Monthly Archives: February 2014

Mastered

I’ve covered strength and courage, now I will cover the masculine virtue of mastery in a Christian context.

The soul of the sluggard craves and gets nothing, while the soul of the diligent is richly supplied.

A man must work or despair. He who does not work, does not have a mission, will find himself empty and hollow. He will be consumed by desire without meaning. Anything he is given without earning will taste as ashes to him. A lack of struggle will destroy his soul.

Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going.

Man was created by God to work. He is meant to work and in this work, by devoting himself to it, he finds meaning.

A man finds meaning in his work, but is always presented with the futility of his actions. Ashes will return to ashes, moth and rust will destroy, and the grave takes us all in the end. Yet, however futile his work, man must persevere or despair will overtake him.

Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward.

The man of God knows his earthly works are futile, yet he works for a higher purpose, one beyond this world. Though his steel rust, his gold be stolen, and his tower lay in ruins, he knows the kingdom his work on earth is building will remain eternal. The treasures of heaven he stores up through his diligence to the Lord will be his and His Lord’s forever.

The man of God works not for himself, but for the One who made him.

And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. (1 Corinthian 9:25-27, KJV)

Yet, working alone even for Christ is not enough.

Will a man dare to rob God?

Dare he present God with an inferior gift?

Dare he present an unacceptable sacrifice unto the Lord?

Dare he present a blemished, deformed, and stunted free will offering?

If He dare, his sacrifice will be rejected. His works will be revealed and he will suffer loss.

No, a man’s work must be without blemish, it must be superior. A man must become a master of his craft so his works will pass the test of fire, lest all he has built turn to ashes before the Almighty.

Do you see a man skillful in his work?
He will stand before kings;
he will not stand before obscure men. (Proverbs 22:29, ESV)

A man of God must become skillful, so he can stand not just before kings, but before the King of Kings.

The Lord deserves only the best; the man of God must put his whole being into his works for the Lord’s kingdom.

The godly man’s work must be worthy of honouring God, else God may not honour him.

Yet, no man’s work can be worthy. His greatest works are but filthy rags.

The Lord said to Moses, “See, I have called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with ability and intelligence, with knowledge and all craftsmanship, to devise artistic designs, to work in gold, silver, and bronze, in cutting stones for setting, and in carving wood, to work in every craft. And behold, I have appointed with him Oholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan. And I have given to all able men ability, that they may make all that I have commanded you. (Exodus 31:1-6, ESV)

A man’s work may be unworthy, but should he devote himself to mastering his craft, the Lord will honour him. He will fill the godly man with the Spirit of God, to give him ability, the mastery, to build a holy eternal temple that will pass through the flames unscathed. The Lord will give him te ability to craft a worthy work.

With this God-ordained mastery a godly man will fulfill his purpose, he will be fruitful in his labour, multiply his works, and have dominion over the earth.

Man must master himself in spirit and in body so he can master his work, and through his work the earth.

The man who does not master himself will not master the earth and will present an inferior sacrifice to the Lord that will turn to ashes in the final test of fire.

Ashes to ashes or glory to glory.

The choice is yours to make.

Make the right choice be a master of your craft.

So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building.

According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. (1 Corinthians 3:7-15, ESV)

Lightning Round – 2014/02/26

An excellent post of advice to the single young man.
Related: There may not be a solution for Christian manospherians.

The importance of mindset.
Related: Women are gambling addicts, be the house.

Being beta to an ordered alpha may be preferable to disordered alpha.

How to live a life of choice.

Faith is action.
Related: Lessons from Jesus’ interactions.

Meet women, don’t put them on a pedestal.
Related: Make her say please.

Women who don’t love men.

Learn to take criticism or be prepared to fail.

When we say beta, we really mean omega.

Matt Forney is One Bad-Assed Amygdala Hijacker.
Related: Matt starts juicing.

Securing your WP blog from hackers.

Get in the trades.

7 reasons to quit your job.
Related: 7 reasons not to buy a house.

Why Conan the Barbarian is a great movie.

What Wintery Knight wants from marriage.

Your husband doesn’t have to earn your respect.
Related: If you see a wife disrespect her husband, call it out.
Related: WK comments.

“Christian wives should revel in being an êzer, as she is created to be the physical representation of the help of the Lord to her husband.”

Males clubs don’t exist because males don’t want them.

The linking of joy, grace, forgiveness, and charisma.

You were made for paradise; women weren’t.

Women do have more “dating power”.

The effects of the theology of the body.

The 1920’s communist attack on the Russian family. How familiar it seems.

What is wrong with modernity.

Monarchy FAQ: Leadership.
Related: Why a traditional monarchy over SovCorp.
Related: Answering two common objections to monarchy.

When discussing the best government type, you must ask, “for whom?”

Advice for new reactionaries: when the time comes, be ready.

Equality is injustice.

Dark Matter Journal has launched.

A list of Julius Evola postings.

Euromaiden from a neoreactionary perspective. I’m conflicted, but I vaguely support Euromaiden because Svoboda is taking a leading role, but are they being hijacked by America?
Related: From 2011, Ukranian leader says Soro’s preparing Libyan scenario for Ukraine.
Related: No dice for the west.
Related: The I am Ukrainian video was not grass roots.

Neoreactionary debate tips.
Related: Ideological in-group dynamics.

The structured ignorance of progress.

The USG immigration problem.
Related: The immigration is a false solution to the made-up demographic crisis.

WW1 propaganda posters show how far we’ve fallen.

Immigration and the possibility of war.

The amount of neoreactionary exosemantics necessary to understand this piece is astounding. Would this be too high a bar for a neoreactionary Turing test?

The choice is occultionism or neocameralism.
Related: Social norms and community.

Exit for all is unattainable.
Related: Land thinks neocameralism is neoreaction.
Related: Neocameralism is reality.
Related: Exit in France.

Counterpoint to exit: The reactionary view of the economy.

How disaster sneaks up.

Some Twitter developments in neoreaction: anarchy?

The parade of humiliations.
Related: Why a good slur can’t be found for whites.

Anissimov’s opinion on the manosphere.

The difference between the Daily Mail and the NYT.

The envious orcs mean exactly what they say.

What happened to the left-wing cry of ‘keep the state out of the bedroom’?

Gay activists are liars, schemers, and frauds.
Related: Sexual slavery in Africa and the LGBT agenda.

The Canadian brahmins.

Harvard Crimson writer explicitly calls to end academic freedom.
Related: Academic justice already rules, bring it out in the open.

The lifetime chance of a false rape accusation is at least 0.3%, but probably about 3%. Also, feminists lie a lot.
Related: James Taranto on college sexual assault and alcohol.

Chicks dig Right Sector.

Men should not help sluts; help decent people instead.

These evil men won’t help this businesswomen with her bag.
Related: Chivalry is dead.

Science: Men cheat more because they have stronger sex drives.

The androgenisation of society.

Being married with child at 23 is an ‘alternative lifestyle’. We’re boned.

Something we already knew: Mom’s boyfriend greatest risk of child sex abuse.

Why young women should avoid college.

“On average, women tend to take more selfies than men… After approximately age 40, men are more likely to take and post selfies on Instagram than women.” The red pill shows up everywhere. (Goldstein)

Black propaganda in feminism.

Aurini analyzes the Feminist Mystique. Part 2.
Related: So does SSM.

Marriage has increasingly become all or nothing.

How much would you bet this wife had a lot of pre-marital sex partners?

Men think sexual affairs are worse, women think emotional ones are.

One of the more over-worked hamsters I’ve read of.

Science: Ovulation and attraction.

Another story of CPS kidnapping. Maybe some parents need to start taking justice into their own hands.

Women’s capacity for moral agency.

Intelligence and equality.

Modern women bringing feminism to the family farm.

If you’re fat, it’s your own fault.
Related: We’re fatter than we thought and the standard BMI is too high.

Being abused in porn is a feminist act.

“How can a so-called progressive population stand the fact that we still have people in charge who think that you can tell someone’s gender based on a physical examination?” One of the most insane sentences written by man.
Related: How dare they use reason!?!

Some videos of a woman playing semi-pro football; about what you’d expect.

CC doesn’t like ‘idea guys’.

The uselessness of ideology.

Salon discovers Roissy and RoK.

God, language, and secularism.

Another banker commits suicide. A trend?

The NYT admitting genetics plays a strong role in inequality.

You forgo a house payment for 10 years for an average student loan payment.

The problem of modern science.
Related: The statistical bankruptcy of modern science.
Related: How science can go wrong.

Why white man’s burden volunteering is pointless.

People receiving means-tested government benefits outnumber full-time workers.

Cracks in Pax Americana.

Resistance in France.

Venezuela reaping the consequences of socialism.

Education in Singapore.

Against the 4 rules of gun safety. Related.

Did you know the Olympic sport with guns has the least injuries?

Science: Liberals are humourless.

Humour: 5 unexpected things about Gitmo.

Women in combat are more likely to get pregnant than killed.

Many “trafficked” young women are not.

A Russian’s take on Pussy Riot.

What did Captain Capitalism used to say about aspiring rappers?

Partisanship and reality.
Related: More liberals than conservatives believe in astrology.

The difference between psychopaths and sociopaths.

H/T: SSC, SDA, 28 Sherman, GLP,

Profaning the Cathedral’s Gods

Something interesting pointed out by Nydwracu on Twitter that I think deserves a bit more of a mention than a retweet.

Buzzfeed (webcache) has a listicle (ie: an intellectually absent presentation of stolen images) of facts about swearing on Twitter. The second and third charts have a list of offensive words. Such words as fuck, pussy, shit, ass, retard, and bitch are simply stated in the graph, but nigga and cunt are spelt n***a and c**t.

To make it more interesting, if you look at the original report both nigga and cunt are spelt out normally, which means that Buzzfeed specifically and purposefully went out of its way to censor those specific words.

You can tell what our society holds profane and holy by what words are unspeakable.

I am interested in how cunt gained so much greater exosemantic negativity than pussy or bitch. I would guess it’s because cunt is generally used against women exhibiting negative masculine behaviours, while pussy is generally used against men exhibiting negative feminine behaviours and bitch is generally used for either the same purposes as pussy or against women exhibiting negative feminine behaviours.

I guess its acceptable to call out effiminate men and misbehaving women, but not masculine women.

****

On a completely unrelated note, here’s something too big for tomorrow’s Lightning Round or Twitter, but not worth its own post. I ended up at the race realism page on something grossly mistitled RationalWiki (thanks, HBD Chick) and found this far too amusing not to point out

Adaptation to environments, including social environments, through natural and sexual selection is the linchpin of evolution. Remembering this means knowing why scientific racism is ridiculous. To argue that races or ethnic groups differ innately in intelligence, however defined, is exactly equal to an assertion that intelligence has proven less adaptive for some people than for others. This at minimum requires an explanation, a specifically evolutionary explanation, beyond mere statistical assertion; without that it can be assumed to be cultural bias or noise. Since most human intelligence is in fact social intelligence — the main thing the human mind is built for is networking in human societies — this would require this social evolutionary arms race to have somehow stopped.

It isn’t often someone so thoroughly destroys their own argument within three sentences. Thank you RationalWiki, you amused me for a minute.

For those who don’t see it, intelligence (measured through IQ) /= social intelligence.

The Slut Event Horizon

Discussing my last post on Twitter, some objected to the following:

Only sluts will succumb to them [PUA’s], and the sluts they are hurting would have simply slutted it up with someone with ‘natural game’ (or less game) and been hurt anyways.

When posting this I thought it was almost tautological. If a women is sleeping with a man within the PUA’s 3-date rule she’s most definitely a slut. If a women is in the PUA’s natural habitat, the club, looking for love, it’s almost guaranteed she’s a slut. As I’ve already noted, when the PUA moves outside the club into daygame, his success rates are very low (even accounting for only selecting girls in the top 11-23% of women), so the gaygamer is only getting the sluttiest girls.

The question then became, what of good girls that go bad due to incentives. These aren’t natural sluts, but only sluts of circumstance. Aren’t the PUA’s ruining them?

To which the answer is, maybe in a few exceptional rare cases yes, but the PUA is using a number of selection filters, the two most important fo which for this discussion are the club, alcohol, and the 3-date rule.

A woman having sex within 3 dates is already ruined. A women in the club or getting blitzed around strange horny men is either already ruined or will be ruined in very short order whether there’s a PUA present or not.

To describe the ruining of girls, I coined the term slut event horizon. If you aren’t familiar with TV Tropes (or astrophysics), an event horizon is the point of no return, past which something/someone is irredeemable.*

So, in this case, past a certain point of sexual activity a certain women is most slut, no question.

A women having sex within 3-dates is already past the slut event horizon. A women at the club or frat party getting wasted is almost assuredly past the slut event horizon, and in the rare case she isn’t she is willingly putting herself so close to going over the edge that for any practical purpose you should treat her as such (ie. a slut is not a wife).

The PUA’s natural fodder is the woman already past the event horizon, or, rarely, so near the edge of the event horizon that to say the PUA ruined her is to blame the straw for breaking the camel’s back rather than the 400-lb obese man.

****

Here’s a chart on lifetime number of sexual partners:

About a third of women have had 0-1 partners, we can safely say these are good girls. About a quarter had 7+ partners, we can safely say these are sluts, they’ve passed the slut event horizon. Less than a tenth of women had 2 partners, we’ll call these the oops women, the ones who have probably not passed the event horizon, but made a mistake or had a boyfriend before marriage. About a third of women had 3-6 partners, we’ll call these marginal girls, they may or may not be past the slut event horizon.

69% of women are virgins at 18, that number drops to 15% by age 21. So, over half of all women lose their virginity from 18-21 years of age.

Something major happens between 18-21.

Some can be chocked up to marriage, a bit under 20% of people marry by age 21. Given that women generally marry about 2 years younger, we could estimate that about a quarter to a third of women are married by age 21. But some of those would not have been virgins at 18.**

But even given that some women are marrying, that is a lot unmarried women losing their virginity in their college-age years. Many of these are among the marginal women.

As well, over half of women aged 17-40 have had one night stands. We’ll assume nearly all n>7 women had a one night stand, which means about that a good portion (about two thirds) of the marginal women and a few of the oops women have had a one night stand, as well.

(I’m not going to get into trying to figure out how many ONS’s are caused by PUA’s, but remember, PUA’s are a very small minority of men, I would be surprised if they made up even a large minority of ONS’s).

****

When men speak of a women being ruined by PUAs, they are talking of the oops and the marginal women. The ones with a premarital sex partner or three, possibly a one night stand.

A marginal women having a one night stand, has not been ruined by the PUA, she’s either had a number of ONS’s, making the choice to repeatedly ruin herself, has had other sexual activity besides an ONS and stopped when the ONS showed her how far she sunk, or she had a one night stand and decided to continue on, choosing sluthood and ruining herself (depending on where the ONS falls).

The only group that could be said to be ‘ruined’ by the PUA would be the oops woman whose oops was a one-night stand or short-term fling. Oops women make up less than a tenth of women, and I’m betting the large majority of oops women lost their virginity to a boyfriend rather than a PUA.

So, in all, maybe, about 3% of women could be honestly considered ruined by a PUA rather than by their own choices. Not good, but hardly a major problem that must be solved right now.

On top of this, almost a third of women have sex before they are even old enough to legally be fodder for a PUA; 85% of women have had sex before they are even of age to legally allowed to be in the PUA’s natural habitat, the club. To say the PUA’s are responsible for sluttiness is asinine.

Blaming the PUA’s is, at best, scapegoating. Focusing on PUA’s will be destroy any attempt to establish a proper reactionary view of sex and the sexual marketplace before it even begins.

****

A woman does not just see a PUA then become a slut. Taking it from a PUA may be her final fall over the slut event horizon, but PUAs do not have some sort of magic power to turn women into sluts. Rather sluts come from circumstances.

There are two types of slut, the natural slut and the circumstantial slut (similar as the to the two types of slave). Keep in mind this is not an dichotomy, but a sliding scale.

The natural slut is an r-selected woman who is naturally inclined, whether by genetics or childhood environment (ie: sexual abuse or father absence), to be a slut. She will slut it up unless there are very strict societal controls over women’s sexuality, and even then she might become a harlot outside of proper society. You can not ruin this women, she is pre-ruined; she is beyond the slut event horizon. She is bad marriage risk no matter what and nothing but the overwhelming grace of God could ever make her wife material. Most of the n>7 sluts are of probably some degree of this type.

The circumstantial slut is a woman who may be slutty if the circumstances or incentives are right. Some of the sluts and almost all of the marginals and oops are of this type. Many of the good girls could become this is the circumstances were wrong.

The reason the circumstantial slut becomes a slut is because she is in the wrong sexual culture providing the wrong incentives.

In the reactionary society holding the positions on sex I outlined in my last post, these girls would never become sluts because circumstances would never be such that they would want. They would all be wife material.

She does not just fall over the slut event horizon she moves to the verge of the event horizon through small slutty behaviours and eventually one of those behaviours throws her over the edge.

Those small slutty behaviours are mostly not ONS’s, ONS’s are often the final leap over the horizon. Rather they are trained in a women through long- and short-term sexual relationships.

She loses her virginity to her boyfriend, her friend-with-benefits, or the man she wants to be her boyfriend because she sex outside of marriage is a societally accepted. She does this a few times with a few different boyfriends and maybe with that man she just met who’s really hot and at some point she, more or less accidentally, crosses the slut event horizon.

She may not start out intending to be a slut, but once she starts moving along that path it is very easy to go over it without noticing. There is no clear social line of sluttiness.

At what number does it become sluttiness? Most men and women would overlook a mistake or two. What about three? four?

If it’s not slutty in a long-term relationship, then it shouldn’t be with a short-term one? Three dates is a short-term relationship, right?

Is an ONS an automatic cross over the horizon, or can one ONS count as a mistake? two? What’s the difference between three dates and one?

There is no clear threshold of where the horizon is. Hence why some women are good girls, some are sluts, but the plurality are marginal and oops.

They’re trying to stop before the slut event horizon, but many are still turning into sluts because it is not clear where the slut event horizon sits.

This is why I say PUA’s are less destructive than LTR’s and STR’s. What a PUA does is clearly degenerate and an ONS with a PUA is clearly over the slut event horizon. Only those women already over the horizon or so close to it it doesn’t matter for any practical purpose will be a PUA’s +1, and the circumstantial sluts who do so will have been lead down this path by slippery slopes and an unclear slut event horizon.

Meanwhile, as soon as you accept the validity of STR’s and LTR’s there is no clear line of sluttiness and degeneracy. The slut event horizon is not something seen until it has already been passed. These relationships are simply training grounds for sluttery and ruin far more women than PUA’s ever have or will.

If you want to preserve women, if you don’t want women being hurt by a brutal sexual marketplace, if you want women to be wives rather than sluts, you must make the culture so it is not so easy to slide over the slut event horizon.

You have to culturally keep sex in marriage and marriage alone. Some natural sluts will still slut it up and there will still be oops women, but if you make clear that sex outside of marraige is the slut event horizon, you will have less sluts, more wives, more marriage, happier women, and more productive men.

The only reactionary attitude for sex is to confine it to marriage alone.

Anything else is degeneracy.

****

* I should note that I don’t believe in the concept of absolute irredeemability. Every person no matter how fallen can be redeemed by Christ’s blood and have a regenerated new self. So, no matter how much you have sinned, God will forgive you if you repent. Do so.

In this case, irredeemability is used to simply show someone who has allowed themselves to act in a way that would permanently mark them a material and objective slut.

** Good news for men looking for a virgin wife. About a fifth to a quarter of unmarried 21-year-olds are virgins once you take out the quarter to a third of women married at 21. 20-25% is better odds than 15%.

On Reaction and PUAs

This post on the nature of women has made the Twitter rounds and some, such as Anissimov, are calling for a war on the manosphere and/or the PUAs. (I’m not sure how many see the distinction between the two).

Before I begin, I read the story emashee posted a week or two back, and felt no pity for the subject of the post. I still feel no pity. She’s a moral agent who has made her moral choices. She’s choosing to live the life of a whore and receiving a whore’s wages.

That being said, she does seem somewhat on the verge of repentance, so I did pray she finds Jesus. She can’t change her own nature, but God can.

The only person I feel any pity for in that story is the man who’s the intended target of her story. You just know she is going to shred his heart and soul in the future, and he’s walking into it blindly (the letter is unsent). If something does come of it, the decent man will likely find a cold bed or hot divorce in the future. Dealing with girls like that is like sticking your member in a meat grinder.

As the Bible warned many a times, the path of the adulteress leads to death.

****

Now, onto my main point. I must reject the war between reactionaries and PUAs some are trying to brew.

PUA’s are not the problem; they never were the problem. They didn’t create modern society and they are not the ones maintaining it. They are simply immoral men taking what they can from the decaying ruins. They’ve been handed a bag of complete shit and been told to enjoy eating it. How can you blame them for not wanting to?

If I wasn’t a Christian, you can bet I’d be out there taking what I could myself.

In addition, Dalrock has already established shaming PUA’s won’t work.

Finally, PUAs are not hurting anyone innocent. Only sluts will succumb to them, and the sluts they are hurting would have simply slutted it up with someone with ‘natural game’ (or less game) and been hurt anyways.

There is no social cost to PUAs, casual sex was a norm before PUAs. Mystery didn’t build the clubs he practiced game in and the club sluts were already looking for sex before he first sarged. It’s not like club sluts would magically have become wives if Mystery had decided to play video games instead.

Does anyone honestly think that PUA’s were at fault for the woman’s problem in emashee’s post?

Day game might be worrisome, as it extends the reach of the PUAs beyond club sluts and might intrude on women who may be marriageble. But given that a day game conversion rate of 2.7% and a number close rate of 25% are considered great, it’s pretty clear that only the sluttiest sluts will be taken in that way. So little chance of a decent women being ruined there.

PUA’s are not ruining marriageable women; they are using sluts.

Sluts are sluts, wives are wives, and the two should not be confused. Those complaining about PUA’s ruining women miss this point and doing so leads to Sheol.

Don’t mistake me, I’m not lionizing PUAs. PUAs are degenerate scumbags.

But, except for some of the deluded “left her better than when I found her” types, they’ll usually cop to that. Acknowledging their own guilt makes them closer to repentance than the sluts and progressives who stand sanctimonious.

Putting the blame for modern sexual relations on PUA’s misses the reactionary point and allows other, more insiduous forms of degeneracy to destroy society.

****

PUA’s are not the enemy. So who is?

The enemy is the adviser counseling young men to be nice guys and wait to marry used-up sluts.
The enemy is the father who pays for his daughter to live on campus.
The enemy is the mother who protects her son from struggle.
The enemy is the preacher that teaches God will bring that perfect soul mate if you just wait.
The enemy is the college becomes a place of partying signalling rather than strict academics.
The enemy is the journalist who glorifies premarital sex.
The enemy is the aunt encouraging her daughter to date around and delay marriage.
The enemy is the person who expresses disgust at the thought of a 16-year-old marrying.
The enemy is the person who calls a 15-year-old a child.
The enemy is the public school that infantilizes young people.
The enemy is the person who encourages long-term relationships.
The enemy is the person who encourages marriage based on romantic love.
The enemy is the person who encourages delaying child-birth.
The enemy is the organization encouraging ‘family planning’.

In case you don’t realize it yet, the enemy is you.

The enemy is the culture which has been completely taken over by the long march.

It is the culture that has separated sex, romance, procreation, and marriage from each other.

It is the culture that infantilizes young men and women and encourages them to avoid responsibility.

It is the culture that has destroyed the family.

You are a product of that culture. You are that culture.

****

This is the question to those other reactionaries condemning PUA’s, have you had sex outside of marriage?

If so, you are just as strong a degenerative influence on the marriage market as the PUA’s. In fact, you are probably are more degenerative influence than the PUA’s.

The PUAs are obvious degenerates. Nobody thinks the PUA’s are doing good, not even the PUA’s themselves.

On the other hand, there are many subtle forms of degeneracy that are widely accepted and hardly noticed. By being so they are far more potent forces of degeneracy.

A healthy society rests on the family unit.

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

A healthy society rests on a man leaving his parent’s household, taking a wife for himself, and raising children.

But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the Lord was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. (Malachi 2:14-15, ESV)

Any healthy society will be structured so as to encourage responsibility and independence in young men, so they can take wives, build a life together, and create the next generation of responsible adults.

Anything that takes away from this prime societal focus is degenerative. Small deviance will build on small deviance and eventually corrupt and destroy the civilization.

I am sure many reactionaries intellectually hold to and practice deviancies which destroying our society. We should eradicate these before we start hypocritically pointing out the degeneracies of the PUA’s.

****

So, what should a reactionary, non-degenerative view of sexual relations entail?

We must first understand that sex belongs in marriage and nowhere else. Romance belongs only in the path to marriage and marriage itself and nowhere else. Children belong in the married family and nowhere else. Marriage is for life and nigh unbreakable.

Without rock-solid marriage as a societal foundation, paternity is always in question and sexual access comes without investment. Men who don’t know the paternity of their children and have easy sexual access have no incentive to invest in the future of society, leading to the degeneration of society.

Any minor deviance from combining these four is entryism  and will lead to more minor deviance, inevitably leading to our current disordered sexual marketplace.

If you accept or practice anything else, you are a degenerate and just as bad an influence as the PUA’s, maybe even more so, because you’re reinforcing existing accepted degeneracy rather than being an unaccepted outsider.

Although romance is confined to marriage and the path thereto, marriage should not be based around romance. Eros is poor foundation for marriage. Marriage is a social obligation to your spouse and to your community to provide for each other and for your children, the future of the society.

An LTR is not marriage as it rejects the social obligations marriage entails.  Nothing is marriage but marriage.

Next, we must accept the biological fact that people physically become adults at puberty. God and/or evolution designed humans that way. If marriage is delayed more than a few years beyond puberty, young adults will generally engage in sex and romance outside of marriage. Only those with the lowest time preference (or the most sexually unattractive) will delay, and a society can not function if it depends on everybody to have low time preferences.

Anything but young marriage* will inevitably lead to our current sexual marketplace.

By young I mean actively considering in their early teens and anybody not married by their early-20s is considered an old maid or eccentric bachelor.

If you discourage teen marriage, if you think the 14-year-old a child, if you show disgust towards marriage between 15-year-olds, etc. you are encouraging degeneracy.

Once married, marriage should be nigh unbreakable: divorce should only be granted for adultery and, maybe, persistent physical violence and it should always be at-fault.

Anything else, encourages divorce, encourages the dissolution of the family, and discourages marriage, along with all the negative effects those entail. To accept anything else is to accept degeneracy.

Artificial birth control should be disallowed for the unmarried and strongly discouraged by society for the married. ‘Family planning’ should be shunned. Married couples should be encouraged to give birth to many children.

Anything else seperates sex and romance from procreation, which will inevitably lead to the speration of sex and romance from marriage. This will lead to the current sexual marketplce. It is degeneracy.

This is what society must enforce for a stable family, the building block of civilization. Anything else will lead to the decline of the family, and thereby the decline of the nation and its civilization.

****

The PUA’s are degenerates. In any functional society, they would be hunted down, exiled, whipped, and/or hanged. Cold, casual sex is harmful to the participants, to the family, and to society at large.

Engaging in short-term and long-term sexual relationships apart from marriage is also harmful. The hook-up engenders sex and separates it from marriage, romance, and procreation; relationships separates both romance and sex from both procreation and marriage, which is just as harmful.

The sexual STR is nothing more than an extended hook-up.

The LTR creates relationships not based on mutual commitment before society as a replacement good for marriage. Discouraging both marriage and stable family formation. They replace the societal commitment of marriage for the selfish pursuits of individuals. Without unbreakable commitment before the community, the relationship unit is not a stable way to raise children and it reduces the surety of paternity, which is necessary to encourage men to invest in their children.

These are particularly more insidious than hook-ups, because no one except a few damaged individuals think hook-ups are a good and beneficial way to live their life. But many people think the serial monogamy of STR’s or LTR’s are positive and acceptable. It’s a form of degeneracy we don’t see.

But most harmful of all is divorce. It destroys that marriage which is already built, ruins families, hurts children, and strongly discourages marriage.

All are destructive to society and engender the decline to our current broken sexual marketplace. We should be encouraging a return to traditional sexual mores.

But we should not be making a fight between reaction and the PUAs and should not be taking a harsh purging line for sexual degeneracy (at this point; come the restoration, we can decide what to do with degenerates).

As it stands, the PUA’s are potential allies. They see some of the truth and are effective at spreading it. The PUA sections of the manosphere function as an excellent dark enlightenment gateway. I came to Moldbug and neoreaction through the mansophere and I’m sure many others first taste of the red pill was through the PUA’s.

On a more pragmatically harsh note, the PUA’s strip the modern sexual market place down to its roughest and dirtiest and display it openly for all to see. A few years of reading of the PUA’s pillagings will likely turn many naive young men towards a more patriarchal society. A couple decades in the brutal hands of the PUA’s and I’m sure many women will be more willing to support a return to the loving, protective embrace of patriarchy.

Railing against the degeneracy of PUA’s, while accepting other sexual relationships apart from marriage is hypocritical and counter-productive. PUA’s are not the problem, they are not harming the innocent, and they are performing some minor pragmatic positives. They are the symptom of a larger problem.

We should focus on the root problems rather than the symptoms.

We should intellectually bind sex, romance, procreation, and marriage into each other and fight the infantilization of young men and women.

****

* The combination of later marriage, strict society-enforced sexual mores on women, harsh anti-divorce laws, and socially acceptable prostitution may also potentially function, but would not be optimal. 

Lightning Round – 2014/02/19

 

Been busy this week, so I haven’t done my normal reading. It will be a bit shorter, but that only means more for next week.

Instead of repeatedly failing the same way, try something different.

The basis of godly masculinity.
Related: Offensive and defensive masculinity.
Related: Unselfish masculinity and teasing.

Godly humility – submit and obey.
Related: Fear and sin.

Joseph’s story of game.
Related: Don’t be a loser, don’t be a jerk, don’t be a nice guy.

The great game debate again.
Related: Christians and game.
Related: Defining game.

Advice for women on avoiding players.
Related: Advice for good girls looking for marriage.
Related: No one has it easy in the marriage marketplace.

Advice for younger women from an older one.
Related: Don’t feel pity for the lonely cat lady; she was warned.

Some advice for raising a boy. More advice.

Be the superhero of your neighbourhood.

There are no feminists in the real world. Matt misses the structural issues.

Radish has a special Valentine’s Day post. What a romantic.

The Neoreactionary Canon in book form.

Democracy, authority, and moral order.

More Mark Shea; getting trolled hard. Although, I must say, I do want to try out “Hey girl! I want to inspect your phenotype” some time.
Related: He got trolled, but that doesn’t matter because we’re all evil racissses.
Related: Gromar comments on the punking.

The sanity of alt-right debate.

A bit of red pill in NRO.

Russia 2014 vs. Africa 2010.

How media workers get paid.

Will Norway follow the Swiss?

A short history of the misuse of the word fascism.

All Christians have doubt; that does not make the faith any less true.

The Christian focus on correcting men is misfocused.

A tale of two churches.

Wright does not like the newest Hobbit movie. This is why I go into movies based on existing works not expecting accuracy it to be true to the source.

Digital mobs and the outrage generation.

Science:  Aloof indifference.
Science: An intelligence gene found.

“Sex addiction” (ie. normal male desires) may become the new reason for divorce.

Woman saves sperm from oral sex, impregnates herself. Man forced to pay child support.

The parasitic human bubble.
Related: Who receives government benefits.

Health “science” isn’t.

Government laying groundwork to take your retirement account.

A farmer vs. PETA.

Euthanasia of the young.

Some people are just too stupid to get it.

Anil Dash does something else stupid.

Vox analyzes self-published genre fictions sales.
Related: The original report.

(H/T: SDA, CC, Outside In, GLP, RPR)

 

If

If—
By Rudyard Kipling

(‘Brother Square-Toes’—Rewards and Fairies)
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!