Game and the Decline of the Church

Dalrock has an excellent post on the way a complicit male leadership has facilitated the transformation of Christianity into feminist Churchianity:

I’ll start with an admittedly contentious question, whether Christian women should cover their heads in church. Paul’s instructions to the church at Corinth in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 seem to leave at least some room for interpretation. However, what is most telling isn’t just where one lands on this question but the reasoning used to arrive there. Consider for example the exegesis on the topic by Dr. Daniel B. Wallace at Bible.org: What is the Head Covering in 1 Cor 11:2-16 and Does it Apply to Us Today? Dr. Wallace lays out the case for several different readings. He tells us that he originally held the view that the passage means real head covering and is applicable today (emphasis mine):

The argument that a real head covering is in view and that such is applicable today is, in some respects, the easiest view to defend exegetically and the hardest to swallow practically. Since it is never safe to abandon one’s conscience regarding the truth of Scripture, I held to this view up until recently. Quite frankly, I did not like it (it is very unpopular today). But I could not, in good conscience, disregard it.

Later in the article he explains his new view that only a meaningful symbol of submissiveness is required today, although he isn’t able to suggest what might function as that symbol (emphasis mine):

Today, however, the situation is quite different, at least in the West. For a woman to wear a head covering would seem to be a distinctively humiliating experience. Many women–even biblically submissive wives–resist the notion precisely because they feel awkward and self-conscious. But the head covering in Paul’s day was intended only to display the woman’s subordination, not her humiliation. Today, ironically, to require a head covering for women in the worship service would be tantamount to asking them to shave their heads! The effect, therefore, would be just the opposite of what Paul intended. Thus, in attempting to fulfill the spirit of the apostle’s instruction, not just his words, some suitable substitute symbol needs to be found.

His argument is that head covering was intended as a gesture of submissiveness, and isn’t needed so long as the woman is in fact submissive. Yet at the same time he declares that actually being submissive would be humiliating to modern Christian women in our feminist world. There needs to be a meaningful symbol of submission, so long as it doesn’t actually symbolize submission. This is rationalization at its finest, and it also shows that when feminism and the Bible collide Christians very strongly tend to choose feminism while conjuring up a suitable excuse for disregarding the parts of the Bible they are ashamed of.

Now, I have to admit that I've never given any thought to the whole head-covering thing, but I have come to the point where I simply refuse to attend any church in which women are permitted to teach. Not so much due to the Apostle Paul or because Christian women never have anything appropriate or interesting to say - although the percentage of female "pastors" who do nothing but talk about themselves does tend to run a little high - but because I have observed that a woman in the pulpit is a reliable indicator that the church's true allegiance is to the societal norms of Churchianity rather than Jesus Christ.

It must always be remembered that the female rebellion against nature, order, and God is natural and intrinsic to the sex. The only thing new about feminism and equality is that for the first time in history, a number of men bought into it and permitted it. This will be corrected, of course, by the same mechanism that all imbalances in a fallen world are eventually corrected, by disease and war. The tragedy is that it was absolutely unnecessary, the irony is that a celibate monk like Thomas Aquinas understood the core concepts of Game better than the average man today.

I'm neither the first nor the only one to notice the intrinsic relationship between Biblical Christianity and the foundational concepts of Game: Women are fallen and women are inherently different than men. Being truth, Game is a subset of Christianity that happens to relate to an area of particular importance and interest to men.

A song for Roissy

There aren't many songs that touch me on an emotional level and most of them have something to do with violent revolution, raising the black flag, and cutting throats. But this song by Lostprophets, particularly in combination with the brilliantly sardonic video, is an excellent multimedia explication of the limits of the utility of Game as practiced by the pick-up artist.



I distinctly remember when the overwhelming feeling of "it's not enough" hit me like a freight train. It was the moment that the all the excitement and enjoyment derived from living life to what was supposed to be the fullest faded. No matter how we try, no matter what heights of ecstasy we reach or what depths of depravity we plum, Man simply isn't designed to live hedonistically and thrive for long. I don't say this to denigrate Game, only to remind those who study it that it is tool, not an objective, and remind those who are high on their first successful experience and application of the red pill that it cannot serve as a philosophy or a way of life.

Note for non-English viewers: the two-fingered gesture when the singer shouts "ha" at the beginning is basically the equivalent of a middle finger. It's powerful in its bitterness and cynicism, particularly the juxtaposition between the innocence of the three young girls dancing and the decided non-innocence of the three older ones doing the same. But the most poignant image, at least for me, is during the "Sharing is Caring" section, when the young presenting star, jaded and bored, pores out alcohol for the sexy cat-girl who is trying to interest him to lap up, only to look away and sigh as she does so. Nothing, not even sex with attractive and eager young women in animal costumes, seems to be worth the effort anymore.

"Save your sympathy
Who do you think you're fooling?
Everything is dead
Now you welcome me to a town called hypocrisy"

It is true that adulthood and maturity are drenched with hypocrisy, because we are all largely incapable of living up to our ideals, morals, and standards. But that doesn't mean that wallowing forever in that point between childhood and adult is desirable, or even possible. With regards to Game, it is perfectly understandable that gammas and deltas might look at the decadent world of the alpha and think it looks like paradise, complete with 72 cheerfully compliant non-virgins, but that is as much of an illusion as the world of the blue pill.

Interracial illegitimacy

I was a little surprised when this post by Susan Walsh, which echoed a similar one by Steve Sailer, not only didn't mention the obvious, but required 69 comments before anyone bothered to comment upon the obvious:

What in the personal histories of these two women separates them so tragically and increasingly typically? We know there are several risk factors that correlate to poverty and limited opportunities for children. Lack of education, less than two parents actively engaged in raising them, and teen pregnancy are just a few. But what is the root cause, the thing that we find when we strip away all the demographic factors?

Susan is correct to point to female choice, but the female choice she fails to mention is the significant one. Jessica Shairer chose to have sex with a black man. Chris Faulkner chose to have sex with a white man. Is this relevant to their divergent outcomes? Let's examine the statistics.

The white illegitimacy rate is 29 percent. A white woman who chooses a white man as her sexual partner and bears his child has a 71 percent chance of being married to him. The black illegitimacy rate is 72 percent. However, we can't simply assume that a white woman who chooses a black man as her sexual partner and allows him to impregnate her will have a 28 percent chance of being married to him because black men behave differently with white women than they do with black women.

Unfortunately, interracial births were previously so rare that the USA only began collecting data on them in 2003 and some states still do not break them out separately. However, because the CDC, which tracks birth statistics, utilizes a statistical technique called "bridging", which basically involves counting two half-black births as one black one, some social scientists have broken out the data utilizing "reverse bridging", which allows us to make the necessary calculations.

17 percent of births identified as black are actually interracial, which means that 16.7 percent of interracial black children are born to white mothers because the "reverse bridging proportion" of black children who are the product of a black father and a white mother is 98.2 percent; such children make up the vast majority of black-white interracial mixes. Since blacks represent 14.7 percent of all births, this means 2.45 percent of all US births are interracial ones born to white mothers and black fathers.

To this we compare the number of interracial marriages between white women and black men. 0.4 percent of all white marriages are to blacks, 64 percent of which involve black men married to white women. So, 0.258 percent of all white women are married to black men. If we compare the percentage of black/white interracial births to black/white interracial marriages, we see that the former (2.45%) outnumber the latter (0.26%) by a factor of 9.5 to 1. This means that the illegitimacy rate of interracial children born to white mothers and black fathers is 89.5 percent.

So, a white woman has a slightly better than 2 in 3 chance that the white father of her children will marry her. A black woman has a slightly worse than 1 in 3 chance that the black father of her children will marry her. But a white woman has barely a 1 in 10 chance that a black father of her children will marry her.

I leave it to the evo-psych fantasists to explain why this should be. I merely present the observable and statistical facts for your edification.

40 going on 20

This article pretty much sums up the increasing male reluctance to marry:

When “Girls” hit this spring, I was shocked by how true the show rang to my life—not my old life as a post-collegiate single girl but my new one, as a married, monogamous, home-owning mother. My generation of moms isn’t getting shocking HPV news (we’re so old we’ve cleared it), or having anal sex with near-strangers, or smoking crack in Bushwick. But we’re masturbating excessively, cheating on good people, doing coke in newly price-inflated townhouses, and sexting compulsively—though rarely with our partners. Our children now school-aged, our marriages entering their second decade, we are avoiding the big questions—Should I quit my job? Have another child? Divorce?—by behaving like a bunch of crazy twentysomething hipsters. Call us the Regressives.

Why do moms in my generation regress, whether by drugging, cheating, or going out too late and too often? Because everything our children thrive on—stability, routine, lack of flux, love, well-paired parents—feels like death to those entrusted with their care. This is why they start drinking at wine o’clock, which is so dubbed not only because it coincides with whine o’clock but because it can begin at six p.m., or five, or even four. (Though the four o’clock mothers wind up in A.A.) I know a mom who drinks only on the weekends because she thinks it’s more responsible… but she starts with a mimosa at brunch on Saturday at eleven, and doesn’t stop until her Sunday night television shows are over....

About a quarter of the married moms I know have cheated in some form. If anyone says, “I have a great marriage but it takes a lot of work” it means they’ve cheated.

Well, what man wouldn't want to sign up for THAT future? Fortunately, this is mostly immature and stupid urban people playing at grownup, exaggerated for book sales. Not all women are like that... but you should probably make damn sure your potential wife isn't.

Invite her in

I was reading Badger's account of a dating disaster and it occurred to me that most of the discussion, male and female, was missing the point. If you are a man who is searching for a partner, as opposed to a player seeking to score, then the entire subject of "what is the ideal place to take a first date" is fundamentally a category error.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a chain restaurant if that is where you go with your social circle every Friday night. At the same time, there is nothing wrong with going to an elite downtown Italian restaurant if that is simply part of your normal routine. The point is that whatever you do should be a natural part of your life, because you are auditioning her for a role in it.

One of the reasons I felt relaxed about marrying Spacebunny was because she was already well-integrated into my life. On our first date we went to a soccer game, worked out, and then went to one of my favorite restaurants. Sure, the fact that we ended up closing down the place was a good sign, as was her focus on staying in shape, but the more important thing from the long-term perspective was her ability to genuinely enjoy my lifestyle, which for all its occasional flashes of glamor is essentially boring, repetitive, and low-key. Before we got engaged, she had already become a regular of the Friday night gang that met after work to lift weights, then went to the same Mongolian barbeque every week. It was a routine that the two of us continued long after most of the gang got married and went their separate ways.

It's counterproductive to focus on impressing a woman or showing her a good time. If nothing else, the energy required to maintain the charade is going to become exhausting over time. And worse, if it works, you're not going to have any idea if she's actually compatible with the way you truly live. There is no magic key to dating for the obvious reason that all men are not only different, but have different habits and objectives.

Snippy isn't witty

And it's not funny either. How smart can you be when it takes you 39 years to figure out that people don't like unsolicited criticism?

Single at the age of 39, I’ve often wondered why none of my relationships lasted the distance, but had always put it down to luck and timing — assuming I had neither on my side.

But recently, my friend Steven threw some cold, harsh light on the subject.

‘Your problem is that you’re really snippy,’ he said.

‘Snippy?’ I asked, not entirely sure what he meant.

‘Yes, snippy,’ he said. ‘Abrupt. Critical. If someone says or does something wrong, then you’re onto it straight away. Men will ignore a lot of things if they fancy someone — a weird dress sense, or taking hours getting ready to go out — but they hate being put down or made to feel small. You can be funny, but sometimes it’s way too close for comfort.’

Perhaps, women my age are putting men off with our demanding, critical natures?

This wasn’t a nice thing to be told. But what he was saying did have a ring of truth about it.

I’d thought I was quite witty, to be honest, with my quick quips and smart comments. Now it seemed that what I thought was funny could be completely off-putting to men.... My sister agreed with Steven. She said that what I thought were entertaining and witty comments could come across as criticisms or complaints.

The core problem is that this obnoxious behavior is an accepted part of the female pecking order. Whoever is the lead hen gets to freely snipe away at all the others, so it shouldn't be a surprise that women whose behavior is accepted by other women don't realize that few men are inclined to tolerate it.

The two types of men who are willing to put up with critical women are on opposite sides of the male desirability spectrum. The omegas and low gammas who are desperate for female attention and subscribes to the "any attention is good attention" philosophy, and the utterly narcissistic alpha who hears most female communication the way children hear the schoolteacher in the Peanuts television specials. "Whuah-whuah-whuah". The problem, of course, is that there aren't enough narcissistic alphas to go around and they require a level of youth, beauty, and sexual fitness that is well beyond that of the average amateur life critic.

The thing is, I understand the temptation to correct people who are blundering as they babble. I figured out that most people were idiots when i was five years old and my kindergarten teacher complimented me on my carefully cut-out "triceratops" nametag. WTF? It was an allosaurus, although I would have accepted tyrannosaurus rex from the non-dinocognoscenti. But when you're a boy, other boys are inclined to follow an informative three-step process upon being factually corrected:

1. Shut up, [insert name].
2. I said, shut up already!
3. (Punch face)

It is a succinct and persuasive method of communication. Pretty much any boy with an IQ over 75 rapidly learns the importance of keeping one's opinion of the factual accuracy of other's statements, however wildly agley they might gang, to oneself. This, like many other examples of of delayed-gratification and long-term thinking, is an important aspect of what is called "civilization". Girls, however, are seldom taught this lesson by their female peers, and they aren't going to learn it from men once they're older either. If a woman is attractive enough, men will nod, smile, and put up with the nattering. If she's not, they will nod, smile, and back away slowly.

At no time are they likely to hear what they really need to hear, which is "shut up already or I will punch you in the face".

The ironic thing is that the woman's entire perspective is based on the very sort of misguided thinking that she finds so tempting to call out in others. Very few women are witty and even fewer are funny. So, her entire perspective on the subject was based on a false foundation from the start. And though she is to be credited for finally acknowledging the error of her ways and seeking to practice keeping her obnoxious mouth shut, her use of the term "intimidating" indicates that she hasn't truly absorbed the lesson but has only grasped it on the superficial level of consequences.

How do you know if you're a snippy woman who isn't funny?

1. People are often seeking to defend themselves in conversation with you. This is not normal human behavior, this happens because you are attacking them.
2. People usually react to your bon mots with polite, slightly pained smiles and fake chuckles rather than the genuinely explosive laughter that greets the genuine wits and storytellers.
3. After you offer a helpful correction or criticism, the individual you are helping nods, smiles, and immediately changes the subject.
4. If you find yourself tempted to bring up the phases of the Moon when someone brings up the subject of the relationship between darkness and night, you definitely have a problem.

Conversely, how can you deal with a snippy woman who isn't funny and get her to tone it down without actually punching her in the face?

1. Criticize her every time she offers a critique. This is most effective when she screws up in her criticism, as is frequently the case.

2. If you want to amuse yourself and make her look like a complete ass in front of others, lay traps for her. It doesn't matter how obvious they are, this sort of woman can't help herself and will leap into the biggest, shiniest bear trap without hesitation. I once had a highly critical woman attempting to argue, in public, against the controversial proposition that "it is dark at night". My male friends were nearly wetting themselves; my female friends were mortified with embarrassment on her behalf.

3. Overlaugh at her "funny" comments and then explain why it is so funny to everyone who didn't laugh. I've never been able to do this, but one of my friends is a master at it. It's remarkably effective and you can almost see the woman shrivel before your eyes.

4. Ask her to walk you through her remark. This usually has the benefit of demonstrating how totally fucking obvious her supposedly "smart" comment was. For example, suppose the writer had given into temptation and failed to bite back "the smart ‘Thanks, I think even I could have worked that one out!’" One might respond: Are you sure? Don't you think we should probably check the math right now? As a wise philosopher once said, math is hard! Okay, so sixty divided by, let's see, one, two, that goes into six three times, right? Now carry the 10....

5. Tune it out. I've largely given up bothering to attempt explaining nuance, complexity, and probability to the mid-wits of both sexes who attempt to reduce everything to binary. All it does it upset them; if they could think in sufficiently abstract terms, they wouldn't be offering that sort of unsolicited "correction" in the first place.

On a tangential note, I'm toying with the hypothesis that women are relatively deaf to voice tone. I'm convinced that it can't be an accident that women so often misinterpret male tones while also failing to hear the difference between the pleasant and unpleasant tones in their own voice. This could also, in part, explain why women like the author so badly fail to grasp how others hear them.

Why your old wife is still young and hot

This may help explain the "love goggles" affect that I previously mentioned concerning how men in happy marriages tend to view the physical attributes of their wives with a positive subjective bias:

According to Ramachandran, when we see someone we know, a part of our brain called the fusiform gyrus identifies the face: "That looks like mom!" That message is then sent to the amygdala, the part of our brains that activates the emotions we associate with that person. In patients experiencing Capgras, Ramachandran says, the connection between visual recognition and emotional recognition is severed. Thus the patient is left with a convincing face — "That looks like mom!" — but none of the accompanying feelings about his mother.

Ramachandran holds that we are so dependent on our emotional reactions to the world around us, that the emotional feeling "that's not my mother" wins out over the visual perception that it is. The compromise worked out by the brain is that your mother was somehow replaced, and this impostor is part of a malevolent scheme.

Ramachandran thinks there's good evidence for this explanation of Capgras, in part because of an odd quirk in his patient's behavior. When his mother calls him on the phone and he hears her voice, he instantly recognizes her. Yet if she walks in the room after that call, he is again convinced that she is an impostor.

Why? Ramachandran says that our visual system and auditory system have different connections to the amygdala, so while the auditory recognition triggers an emotional response in his patient, visual recognition does not.

In other words, a long history of positive emotions is the real world equivalent of having soft lighting, a good photographer, and a skilled Photoshop artist working on your behalf 24/7. A man who loves his wife literally cannot see her accurately or objectively without making a serious intentional effort. The same is obviously true of women, of course, but because women are less visually oriented than men, the amygdala effect is probably less important to the marriage.

This may also help explain why women leaving their husbands are so often prone to overrating themselves. Even if she's a mere four, but he sees her as a six and treats her like one thanks to the amygdala effect, she is going to be inclined to see herself that way too. But since the effect doesn't exist for any other men, she is likely to be disappointed with the reactions she receives to her newfound availability.