Adam’s Original Sin: Disobedience and Betaness

For the Biblical Alpha series, we’ll start at the beginning of the Bible, with the first man, Adam.

Now, the first mention of man’s creation goes:

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground. ”

Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food. ” And it was so. (Genesis 1:26-30)

We can see here that man was created to rule. Man’s purpose, the reason for his creation, was to rule over the rest of creation and to his expand this rule over whole earth. Mankind’s purpose is leadership.

Now, knowing man’s purpose, we move onto the first man. The Bible only gives a few chapters to Adam but they are revealing. He was created, told not to eat from a specific tree, and named the animals. While in Eden:

The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adam no suitable helper was found.

So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the ribhe had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. (Genesis 2:15-22)

The creation story is re-iterated, putting the focus on man. Man is created to care for creation. His purpose is leadership over the earth.

We can also see that woman was created to be a helper for man. Man is to rule, woman is to assist the man in his leadership. This is the natural Christian order of earth, man rules, woman helps man.

Man was created by God for the purpose of being the alpha over the earth. He ruled over paradise with his helper at his side.

Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.(Genesis 2:25)

Man (and woman) was originally created to feel no shame. Shame is a result of sin.

It is interesting to note, that the alpha is immune to shame, but susceptibility to shame is the hallmark of the beta.

Then the Fall occurs:

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’? ”

The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”

He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from? ”

The man said, “The woman you put here with me —she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.” (Genesis 3:1-12)

Here Adam displays a stunning lack of leadership and betaness leading to the fall.

First, while he is with her, he allows his helper to be tempted by the serpent, who is under his dominion, and he does nothing. He takes no leadership over either his helper or the one he rules.

Second, he then allows his helper to convince him to violate his duty. He falls into the woman’s frame and allows her to lead him against his own principles and duty.

Then he, rightfully, feels shame.

When confronted with his disobedience, what does he do? He shifts the blame. Instead of taking responsibility for his own actions as a man and a leader, he blames his helper.

The original sin was disobedience to God. This disobedience was caused and exacerbated by the beta actions and inactions of the first man, Adam.

Had Adam taken his alpha leadership role given him by God, the Fall would not have occurred.

Libertarian Monarchism

I am a libertarian with a strong bent towards subsidiarity, I support individuals’ freedom to engage in economic, personal, and social activities with minimal intrusion by a central government.

I am also a constitutional monarchist, and a supporter of the anglosphere. I support the Queen and am in favour of expanding the monarchy’s power so the monarchy has real control over the executive branch of government. As a supporter of both the anglosphere and the monarchy, I am in favour of the increased union of the English nations (the UK, US, Canada, Australia, and NZ) until all Englishmen are confederated under the British Monarch.

Now, monarchism and libertarianism are often not grouped together; libertarianism is about self-determination, while monarchism is about inherited rule, seemingly contradictory impulses.

How do I reconcile them?

****

Libertarianism* is based on the  notion of private property right; you own yourself (or, for the religiously inclined, God, not man, owns you) as private property and and you are able to own external goods.

Most libertarians acknowledge the need for a state to ensure property rights, enforce agreements, and prevent/punish aggression.** Most use social contract theory, whereby individuals contract away some of their freedoms for protection, but that leaves the control of the limited libertarian government as common property, even if that common property is run through the “self-determiniation” of democracy.

That’s where the monarch is brought in. In a libertarian monarchy, the realm is the private property of the monarch.

The monarch would have no power over the private property of any individuals, but would own the state apparatus (ie. the executive branch), “public” lands, and other “public” property as the private property of the monarch and the monarch’s house.

****

The benefit of this is that the monarch would have an incentive in running the state and public property efficiently and effectively, as it would be her own property to be passed down to her children.

The monarchy would also be able to take the long view of the realm’s affairs, rather than the short-term view the electoral system forces on prime ministers and presidents.

The parliament would still create laws and the monarch would have to abide by the constitution (whether codified or uncodified), acting as a check on the monarch’s power.

If the parliament and/or monarch became too corrupt or power became too centralized, the free citizenry would have the muzzles and blood to rectify the situation.

****

That’s the political system I would create if given my druthers.

_____________________________________________________

* We will focus on right-wing libertarians, ignoring libertarian socialists, ie. anarchists, who are whole different breed.
** Anarcho-capitalists and objectivists would disagree.

Biblical Alpha – Defining Alpha

For the Biblical Alpha project, there must be an operational definition of alpha for the posts to make any sense.

One classic definition in the manosphere is Roissy’s (it even comes with a handy chart):

Make no mistake, at the most fundamental level the CRUX of a man’s worth is measured by his desirability to women, whether he chooses to play the game or not… It hits on the three major factors influencing male rank — how hot are the women he can attract, how strong is that attraction for him, and how many of those women find him attractive.

This definition would not really work for the project. While the notch count of some in the Bible, such as Solomon with a stunning 700 wives and 300 concubines, are available, most do not have one available. In addition, most Biblical heroes were under an anti-fornication/adultery moral code, which they admittedly often fell far short of, but which would have limited the amount of partners they would have, and there is no way to know how much female attention they could potentially have pulled.

So, I will not be using sexual results as the primary measure of alphaness. Instead, I will measure alphaness by the behaviour game tries to emulate. The alpha traits of social and physical dominance and leadership and the four tactical virtues that define manhood from Jack Donovan’s The Way of Men (review to come): strength, courage, mastery, and honour.

A man who demonstrates these virtues will be considered alpha; one who doesn’t will be considered beta.

****

Now I know the alpha/beta distinction is debated relentlessly, but I’m not really gonna get involved. Some of you may disagree with the way I’m defining it and are free to say so in the comments. I’m not here for the next couple of weeks, so I won’t respond, but, you can bicker among yourselves. The next few posts in this series are already written.

****
For the Christians who may come across this, but do not really know of the alpha/beta distinction, being alpha is morally neutral in and of itself. As Jack Donovan wrote, “there is a difference between being a good man and being good at being a man.” So, David having sex with Bathsheba was alpha, even if it was a sin. Just because I write that something is “alpha” or something else is “beta” does not necessarily make the former “good” and the latter “bad” in a moral sense and does not indicate whether I, or the Bible/God for that matter, approve or disapprove of the action.

Biblical Alpha – Introduction

Common modern church teaching focuses on the teachings of the New Testament, where meekness, gentleness, love, submission, etc. are expounded. Now, a lot of this feminized doctrine is based on incorrect interpretation of these words or selective readings of verses that ignore the greater context of the Bible, but I’m not going to get into that now. At some point, I will probably write about different aspects of this more in-depth, but I want to talk about something else.

There is a common perception of biblical heroes as being “nice guys”. The Jesus-as-a-boyfriend meme is well-known, and, despite some differences the manosphere might have with Driscoll, he has pointed out the falsity of the limp-wristed Jesus. There are calls to masculinize modern Christianity, but these often just end up being calls of betaization, usually through the “man up” meme.

To anyone coming from a Christian background, the manosphere and the alpha/beta distinction seem to be fairly unchristian. This is partly because of the feminization of modern churchianity, but also because the manosphere does advocate some fairly unchristian things. In particular, the game blogs tend to focus heavily on promiscuous sex, something sinful to a traditional Christian, and this attitude tends to permeate through much of the Manosphere. (There are some great exceptions, such as Athol and Dalrock).

The advice on being an alpha is often seen as recommendations to be an asshole and/or sinner (I know that game is more and/or different from that, depending on whom you read, but that’s a way it can come across).

But, if you read through the Bible you realize that most of the biblical heroes, the one’s the Bible posits as the good guys, are, for the most part, alphas. They may not always be sexually prolific, but the heroes of the Bible are usually man’s men and great leaders, the traits modern game mimics.

****

David ruled a kingdom, killed a lion, a bear, and a giant as a little more than a kid, won the heart of a princess and a kingdom by slaughtering his enemies, stood up to and shamed a king, etc.

Elijah stood up to a king (and his harlot who controlled him), outran a chariot, and summoned fire from the sky before slaughtering false priests.

Moses slew a man in anger, stood up to a pharaoh, liberated a nation, and led that nation for decades. (Reading the Old Testament sometimes feels like listening to a Manowar album).

I could go on, but instead I’ll end with this:

And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah, about David and Samuel and the prophets, who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. Women received back their dead, raised to life again. There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection. Some faced jeers and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were put to death by stoning; they were sawed in two; they were killed by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated— the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, living in caves and in holes in the ground.

****

I’m going to start a series on Biblical Alpha that will look at men from the Bible and show that the Bible does not preach weakness, betaness, and feminity for males, but rather, it preaches strength, masculinity, and alphaness.

For this series, there will be posts showing examples of both alpha males and beta males in the Bible and there will be discussions of masculinity and femininity in the bible.

CS Lewis was a Prophet

Well, not literally, but read this from Screwtape Proposes a Toast:

Democracy is the word with which you must lead them by the nose. The good work which our philological experts have already done in the corruption of human language makes it unnecessary to warn you that they should never be allowed to give this word a clear and definable meaning. They won’t. It will never occur to them that democracy is properly the name of a political system, even a system of voting, and that this has only the most remote and tenuous connection with what you are trying to sell them. Nor of course must they ever be allowed to raise Aristotle’s question: whether “democratic behaviour” means the behaviour that democracies like or the behaviour that will preserve a democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to occur to them that these need not be the same.

You are to use the word purely as an incantation; if you like, purely for its selling power. It is a name they venerate. And of course it is connected with the political ideal that men should be equally treated. You then make a stealthy transition in their minds from this political ideal to a factual belief that all men are equal. Especially the man you are working on. As a result you can use the word democracy to sanction in his thought the most degrading (and also the least enjoyable) of human feelings. You can get him to practise, not only without shame but with a positive glow of self-approval, conduct which, if undefended by the magic word, would be universally derided.

The feeling I mean is of course that which prompts a man to say I’m as good as you.

The first and most obvious advantage is that you thus induce him to enthrone at the centre of his life a good, solid, resounding lie. I don’t mean merely that his statement is false in fact, that he is no more equal to everyone he meets in kindness, honesty, and good sense than in height or waist measurement. I mean that he does not believe it himself. No man who says I’m as good as you believes it. He would not say it if he did. The St. Bernard never says it to the toy dog, nor the scholar to the dunce, nor the employable to the bum, nor the pretty woman to the plain. The claim to equality, outside the strictly political field, is made only by those who feel themselves to be in some way inferior. What it expresses is precisely the itching, smarting, writhing awareness of an inferiority which the patient refuses to accept.

And therefore resents. Yes, and therefore resents every kind of superiority in others; denigrates it; wishes its annihilation. Presently he suspects every mere difference of being a claim to superiority. No one must be different from himself in voice, clothes, manners, recreations, choice of food: “Here is someone who speaks English rather more clearly and euphoniously than I — it must be a vile, upstage, la-di-da affectation. Here’s a fellow who says he doesn’t like hot dogs — thinks himself too good for them, no doubt. Here’s a man who hasn’t turned on the jukebox — he’s one of those goddamn highbrows and is doing it to show off. If they were honest-to-God all-right Joes they’d be like me. They’ve no business to be different. It’s undemocratic.”Now, this useful phenomenon is in itself by no means new. Under the name of Envy it has been known to humans for thousands of years. But hitherto they always regarded it as the most odious, and also the most comical, of vices. Those who were aware of feeling it felt it with shame; those who were not gave it no quarter in others. The delightful novelty of the present situation is that you can sanction it — make it respectable and even laudable — by the incantatory use of the word democratic.

Under the influence of this incantation those who are in any or every way inferior can labour more wholeheartedly and successfully than ever before to pull down everyone else to their own level. But that is not all. Under the same influence, those who come, or could come, nearer to a full humanity, actually draw back from fear of being undemocratic. I am credibly informed that young humans now sometimes suppress an incipient taste for classical music or good literature because it might prevent their Being Like Folks; that people who would really wish to be — and are offered the Grace which would enable them to be — honest, chaste, or temperate refuse it. To accept might make them Different, might offend against the Way of Life, take them out of Togetherness, impair their Integration with the Group. They might (horror of horrors!) become individuals.

All is summed up in the prayer which a young female human is said to have uttered recently: “O God, make me a normal twentieth century girl!” Thanks to our labours, this will mean increasingly: “Make me a minx, a moron, and a parasite.”

Meanwhile, as a delightful by-product, the few (fewer every day) who will not be made Normal or Regular and Like Folks and Integrated increasingly become in reality the prigs and cranks which the rabble would in any case have believed them to be. For suspicion often creates what it expects. (“Since, whatever I do, the neighbors are going to think me a witch, or a Communist agent, I might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb, and become one in reality.”) As a result we now have an intelligentsia which, though very small, is very useful to the cause of Hell.

But that is a mere by-product. What I want to fix your attention on is the vast, overall movement towards the discrediting, and finally the elimination, of every kind of human excellence – moral, cultural, social, or intellectual. And is it not pretty to notice how “democracy” (in the incantatory sense) is now doing for us the work that was once done by the most ancient Dictatorships, and by the same methods? You remember how one of the Greek Dictators (they called them “tyrants” then) sent an envoy to another Dictator to ask his advice about the principles of government. The second Dictator led the envoy into a field of grain, and there he snicked off with his cane the top of every stalk that rose an inch or so above the general level. The moral was plain. Allow no preeminence among your subjects. Let no man live who is wiser or better or more famous or even handsomer than the mass. Cut them all down to a level: all slaves, all ciphers, all nobodies. All equals. Thus Tyrants could practise, in a sense, “democracy.” But now “democracy” can do the same work without any tyranny other than her own. No one need now go through the field with a cane. The little stalks will now of themselves bite the tops off the big ones. The big ones are beginning to bite off their own in their desire to Be Like Stalks.

He knew the way it was going decades before it went there.

Blog Update – Away

I am away on vacation for the next few weeks and will likely have only limited access to a computer. Not to mention that I want to enjoy the vacation, rather than sit at a computer screen.

I’ve scheduled two or three posts a week to be automatically put up, including the first few posts in a new series.

There will be no Lightning Rounds for this period for obvious reasons.

Sadly, I didn’t receive any guest posts. I guess my lies about the size of my blog readership size weren’t enough to entice people.

I’m leaving the comments open, so please don’t abuse them.

I will likely not be checking the spam folder that often if at all, so, if your comment gets caught in there, that’s too bad, I’ll get to it when I get back. (This is particularly for Will S., whose comments tend to go to spam. Although, the last few haven’t, so maybe that problem went away).

Anyway, I hope you all enjoy the new posts. See you in a few weeks.

Defender of Abnormality Attacks the Abnormal

I came across this post by some “social justice” blogger named Renee, where she complains about demisexuals, otherkin, transethnics, transabled, transfat, and other such abnormal people.(h/t Clarissa).

Now, I’ve never heard of any of these abnormalities, so it’s possible you haven’t either. So, I’ll give some definitions in the abnormals’ own words:

A demisexual is a person who does not experience sexual attraction unless they form a strong emotional connection with someone. It’s more commonly seen in but by no means confined to romantic relationships. The term demisexual comes from the orientation being “halfway between” sexual and asexual.

In other words, they’re sexually repressed.

Otherkin is a collective noun for an assortment of people who have come to the somewhat unorthodox, and possibly quite bizarre, conclusion that they identify themselves as being something other than human…  By far the most common explanation from those who fit the definition (even if they don’t claim this specific label) is that whilst their physical forms may be human, their essence, soul or equivalent term is not.

In other words, furries who take the creepiness even farther.

I can’t find a gathering place for transethnics other than a private Reddit, most of the sites I came across were “social justice” types whining about them, similar to Renee. So I’ll just tell you that they’re simply people who think they are of a different race than they actually are. (I’ll note that transethnicity was used to identify a real thing experienced felt by adoptees adopted by a family of a different ethnicity).

“That ‘thing’, transabled, just exactly what is it?“. It is hard to define in just a few words, the best way to learn is by going through the site, but in a nutshell, someone who is transabled “wants” to be disabled.

But it is not so much a “want” as much as a “need“. Our “desire” is more a reflection of the fact that our self-image is that of a paraplegic (or amputee, or blind, or any number of other disabilities) than that of an able bodied man or woman.

Unlike the others, these guys at least seem to somewhat recognize there “condition” is pathological.

I’m too lazy to search through a million pages on transfats to find a transfat community, but basically it’s normal people who identify themselves as fat. Sounds like the word anorexia would already cover that, but, anyway…

****

So, why am I posting on these abnormal people?

I’m not really posting on them. I think it’s interesting, in an academic sense, that people actually believe these things and I think they should probably see a psychiatrist for these disorders rather than try to justify them to themselves on the internet, but, honestly, I don’t really care. If people want to delude themselves, that’s fine with me. As long as they don’t try to force me to accept their delusions, don’t hurt other people, and don’t demand tax funding for their delusions, it’s no skin off my nose. They should be free to do what they want.

What I’m really posting about is Renee, and other such “social justice” types, who support some of these abnormal delusions, but not others.

If we read Renee’s post, it is very clear she supports transsexuals and her criticism of these abnormalities, is not that they’re abnormal, but rather that the abnormal are appropriating the “social justice” language and arguments that other “oppressed” people use.

What is fundamentally different between a man who thinks he’s a woman and a caucasion who thinks he’s black?

How is the transgender person who wants to mutilate himself because he thinks he’s a woman when biologically he’s not, different from the able-bodied person who want to mutilate himself because he thinks he’s disabled, when biologically he’s not?

It’s logically contradictory.

If you accept that one group’s self-identity that spit in the face of biological fact is real, you have to accept the other groups’ self-identities that spit in the face of biological fact are real too.

If you call one group’s self-identity fake, you have to call the rest of them fake as well.

They are equivalent.

It’s ridiculous to defend one, then at the same time deride the others.

****

The reason I think they don’t accept the obvious equivalence is three-fold:

1) Transablism, transfat, otherkin, demi-sexual, etc. are clearly either self-delusions and/or pathologies. They are obviously abnormalities that should probably be looked at by a professional, so much so that even “social justice” types who otherwise can not not support any group thinks they’re oppressed can tell it’s delusion/pathology. These groups have not had years of academics, activists, and “social justice” types trying to normalize their abnormalities enough that people will deny plain biological fact; without that ideological haze muddying the issue it’s obvious these people are denying biological fact. If they were to admit the equivalence of transsexuality to transablism, otherkin, etc., it would become plain to all that the groups they support that deny biological fact are also delusional/pathological.

2) By appropriating the language of the “social justice” types, these otherkins et al, show just how ridiculous a lot of this “social justice” stuff is.

3) Competitive victimhood. For some reason I don’t understand, people seem to really like feeling like victims; they compete over who has the greater victimhood. This is just one more battle in that war.

****

All this to say, I don’t care what you do in the privacy of your own home. I don’t care what self-delusions or abnormalities you self-identify with as long as you don’t try to force them on me; we all have our own self-delusions and constructed identities.

But if you’re going to attack the self-delusions or abnormalities of another group, make sure that they are not exactly the same as the self-delusions and abnormalities you have spent your life defending. It just looks ridiculous.

Lightning Round – 2012/07/3

A study says men’s  testosterone decreases over time are due to behaviour and health rather than age. So, stay healthy.

Mangan talks on the supernormal stimulus of porn and food.

Cogitans discusses how a single Roman law helped lead to its decline.

A defence of Franco.

The Captain discusses the costs of being a player. Further confirming that it’s not for me.

Women doesn’t work, has $4,500/month in income, and a $1.2-million house, then violates her contract and demands $4,000 more/month, and the dad leaves because he’s broke. Dad is the bad guy. Makes sense.

Dalrock asks “Will betas shrug?”

Roosh gives some advice to White Nationalists.

Fred’s a racist.

“Destinations are for bitches, betas, and vacations.”

On the other hand, too much dissatisfaction is not good.

Ashur discusses the feminist bubble.

The difference between procedural and substantive traditionalism.

Frost reviews a book I might have to look at.

Dicipres notes that guns create a democratic effect.

Men have never been able to “have it all”. We suck it up.

I just got my gun license recently, so that’s good news.

Ace is pissed the government has been telling fat people to make themselves fatter for decades.

Hehe.

Despite all the hype that women use tech more, men still dominate it’s creation.

Why countries collapse.

Ontario runs into the laws of economics and loses.

Too bad he didn’t believe that when he was leader of the Liberals.

(H/T: Instapundit, the Captain)

Happy Dominon Day – Call for Guest Posts

Happy Dominion Day to all you Canadians out there.

I know the day’s almost over, but I was busy. Hey, I’m doing this for free, what do you expect?

Most call it Canada Day, but it was originally Dominion Day, and our ties to the British Empire and the Anglosphere should be emphasized, so we celebrate Dominion Day here.

Just checked Patriactionary while writing this and it seem they too are celebrating Dominion Day. I was gonna post Maple Leaf Forever, but they beat me to it, so go listen to it over there.

Just 10 million people more and we may undo the damage Trudeau did.

****

For all you Yanks, I’ll give you an early happy July , because I’m not going to remember it on the actual day.

Although, y’all shouldn’t be celebrating, you should be working to undo the mistake you made and rejoin the British commonwealth.

****

In blog news, at the end of this week, I’m going on vacation for a few weeks. I’ve got some blog posts planned to be posted by schedule while I’m away, but more content would be great, so if any of my readers want something read by my mind-blowingly huge audience* send it to my e-mail: Freenortherner (at) hotmail.com. Just make sure it somehow fits the theme of the blog and isn’t something the blog would find objectionable.  I’ll schedule it in and include a link back to your site or blog with the post when it’s posted.

* Audience size may have been grossly exaggerated to increase audience participation.

Fat Acceptance

Fat acceptance seem to be going around the manosphere right now and derisive mockery seems to be the order of the day. It seems to have started with this guy’s (probably satirical) blog on fat game.

I’m going to avoid the derisive mockery, but  instead I’m going to talk about shame and self-hatred.

****

First, some theology. Being fat is generally a sign of sinfulness.

Sloth and gluttony, the two primary causes of obesity, are two of the cardinal sins. It is shameful to be fat, because it is shameful to sin.

Derisive mockery is not untoward to someone who advocates the acceptance and normalization of sinfulness.

****

Theology aside, obesity is still something to be shamed.

I do not need to go into all the ways obesity is unhealthy for an individual, that’s common knowledge. By allowing yourself to be obese you are quite literally committing slow, likely painful, suicide.

By allowing your body to destroy itself you are showing that you do not love yourself or your life. You are also showing you do not love those who love you and will be devastated by your early death.

If you are married, by being fat you are showing your spouse through deed, if not word, that you do not love them enough to remain attractive enough to have a healthy sex life.

You should be ashamed of being fat.

****

Fat acceptance is concerned with ending self-loathing fat people feel for themselves. That is wrong.

Self-loathing and self-disgust is generally a sign that something is wrong in your life. It is your body and subconscious telling you that something needs to change as your current actions, lifestyle,and choices are negatively impacting your body and its ability to reproduce itself.

It is an evolutionary mechanism designed to protect you.

In the case of obesity, the shame and self-disgust you feel is your body telling you that you are killing yourself.

When your body and subconscious  tells you something is wrong, the answer is not to get over it, the answer is not to drug it into submission, the answer is not to accept it, the correct answer is to figure out the reason your body and subconscious are screaming at you and to change yourself so they no longer have to scream.

****

Your body evolved in an environment of scarcity. Food was scarce, you rarely gained the calories necessary for optimal health, so your body adapted to urge you to eat as much as possible, particularly of sugars and fats, which provided a large amount of calories.

Modern industrial agriculture has made food abundant; it is no longer scarce but your body still thinks it is, so it demands you eat, and it particularly loves its fats, sugars, and salts.

When you do not eat as much as you can your body screams at you that you are starving yourself; when you exercise, you are depleting your energy reserves and you body screams at you.

This is why it is much easier to gain weight than lose weight. Your old primal self is no made to handle the new modern world. You should not ignore this, but you should know why this pain exists.

The curse of being fat is: Your mind and body scream self-loathing at you for being fat, but your body screams pain at you if you diet and exercise. It is painful either way.

****

So why do people participate in fat acceptance, when their own bodies and minds are screaming at them that they are killing themselves, when all the research says they are killing themselves, when obesity negatively impacts yourself and those you care about?

Easy: change is hard.

It is a lot easier to come to accept (and possibly overcome) your self-loathing mentally than it is to overcome the pain of diet and exercise. Self-loathing is vague and amorphous, pain is immediate and direct.

Self-loathing can be reasoned at, self-justified, denied, and overcome by other emotions. There is no reasoning with, denying, or ignoring pain: pain is.

Instead of facing the pain, it is easier to accept the self-loathing.

****

Shame is used for societal control. It is used by society to prevent people from following their base urges to self-destruction.

Forgoing shaming obesity, gluttony, and sloth is not loving; it is apathetic. It is people to destroy themselves.

Fat acceptance is not something society should embrace, for the good of fat people.

This is not to say fat people shouldn’t be loved, they should, but their obesity and the behaviours contributing to it should be shamed out of love.

Fat acceptance is telling people it is okay to engage in self-destruction.

****

If you are fat, realize it is not healthy. You are hurting yourself and showing you do not love yourself or those around you.

Realize that the pain may be unavoidable, but it is necessary.

Overcoming the pain and making yourself a better person will do much more for you, your self-respect, and your happiness than any amount of fat acceptance.

If you want to improve yourself, I would recommend the primal diet.

I tried the primal diet; while being strict on it I lost 10 lbs in 3 weeks. After that I became less strict, but I’ve still lost about 25 lbs (12% of my body weight) in 3 months. I’ve never been actually fat, maybe skinny-fat, but I did have a gut, it’s quite noticeably shrunk.

The best part, after the initial three weeks it’s required almost no willpower on my part. I rarely feel hungry and I never feel like I’m missing anything; it requires very little discipline. Once you get over the initial hump, it’s easy. It causes minimal pain, while still getting results.

So, do yourself a favour. Try the primal diet.