Obama himself, the Times explained, has been “longingly” telling his inner circle that what he’d really like to do is what Sen. Jay Bulworth, played by Warren Beatty in his 1998 movie “Bulworth,” did: to go public as an unabashed, angry and admitted socialist.

No surprise here – and yet, I seem to remember a lot of Liberal snark going around when Republicans, Libertarians, Tea Baggers, and Professional Bloggers pointed this out some time ago:

Quite frankly, this is just another data point in my war of Eternal Frustration – heck, the whole reason I started blogging in the first place, before I went fully Red Pill, was annoyance with endemic stupidity.  The Liberal Media in particular (and all their repeater-stations on Reddit) constantly enjoys ridiculing people for stating the blinding obvious – though the Conservative Media isn’t much better.

Dear Nay Sayers: time and time again I – and all of my colleagues in the Blogosphere – are proven Right; meanwhile the MSM is repeatedly proven Wrong.  The closest we come to failing is when we can’t find the evidence; for instance, as yet there is no proof of the FBI’s involvement with the Boston Bombing; Red State finds the whole thing ridiculous for whatever reason, despite a long history of the FBI aiding and abetting terrorism due to a misguided policy of enforcement.

If anything, we fail to go far enough.

So a request to all the mindless idiots who believe whatever they’re told, no matter how many times the story contradicts – kindly shut the fuck up, stop voting, and read some George Orwell.

Quite frankly, it’s Theology that makes up the ideological DNA of all Memetics.

Throughout the Manosphere and the Alt-Right there is a core Theological premise upon which we all agree, whether we know it or not; irrespective of whether we call ourselves Atheist or Christian (or Hindu, or Buddhist), this one principle unites us, and explains why staunch Atheists such as Aaron Clarey can use the word “Evil” un-ironically.  It is a simple binary which delineates the difference between Angelic and Demonic, between Christianity and Churchianity, between Right and Left, between Civilization and Barbarity.

It is the question: “Which comes first?  Logos or Agape?  Reason or Love?”

The Bible is pretty clear on the matter:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
~John 1:1

Jesus talks a fair bit about love and forgiveness, but the very first premise is the Law.  Reason, mathematics, the coherent universe – only once this has been established does love, can love enter into the equation.  Contrast for a moment to the Hippy ideology we were taught growing up: “God is love!  The universal spirit is love!  Love all mankind!” Or as that degenerate John Lennon put it, “All you need is love.”

Ann Barnhardt (a relatively sane woman) puts it thusly:

It’s actually quite simple. All of the Marxist-homosexualists are always going on and on about how giving people free stuff and letting people do whatever they want is the message of Christ and His Church, right? There is no sin, there is no hell, I’m okay – you’re okay, do what you want and give people free stuff because … wait for it … God is Love. And love means free stuff, never ever having to say you’re sorry, and sex.

The problem with this is that love PROCEEDS from logic and reason. Look at The Last Gospel. It’s right there in the very first verse. In the beginning was THE WORD. Verbum in Latin. Logos in the original Greek. Logos means logic and/or reason in the Greek. John identifies God NOT as “The Caritas” (Latin for love, which is the root of the word charity) or The Agape (Greek for the ultimate self-sacrificial love). John does not say, “In the beginning was the Love…” No, no. John identifies God as THE LOGOS. The Word. Logic and reason. Existential Reality.

The Greeks had three main words for Love; Caritas, Agape, and Eros (erotic love), and that just so happens to be a perfect way to break this down.  So lets go through these one-by-one to help demonstrate how we on the Right consistently use our intellect to guide our emotions, while those on the Left start with their feeeeelings and use the rationalization hamster to explain why other people need to tolerate it.

Eros: Erotic Love

1. Game

The very premise of Game is chock-full of Logos.  It presupposes that there primordial, evolutionary psychological reasons for why women choose certain men over others.  Game has two primary stages.  First the study of what works, the trial-and-error of field research, the hypothesis-experiment-theorizing of the scientific method.  Ten years ago we had Ladder Theory – just look at how far we’ve come since then.  Second there’s the application.  Letting your balls drop and overcoming approach anxiety; developing inner game and growing into the sort of man who deserves a top-notch woman.  Becoming well-read, becoming successful, and learning how to touch her inner core so that she swoons.  Logos first, and then Eros.

What sort of advice do those whom the SPLC finds acceptable offer? “Just be yourself!  You can’t argue with your heart!  Love happens when you least expect it!” – and let’s not even get started on the Fat Acceptance Movement.  They start with the Eros, “Oooh, he’s a drummer in an indie band!” and use the Logos to justify it.  No responsibility, no forethought, just blindly bouncing through life like a malformed billiard ball.

2. Marriage

Dalrock has already put it best in his post Lovestruck:

What nearly all modern Christians have done is place romantic love above marriage.  Instead of seeing marriage as the moral context to pursue romantic love and sex, romantic love is now seen as the moral place to experience sex and marriage.  This inversion is subtle enough that no one seems to have noticed, but if you look for it you will see it everywhere.

“Oops, it just happened!  We woke up next to one another after getting hammered at the bar, and then eventually we got married!” While getting married at all is a pretty stupid idea nowadays, marrying a girl whom you haven’t thoroughly vetted, simply because it’s the first time you’ve gotten your dick wet in six months and are suffering a bad case of oneitis, is the height of foolishness.

Furthermore, look at the reasons for dissolution of marriage: traditional marriage came with mutual obligations from both parties (Love, Honour, and Cherish versus Love, Honour, and Obey), and while there were justified, at-fault divorces back in the day, the basis of the divorce was Logos – Reason – that is to say, one of the two had broken the contract.

Nowadays?  It’s ’til death do us part… or we fall out of love.  Feeeeelings come first, and it’s up to the courts to sort it all out.  ‘Nuf said.

Caritas (Charitable Love)

1. Aumann’s Agreement Theorem

Throughout the Alt-Right you’ll find dozens of opinions and ongoing debate; we’ve got Libertarians, Monarchists, Anarchists, Reactionaries, Austrians, Goldbugs, Bitcoiners, Minarchists, and plenty of others I’ve neglected to mention.  Unlike Left-wing diversity – where people look different but all say the same thing – we’ve got a real diversity of opinion over here.  And yet all of us – every single person on the Right who’s picked a horse in the race – bases their opinions on logic and reason.  Gut instinct plays a role in telling us what to research, and none of us have yet discovered Solomon’s Key, but at the end of the day it’s facts and provable theory that guide us.

That we agree on so much is a testament to the fact that we’re doing something right.

Contrast to how the Left organizes – Feminists, Democrats, and even Neocons – they start with a feeling, a Caritas attitude about loving your neighbour and not judging, and yet they can’t agree on anything.  They form their little cliques, support groups for the amygdalae deprived, with extreme out-group/ingroup viciousness, and yet their beliefs are incoherent.  There’s a party line which they all toe, but if there’s one thing writing about feminism has taught me is that it’s as variable as the weather.  Sex-positive sea-cows, vs All Sex is Rape lesbians; and yet somehow they’re all on the same side.

Our allies are those whom we respect and trust; theirs are whoever makes them feel safe.

2. The Wealth of Nations

When it comes to matters of industry, economics, and charity, once again, us on the Right use our brains first.  Oh, there’s debate – there’s plenty of debate! (the funny thing about the Laffer Curve is that you can never know where you are on it) – but our approach to the matter is tough and fatherly, enabling intelligent conversation.  For example, take the following statements:

• Raising taxes may be necessary, but it will stifle business
• Large companies and vested interests shouldn’t have too much regulatory power
• You want the input from major players when you write regulations affecting them
• Some people – through misfortune or inability – will require charity
• Welfare naturally breeds dependence (people respond to incentives)

Though we all agree on these premises, they result in hours-long conversations, full of facts and historical examples, where everyone involved learns a thing or two.  But though we’re all trying to figure out the best result, none of us will shy away from doing something that’s uncomfortable, so long as it’s necessary.

Do I even need to talk about how the Left thinks about matters economic?  I think this lady covers it well enough:

Feel-good outcomes are the premises they start with; Helicopter Bernanke will take care of the rest.

Agape

This is the big one; selfless love.  Your love of your fellow man, and your willingness to forgive those who trespass against you.  For a civilized society to exist we must be more than vengeful brutes, and though the Manosphere loves to advocate Randian selfishness, this is mainly a response to the misandry which holds us guilty for everything; quite frankly, it would be more accurate to call it enlightened self-interest.

Those who treat us well, we treat well.  We don’t hold others up to standards which we don’t hold to ourselves.  And should anyone show true contrition, we would be willing to forgive them.

Maybe this is all too obvious.  Let’s look at how the left behaves, instead.

Their version of selfless love is White Guilt.  A perpetual mea culpa, opening their arms wide and refusing to judge any of the masses who rush in.  Did somebody murder your daughter?  Forgive them – even if they didn’t plead guilty, or make any effort to apologize.  Hand over your economy, your country, your physical body for their usage-

Let them kill the goose that lays the golden egg.  Because you love them.

Love yourself, too, and take whatever is needed for your benefit – after all, isn’t mankind one big happy family?  Is this word a giant pot-luck?  Eat whatever you want, protest whatever you want, sue whomever you want, and fuck whomever you want – with no regard for yourself, for your children, for your country, or for what the future consequences are.

Don’t judge, just live!

And always be true to yourself.

Conclusion

All of reality boils down to a simple theological distinction – which came first?  Truth – or Love?

Those who answer Love turn the world into their oyster – no action is questionable, no lust immoral. “Do what thou wilt, and that shall be the whole of the law.” Inevitably, every society is infested by a few such creatures, but seldom before has an entire civilization embraced such a system.

The early adopters get 1969, and never suffer for it; the single mothers get to blame patriarchy, the AIDS patients get to blame homophobia – and besides isn’t pain just a different perspective?  But over time, when the whole society rejects Truth and Natural Law (whether it be morality or economics), degeneration is inevitable.

That’s the world we live in, Men of the West; a rampant orgy of violence and drug addiction, mortgaging the future to pay for the present.  A world without reason – a feminized world – a world of feelings.

But some of us – many of us – have always held Truth as sacred, deep in our souls, and despite all of their brainwashing they couldn’t tear it out.

We bear the Light of Civilization, Men.

You’ve heard of animals chewing off a leg to escape a trap. There’s an animal kind of trick. A human would remain in the trap, endure the pain, feigning death that he might kill the trapper and remove a threat to his kind.
~Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam, Dune

ͼ-Ѻ-ͽ

My novel
My Twitter

Aaron Clarey’s Podcast
Women in Norway

ͼ-Ѻ-ͽ

My novel
My Twitter

Destroid – Raise Your Fist
Nydwracu’s discussion of aesthetics.

ͼ-Ѻ-ͽ

My novel
My Twitter

Go hear to check it out, and then you too can look as stylish as Aaron and myself.

The Dual Pessimist is a boor to be around.  The Dual Optimist is a Sanguine Fool, who begins large projects but never completes them.  And as for the Spiritual Pessimist/Material Optimist?  These are the natural slaves of the world, boors who never dream bigger than their corporate job, but think you’re being a Negative Nelly for pointing out how badly run the company is, regardless of whether you’re offering solutions or not.

Me?  I dream big – I pursue the projects that most people think are insane and impractical.  In the long run, I’m an optimist.  But I’ve also spent enough time in the trades to know that everything is going to go wrong with the project, and that if you don’t start out resigned to hours of failure before you succeed, then the job is going to break you.

I write that to forewarn you that this is going to be a pessimistic post.  I’m writing about all the different ways things might go wrong.  If you’re looking for something life-affirming, something so chock-full of masculinity that it shines like the sun, go check out this piece by Edward Thatch on Return of Kings – and then, Filled to the Brim with positivity, we can get back to the task at hand.

Ready for it?

ͼ-Ѻ-ͽ

In his post How to be a Great Man RooshV isolates three pillars that one ought to pursue: Game, Lifestyle, and Testosterone.

Note that all three must be present to some degree to put you on the road to greatness. Game only would make you an approach monkey. Lifestyle only would make you a mere interesting beta who spends a bit too much time in the friends zone. Testosterone only and you’re the meathead who has to get drunk just to do a basic approach.

In and of itself it’s a great post, but what I’d like to focus on are his last few paragraphs where he projects forward into the future.  One thing that’s evident to anyone over twenty-five is that the quality of women are rapidly declining.  I’m not talking about the obesity epidemic – my anecdotal evidence accumulator has no opinion on that matter – I’m talking about the decline in personality.

Quite frankly, most of the women I meet nowadays are trash – both those in my age range and those fresh off the assembly line.  On dates they expect to be entertained, they expect you to be witty when they can barely string together a coherent thought.  On approaches they’re cold, thinking that a harsh shut-down (of another human being who’s just trying to build a connection in this cold, empty universe) shows off how socially valuable they are.  And in relationships, they’re incredibly selfish; expecting all the traditional behaviour that a man embodies (leadership, dominance, adventure) while failing to provide the female half of the equation (nurture, submission, eagerness).

Note: This is a generalization, meaning that it’s generally true; there are exceptions out there.  The exceptions are the sort of Ladies I call friend, who are in utter agreement with me about what trash most other women are. #ReadingComprehension

Roosh projects this gradual degradation forward with his three pillars of masculinity, arguing that to be successful with the women of the future, you’ll need to be:

1. A Spam Approacher
2. Famous
3. On Steroids

As a straight-line graph, he’s bang on, but history doesn’t always follow that sort of pattern.  More often than not the upward trajectory winds up generating the precise sort of feedback that drags it back down.  In this case the faulty premise is “Female Independence”.

Women as a group have never been independent, and those who espouse Feminist Theory are the least independent of the bunch.  The vast majority are unwilling, and frequently incapable of working hard enough to actually be independent, relying on a foul mix of Affirmative Action legislation, subsidies, and welfare to achieve an “equality” to what men are able to accomplish without so many safety nets.  To see this in action, lets visit our favourite Canary in the Coal Mine – the black ghetto.

In the ghetto you see almost exactly what Roosh is describing, albeit with some cultural variants (successful drug dealer instead of movie star); the women’s hypergamy is out of control, and only the most “Alpha” of the males get to breed.  Any sensitivity or decency is quickly screened out, in favour of the Trayvon Martins of the world.  It’s R-Type behaviour run amok.

“”I don’t need no man to take care of me!”

R-Type behaviour only exists within certain environments, however: in a warm, tropical climate, where to be “successful” all a woman needs to do is stroll down to the riverbank and eat a mango – or in an artificially created setting.  The black ghetto is R-Type thanks to three main artifices:

1. Welfare: misplaced White Guilt causes most people in America to turn a blind eye to the fact that the Ghetto Lifestyle – wanting as it might be – is almost entirely funded by middle-class tax payers.
2. The Prison-Industrial Complex: at any given time roughly 5% of black men are in prison, and it’s safe to say that most of those inmates aren’t coming from the middle class.  This culling of the male population relieves some of the inter-male tension.
3. An Imposed Police Presence: the laws of our society reflect a stable, 1950s-style situation, where (presumably) obeying the law means you get to have a job and a wife; the ghetto is like a foreign land.  Without cops, “Beta” males would be arming themselves and dealing with the Sociopaths and Sneaky Males.

For an R-Type, Hypergamous environment to exist you need the consent of the Men; Men as taxpayers, Men as White Knight enforcers, and Men as – ultimately – validators of the woman’s worth.

Women are utterly terrified of shaming tactics, and the only reason they’re getting away with so much ill behaviour is because men in general are not calling them on their shit.

Right now, as bad as things are, they aren’t bad enough for most men to do anything about it.  They live in a reality manufactured by TV and movies, which still promises them the sort of life which existed back in the 50s – work hard, obey the law, get the girl.  Women are still subtle enough about their mating strategies that most Betas haven’t caught on that they’ve been left in the lurch, few of them have seen the sheer, exposed female Id that those of us in the Manosphere understand.  As a result, they support women’s misbehaviour, even going so far as buying them dinner even though women are making just as much, if not more, than the average guy.

However, all of that changes as we approach Roosh’s Hypergamy Singularity; at some point even the most oblivious Beta will see the forest for the trees, and they’ll no longer be willing to support the Female Imperative.  The day Betas stop White Knighting, is the day that terror kills the rationalization hamster.

It’s not a question of equilibrium – how much bitchiness can they get away with? – this is a dynamic cycle.  Women are getting bitchier; they’ll continue to do so, doubling down and driving more and more Men to Game and MGTOW, but in the meantime a few shining lights will begin to appear; women who want Real Men (not MRAs), who embrace the Female Virtues, and who are avowed anti-feminists.

Eventually a strong reversal will happen; I expect it to coincide with the Greatest Depression.  The next ten years will be interesting.

ͼ-Ѻ-ͽ

At least, that’s if everything holds constant; a Black Swan could seriously mess things up.  I’m looking at you, Post-Scarcity.

Post-Scarcity is the ultimate dream – a world where nobody has to work because all of our systems are automated – but it could easily turn into our worst nightmare.  Given our present culture, even the best case scenario is a spiritual degradation.

With no material wants, women will choose men purely on Dark Triad traits – sociopaths and criminals.  With no workplace enforced behaviour code, soft-harems will become acknowledged-harems, followed up by demands for more domestic legislation, which will only target the upper-betas – never the sociopathic mega-Alphas.  More and more, lesser Betas will turn to the addictions of videogames and porn, causing an imbalance in the sex-ratio, which will lead to sluttier behaviour from the women.

A hedonist’s paradise perhaps, but it’s an empty paradise.  Star Trek imagined that the Post Scarcity Elites would teach themselves Cello, and explore the stars, but if women are flocking en mass to crystallized Dark Triads, then… why bother?

ͼ-Ѻ-ͽ

Don’t think this is far-off science fiction, either; Post Scarcity is already here in its infancy.  I’d love to hear Aaron Clarey and HPX83‘s take on this, but as a rough guess I’d say that half the jobs out there are not economically productive; they seem to have more to do with Soviet make-work programs than Adam Smith.  And I’m not just talking about government jobs, either – the last major company I worked for had an entire floor of people doing pretty much the same thing as your wireless router.  There was no excuse for my job existing – and yet it did.

There’s something rotten in the State of Denmark.

In theory this should be impossible, right?  Collusion, lobbying, corruption – sure, those are understandable hiccups in the Free Market that lead to decreased competition, but it shouldn’t allow outright idiocy and incompetence to dominate on the highest levels, should it?  It’s easy to dismiss because we’re all Good Austrians around these parts, but the older any of us get the more obvious it becomes.

Either God has made a mistake, or our Theory is wrong.

As I’ve pointed out before, people are more than just Economic Actors; culture is a heuristic, it determines what we see, and what we don’t.  And our culture is narcissistic; a media elite, a corporate elite, dominated by Sneaky Males who tell the women what they want to hear, who justify their outrageous behaviour, who are perfectly willing to run corporations that employ hundreds of them at useless jobs, while crushing the Betas under the weight of Sexual Harassment policy…

It’s a complex topic, and there are still a lot of directions this could go.  Over the next few days I’ll be exploring other facets of female misbehaviour; it’s become toxic sludge in our society…

…and ultimately it’s up to us Men of True Grit to call them out on it.

ͼ-Ѻ-ͽ

My novel
My Twitter

Let me remind you, Bill Burr is a stand up comic who rags on bratty women – and he’s talking about bankers.  Glad to hear he knows about Iceland.

Add in the SSRI Bomb when the Depression really hits, and you wind up with this.

Interesting times, folks, interesting times.

ͼ-Ѻ-ͽ

My novel
My Twitter

ͼ-Ѻ-ͽ

My novel
My Twitter

In March 2013, shortly after Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina (now Pope Francis) was selected to succeed the retiring Pope Benedict XVI as Pope of the Catholic Church, a transcript purporting to document an unaired interview between then-Cardinal Bergoglio and an American journalist was circulated on the Internet. The transcript was originally posted to the web site of the UK’s Diocese of Salford,