said that without men, women would still be living in grass huts. Both are correct.

  147. Cane Caldo says:

    @Deti

    I just reread what I wrote, and it is perfectly clear to me, but perhaps not to others: If a man is looking to marry, and he is having trouble attracting women, then he needs to become more attractive. Since we know women are attracted to courage, humor, confidence, and ability, then he needs to acquire more of those things.

    Dressing better will build at least confidence.
    Working out will build ability.
    Ballroom dancing lessons will build ability, confidence, and courage, and surely provide opportunities for humor.
    Improving your job, or position will increase resources, and build confidence, and ability.

    What men need is accomplishment. Anything else is just self-esteem claptrap. You don’t fall for this when Oprah preaches it. Why when a Player does? This goes back to your question a few weeks ago about why are men judged on what they do? Because they are. it is the nature of being a man. It’s not just women who judge men on accomplishment, either. Every man judges other men on what they accomplish. If we did, we’d have fantasy football based on the pee-wee leagues our kids are in.

    Judging people by their fruits is not only unavoidable: it’s wise, and it’s godly.

  148. greyghost says:

    Mack some pussy Cane from a christian man way. If you are having trouble with that it is because the herd has made women today and as you understand them unworthy of a christian man.If just one conservative would say to any woman that she should be worthy of a christian mans love This madness ends almost over night.

  149. TFH says:

    Cane Caldo said :

    Since we know women are attracted to courage, humor, confidence, and ability, then he needs to acquire more of those things.

    Which is a large part of what Game is.

    I note that people who condemn Game do so by greatly misdefining it (which is the only way to erect the necessary strawman that can be attacked).

  150. Bob Wallace says:

    @ Cane Caldo,
    “What men need is accomplishment”

    Exactly.

    “The quality of a person’s life is in direct proportion to their commitment to excellence, regardless of their chosen field of endeavor.” – Vince Lombardi.

    Lombardi is repeating what the Greeks said: “eudaimonia” (well-being) comes about through “arete” (excellence). It’s so important it made it into the Declaration of Independence as “the pursuit of happiness.’

    “Judging people by their fruits is not only unavoidable: it’s wise, and it’s godly.”

    There is also some wise counsel about not building your house on sand.

  151. TFH says:

    deti said :

    Perhaps this sounds like whining or complaining, but in light of the arguments you’ve raised that PUA and Game are morally and intellectually bankrupt, what are such men to do?

    Actually, the PUA is morally superior to the ‘Social Conservative’. WF Price wrote a great article about that :

    http://www.welmer.org/2009/09/13/defining-social-conservatism/

    So when I criticize social conservatives, I’m not thinking of good, religious people, but rather those hypocrites and liars who hide their base instincts in a cloak of righteousness. They are the Pharisees of today; the kinds of people who mask their avarice and lust with legal constructs and false piety. The PUA, who openly declares what he is doing and honestly explains why is morally of a far higher stature from my point of view.

    They’ve led us down a long, strange path to a dark, ugly place, and still they urge us along.

    Gold, I tell ya, Gold.

  152. TFH says:

    deti,

    That’s it? That’s your answer? “Game only works on sluts”?

    Since about 90% of the women in Church are sluts (defined by three or more lifetime sexual partners), Game thus works on 90% of the women in church.

    So it appears deti and the SoCons are in agreement.

    No wonder Sunday Morning Nightclub works so well. The conservatives get to pay the bills too!

  153. TFH says:

    Bob Wallace said :

    A woman I know told me this is what she finds attractive in men.

    OK, the fact that Bob Wallace actually thinks women can accurately describe what they will be attracted to, hugely disqualifies him from any debate on the subject of attracting women.

    Even Sunshinemary correctly informed Bob Wallace why he is wrong.

    Bob Wallace then continues to say :

    All the cads I’ve known have been cowards and liars.

    Given the revelation earlier, that Bob Wallace still hasn’t figured out that extremely few women are capable of describing what they will be attracted to, it is virtually impossible that he actually knows any men who were consistently successful with women. He maybe knew some phonies who couldn’t succeed, but still managed to convince Bob Wallace they were actual PUAs.

    This is before even getting into the huge ignorance Bob Wallace is exhibiting by implying Game has no value in LTRs. This is also a common flaw of the typical anti-Game troll who has little but a thinly veiled envy of the guys who discovered Game early in life..

    PUAs are cowards? Yeah….. I’d like to see you approach 20 women during the daytime and strike up a conversation. I am pretty sure you can’t.

  154. Cane Caldo says:

    @greyghost

    I’m not sure I understand the first part of your statement, but I notice that you, too, are removing some agency from individual women for their choices” “the herd made them do it.” That’s way beyond what I’ve said. I say each women makes her own choice to sin, but that her sin can be forgiven if she truly repents. Your statement removes individual agency from them completely. Is that what you meant?

    Most women today are not fit for marriage; that is true, and I’ve never said otherwise. That’s why our situation is a problem. I don’t have much hope for improvement for most women already, say, 10-years old. We must encourage and prepare the fathers of women. Or you can enjoy the decline…for now.

    @TFH

    Game is a fraud. It’s central tenet is to practice well-executed fraud. It’s practitioners are frauds inasmuch as they don’t admit that Game only nets sluts. Your implication that virtues are strawmen, but Game is real!, is ridiculous on its face. Gams is linked to virtue, and then claims its potency comes from the nonsense.

    Game is one of several self-help tonics of our day. When the water in the tonic helps the occasional man dying of thirst, you claim it was the secret ingredients of orange peel and toadstool, and that it cures all that ails you. If it’s not working: just drink more!

    It’s bitchcraft.

  155. Cane Caldo says:

    @TFH

    Since about 90% of the women in Church are sluts (defined by three or more lifetime sexual partners), Game thus works on 90% of the women in church.

    On this point, you get my full agreement.

  156. greyghost says:

    Deti
    overall I truely think the conservative are right in a sane society. We live in a society immersed in madness. and the conservatives are living in the same madness. The fear of offending women and looking against women is strong. That fear is strong enough to sacrifice generations of young men and the christian church to churchianity. As an MRA I need to find an answer to this. Rebels will need a conventional army to win the final battle for victory over this madness.
    The christian faithful and conservatives need to understand what we are talking about here in the manosphere and also to know we are family men and fathers. It looks to me like cane is giving it a shot and I hope he makes it.
    I also think there are two frames of reference that two groups of intelligent and thoughtful men are correct in the conclusion they have come to from their respective frame of reference (beyond red pill blue pill) Paul Elam is in the same place as the conservatives but he is on the redpill and fully aware. I also think a lot of blue pill conservatives are aware but just have no where to go.
    I would love to here some ideas on this from BobW and King Matt or any body els deti included.

  157. Sharrukin says:

    Cane Caldo

    @TFH Since about 90% of the women in Church are sluts (defined by three or more lifetime sexual partners), Game thus works on 90% of the women in church.

    On this point, you get my full agreement.

    What are 90% of the men supposed to do in your opinion? Compete for the remaining 10% of women?

  158. TFH says:

    greyghost,

    As an MRA I need to find an answer to this. Rebels will need a conventional army to win the final battle for victory over this madness.

    This is why no one can fully ingest the red pill unless they grasp Game…

    For example, knowledge of how women want to be promiscuous but transfer the costs onto others explains why the abortion and child support laws are the way they are.

    The deep desire of women to ‘undo’, in their minds, anything they regret, is why the false rape laws are what they are, and how such laws are inevitable in any society where women are into the 3rd/4th generation of voting.

    The deep desire of women to receive money in return for nothing is why 70-80% of all government spending is a transfer from men to women, and is an unavoidable outcome after 3-4 generations of female suffrage.

    Hence, knowledge of Game explains the ‘why’ behind such laws, and how multiple countries seem to arrive at very similar laws despite the obvious violations of each country’s constitution.

  159. Cane Caldo says:

    PUAs are cowards? Yeah….. I’d like to see you approach 20 women during the daytime and strike up a conversation.

    Daygamers get men to do this on the first day of “training”. How brave can it be? And yet it’s what you default to as a litmus. That doesn’t speak well for your pick-up abilities.

    That is not courage. When we set the bar for men so low as talking to 20 women in a day–90% of whom are sluts and therefore should not intimidate–then we are implying that they don’t have much ability. Men are capable of much more than 20 approaches.

  160. greyghost says:

    Cane we are on the same page on this one the women chose to join the herd. Social status is big.

    Also you are right when game is use to attract women for sexual purposes it is a fraud and heartsie says so. It is simulating alphness. And thank god it is, a true alpha in this context is a defective man. Remember game is female psychology under stand game (female psychology) and the christian church will be a place of strength for women to turn to. First lesson in game no woman will turn to the church out of virtue or to repent. A man will a woman will not unless it is in her best self ___________ (I know you can fill in the blank)

  161. farm boy says:

    What are 90% of the men supposed to do in your opinion? Compete for the remaining 10% of women?

    Sharing is better than nothing.

  162. TFH says:

    Cane Caldo,

    What are 90% of the men supposed to do in your opinion? Compete for the remaining 10% of women?

    The full answer to your question is.

    i) If *marriage* is what they want, they are better off going for a foreign women (preferably in the foreign country itself, rather than one who is already here, and worsening by the day). Competing for the aforementioned 10% of women here (who get paired up and married not later than age 25, btw), is too inefficient and competitive.

    ii) If having a child is the most important thing for a man, then he should seriously consider surrogacy and being a single dad, as some men are already doing.
    http://photogallery.thestar.com/1038282

    iii) If he does not want children, but wants to have romantic relationships with one or more women, then he needs Game.

    So there are three choices.

    It is true that this is the worst time ever for a man who wanted to be a solid provider and upstanding citizen, expecting to get a chaste and devoted wife.

    It is, however, arguably one of the best times ever for an enterprising, adaptable, outside-the-box man.

  163. greyghost says:

    TFH
    you have nailed it dead. And man I’m am trying to get this out to the christian bloggers. When they get it we are ready to save the west without a civil war. I’m going to try to write an article for the spearhead based on this idea and why the MRM needs to stop with the internal sniping of the various types of men.
    Overall maybe we should try to sepperate the sexual part of the contation of the term game but it may be impossible since that is a major role of a woman.

  164. TFH says:

    Cane Caldo,

    Daygamers get men to do this on the first day of “training”. How brave can it be? And yet it’s what you default to as a litmus.

    Yep. Daytime approaches are hard, especially by the metric of keeping her hooked into the conversation (the important piece that you dishonestly ignored).

    And even if students do it on the first day of training, very few can do it a week later. Bootcamp momentum takes a lot of work to produce at will. Anyone who has truly mastered this can tell you this.

    That doesn’t speak well for your pick-up abilities.

    Heh. Take the prettiest woman you have ever had, and know that I have bedded over a dozen who are prettier, even though notch-count is not my metric.

    Put me in a new city, and I can be in a relationship with an 8 in two weeks. Many actual PUAs can do much better than me, but given your very incomplete knowledge, you are hardly in a position to talk.

  165. Sharrukin says:

    What are 90% of the men supposed to do in your opinion? Compete for the remaining 10% of women?

    Sharing is better than nothing.
    ———————————–
    I don’t think any woman who wanted that would be a woman I wanted anything to do with.

  166. TFH says:

    My 6:29 PM comment was a reply to Sharrukin, not Cane Caldo.

  167. TFH says:

    Cane Caldo,

    Game is a fraud.

    Stunning ignorance here. While I could point out several things wrong with your views, the two most salient are :

    1) You don’t grasp that Game has value in LTRs (even though a couple of prominent blogs are devoted to the subject).
    2) If it is a fraud, why do you seem so animated by it?

    This brings up another maxim of mine :

    80% of men and 99% of women just cannot ever, ever, ever grasp Game. They just do not reside high enough in Maslow’s Hierarchy, and are too afraid of any outside-the-box concepts (even though Game is just a refinement and structuring of age-old truths about women into a learnable syllabus).

  168. Sharrukin says:

    So there are three choices.
    ———————-
    None of those are really choices for any significant number of people. I understand that it is what it is, but it sounds like most men are SOL.

    It is true that this is the worst time ever for a man who wanted to be a solid provider and upstanding citizen, expecting to get a chaste and devoted wife.
    —————————————-
    I think most men would settle for a wife they could trust regardless of previous baggage. That baggage however usually makes them incapable of being the sort of woman who can be trusted.

  169. Bob Wallace says:

    @ THF

    Interesting post, there.

    I’ll give you just one example of a cad who ruined his life – and he admits it. He was a tall, muscular, good-looking guy who ended up making a lot of money. He told me he’s slept with 100 women, and I believe him.

    He lied to every one of them. He told them “what they wanted to hear – how I wanted a nice home and children.” To sleep with that many women, he had to target ones who weren’t very attractive. He told me if they dumped him, he didn’t care. He was afraid of getting his heart broken.

    He did nearly have a seizure one time when one girl he was truly interested in dumped him for me.

    He became a drug addict who ruined his teeth. One women started stalking him and he had to get an order of protection against her. He told me if he had to do it over again he’d be a high-school sports coach.

    Even his best friend told me he considered him a cad, a liar and a coward.

    By the way, ever since I was in college women have approached me. If you want to use Alpha, Beta, etc. then I’m about 75% a Sigma.

    I have no problem with talking with strange women. I do it all the time. I just don’t try to pick them up.

  170. Cane Caldo says:

    @Sharrukin

    What are 90% of the men supposed to do in your opinion? Compete for the remaining 10% of women?

    You know the odds; make your choices. There is:

    1. MGTOW

    2. Join the Player orgy, and hope you don’t get out-alpha’d too often, and that she wipes the last guy off well before you get to her

    3. Increase your virtue while pursuing your goals. This is risky. You’re not committing to MGTOW, so you don’t have that assurance. But you can take some comfort in the fact that 90% of the guys out there aren’t doing so hot, either. You’re only competing against the other 10%.

    4. Forgive a slut who deserves it. This is hard; hard to find and hard to know. No caveats. I once suggested a rule of five years of no sexual activity. It was pooh-poohed, but I still think it’s extraordinary enough for our times that it’s a good starting point…starting point, I said.

    This last part isn’t really an attraction tip, but a way of setting your frame of reference; to realize what is at stake, and what is not: Encourage husbands and fathers to raise chaste families. Just as men get discouraged, so do women. The more decent (in the ancient sense) men that are out there, the more everyone will be encouraged. Don’t bother with what the players get. They are sluts. To focus on the slut pussy that players get is to miss the sperm dripping off the sluts’ faces, before and after him.

  171. TFH says:

    Bob Wallace,

    Nice try, but the fact that you take what women ‘say they want in a man’ at face value, is a huge indicator of low real-world experience with women.

    Unless you are a tremendous natural. Such naturals have trouble realizing that most other men can’t naturally do what they do.

    But a natural is also usually a ‘mind my own business’ person. Your SoCon views and differing standards of conduct you expect from men vs. women also preclude you being naturally intoxicating/irresistable to women…..

  172. Sharrukin says:

    You know the odds; make your choices. There is:

    1. MGTOW – Honestly this sounds like the best of a raw deal.
    2. Join the Player orgy – not interested
    3. Increase your virtue – Playing the eternal patsy gets old real fast.
    4. Forgive a slut – You also have to trust them with your life and your fortune and they have lived a life devoted only to themselves and learning how NOT to make a relationship work. The chances of this working are low and the costs high.

    Encourage husbands and fathers to raise chaste families.
    —————————
    With what woman, and how do you shield children from a society, educational system, and legal system that encourages the worst of behavior?

  173. farm boy says:

    Game is a fraud.

    It is very real. It is very effective. I can attest to it.

    Effectiveness is the acid test, and it passes.

  174. farm boy says:

    Game is a fraud.

    Let me add that it works well on women other than sluts.

  175. TFH says:

    Encourage husbands and fathers to raise chaste families.

    Oh my god.

    Even after all this, this SoCon still thinks MEN have to take this responsibility, not women.

    Even though the law heavily punishes any man who becomes a husband or father.

    My god…. the quote above from WF Price is demonstrated outright by Cane Caldo.

    The quote, of course, is :

    They’ve (SoCons) led us down a long, strange path to a dark, ugly place, and still they urge us along.

  176. greyghost says:

    I think most men would settle for a wife they could trust regardless of previous baggage. That baggage however usually makes them incapable of being the sort of woman who can be trusted.

    This is the reason for chaste. It gives a woman the chance to gina tingle for a good man. Fathers that teach their daughters to be empowered are setting the girls up for misery that will only be realized when she finally loses her fertility and sexual attractiveness to a man she finds attractive. The dirty little secret is the more men she is with the less of a good man she will be attracted to. A virgin can gina tingle for a man that loves her and cares about her a slut can only gina tingle for a man that will want his dick sucked after fucking her in the ass.

  177. farm boy says:

    greyghost nails it

  178. greyghost says:

    Sharrukin
    You were born a slave (figure of sppeech) or born 1921 a german jew (figure of speech) You have been drafted in to the war on men. And ontop of averything else you have been cursed wiith an intelligent and thoughtful awareness. You have to survive and do what you can to ensure that 6 year old boy you saw sometime today doesn’t live in the world you live in. No matter what happens this is a long haul thing and no man older than 6 or seven will know a world with out misandry. You no man today will never know what it feels like to be respected or adored by your country or society in general.

  179. Sharrukin says:

    The dirty little secret is the more men she is with the less of a good man she will be attracted to.
    ————————-
    It also means that she will have spent time in a series of relationships where the slightest inconvenience can be dealt with by walking away into another one shortly afterwards. Mentally this creates an expectation that a marriage is similar, and the results of a failure can be dealt with in the same fashion. Even if she honestly wants something more than the life she has been leading, she will in many cases be totally unequipped to live that life.

  180. Sharrukin says:

    You have to survive and do what you can to ensure that 6 year old boy you saw sometime today doesn’t live in the world you live in. No matter what happens this is a long haul thing and no man older than 6 or seven will know a world with out misandry. You no man today will never know what it feels like to be respected or adored by your country or society in general.
    —————————-
    I could live with that if I thought there was something better on the horizon, but men without a future tend to hand that future over to unscrupulous men in the hope that they will make a better future by force. Most men cannot easily identify what the problem is and they don’t publically complain even if they do. They just lose hope and direct their energy in other directions.

  181. imnobody says:

    @TFH
    Nice try, but the fact that you take what women ‘say they want in a man’ at face value, is a huge indicator of low real-world experience with women.

    I think it would be a great idea to write a FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) documents so we don’t have to discuss such basic things so we can have an interesting conversation. It could be done collaboratively. I mean a thing like that:

    Q. “Why do women claim to want a nice guy but they only bang bad boys?”
    A. yaddah, yaddah,

  182. Cane Caldo says:

    TFH, you’re begging the question. A theory of Game says that women don’t know what they’re attracted to. When someone says what a woman says women are attracted to, your proof that Game is correct is to resort to saying Game says women don’t know to what they are attracted.

    And it looks like TFH and greyghost have a score to settle since greyghost agrees with me that we need fathers to raise their daughters properly. TFH thinks it’s is women’s responsibility. We must conclude that TFH is an egalitarian; which as we all know is just another word for Feminist. I’ve been calling Game as Feminist for a long time now.

    @farm boy

    You’re misunderstanding my use of the word fraud. It certainly works…to attract sluts. In comparison to LOVE, though, Game is a fraud, the same way lust is a fraud. It’s not the Truth; you cannot depend upon it.

    Let me say it again, and I’ll start off with that old saw: “The proof of the pudding is in the eating.” What this means is that you can’t know Game works unless she is willing to get in bed with you. If she’s not married to you, and she’s willing to get in bed with you, then she is a slut. Period.

    If we are to deny that she is a slut even though she is willing to get in bed with you, then we must remove her moral agency far more than I have recently suggested, (and has been roundly and wrongly derided). Somehow, you’ve Gamed her into bed, and it’s not her fault? Fine: You should definitely not marry something like this. If it’s not a slut, it’s a very lifelike lovebot. Lovebots should not be loved.

    Besides the fact that we know Game works on the man, not the woman. It is a set of tools that the man uses to change himself, not her. This is the improvement part. TFH just said above that Game works–in part–because it adds virtue to the man. He also said some men were “naturals”. Natural what? Natural lovebot puppeteers? No–they have something that women respond to without pulling any strings. And if they are natural lovebot puppeteers, then we’re back to the concept that women aren’t human, and therefore untrustworthy, and, of course, unworthy of love.

    @Sharrukin

    There is not magic bullet. That’s why the situation is ABYSMAL instead of just being kind of a bummer.

    Otherwise, your response to 3 is wrong. Building virtue is not playing the patsy. No, you’ve very wrong about that. 4 is where you risk playing the patsy, and, yes, it is a huge risk. This is an inherently unfair world. All I can do is offer camaraderie.

    @TFH (again)

    80% of men and 99% of women just cannot ever, ever, ever grasp Game. They just do not reside high enough in Maslow’s Hierarchy, and are too afraid of any outside-the-box concepts (even though Game is just a refinement and structuring of age-old truths about women into a learnable syllabus).

    You are just totally full of shit. 80% of men can’t get it. The natural alphas can’t get it. What percentage is that? And who’s left? If only 5%-10% of men can get it, then Game is a tremendous failure, in my opinion.

    How can you live with yourself telling men who are dealing with a harridan or cheating wife that they need to learn your way of picking up a slut in 2 weeks? Big Deal, if it were even true, which I doubt. Did you read Ashur’s post about Keyboard Players?

    These men are dealing with a timeless problem that has existed–not since the 60s, or70s, but since there have been men and women. The sort of woman who can be picked up by you (or anyone else) in two weeks is not the sort of woman men should marry. Inappropriately giving in to attraction or desire is not a sign of virtue or power from either party; it’s a sign of weakness. And it doesn’t say much about you, either; except that you’re willing to risk snowballing other men’s deposits.

    Not only that, I say that actual accomplishment can help men get closer to their goals, and you trumpet that mimicry would serve them better. Even if your silliness got more women, that is a pussy way to think. We should actually,/i> improve because actual improvement is better for the man, than this pantyhose and make-up* of “masculine wiles” that you’re prescribing. Like I said: you practice bitchcraft.

    *By the way, men, these things “work” for women, too. How long do they “work” after you’ve seen them without them? The Girl Game of make-up, control-top pantyhose, and heels is just as phony. Beware them.

  183. greyghost says:

    I could live with that if I thought there was something better on the horizon, but men without a future tend to hand that future over to unscrupulous men in the hope that they will make a better future by force. Most men cannot easily identify what the problem is and they don’t publically complain even if they do. They just lose hope and direct their energy in other directions.

    That is what makes you a special man. God really screwed you opening your eyes like that. the good thing is that we live in a historical time period, proudly be a part of it.

  184. Bob Wallace says:

    @ TFH

    “Your SoCon views”

    Not even close.

    It’s amazing how you think you can read people’s minds. You can’t.

  185. Sharrukin says:

    A theory of Game says that women don’t know what they’re attracted to. When someone says what a woman says women are attracted to, your proof that Game is correct is to resort to saying Game says women don’t know to what they are attracted.
    ————————
    In real life we have all heard the crap about how some girl wants a nice guy who’s sensitive and understanding and we have all seen that same girl march past the guy to a scumbag. So to claim that women are telling the truth about what attracts them doesn’t coincide with what the majority of us have observed.

    Building virtue is not playing the patsy.
    ——————————–
    I don’t know what else to call it. It doesn’t produce results because I have seen very good and decent guys ignored while human trash are swatting women off. That’s not the exception to the rule, that’s very common. Virtue for the sake of virtue is one thing, but as an answer regarding women, it doesn’t work. Women don’t care about virtue. Being a decent upstanding guy acts as a turnoff more often than not.

  186. greyghost says:

    Cane
    GAME IS NOT ABOUT PULLING PUSSY. IT IS WHY IT IS POSSIBLE TO PULL PUSSY, IT IS WHY ALL WOMEN ARE TEAM WOMAN IN THE ABRACT AND COMPETE TO THE DEATH. Game is understanding why the church went churchian and why conservatives fear women. Game is knowing why women shouldn’t be able to vote. Game is knowing why things look so abysmal.

  187. Sharrukin says:

    Cane Caldo
    ———
    Just to clarify something. Are you talking about women in general (the 90%) when you make your statements, or the 10% minority?

  188. greyghost says:

    Sharrukin
    Very observant. That question is what i think is the cause of a lot of disagreement on what action to take and what frame of reference statements and ideas are coming from

  189. Cane Caldo says:

    @Sharrukin

    In real life we have all heard the crap about how some girl wants a nice guy who’s sensitive and understanding and we have all seen that same girl march past the guy to a scumbag. So to claim that women are telling the truth about what attracts them doesn’t coincide with what the majority of us have observed.

    Nice and sensitive? No. But you’re misjudging what you’re seeing. I’ll come back to this.

    I don’t know what else to call it. It doesn’t produce results because I have seen very good and decent guys ignored while human trash are swatting women off. That’s not the exception to the rule, that’s very common. Virtue for the sake of virtue is one thing, but as an answer regarding women, it doesn’t work. Women don’t care about virtue. Being a decent upstanding guy acts as a turnoff more often than not.

    If you want to just marry a woman: They are lining up for a sucker like you. But you don’t want just a woman right? So let’s amend your paragraph to what we know to be true, if we perceive what is truly happening in these situations. I’m going to replace one word, and it should all make sense.

    I don’t know what else to call it. It doesn’t produce results because I have seen very good and decent guys ignored while human trash are swatting sluts off. That’s not the exception to the rule, that’s very common. Virtue for the sake of virtue is one thing, but as an answer regarding sluts, it doesn’t work. Sluts don’t care about virtue. Being a decent upstanding guy acts as a turnoff more often than not.

    Never lose sight of the fact that women who do not appreciate virtue are sluts–by definition. Yes, they are attracted to bad boys. This is the result of the corruption of sin. It’s only important what they are attracted to if 1) They are not attracted to you. 2) They do not maintain self-control in the face of attraction.

    In a way, if Game were the Cupid’s Arrow it’s made out to be, this would be the absolute curse to the practitioner. He could never trust a woman. You may feel free to not believe me, and go read the successful Player’s blogs, about how they would never marry a woman, and how no women are worthy of trust.

    I cannot accept that level of nihilism, but I must reconcile what my lying eyes are telling me (that 90% of women are sluts who chase bad boys) with my refusal to give up hope. The ONLY reconciliation that makes sense is that:

    1) Sin is real
    2) Women are as sinful as men
    3) In their sinfulness, women have disordered affections, just like men.
    4) These men, blinded by pride, boast of success, when it is weakness
    5) Women of relative virtue resist the temptation of weakness, just as men of virtue
    6) There are very few women or men of virtue, and to judge the SHARING of sluts by pride-blinded men is .
    7) The virtuous women are uncommon, but out there, and they will necessarily not respond to Game, regardless of their sinful desires.

    Never forget that those “successful bad boys” are sharing the sluts. These soft harems are perverse, and not just from a Ned Flanders Churchian perspective: Other men have or are blowing loads in or on those women with regularity. Because we’re sinful, we often get confused by the desire for a woman, and begin to desire what is not only sinful, but disgusting. We need to keep our priorities straight and our eyes open.

  190. Cane Caldo says:

    @greyghost

    Cane
    GAME IS NOT ABOUT PULLING PUSSY. IT IS WHY IT IS POSSIBLE TO PULL PUSSY, IT IS WHY ALL WOMEN ARE TEAM WOMAN IN THE ABRACT AND COMPETE TO THE DEATH. Game is understanding why the church went churchian and why conservatives fear women. Game is knowing why women shouldn’t be able to vote. Game is knowing why things look so abysmal.

    You’re talking about the Red Pill; which is what you experience that opens your eyes to the truths you describe in bold. Game is the application–the application–of knowledge. Game is a set of tools, remember? It’s like working out, or martial arts. It’s not only the slim jim, but the skill to use a slim jim.

    In my opinion, the Red Pill is what caused this trouble in the first place. The desire for greater knowledge, and less faith, is what causes us to mistrust, and because of that mistrust to stab each other in the back. When a guy picks up a slut, or a slut opens to a guy, they don’t ask themselves whether it’s right or wrong–their concern is fulfilling their desires; to Hell with right and wrong. That’s the problem with eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Knowing right and wrong and good and evil doesn’t stop you from wanting it. Now you’re just tortured because you know what you’re doing is wrong, but the desire is so great you do it anyway.

    In the same way, a non-psychopathic man who practices Dark Triad traits to get what he wants is going to find himself in a very bad spot. In addition to all the diseases, pregnancy, etc., he runs a very high chance of internalizing psychopathy. But worse than that, is the likelihood that his mouth will write a check his dick can’t cash, and he’ll fall in love with a woman that will destroy him. Her Game will trump his Game, even if he’s aware because this is the nature of man.

    The fruit of the TotKoGaE is the original Red Pill.

  191. Sharrukin says:

    The virtuous women are uncommon, but out there, and they will necessarily not respond to Game, regardless of their sinful desires.
    ———————————
    There’s a not insignificant problem with this. If only 10% of women are left for say, 40% to 60% of men, assuming that many men will marry sluts in desperation, or simply give up, then you have four to six men for every woman worth marrying. This leaves the average guy exactly where he started off. The woman in question has her pick of men and most men won’t make that cut. She would be a fool to settle for average, or even above average wouldn’t she?

    For most men it’s a difference without meaning. Most men have to live with that level of nihilism because it’s also reality.

  192. greyghost says:

    Damn man you went weird on me again, But i know you get the point and so did others here I hope.

  193. Cane Caldo says:

    @Sharrukin

    We’re using these numbers as a stand-in for whatever the actual percentage is; which we don’t know. It’s meant to represent an idea, not hard math.

    I strongly disagree that 40-60% of men are virtuous. Strongly. 60% of fathers did not raise up 90% of women to be whores. Those men were craven, too.

    The good news for you is that most women have no sense of perspective. Not to invokes the Bob Kraken (heh) again, but whatever we want to call female solipsism is real. This is because women are feral because their fathers did not civilize them, in an effort to make them competitive with boys. This was a huge mistake.

    But because of their self-referential natures, they don’t have a clue what the “average” or “above-average” is. She just knows she hypergamous (as she was designed, and is necessary for a successful marriage), and if she gets someone she can look up to, then her hypergamy will be appeased. You don’t necessarily have to better than the crowd; you just have to better than her.

  194. Sharrukin says:

    I strongly disagree that 40-60% of men are virtuous. Strongly. 60% of fathers did not raise up 90% of women to be whores. Those men were craven, too.
    ————————-
    Then we are talking about and even smaller subset of the population. At what point do we start entering Amish territory? Most men have to live in the culture they are born into and a retreat into a small subset of the population isn’t really a workable solution for most. The answers given by others regarding expatriate solutions with foreign women tend to fail for the same reason. They really aren’t viable for most men.

    But because of their self-referential natures, they don’t have a clue what the “average” or “above-average” is. She just knows she hypergamous (as she was designed, and is necessary for a successful marriage), and if she gets someone she can look up to, then her hypergamy will be appeased. You don’t necessarily have to better than the crowd; you just have to better than her.
    ——————-
    And that someone she can look up to is going to be who exactly? If she cannot see who is above average, or not then we are back to creeps being able to posture as something they are not. That discernment is certainly not present in most church goers or in general. If she cannot determine the quality of the men she is seeing then where does virtue come into it? It would seem that we are back to the same problem the 90% are dealing with.

    I just don’t see a reasonably attractive women with a lot to offer, wanting to marry in her early to mid 20’s, being hard up for men. So you kind of do have to be better than average, or if she is incapable of discerning that, then its a lottery with steep odds.

    Maybe I am misunderstanding your point here?

  195. Cane Caldo says:

    @Sharrukin

    Then we are talking about and even smaller subset of the population.

    We likely are, but we don’t know for sure. This is not an academic situation for me: I have four children, and possibly another on the way. I’ve heard that 3% of children are homeschooled now. That’s a small but rapidly growing chunk. According to Wikipedia, there are only 250,000 Amish, so the homeschoolers beat them by a bunch.

    Now, I can hear the chorus already of “I know this homeschool chick and she is the biggest slut I ever saw.” But that simply isn’t the case most of the time; especially compared to public school or even private school kids. Homeschoolers take their job as parents seriously, so even if they’re wrong, their earnest work usually covers the errors.

    Which leads me to your next question:

    I just don’t see a reasonably attractive women with a lot to offer, wanting to marry in her early to mid 20′s, being hard up for men. So you kind of do have to be better than average, or if she is incapable of discerning that, then its a lottery with steep odds.

    What you’re missing is the component of grace that obedience bestows. You have to pass two basic tests to marry the virtuous woman, right? The father test and the husband test.

    The husband test is: Is this man attractive enough for me to want to have sex with him, not out of duty, but joy?

    The father test is: Is this man a man of good character that my father would approve of, and that I would want to be the father of my children?

    If you and she will be obedient to the your parents admonitions* against pre- or extra-marital sex, and will accept neither from the other person, you’ll both cut down a tremendous amount of the opposition. The cads and sluts will have to yield the field. If you are in-shape, you cut out a good chunk. If you are well-read, and therefore able to add to a conversation, or quote funny things, then you will cut out another chunk. The more you prepare, and practice virtues.

    When I say “virtue”, don’t think “nice”. That is a terrible frame of reference. Right now, I’m trying to think of a nice person in the Bible, and I can’t think of a single one. Be discriminating. The best things in life are discriminating and exclusive–marriage-worthy women, and Christianity. (I haven’t seen you say that you are a Christian, but I couldn’t change my perspective even if you aren’t.) Discriminating isn’t nice. Respect others, and expect respect.

    Don’t bother respecting yourself. That’s not your job. Paying yourself respect is like paying yourself money: you’re none the richer no matter how many transactions. If you respect others and expect theirs, then you’ll eventually get where you need to be. Self-respect is self-esteem, and self-esteem is garbage. If you get no respect where you are: leave.

    You’d be surprised how far you can get just thinking along these lines, and the effect it has on your attitude (that is: spirit) and your work of securing the affections of a woman. Be earnest in this, and it will come across as confidence; because it is.

    I went a little farther afield than I meant to, but I hope it made some sense.

  196. Cane, you would say the Red Pill is a bad thing?! The knowledge of female sin is the truth that will set men free from the lies and deception of a society ruled by the feminine imperative. You are the swine not worthy of the truth.

  197. Sharrukin says:

    I’ve heard that 3% of children are homeschooled now. That’s a small but rapidly growing chunk. According to Wikipedia, there are only 250,000 Amish, so the homeschoolers beat them by a bunch.
    ————————
    3% does kind of narrow it down. Most people are on the outside. A culture cannot operate on that basis and the average guy is left out of the equation. I guess I can understand where you are coming from but its not really advice for most people because they aren’t going to be a part of that subgroup (97% chance).

    You have to pass two basic tests to marry the virtuous woman, right? The father test and the husband test.

    The husband test is: Is this man attractive enough for me to want to have sex with him, not out of duty, but joy?

    The father test is: Is this man a man of good character that my father would approve of, and that I would want to be the father of my children?
    ————————-
    This is how it used to be and such behavior these days is either a punchline or exceedingly rare. It obviously works because history bears the testimony of it working, but I wonder how workable it can be when society imposes laws and pressures that strive to undermine it.

    I haven’t seen you say that you are a Christian, but I couldn’t change my perspective even if you aren’t.
    ——————–
    I am not. I am an agnostic raised by atheists. One of my parents was very hostile to Christianity, the other more relaxed. I never understood the certainty they had regarding such matters nor the hostility. I have a deep respect for Christians, and I understand that a society without faith is a society that is dying. Much like our own. I remember when they got rid of school prayer and I never understood why someone else praying would upset people. In some ways it’s odd, because we were raised as Catholics in all but name as far as morality goes. That however, doesn’t add up to my believing something that I just don’t believe. So I am not a believer, but from a purely self interested point of view, I would rather trust a society of Christians than anyone else.

  198. Bob Wallace says:

    @ Cane Caldo,

    “When I say “virtue”, don’t think “nice”. ”

    I will point out again that the “virtue” means “the powers of men.”

    I like to use the Four Cardinal Virtues as examples: courage, prudence, justice, self-restraint.

    People think they’re religious values but they’re not (although St. Paul added “faith, hope and charity”). As far as I know, Plato first listed them. They’re good practical wisdom.

    I’m sure people in the past noticed just how dangerous impulsiveness is, so they concluded that self-restraint is a good thing. Courage is self-explanatory. Prudence is the ability to judge between actions with regard to appropriate actions at a given time. Justice is proper moderation between self-interest and the rights and needs of others.(those are from Wikipedia but I think they’re quick but good definitions).

    All of these qualities are inherent in manliness. I’ll also note the saying, “There is nothing new under the sun” just might be true, so looking to past wisdom for pointers for today is not such a bad idea.

  199. Cane Caldo says:

    @Alpha Mission

    The knowledge of female sin is the truth that will set men free from the lies and deception of a society ruled by the feminine imperative.

    No, it won’t. It never has, and it never will. Do you know why? Because we love their sin like we love our own. Most men will never let their knowledge affect their decision-making processes. I may be the unworthy swine, but you’re deluded. Look around you: What more evidence do you need than the divorce rate; the warehousing of children; on-demand tax-payer funded abortion; the hiring and promotion of undeserving women in the workplace; incentivized AND dumbed-down college for women; more women in combat…the list goes on.

    Knowledge is no match for desire. Period.

    Until the desire for patriarchy returns, then patriarchy will not return, and until patriarchy returns, then de-facto matriarchy (through male brutes and thugs) will rule because women have vaginas, and men desire them too much. This is why so many denizens of the Manosphere are anticipating the decline; because they know that is the only way that the desire for patriarchy will get generated.

  200. whatever says:

    Cano babbled:

    In my opinion, the Red Pill is what caused this trouble in the first place. The desire for greater knowledge, and less faith, is what causes us to mistrust, and because of that mistrust to stab each other in the back. When a guy picks up a slut, or a slut opens to a guy, they don’t ask themselves whether it’s right or wrong–their concern is fulfilling their desires; to Hell with right and wrong. That’s the problem with eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Knowing right and wrong and good and evil doesn’t stop you from wanting it. Now you’re just tortured because you know what you’re doing is wrong, but the desire is so great you do it anyway.

    Which is no doubt why Conservatives, Churchians, and Feminists go insane when people start talking honestly about women. Cause, ya know, the lies aren’t necessary, dude. That’s why they all lie, and say such hysterically insane things.

    But wouldn’t it be neat if people just listened to Cano without asking themselves whether Cano made sense or was trustworthy?

    No.

  201. ybm says:

    Never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined Cane Caldo would become the best commentor on this blog. I finally find that I don’t have to post very much because he’s quite frankly just as ostentatious as I am, and we agree 9 times out of 10. My legacy is secure :)

  202. Cane Caldo says:

    @Sharrukin

    3% does kind of narrow it down. Most people are on the outside. A culture cannot operate on that basis and the average guy is left out of the equation. I guess I can understand where you are coming from but its not really advice for most people because they aren’t going to be a part of that subgroup (97% chance).

    It is a grim landscape, no question. All I can do is tell you where I have found bread. There are the Amish. There are the homeschoolers (not all Christian). There are the Traditional Catholics with a capital T. There are the prairie-skirt and long hair pentecostals…

    There are these pockets of traditionalists, so it’s not totally hopeless, but, yes, you must go to them. At some point, you should consider partaking in the history of what you rightly recognize as the society-saving and life-saving philosophy and theology of Christianity.

    @whatever

    It’s not surprising that the race-baiting socialist doesn’t understand what I’m saying.

    But it is very strange that the fellow who believes that Game (that is: the imitation of “alphas”, and their traits) is the best strategy–and who is on record as saying I’m a “natural alpha”–refuses to imitate what I do. Because he doesn’t really believe in Game any more than I do. He just believes in validating his feelings about what should be true.

  203. Cane Caldo says:

    @ybm

    High praise from you, sir. Many thanks.

    just as ostentatious as I am

    You, of all the readers here, should have expected this from my name. :)

  204. How can a man support or desire the patriarchy, if he follows the fem-Matrix lies that patriarchy is evil? You would keep men in the dark, that they would never know the truth that inspires the change.

  205. TFH says:

    Bob Wallace,

    Not even close.

    You can ‘NACALT’ all you want, but your points are pretty standard for the typical conservative who wants to excuse women from behavior that a man would not be excused of.

    Your comment was a pretty weak copout.

  206. Cane Caldo says:

    @Alpha Mission

    How can a man support or desire the patriarchy, if he follows the fem-Matrix lies that patriarchy is evil? You would keep men in the dark, that they would never know the truth that inspires the change.

    Let’s say you’re right. What would this look like, on the macro level? Every generation would have to raise up new feminists so they could say, empirically, “These women are the same as the women who came before.” Each man would have to proof the concept himself. That is a stupid way to live; even though it is the more scientific.

    I’ve never lived under a patriarchy, so I’m taking it by faith that it’s better. Sure, there are books that supposedly tell us things were better under patriarchy, but I don’t know it; not like the way I know this laptop exists. It is faith, in this case, that our forefathers knew what they were talking about when they held the sexes to different standards and responsibilities.

    You don’t understand what’s going on around you. The darkness is desire. The light is faith. Right-and-wrong is just a map, which is worthless in the dark.

  207. freebird says:

    ” I’m criticizing them for turning the Bible upside down to fit their feminism.”

    There-you’ve hit the hot-button everyone is trying to run away from.

    When so-called conservatives turn their back upon the Patriarchal nature of the Christian God that supports families,the Muslims move in to fill the void.
    The secular courts
    say a man has no right to his own flesh and blood and the lickspittle Christians worship at the almighty vagina.
    Christians should be forming their won courts too,it is the Godless secular family destroying courts that enforce the “lawz” that these traitors espouse.
    They are worse than the Marxists-they know better and still proceed.

    The time will come when men have the right to their flesh and blood again,it is a question of who will be left standing after the fur flies.
    Check out elusive wapiti’s post today,most enlightening.
    Death to the anti-family satanic Christian ‘conservative’ “movement.”
    They are not Christian,nor conservative,nor a movement.
    They are base satanic liers.

  208. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    @Cane:
    Game is learned by interacting with sluts. We could postulate that it works on women generally, but what married, chaste, women are we talking about?

    I think I understand what you’re saying, but I can’t say I entirely agree. You have defined game only working if it ends with the bed. You have defined (correctly, I’d argue) that an unmarried woman in the bed is a slut. I think it’s possible for a guy who has had a good number of women to know the point that she is attracted to him enough to jump in the sack, without really needing to push the last button.

    @deti:
    Being a confident, dominant, Godly man (i.e. being the kind of man Matt King advocates) doesn’t attract women? What kind of women does it attract?

    The more I worked on this dilemma, the more my “program” looked like MGTOW, only it was Men Going God’s Way. Develop spiritually and if you find a woman worthy of LTR, you can slowly invest. However, if your primary focus is just women, you’ve necessarily abandoned God’s role for you. If you pursue women above how God has called you to be, then you are allowing the world into your life and are responsible for the destruction it can do by placing woman before God.
    I wrote about this before, in a different way. We (humanity) have allowed romantic/erotic love to be what we all think marital love should be. It isn’t because it is fleeting, because it distracts a man into pursuing female desire above his roles, and – frankly – God said marital love was different. This isn’t to say romantic/erotic love isn’t wonderful and shouldn’t be part of marriage. I am saying that when you put it in its proper place and you take on the role God called men to do, you realize He is calling for a mindset much closer to MGTOW (only, MGGW).
    Man, I hope that doesn’t sound as rambling as I fear.

    @greyghost:
    If you are having trouble with that it is because the herd has made women today and as you understand them unworthy of a christian man.

    I wouldn’t say “unworthy.” I’d say, “proceed at your own risk.”

    @Bob:
    He lied to every one of them.

    Lied? Lying is not an element of game in the many books I’ve read.

    @TFH:
    (To Sharrukin’s comment about raising godly families) Even after all this, this SoCon still thinks MEN have to take this responsibility, not women.

    Can’t speak for Sharrukin, but my feeling is that if you already have a family, then you are responsible, regardless if you have a terrible wife/mother in the picture. If you do not already have a family, then I strongly discourage men from marrying and taking the risks.

    @Cane:
    What this means is that you can’t know Game works unless she is willing [my emphasis] to get in bed with you.

    I can buy this distinction. Once you get all the prelim work out of the way and you’re out for your first date/drinks/whatever, I honestly think a guy knows within 30 minutes where the date will end. However, a good deal of game has already taken place to get to that point and I think many guys need game to get to the first date/drinks/whatever.
    Game is not just getting the woman to bed. It’s laying the groundwork, doing your own pre-selection, engaging, closing, moving on (or bouncing, depending), etc. Not saying you don’t know this, but you’re primarily focusing on the last 10% of game and not realizing a lot of work that went before it that points to effectiveness. Without game, how many men can get to the first date, using the techniques they develop internally? That is an important question, when you answer, “Does game work? Only on sluts?”

  209. Some Guy says:

    It’s been a few months now.

    Post red pill… I’d say I understand what is going on in an argument much more often. My wife is a master of extracting concessions from me while avoiding doing anything in return– she changes the subject if she takes heat and punches back twice as hard if she’s losing ground. She can pull the wool over the eyes of a counselor for months on end if I’m passive. For someone that appears to be such a victim, she sure does dominate everything.

    I’ve mostly been pleased, though, at how I seem to take a lot less garbage… but also at how fights seem to actually be productive. However I realize now that I am still playing the Fireproof script out in my mind. The plot hasn’t changed… I’ve just swapped in a different set of techniques to win my wife back. There’s something flawed about that, but I don’t immediately know what to change.

    At the end of the day… I have I net zero attraction from my wife. She has no remorse over her unwillingness to put 1 Cor 7 into practice. (Hypergamy doesn’t care, I guess.) She feels no responsibility to change that– her “out” is that I broke it somehow and its all on me to fix it.

    (I realized at some point way back that a house divided could not stand. On that basis, I was willing to submit to my wife in order to hold things together– for the children’s sake. Game explains why that is not sustainable, of course– there’s no way a woman have her desire for her husband rekindled in that scenario. The contempt that breeds can grow exponentially….)

    Now that I apply some basic Athol Kay stuff, though– “tit for tat”, “don’t be a chump”– there are fewer illusions as to how much pull I have. During the occasional detente, I could fool myself, but now that it comes down to it… growing a spine seems to create an explicit negative feedback loop. My wife was off balance for a while with me making some changes, but I don’t think she is restricted by the same kind of morality and feelings that I have. I fear now that she will do something drastic or else play a dangerous game of chicken. I think she can call my bluff because she thinks she holds all the cards.

    And maybe she does. I’m willing to sacrifice anything to stay with my children and keep their family intact. I don’t have anything that she’d want except a pay check and some elbow grease. When it gets down to it, she has no incentive to negotiate over anything, much less make concessions.

  210. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    Some Guy,
    She has tasted dominance in the past and absolute control over the relationship. She will never want to give that up and will resist any effort to shift the balance.

    I have no magic advice to give. Continue to lead, continue to care for your children. As Dalrock noted, you are now “Hostage Negotiator for Life.” She may, at some point in the future, realize she will never regain the absolute control she had before and decide then to blow it all apart. Continue to prepare for that possibility, but don’t let it distract you from your chidlren or your responsibility (especially to take care of and demand respect for yourself).

  211. Bob Wallace says:

    @ Rock Throwing Peasant,

    He lied to every one of them..

    “Lied? Lying is not an element of game in the many books I’ve read.”

    He was a cad. Now he’s just basically collapsed.

    I don’t think it’s possible to have sex with 100 women, as he did, without lying to most of them. And he now regrets his ruined, alone, drug-addicted life.

    Those who devote their lives to physical pleasure become degraded. It doesn’t matter if it’s sex or drugs or food. They’re gluttons, and that’s one of the Seven Deadly Sins (“sin” really means to “miss the mark”).

    What I just described is why I don’t think the word “Alpha” is all that accurate. The cads I’ve know are “Alphas.” Money, looks, women. And unless they quit (which is hard) then they end up with ruined lives. Most apparently can’t see that far into the future.

    In fact, the Alpha Cads I’ve known embody nearly every one of the Seven Deadly Sins, which I don’t see as religion but good practical wisdom about things to avoid.

    Since art imitates life, movie portrayals of cads will show what happens to them. I can remember watching the movie “Alfie” with Michael Caine (who was a cad) and he ended up alone. Or how about the Alpha Cad, Cal, in the movie, “Titanic”? Or John Malkovich’s character in “Dangerous Liaisons”? The first one, completely alone. The last two – dead,

    Contrary to the Roissy types, I think being a Game/PUA/Cad is a recipe for disaster.

  212. Bob Wallace says:

    @TFH

    “You can ‘NACALT’ all you want, but your points are pretty standard for the typical conservative who wants to excuse women from behavior that a man would not be excused of.”

    I am not a conservative, and you are full of shit, as someone here already observed. You are not worthy of any response anymore. I don’t deal with the childish.

  213. Cane Caldo says:

    @RTP

    I think it’s possible for a guy who has had a good number of women to know the point that she is attracted to him enough to jump in the sack, without really needing to push the last button.

    You’re equating Game to a fitness test. Fitness for what? For the man seeking marriage, this is less than half the goal; as all three of our stories indicate. Some Guy is where I was years ago, and you’ve been where he is now, too; unless I misunderstand.

    He had enough Game to get his wife, at some point. You had Game. I had Game. What good was it to any of us; except to get us in trouble?

  214. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    Well, I don’t think I’m the best test case for game’s effectiveness. Among other reasons, my marriage fell apart because of mental illness and a ton of baggage that I never really considered as deal-breakers, but in hindsight are (early childhood abuse, depression, hidden abortion, etc.). You may reasonable ask, “Why did you marry her?” Well, she was quiet, she was feminine, and she was objectively good looking. She was also bat-poop crazy, as I later learned.

  215. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    I was also an atheist at the time.

  216. Some Guy says:

    @Cane —

    I don’t think I have Game.

    My wife was in love with the idea of marriage. Looking back, I don’t think she was ever in love with me. She was running out of time and then settled for me. I mistook the attention for interest. I thought we would sort things out later, but she only liked her conception of me– the more she got to know the real me, the more repulsed she became.

    I am perceptive enough to realize when women are signaling sexual interest. Basically, they make excuses to be around me… then find reasons to get close to me… then they hint about places we could disappear to. It happens. Theoretically, game would instruct me in how to make that happen more than it does and/or to suddenly get the attention of “orbiters” in my life. I have never personally executed a game trick produce that sort of effect in order to confirm the theory.

  217. Cane Caldo says:

    @RTP

    So, as I said, Game couldn’t help you. You may have had weak Game, but you had enough to get her in the sack–you have kids! (and thank God for that). You also say that you were an atheist, which many players are. Turns out, they are pro-Game, but anti-marriage.

    Point out where I’m wrong.

    @SG

    By definition, you had to have some Game because you she let you into the sanctuary. Like RTP, we can say that you didn’t have great Game, but great isn’t the requirement: You had enough.

    And you are getting out-Gamed. This is because Game is all the things I’ve said it is, and less than half of the things players say it is. All this knowledge is not helping you, is it? I’m not gloating: I’ve been wracking my brain DAILY since I saw your comments at CMD-N for advice to give you. That’s part of the answer: There is no trick, or tool. The map of knowledge is worthless in the darkness of desire.

    @RTP and SG

    Have you ever wondered why Dalrock attacks conservatives, churchians, whatever you want to call them, but does not himself dispense hardly any Game advice? Because it wasn’t the knowledge the helped him, as much as it was the faith that shed light on everything around him. Thousands of men read about Game, and male-female sexual dynamics, and they never get the prize. They may grope around and grab a slut or two (which we would expect is fairly easy in a worlf full of sluts), but they don’t get the prize of being happily married in a post-feminist world; as his sub-title says.

    Vox deals with the context of Game, on a psychological level. He gives out very little actual advice, either, and what advice he does give is good for every relationship; not just Gaming women.

    Athol Kay has a MASSIVE amount of knowledge, and he is a very smart dude, but look at the body of work knowledge requires of a man to produce to have sex every day! Don’t forget: he was just trying to make his own marriage successful (and God bless him for that), but which men have the time to devote to this? He had (got) to quit his job to map out the terrain. Can the average carpenter do this? What good is Game to him?

    Only Roissy and his proteges give out actual Game advice, and you want to take what you like from them, and ignore the rest. That is the worst of both worlds, and you will get spewed out.

  218. So, as I said, Game couldn’t help you. You may have had weak Game, but you had enough to get her in the sack–you have kids! (and thank God for that). You also say that you were an atheist, which many players are. Turns out, they are pro-Game, but anti-marriage.

    First, I’d note that game couldn’t have helped me in that situation. Since that time, it has helped me. Further, I’m not sure it can help Some Guy, because I think when the tingle is extinguished, it’s impossible for man to really get it going again. Therefore, I think earlier intervention is important so things don’t degrade to breakpoints.
    Next, I don’t think I really had weak game. I think I had “dormant” game. I got the girl and started to settle into the patriarch role, slowly adapting to the role of the guide and provider. I was most definitely not that type of guy in my 20s. I wouldn’t say I was a “natural” as much as I was a self-absorbed prick with self-destructive behavior. I wasn’t a “natural,” because I wasn’t like that as a teenager. Life happened. So, re-entering the market place was a lot easier for me than a lot of guys, I think. I didn’t have the apprehension or the need to really reinvent myself. I just needed to update certain skills and techniques to fit the modern market. I’m not back to “self-absorbed prick with self destructive behavior,” but that was my go-to persona for about half of my adult life. Lots carried over.
    Finally, I am also pro-game (for the most part) and anti-marriage. That is, if a guy has even the slightest doubt, I will advise his to stop all plans and don’t go through with it.

  219. Have you ever wondered why Dalrock attacks conservatives, churchians, whatever you want to call them, but does not himself dispense hardly any Game advice?

    Because he sticks with what he knows best?

    Years ago, there was a good college football reporter in this area and he decided to write about the pro game. He was lambasted by the readers and called out in many ways. He wrote a mea culpa after, saying he should’ve stuck to the #1 rule of writing, “Write what you know.” You can talk about other things, but write about the topic you know best.

  220. ybm says:

    Love your blog Bob Wallace, very good writing.

  221. whatever says:


    But it is very strange that the fellow who believes that Game (that is: the imitation of “alphas”, and their traits) is the best strategy–and who is on record as saying I’m a “natural alpha”–refuses to imitate what I do. Because he doesn’t really believe in Game any more than I do. He just believes in validating his feelings about what should be true.

    I never said you were an alpha. You remind me most of a back-door man. You are clearly a con-man and completely untrustworthy. Also a punk who likes immediately threatening people. You’ve toned that down here because it doesn’t work. But I actually remember what people write.

  222. deti wrote:

    how shall a married man live his life with a contentious wife who threatens him with divorce, rip his children away from him, divest him of half his wealth, and transform him into a wage slave working for chilimony for the better part of two decades? How shall he live with all the laws and cultural apparatuses arrayed against him?

    The answer is contained in your very post. How does a man stand athwart the law and culture? Well, the PUAs figured out how…

    PUAs are a tiny minority of men. Most men won’t ever become PUAs even if they want to and spend years trying. Neither this country nor any other will ever have roaming bands of Roissys and Rooshes and Mentus and Bronans deflowering all the sweet, innocent paragons of female virtue.

    Very true, and well said. But PUAs will critically influence the culture at this, the inflection point.

    And you are underestimating the liberating thrill of “the red pill.” It converts formerly sheepish men instantly and permanently (if not necessarily thoroughly). It comports with their masculine instincts and they are initiated into a heretofore completely hidden community of support. An easy sell.

    PUAs should concern you. They are the guerrilla shock troops heralding the coming war. I perceived that right away when I saw them fearlessly testifying about the truth of women. They absolutely have an important role in this confrontation. To dismiss them as mere cads misses their significance. To think Christianity can ignore game as a hermetically separate phenomenon is to underestimate the jurisdiction of Christianity and the unparalleled practicality of game. I don’t know if you, deti, insist on this strict separation of church and game, but plenty on this site do.

    The present hedonism of the PUA is no threat, of course. It will devour itself, as you say above. But the PUA methodology is nothing short of genius. That methodology has formed the basis for a boot camp, turning betas into warriors — or mercenaries, depending on whether we can make righteous ends seem attractive, which is already the aim of MGTOW, who execute their mission abysmally if earnestly. Disciplined legions which will be needed in short order. PUAs are the Praetorian Guard in this corrupt sexual imperium: they keep themselves close to the secret truth and guard it like Pythagoreans so that they may wield influence for their own aggrandizement and gain.

    Our goal must be to bring their power to the righteous cause. Just as it must be to bring Dalrock’s enemy “conservative” feminists back into the fold.

    I would seriously like to know what alternative there is to Game or GTOW.

    The alternative is the synthesis of the two.

    This is impossible without discipline, of course, and so the hedonism stands in the way. If we presume hedonism is essential to game, then we will find the alternative schools of thought to be contradictory. But hedonism is no more essential to game than the first VCRs and internet connections were forever consigned to being mere vehicles of porn. Whenever a new technology presents itself, men will use it first to satisfy base pleasures — that is a condition of the fall. It requires a moral imagination to bring the contradictory together. It is far easier to pick one side and run with it.

    Matt

  223. Cane Caldo wrote:

    To answer SSM and Deti’s question: What is dawning on them is the major failing of Game. Game is learned by interacting with sluts. We could postulate that it works on women generally, but what married, chaste, women are we talking about?

    Precisely on point. This blind-spot of PUAism has always irritated me. They regard themselves as world-conquering and bitch-slaying heroes when the degree of difficulty in this age of sluts is something close to a T-Ball game.

    And yet …

    By definition: if Game works she’s a slut. This is because we can only know with certainty that a man’s Game works if she gives it up.

    I tire of quibbling about definitions, particularly the definition of “game.” I will only reiterate that if you think the only possible proofs or goals of seduction are this fin-de-siècle worship of “P in V” bedpost notches, you are considering the phenomenon from the worst possible angle as the PUAs do. It is possible to seduce souls and change lives with the same tools a crotch-itchy sex addict uses to acquire the scratch-relief of vaginal friction. It is the horny man coming across the Ring of Gyges rather than the righteous man. How can the former’s intent be a commentary on the power of the ring itself? Even if 9 out of 10 men would use that power for the same crass purposes?

    This is where imagination and leadership become crucial. We “know with certainty that a man’s Game works” not whether “she gives it up” but rather when when she submits her will. Only by coincidence do certain debauched men take advantage of this submission to get his rocks off temporarily while damaging her permanently.

    If his Game doesn’t work then it’s possible that she’s chaste at heart–we should recall Brendan’s definition of a slut. So, Game is useful for weeding separating sluts from the chaste, but that’s about it.

    First off, who’s “Brendan” now? More important, who declared him our official Merriam and Webster?

    Second, we are all “sluts” inside. “All fall short of the glory of God.” We are all sinners. No one is “chaste at heart.” Each of us is a work in progress.

    Third, to circumscribe game within the cramped vision of the PUA, as you do, is to completely misunderstand its potential — which is apparently why you set yourself against reconciliation with such zeal. You and the “playas” look at a power drill and conclude its only possible function is to make peep holes into the ladies’ locker room. This is weirdly monomaniacal for both you and the cad.

    Leadership is leadership. It helps that women, all women (even the sluts!) crave it like dogs crave a master. Like all false idols, they will chase after the desire via instinct and libertinism and wake up hollow and sticky the next morning. They will drink the water at the well and still be thirsty. We can show them where to find the living water, and “whoever drinks of the water that I shall give [her] will never thirst.”

    Who is doing real exploratory work on the efficacy of Game with a woman who is and was chaste?

    I am. I suggest you come off your cushioned perch and try the same.

    Early results indicate a gigantic market ready to be sold. I have been shouting this at you complacent Christian chin-pullers and navel gazers, convinced into your complacency by theoretical impossibilities and self-defeating philosophies. I am only one man of limited supplies and resources. The female nature is constant, no matter what the peeling, fading feminist billboards still say. They always will yearn for the true liberator. Even when their ideological mouth-piece is saying no, their eyes say yes.

    Do you know what I mean? Have you ever seen a dead-eyed slut start to sparkle at the thought of salvation? Have you ever delivered a woman up from her despair, lifted her from the slough of despond? It’s better than sex.

    Try it. You have the knowledge of her pain, and the wisdom to recognize that she so tragically has learned to call pain her pleasure. I promise: You don’t have to fuck her if you don’t want to.

    Matt

  224. Cane Caldo wrote:

    You can’t fake having resources. You can’t fake being funny. You can’t fake courage.

    Fake it till you make it. This is solid Catholic doctrine. You imitate the patterns of virtue until they become written in your habits.

    The betas don’t flock to game to become impostors and magicians. They respond overwhelmingly to its precepts because they want to change themselves fundamentally. And the PUAs demonstrate by their testimony that such fundamental change is not just possible but desirable.

    If you are going to hold yourself out as a critic of game, acquaint yourself better with the target. Of course the alpha mimicry is an undesirable element in isolation, and yes, PUAs emphasize appearance over virtue far too much. But you misinterpret the men who howl for self-improvement to be evidence of their unreconstructed desire to manipulate sluts. Just. Not. True.

    There is a distinct cohort of fakers who attempt to control the boundaries of game. This is not a reason to condemn the phenomenon wholesale. This is a reason to get in there and offer an alternative to fraudulence. Which Christians have.

    Matt

  225. Cane Caldo wrote:

    The fruit of the [Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil] is the original Red Pill.

    Which would make feminism the will of God in your analogy. You are off your rocker, brother.

    You take a noble instinct to clean house, and in your passion, your righteousness drifts into self-righteousness, and you conclude the only way to properly purify such a corrupt estate of ill-repute is to burn it down. Zeal for your mother’s house consumes you.

    There is much to be said for the path of faith over knowledge, as you touch on, but you butcher it in a fit of sloppy argumentativeness.

    Matt

  226. Cane Caldo says:

    @Matt

    Which would make feminism the will of God in your analogy.

    How so? And have not Augustine and Luther not said very similar things? I value your criticism most highly, so swing away.

  227. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cane Caldo can’t seem to understand the difference between some and all.

    Some men use the various aspects of self-knowledge, leadership techniques, female psychology & etc. known as Game to have sex with a series of sluts, therefore Cane Caldo wants to prohibit all men from acquiring that set of skills and knowledge.

    Therefore, surely he would prohibit all men from learning to drive automobiles, because some men commit bank robberies and drive away in cars.

    Some men drink too much alcohol, and become drunk, and do stupid things, therefore Cane Caldo surely wants the 18th Amendment brought back, prohibiting all men from ever having any alcohol.

    Cane Caldo, some men use their bare hands to commit murder. I challenge you to have your hands cut off, because otherwise aren’t you bound to become a murderer, too?

    Some and all are not synonyms. Make a note of this fact.

  228. Miserman says:

    I’ve recently begun reading a book about countering feminism by a prominent conservative Christian and see exactly what Dalrock is talking about.

    In the introductory chapters, the author affirms the traditional structure of male headship over female submission as created by God. Yet when he applies it to the roles of men and women in the church he makes what I see is a serious error.

    He limits male headship to Christians at home or gathered for worship in a church and in that context limits women from headship and teaching positions. Then he turns around and opines how wonderful it is that women lead and teach in home Bible studies where everyone contributes and teaches, write biblical commentaries and gather so that women are taught by women teachers (aka Joyce Meyer, though he did not mention her by name).

    Apparently, he does not see that he is limiting male authority to the marriage bed and official church buildings and seems ignorant of the whole Christian movement openly talking of leaving organized religion (i.e. leaving denominations for home-based churches, but without the authority of home and church) and calling women to “serve the Lord” outside of their family life (extra-marital ministry).

    Home churches, academic environments, and women’s ministries have become loopholes to get out of any requirement for female submission to male authority in any sphere of Christian living. If this is the “complimentarian” position (as the author asserts), then the conservative church is privately practicing feminism while publicly denouncing it.

  229. Anonymous Reader says:

    Miserman, thank you for posting that. The terms “complimentary”, “complimentarity”, “complimentarianism” as all too commonly used have a nice look to them, but when one digs down almost always it’s the same old “women lead, men follow” Churchian mode, with a shiny wrapper. It’s feminism, a kinder, gentler version, but still feminism.

    As Dalrock has documented, and continues to document, this mode simply can not be found in any quote from the BIble, and in fact explicitly is contradicted in multiple parts of the Bible.

  230. Miserman says:

    Anonymous Reader,

    A couple of further observations:

    1. The roles of male headship seem limited only to arenas that are considered within the church and home, such the roles of minister / pastor and husband. Arenas like home bible studies, academic pursuits, public ministries, and politics are all exempt from Christian male headship. A secular / sacred dichotomy?

    2. The male headship does seem to be the standard, but rather a qualification of equality. In other words, instead of starting with male headship and adding equality of worth, conservatives start with equality and add male headship. This is the same as liberals, who start with equality and add feminism. It seems to me that equality is secondary to male headship and not vice versa.

  231. Miserman says:

    Correction:

    In my previous post, “The male headship does seem …” should read “The male headship does not seem …”

  232. Which would make feminism the will of God in your analogy.

    Cane Caldo asked:
    How so?

    If the red pill is an equivalent of the fruit, surely you mean that taking the pill is just as calamitous as eating the fruit was.

    What does the “red pill” deliver us? Knowledge of the true workings of women temporarily concealed by an obedience to feminist ideology.

    What did the fruit deliver Eve and Adam? Knowledge of good and evil theretofore concealed by an obedience to the will of God.

    Both are instruments of liberation. Calling the fruit the “original red pill” implies an equivalence between the consequences of that liberation, which implies an equivalence between the feminist’s imperative and God’s imperative. “Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked …” You imply that the fall from grace and the falling away from feminist propaganda are equally tragic.

    Matt

  233. Pingback: (Late) Father Knows Best: Creative Anachronism Edition « Patriactionary

  234. Matt says:

    I am a social conservative, and a red pill man. We are your biggest pool of potential allies, because unlike progressves, we, for the most part ARE willing to listen and learn. We do understand that there are inherent differences between men and women. Unlike progressives, we allow for generalizations while knowing that there are exceptions to every rule.

  235. Pingback: Debasing marriage | Dalrock

  236. Pingback: Marriage: Hollywood Versus Real Life « Frankly, my dear

  237. Pingback: Manosphere: Virginity vs Sluttery (Part 2) | 3rd Millenium Men

  238. Pingback: What we need is more chivalry! | Dalrock

  239. Pingback: Conservatives ask: Who is John Galt? | Dalrock

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s