Friday, March 18, 2011

The why vs the what

I don't subscribe to the biological determinism of many theorists of Game, but it would be hard to deny the logic of the connection that Delusion Damage draws between the herd imperative of historical women and the behavior of modern women today:
Nothing was as important for a woman’s survival and that of her children as being socially accepted. That imperative to survive, imprinted deep into the female brain by countless years of natural selection, is still there. Even today, nothing is as important to a woman as being in good favor with the herd. There is only one general case in which women can, with any reliable frequency, be seen going against the wishes of the herd – when they’re catching a man. The scientific explanation is simple – the entire surplus labor supply of a privately owned man, caught in the net of a sexual pair bond and never set free again, can do even more for her than a share of the collective plate.

It is in this special case when the seeming contradiction in female behavior appears – where normally she’d do everything she can to be just like all the other girls, not to single herself out in any way for instinctive fear of being kicked from the herd, she must now do the opposite. In order to ensnare a man so completely that he can be relied on not to break free from her spell until he’s fed and protected the children through their helpless growth phase, she must make herself seem so incredibly special that there’s simply no other woman he could even consider sharing some of his – now, her – surplus labor with. She must indeed make herself the only girl in the world for him.

The underlying mechanism is the same – the prime directive to make sure she’s always provided for by someone else – only its target changes from the collective to the individual, and the behavioral manifestation of the dependence instinct changes to what can on the surface seem like its opposite. It’s the same instinct of unfaltering attachment to a meal ticket, with a new coat of paint.

Due to the paramount importance of fitting in for survival, the idea that anything popular is good is irremediably built into the female brain. Human brains have not changed since tribal times. Today’s woman is still looking for the approval of the herd before anything – no matter how harmful, how illogical or how ridiculous a thing is, if it’s popular, she must have it, love it and defend it with all her power. It feels to her like a matter of life or death – because that’s exactly what it used to be.

Give women money, they’ll buy what they think others are buying. Let them vote, they’ll vote for what they think others are voting for.

Give them influence over every aspect of society, and every aspect of society will be permeated with the idea that everything popular is great and all other alternatives are death. Give them control over education, and they’ll discourage experimentation, achievement and discovery, extolling the virtues of conformity, conformity and conformity. Ordinary will become the new extraordinary.

Give them a majority share in the workforce and fill the rest with boys educated by the twelve-year feminine conformity program mandated by law, and you’ll get a workforce that’ll take anything lying down. Give them sole custody and put their fatherless male children in female-run conformity training for their first twenty years, and you get a population of men who won’t lead others or even stand up for themselves.
While there is no need to cite evolutionary fairy tales or logical explanations in order to construct a reliable model of predicting female behavior, they serve a useful purpose whether they are eventually shown to be true by the historical and scientific evidence or not. Even if they are absolutely fictional, such devices still serve to put us in a state of mind allowing us to clear the cobwebs of the literal decades of propaganda to which every man and boy under the age of 45 has been subjected since kindergarten.

In the end, it's not the historical explanations that matter, but the reliability of the Game models. The Why may be an interesting question to ponder, but it is much less important than the What or the How. Still, it is useful to have a conceptual understanding underlying the observation of the female craving for security and social acceptance, so that we do not delude ourselves into thinking that convincing women such priorities are not in their long-term benefit is a simple matter of presenting them with a logical case.

It may not, in fact, even be possible, in which case there is no solution for a society once it reaches the equalitarian stage beyond a) violence and tyranny, or b) waiting for its inevitable collapse. I do not accept the idea that equalitarianism is an intractable problem any more than I believe that men and women are nothing more than meat puppets subject entirely to their biomechanical imperatives. Man is more than the physical sum of his parts as both the intellect and the spirit are capable of surmounting the body. But I am certainly open to the possibility that the situation may be intractable, and indeed, there is an increasing amount of evidence that the quasi-democratic societies of the West do not have the structural ability to address the economic and demographic problems that they are presently facing.


Anonymous said...

", they serve a useful purpose whether they are eventually shown to be true or not by the historical and scientific evidence."


Daniel said...

I don't see the purpose of their fabrication. It confuses the issue and weakens the argument.

It invites those who reject the evolutionary narrative on rational grounds to reject the subsequent argument. It would make a much stronger allegory if simply positioned as such, rather than watered down and asserted as fact via pop-science mythology.

You might argue that I have a kneejerk response against the nearly inescapable application of "explanation by hunter-gatherer evolultion mythology," and you would be 100% correct.

Mutly said...

This certainly is a useful myth, if for nothing else then to set a hypothesis attached to female behavior.
Extrapolated it also explains the behavioral change when a woman attaches to a different group. For example the bar-fly who finds Jesus.
Men would also do well to realize that their own mothers are more likely to identify with the herd then their own family. Maternal wisdom should be viewed with the same skepticism as the NYT.

Leonidas said...

You're absolutely right that the usefulness of the model is more important than the validity of the "why" behind it. The only truly verifiable knowledge you can ever have is that which can do one of two things:

1) Be used to predict some element of the future.


2) Be used to control some element of the future.

Anything that doesn't meet one of those two criteria is, at best, a really good guess. Also, if you can meet one, you can usually meet the other.

Game is useful not because of the EvPsych explanations behind it but because it can be used both to predict the behavior of women and to influence and even control it.

Timothy Webster said...

That is why, as men, we need to form a new "herd" for the women to join... On our terms. Then have some honey to entice the first few women to join.

Problem is, most of the men who are capable of doing this, don't have the Biblical mindset to do it right; they are all about themselves.

Another problem is, such new herds are quickly labels as "cults", "compounds", and worse. The big herd doesn't like competition, especially from compelling and vigorous young Biblical competitors.

Nate said...

Hey... I'm doing what I can here. I'm one man.

I'm advocating that all christian white males take at least 2 wives and I actually recommend no less than 3.

Keep them knocked up as much as possible.

We'll have this demographic issue dealt with in less than 1 generation!

Tigger4Christ said...

Nate, it will take some strategizing and insight beyond "Game". There is a reason the alpha males of yesteryear didn't do this already. It has been attempted many times, and been put down violently and with bloodshed each time in the case of upstarts, and gently over generations in the case where the institution/herd itself has been polygamous.

Perhaps we should start a "lair" for likeminded men? If PUAs can do it, why not Godly men that like poon?

Anonymous said...

The reasons outlined by Tigger and Timothy that previous polygamous herds were destroyed make sense.

But now we have several game-changers:
1. Game
2. The Internet, to disseminate a decentralized herd identity
3. Economic geo-independence via entrepreneurship
4. Dating geo-arbitrage

With 1, we provide the shackles that prosperity and feministocracy have removed.

With 2, we create a community untargetable by the state-legal complex's theocratic enforcement arms.

With 3, we escape the regulatory net.

With 4, we escape feminist pre-indoctrination of virgin stock.

Anonymous said...

JD, I think we need to stand and fight. Shipping in brides from third world countries is NOT the answer. I already tried it. To quote Charlie Sheen, LOSING!

Timothy Webster said...

As for your points 2 and 3, the internet that enables us to scatter, also enables Big Brother to monitor. It is no panacaea. It is a tool that can empower us, but only by the Will of God. Without His blessing, the internet is the curse that will hunt us down in every lair that we flee to.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, women are sponges. Ship a good woman into the US and she's likely to become less so. That's why I recommended leaving.

Tim... I don't know what kind of security you've got, but I'm confident in my ability to ratchet mine all the way up to 11, proportionate to the threat level.

Tigger4Christ said...

Dante, I've been an internet engineer for fifteen years. Been mentored and trained by the guys who themselves invented the dang thing. As nice as encryption is, guess who controls the routers? And is actively monitoring them? How hard was it for Tunisia and Egypt to drop off the Internet when Papa Bureaucrat needed to shut off the news feeds? How effective is the Great Firewall of China? (A term that I invented, by the way. And the answer is, VERY effective)

Physical technology isn't the solution. The solution is spiritual and personal. Sampson slew Philistines with iron swords. Did he have a bazooka? No, he had the jawbone of an ass, and the backing of Almighty God.

300 decrepit old Dutchmen with rusty muskets, slew 10,000 screaming Zulu warriors in one day, putting 20,000 more to flight. Not by the might of their slow, unreliable weapons, but by a miracle from above.

Vaughan Williams said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Dante, there is nowhere to flee TO. The whole world is Babylon now. Or at the very least, ethnically hostile to the white races.

Anonymous said...

There are tons of places to flee to. "Hostility" to whites is an interesting perspective... obviously you haven't practiced PUA overseas.

Tigger, everything I do goes through the highly permeable Great Firewall of China. It's trivially easy to evade active monitoring or blocking at the national router level.

Post a Comment