Elusive Wapiti Classic #1,Part 1, – Destuction of the Family – Feminism and Communism

The next two posts are in conjunction with the April 25, 2011 post:
<a href=”http://conancimmerian.blogspot.com/2011/04/communism-through-institutions.html”>Communism Through The Institutions
Great video of former KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov</a>

Part 2 is below this post for a more traditional/readable continuation.

Original here: <a href=”http://elusivewapiti.blogspot.com/2008/03/evils-of-feminism-part-v.html”>LINK</a&gt;

<div class=’post-body’>
<p>
Feminism Destroys Family and Society–Intentionally

<center><i><b>
“Most Americans do not realize that they, through their institutions, are being led by social revolutionaries who think in terms of the continuing destruction of the existing social order in order to create a new one”
</i></b> [4]</center>

In <a href = http://elusivewapiti.blogspot.com/2007/12/evils-of-feminism.html>previous installments</a>, I’ve discussed how feminism devalues women, causes them to be sexually precocious, and leads to cultural <i>hara kiri</i>.  Today, I’ll discuss how feminism, purposefully and with full awareness, aims to destroy the religious- and family-based principles upon which our country and civilization is based, and replace it with its totalitarian matriarchal utopia.  As this post is very long, I’ll post it in two sections.

Some time ago, reader <b>pjanus</b> gently <a href = https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2136312527901126367&postID=2084901249095159579&isPopup=true>rebuffed me</a> for my naivete in thinking that feminists are simply misguided but well-meaning liberals who know not what they do. Well, I’ve done some more thinking and research on the subject, and I concur with him in that, while some feminists, in their zeal for so-called “women’s rights”, fail to appreciate the long-term effects of what they do, the remainder doggedly and intentionally pursue an agenda that is aimed at nothing less than the subsumption of Western and Christian culture.

I will attempt to explain what I found in as brief a manner as possible.  Because it is instructive to know where something came from to know where its going, this post will contain a short history lesson that explains the ideological roots of feminism.  In this task, I ask for your grace…this is ground well-tilled by those far more talented than I, I am not a “women’s studies” major, and I lack the space to delve into these subjects with any considerable depth.  But I will proceed nonetheless, and see where it leads.  Let’s go, shall we?

<b>The Age of Reason</b>

I start my very brief history with the Enlightenment, when man began to reject <a href = http://www.saintswithouthalos.com/n/pcraft.phtml>priestcraft</a&gt; and the theocratic State and used science and his powers of reason to define the world. One primary feature of this event is the decoupling of culture and morality from external sources such as religion.  Man began the process of turning inward and located his compass there, rather than on an Almighty Being, a process probably best exemplified by the rise of the Transcedentalists and the Unitarians in the 1700s and 1800s and the incorporation of their theories into the philosophies of Hegel, Kant, and Marx[4]. As Dreher recently observed, this turn was <a href = http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/02/western-culture-wrecked-this-f.html>doomed to fail</a> as we only now are beginning to fully understand.

This use of humanist reasoning, uninformed by theology, came to a crescendo in Germany in the late 1800s and early 1900s.  We all know what nightmares came of that, both there and elsewhere (such as the USA and USSR).

<b>The Godfather: Karl Marx</b>

Karl Marx thought it all up. His unified, single-factor economic theory of history divides peoples into two classes, sorted by ownership of the means of production. Put short, he dreamt up modern class warfare, in which certain classes of people–in his case, the workers–are <i>a priori</i> good, and others such as the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. His theory of economic organization dictates expropriation from the haves to the have-nots, according to their politically determined need. Marx critiqued society through an economic lens, and he had an intense hatred for Western civilization itself, querying in 1919, “who will save us from Western Civilization?”.[1] He also viewed the family as an instrument of oppression, particularly for the wife who is under the thumb of an oppressive patriarchal male, and advocated for its abolishment in favor of the family of the State.[2]  As one can see, HRC wasn’t the first person to think that raising children “took a village”.

<b>Critical Theory and the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research (ISR)</b>

After the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, it became clear that economic Marxism was not yielding the worker’s utopia that Marx envisioned. Thus a group of Marxists got together and created the ISR–the first modern-day ‘think tank’–in 1923, in Frankfurt, Germany.

The ISR’s purpose was and is to translate Marxism from economic into social terms, and enable Marxism to be fully realized. The key tool with which to do this was called “critical theory”, at term which sounds vaguely academic at first blush. In fact, the theory behind “critical theory” is just to criticize. Relentlessly criticize, relentlessly “deconstruct”, and relentlessly discredit social institutions and mores at every opportunity.  With one’s criticism, the aim is to undermine the prevailing order with the most descructive criticism possible without offering an alternative, and the ISR was hard at work doing just that when the NASDP came to power in 1933. In this staunchly anti-Marxist and anti-Semitic environment, the Frankfurt School fled to Columbia University, various positions in the US government, and in Hollywood, where they promptly begain to apply critical theory to American culture. The Frankfurt school would not return to Germany until after the War.

End of Section 1.

Tomorrow: <a href = http://elusivewapiti.blogspot.com/2008/03/evils-of-feminism-part-v_03.html>Gramsci takes the stick from Marx and runs with it…</a></p>

<div style=’clear: both;’>
</div>
</div>
PART 2 BELOW

Advertisements

Elusive Wapiti Classic #1, Part 2, – Destuction of the Family – Feminism and Communism

Original here: <a href=”http://elusivewapiti.blogspot.com/2008/03/evils-of-feminism-part-v_03.html”>LINK</a&gt;

<div class=’post-body’>
<p>
<i>Note: This is the second half of a post that argues that feminism aims to destroy the family and the cultural fabric in favor of a new social order.

Read the first section <a href = http://elusivewapiti.blogspot.com/2008/03/evils-of-feminism-part-v.html>here</a></i&gt;.

<b>The Protege: Antonio Gramsci</b>

An Italian, Antonio Gramsci, took Marx’s theories and expanded upon them, creating what we now know as ‘Cultural Marxism’.  He took Marxism’s monolithic bloc of aggreived “workers” and broke them up into several smaller constiuencies, each claiming its own variant of oppression, be it sex, race, economic, blue collar workders, or homosexuals. Each had its own particular axe to grind, each had its own reason to be “critical” of the enveloping culture, and each demanded that the wider culture accede to its demands through accomodation or even publicly funded remuneration. Women, usually the largest group in any human population, became the largest “oppressed” constituency in cultural Marxism, and thus swung the heaviest political weight[4]. Gramsci also coined the term “hegemony”, and set it in the context of a full-scale culture war in which each oppressed group was to buck the hegemony which was seen as keeping each down in a state of servile oppression. Gramsci defines hegemony thus:

<blockquote>

“… Hegemony operates culturally and ideologically through the institutions of civil society which characterises mature liberal-democratic, capitalist societies.  These institutions include education, the family, the church, the mass media, popular culture, etc.”
</blockquote>

In other words, hegemony is the culture.  It is the whole system, both tangible and not. From Marx, we know that Gramsci’s hegemony is just code for all of Western Civilization, particularly Chritianity, and especially the Patriarchy.™  By attacking the hegemony with the weapon of critical theory, Gramsci hoped eventually so discredit the guiding influences of Christianity and traditions of Western law and English common law, so as to be able to supplant them with with his own “anti-hegemony” or “counter hegemony” of “scientific”, atheistic, cultural Marxism.  This would best be accomplished via a “slow march” through the cutural institutions (such as the public schools and the universities), where, like a frog in boiling water, the opposition would not know that they were in danger until it was too late.

To accomplish this clandestine overthrow of the culture, however, Gramscian theory needed a vehicle upon which to perch upon. Heeding the maxim that “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world”, the cultural Marxists deliberately targeted the industrialized Western civ family’s center of gravity: women. Recruit women as the change agents; they would become the perfect vector by which Gramscian Marxism would infect the whole of the culture.

<blockquote>

Gramsci hated marriage and the family, the very founding blocks of a civilized society.  To him, marriage was a plot, a conspiracy… to perpetuate an evil system that oppressed women and children.  It was a dangerous institution, characterized by violence and exploitation, the forerunner of fascism and tyranny. Patriarchy served as the main target of the cultural Marxists.  They strove to feminize the family with legions of single and homosexual mothers and ‘fathers’ who would serve to weaken the structure of civilized society [3]
</blockquote>

So we know that the cultural Marxists targeted women, both here and elsewhere (as I document <a href = http://elusivewapiti.blogspot.com/2008/01/folly-of-womens-suffrage.html>in my piece on female suffrage</a>), in an effort to abolish the traditional family and usher in their new world order. They found willing accomplices in feminists, who happily exploited the power that cultural Marxism provided, and later crowed about this merging of feminism with cultural Marxism. To wit: “Marxism and Feminism are one, and that one is Marxism”, “Sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism”, “Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism”.[5]

<b>The New Feminist Family: An Import from Bolshevist Russia?</b>

Speaking of socialism and communism, some readers would be surprised to learn that the American family law system, of which no-fault divorce is a prime feature, wasn’t an American invention.  It was imported from Bolshevist Russia early in the last century.  That’s right, the same system that the West defeated in the 1980s lives on in our own culture, rotting us from within in the same way that Communism collapsed under the force its own weight.  Bolsheviks, when they came to power, attacked the Russian family with zeal, pushing for loosened divorce laws, granting ‘consorts’ identical property and status rights as wives, and encouraging free love unfettered by any obligation of one party to the other.  Chaos soon ensued: men and women both lightly entered into temporary unions only to abandon them with zest.  Illegitimate births skyrocketed, and the abortionist was busy.  Both men and women could charge each other alimony, and some women found child support quite profitable as they flitted from wealthy man to wealthy man, being impregnated and enriched by each.  Orphans clogged orphanages, and the Soviet state could not bear the additional fiscal burden of it all.

Indeed some Russians fretted about the corrosive effects of these reforms:

<blockquote>

The opposition to the proposed law seemed to centre around four points: (1) that it would abolish marriage; (2) that it would destroy the family; (3) that it would legalize polygamy and polyandry; (4) that it would ruin the peasants[7].
</blockquote>

Their dire predictions look eerily prescient given how they’ve been realized in the current state of the modern American family.  Marriage is tapering off into oblivion, the traditional family now is outnumbered by non-traditional ones, American culture is one marked by serial polyandry and polygyny and soon may feature legalized polygamy, and the middle- to lower strata of American society are disintegrating into ruin.

But these predictions fell on deaf ears. MacKinnon, and feminist scholars like her, were pushing for Russian-style easy divorce as early as 1947[6].  They found their huckleberry 20 years later in then-governor Ronald Reagan, who signed the nation’s <a href = http://www.dadi.org/bolshvik.htm>first no-fault divorce law</a> in 1969. Marxist feminists rammed through the Wisconsin model of child support across the country–itself modelled on Article 81 of the Russian Family Code–soon after.  These cultural revolutionaries continued to push the Russian model even after it became clear that the 30-year Bolshevik attack on the family threatened total social collapse within the USSR and had produced 7 million fatherless children by 1947[5]. To date, there has been no repudiation of the failed Russian model in the family law system despte the evidence right in front of us.  Instead, it continues to wreak havoc to this day, producing legions of “liberated women” who are “married” to the State and, by 1998, nearly <a href = http://www.fathersloveletter.com/Ministry/statistics.html>25 million children</a> lacked a father in the home.

As a result, we no longer have a family law system that honors the Constitution; it has been wholly assimilated by a Bolshevist-cum-Gramscian Marxist “anti-hegemonic” philosophy specifically designed to destroy the family and create as many people dependent on the State as possible.  Western “hegemonic” legal traditions upon which our society was founded have been turned on their heads.  As I’ve <a href = http://elusivewapiti.blogspot.com/2007/10/justice-system-corrupted-by-leftist.html>blogged before</a>, the justice system is fairly shot through with Marxist ideology in the service of Feminism; now we have the dubiously moral practice of rewarding wrongdoing and penalizing, even enslaving, those who have done no wrong, sometimes based on no evidence at all save one person’s self-interested accuation, all for the goal of eradicating the independent, nuclear family and increasing the influence of the State on its subjects.

The effect of this Russian import has been catastrophic to our social fabric, posing a dire threat to our society’s ability to survive. Divorce, while down slightly from its all time high, consumes nearly 50% of all marriages. Marriage is way down. Cohabiting is way up. Abortion slaughters over 1M fetuses annually. Single motherhood, either by “choice” or by divorce, is skyrocketing.  The fertility rate is sub-replacement; even more so when you subtract illegal aliens from the mix. Crime is rampant. Educational achievement is spiralling downward. And just this week, we <a href = http://www.abajournal.com/news/1_in_100_behind_bars_record_high_us_incarceration_rate/>established an all-time record</a> in incarceration.  This is where our society puts disenfranchised men–and the few women who run afoul of Big Sister–who don’t fit into the Marxist-feminist picture of the State acting as the ultimate husband for the family. The government discourages competition, after all.

Feminists and other Gramscian fellow-travellers know exactly what they’re doing. Their aim is to enlarge the State through weakening the family and other hegemonic institutions. How do we know this? Because their acolytes tell us so:

<blockquote>

“[T]he stronger the ‘counter-hegemonic’ strength of unions and left parties, the stronger the welfare state…  When we argue for ‘decommodifying’ (i.e., taking out of private market provision) such basic human needs as healthcare, childcare, education, and housing, we have in mind a decentralized and more fully accountable welfare state then [sic] exists in Western democracies.”[5]
</blockquote>

The feminist agenda of female “liberation” goes way beyond gender equality.  If that was the case, the feminist movement would have ended decades ago when women achieved legal parity with men.  Rather, their aim is to create a omnipresent, omnipotent, socialized matriarchal government.  To do this, they need to destroy the traditional nuclear family–which has sustained civilizations for millennia–and replace it with a solo, female head-of-household wedded to the State. In other words, a matriarchy, with Big Sister as benefactor. Problem is, in destroying the traditional family, they have threatened the very fabric of society.  If 1940s Russia is any indicator, the new social order will not be self-sustaining.

In this way, feminism intentionally, purposefully acts to destroy the family, which in turn threatens to destroy society. Their agenda is clear to those who bother to look.

<i>Feminism delenda est</i>

References:
[1]: Lind, Bill.  “<a href = http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html>The Origins of Political Correctness</a>”
[2]: Lawson, Dominic.  “<a href=http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-you-can-blame-it-all-on-karl-marx-437043.html>You Can Blame It All On Karl Marx</a>”.  The Independent (UK), 20 Feb 07
[3]: Borst, William.  “<a href = http://www.mindszenty.org/report/2003/mr_0103.pdf>A Nation of Frogs”</a>
[4]: Atkinson, Gerald. “<a href = http://www.freecongress.org/PC_Essays/F_chapter_five.pdf>Radical Feminism and Political Correctness”</a>
[5]: Wood, Bill. <a href = http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=954>Statement before the US House Ways and Means Committee</a>.
[6]: Mohler, Albert. “<a href = http://www.businessreform.com/article.php?articleID=11722>No Fault Divorce–The End of Marriage?</a>”
[7]: “<a href = http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/26jul/russianwoman.htm>The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage</a>”.  <u>The Atlantic Monthly</u>, July 1926.</p>

<div style=’clear: both;’>
</div>
</div>


Classic Post: Hawaiian Libertarian – Got Game

From the Hawaiian Libertarian. Reposting the entire original that can be found here:

Hawaiian Libertarian – Got Game

Monday, November 7, 2011
Got Game?

Well, it looks like the “Great Game Debate” has wrapped up over at A Voice for Men. Rather than weigh in on the various points and counter-points made, and throw in my own opinion on who I think “won,” I think I’ll take a different approach, and go over my initial introduction to “GAME” on teh interwebz.

Fair Warning – this one’s gonna be long.

My entire support of this thing referred to as “game” has never been about “teaching guys to get laid” or how to “pick up chicks.” I support the continuous, ongoing discussions of this topic, because it does help many men open their eyes to the realities of how the human mating game works.

Before the advent of our current Brave New World Order, much of what is considered “GAME” was simply advice older men gave to younger men who reached the age where they found themselves suddenly attracted to members of the opposite sex.

Thanks to a generation shaped by sexual revolution, re-defined gender roles, and the pervasive influence of a mass media culture, many males are left clueless about how women think, how women’s sexuality works, and even what masculinity is.

For some, discovering these online discussions in forums and blogs regarding “Game,” they usually have a moment of clarity. The proverbial light bulb that goes off. Understanding and awareness dawn on the formerly befuddled mind.

Suddenly, given the insights gained from studying this theory, many men realize how and why events and relationships in their pasts turned out the way they did, where they went right, and in most importantly, where they went wrong.

One of the first online sources that I encountered Game theory, was the articles written by an author and shooting instructor by the name of John Ross. I found his online archives (that covered a whole range of topics) about the same time I found several obscure “PUA” blogs that discussed this thing called Game. I immediately saw the connection of what Ross was discussing in his articles and what the PUA bloggers like “The Reality Method” were talking about. This was around 2007, a good year before I ever even heard of Roissy in D.C.

Ross was never a self-proclaimed “guru” or “pickup artist.” Just a real guy, who had a Father who steered him in the right direction when he was a teen. He was essentially a “natural.” In none of his writings did he write the word “game” or “pickup artist” or any of the other lingo many of us are all familiar with now. But everything he wrote about was describing the use of “Game theory” applied in real life.

His first article in which he addressed the topic, was based on some advice he was trying to give to a young man in an online forum for gun shooting enthusiasts. The young man had met an attractive girl he wanted to ask her out on a date to take her the shooting range, and he was asking for advice from the forum members on how to go about it. Ross weighed in with his advice, playing the role of advice columnist, in a piece entitled: Women, Teasing, Tests, One-itis, and Hope

Keep in mind, he wrote this in 2003.

If this really is “the girl of your dreams” I have a few suggestions that don’t have to do with what guns to bring, as others have given you good input on that score.

1. Maintain an air of quiet competence. People in general dislike motormouthed know-it-alls but are impressed when they see knowledge and skill at work. This is doubly true when the activity in question has the potential for danger if safety concerns are ignored.

Explain, don’t lecture, and early on say something like “If I see you doing something dangerous I’m going to stop you immediately. You probably won’t, but I’m telling you this now so you won’t get upset if I raise my voice. I don’t much care about your marksmanship today but I care a great deal about safe gun handling.”

Inner game. Confidence. Dominance. Taking the lead. Demonstrating Higher Value.

2. Do not fawn over her. Pretty girls get this so much they lose all interest in the guys who kiss up to them. New mindset: You are LETTING HER join you in something exciting. I hope the invitation was “I’m going shooting this weekend–it’s going to be perfect weather and there’s a great range I use. If you’d like to join me I’ll pick you up at 8:30, if you’ve got something to wear that you won’t cry about if it gets a little dirt on it” (said with a grin.)

The concept of establishing frame. YOUR frame. Note his advice using a “neg,” said with a grin. Cocky humor showing confidence and putting her in the position to qualify herself to you – if she’s interested, she’ll want to let you know that she’s not like all the other girls that would “cry” if they got their clothes dirty.

When she said “yes,” I hope you added “I’m assuming you’re not one of those flaky women who thinks 8:30 means ‘sometime before noon.’ I intend to be at the range by 9:00.”

More dominance. Reinforcing his frame. Showing leadership, and letting her know he has standards.

3. Pack up and quit shooting while she’s still having a good time. Do not wait until her shoulder or hand hurts or she’s tired.

4. After shooting, do not make plans right away to do something else next weekend, no matter how well you think things went. I cannot stress this strongly enough: DO NOT SELL TOO FAR IN ADVANCE. Not even if she rips your clothes off on the ride home. End your first date with her while she’s still wanting more, and don’t be too eager to plan the next one. This holds for future dates as well. And don’t think of them as “dates,” think of them as “I’m doing this and I’ll let you join me if you behave.” New mindset: Welcome to MY world.

Is this being “manipulative” or “putting up a false front” or “supplicating” and being a “pussy beggar?” Nope. All of this advice from Ross essentially boils down to a man developing skills and confidence – aka “inner game.” None of this advice is based on trying to be something that your not to manipulate a woman into dropping her panties because you pulled a fast one on her. It’s about displaying masculine confidence, assurance and social dominance.

5. Be prepared for a test. (Men call this a “shit test,” which is a more accurate term, but from now on I’ll avoid the vulgarism for the sake of Internet decorum.) You may get such a test before you pick her up for the date, a phone call at the last minute telling you her best friend just broke up with her boyfriend and needs consoling, so she has to cancel. It may be an attempt to get you to do something different than what you planned. Do not accept this. Call her on any attempt to change plans. Make it clear such behavior is unacceptable. Be ready to say “Next.”

Man. Too bad John Ross has a day job as a shooting instructor. He could make a fortune holding workshops or selling DVD’s to gullible, hapless guys desperate to get laid.

Pretty girls have a different reality than you or I have. Their reality is that men almost always do whatever they demand. Believe it or not, the women are tired of this. The “test” is a way to cull out the mediocre males and find the ones with backbone. It’s instinctive for women, because it works so immediately and so well. When you pass one test, you will get another, sometimes right away, sometimes later. This usually goes on as long as you remain involved with a woman, but as you keep passing her tests, they become less and less frequent. Be aware of this, and act accordingly.

This was the very first time I ever heard of this thing called a “shit test.” Yet, as soon as I read this, I had that “light bulb” moment. I immediately recognized how this applied to my past interactions (and failures with women in relationships).

6. Whenever you find yourself wondering what to say or how to act, and wanting to avoid screwing up because you think this girl is THE ONE, imagine how you would treat the hottest babe in your zip code–who happens to be your little sister. You’d tease your little sister, right? You’d laugh at her and call her on it every time she tried to get YOU to behave the same way she gets all the other guys to worship her and do her bidding. When she was acting exceptionally princess-like, you’d tell her of your surprise that she’d wear such a tight skirt when it made her ass look so fat, or a hairstyle that made her ears stick out. Then you’d tell her you liked the way her nose wrinkled up when she got mad, and would she bring you a soda from the kitchen? If you don’t think this works, you’ve never tried it.

More advice on how to neg. Note: No mention of wearing amulets, feather boas or eye liner.

7. Don’t get “one-itis.” Talk to EVERY girl that catches your eye. Tease them. Let others come shooting with you on other weekends (if they promise to behave.) Pretty girls have lots of options–it just happens. You can have lots of options, too, but it won’t just happen. You’ll have to see to that yourself.

The final advice – you have to take responsibility for yourself and maintain your state of calm, cool and confident masculinity, and not put a pretty woman up on a pedestal for worship…but tease her and treat her like your kid sister.

I found this stuff fascinating. At that point, in 2007, I had already been “MRA” blogging for a bit, and had fully immersed myself into the subject matter of the divorce industry; the travesty of single mother households and a welfare system that subsidized it; why feminists are sluts and ball busters; the rampant misandry of our system and culture; and all that other MRA topics we are all familiar with.

The MRA blogosphere was my first “Red pill.”

Finding John Ross and a few PUA blogs were the next “red pill” I took.

Ross’ follow up column to that initial advice gave me another “AHA!” moment of clarity, and it marked the moment where I first began to analyze my own life and my own relationship with my wife and began my personal transformation I eventually related in all those comments at Roissy’s blog in 2009.

From Understanding Women & “The Rules” For Men

Judging from my email traffic, a lot of you are absolutely clueless when it comes to dealing with your wives, girlfriends, and women in general. I get more praise for the 7/7/03 column than all the other ones put together, and “Give us more!” is a common refrain. Okay, here goes. It’s Women 101 at John Ross University and class is now in session.

Who knew he could’ve charged these men thousands of dollars by holding a seminar or selling them a DVD set…wait, did we even have DVD’s in 2003? I don’t remember….

Anyhow, his follow up article is so good, I’m reposting it in it’s entirety:

1. Women process (and act on) information completely differently than men. Never forget this. Stop thinking of women as screwed-up men and start realizing that their minds were built from an entirely different blueprint.

Just as a hawk can discern details at distances that a man needs a ten-power scope to see, a woman is many times more capable than a man at reading the emotions of other women. (Women may be equally capable at reading men’s emotions, but have never seen a need to.) Walk into a large party with a woman. You, the man, will see a bunch of people in a room, talking in groups of two to five. You’ll see where the food and bar is, and notice any exceptionally attractive women in the room. That’s it. Your companion, however, will be able to tell you which woman is angry, which one is lonely, which is happy, which is upset, which ones feel self-conscious, which ones are jealous, and (probably) which ones are having affairs and with which men. Your female companion will be able to accurately tell you these things within ten seconds of entering the room.

This ability comes at a price: Women are many times more sensitive than men to emotional pain. Imagine a man whose skin was so sensitive that ordinary contact was painful. Whenever someone shook his hand in greeting or clapped him on the shoulder in congratulations, it would feel to him as if boiling water were being thrown on his flesh. Now turn that disparity in physical sensitivity into emotional sensitivity and you’ll get a good picture of a fundamental difference between men and women.

Men seldom if ever need to know what a group of other women is thinking, so they usually experience a woman’s heightened sensitivity from the negative perspective. They hurt their wives’ feelings without realizing it (just like the handshake in the above hypothetical) and then are baffled when their women are upset with them, often for days or weeks at a time, for seemingly no reason. (I’ll discuss what to do about this later. Keep reading.)

2. Men and women have very different definitions of integrity. Men have integrity to their word, but because of the heightened sensitivity as explained above, women have integrity to their feelings.

Women base their actions on how they feel at the time. This means that if something no longer “feels” right, they won’t do it, period. It infuriates most men when a woman “flakes” on them. (“Flaking” is the term that men who study this sort of thing use to describe when a woman who has eagerly made plans with them doesn’t show up, or calls at the last minute to cancel because her girlfriend needs consoling etc. Roughly speaking, a woman’s tendency to flake is proportional to her options and inversely proportional to her age, although I did meet one 38-year-old single mother of two with this habit.) Understand that the need to be true to one’s feelings is an extremely powerful force with women. Look at the dominant theme in all romance novels: The woman is “swept away” by emotions too powerful to be denied, and has an affair when everyone knows she shouldn’t. Another example is the adage “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.” Even the former First Lady (according to the Secret Service) regularly threw things (lamps, etc.) at her husband when angry. Can you imagine a man doing this, instead of saying “Next”? The idea is ludicrous.

If you’re a man, you probably do what you’ve agreed to do (help someone move, etc.) because you said you would. However, you wouldn’t go through with your plans to help your acquaintance move if it had suddenly become a felony with a mandatory 10-year prison sentence to do so, would you? Of course not. Ten years in prison trumps a promise to move furniture. Well, that is the kind of aversion that women have to doing things that no longer “feel” right. Later I’ll explain how to make this “integrity to feelings” work to your benefit.

3. Most women are much more rational than most men at the initial meeting. For all of men’s complaints about “screwed-up ‘chick logic’,” it is men who unconsciously fall into a very irrational pattern of behavior when they first meet a new woman that interests them.

Upon meeting an attractive and perhaps interesting woman for the first time, most men behave as if they are thinking about…wait for it…marriage! Hollywood has bombarded us with “love at first sight” stories, but what kind of message does it really send to a woman you’ve just met that you’ve already decided she’s the one? It screams pathetic loser who couldn’t get laid in a women’s prison with a fistful of pardons. “One-itis” is the absolute death knell to any person’s chance with someone new. Women know this. Men, as a rule, don’t.

There’s an old saying that “To meet her handsome prince, a girl has to kiss a lot of frogs.” Given that few American women age well or are financially self-sufficient, this adage is much more appropriate for men aspiring to marriage than it is for women.

4. What women say they want and what they actually do want are two different things. Men need to be keenly aware of this and act accordingly. The crap that women claim they want in the personals ads is exactly the kind of thing that would have the same women running for the nearest exit out of boredom if the men actually provided it.

Women want to feel attraction for someone, and attraction doesn’t come from finding a man who is sensitive, or caring, or likes long walks on the beach, cats, and candlelight dinners, has a college education or a good job. Attraction isn’t a choice. Attraction comes from that little shiver of anticipation of not knowing what’s coming next, of not being able to pigeonhole the man she’s with into any one category, of being just a little bit off-balance and not in total control.

5. Women read things into men’s actions that aren’t there. Accept that, and make it work for you, if possible. This phenomenon probably comes from women’s heightened emotional sensitivity. It may also come from the need many women have for drama (and for some women, chaos) in their lives.

What the above things mean for you, and how to stop screwing up like you’ve been doing:

Dealing with a woman’s heightened sensitivity: When a woman complains about a problem in her life (she will see it as “sharing,” not complaining), never offer a solution to the problem. She doesn’t want to fix it, she wants to relive it, over and over. Show sympathy but suggest that only another woman could truly understand what she’s going through. This acknowledges women’s superior emotional capacity. Depending on how you say it, it may send another unspoken message if the complaining was a test (and it probably was): You’re trying my patience here. I don’t fall for that BS. Watch it.

Integrity to feelings: If you can keep a woman in the state of feeling excited, anxious, off-balance, and emotional when she’s around you, you can pretty much lead her wherever you want. An extreme example of this is the group of attractive young women who did anything they were told by a homely little runt of a man named Charles Manson. I’m not advising that you turn into a sociopath, but it’s kind of fun getting the girl you met this afternoon to slip off her thong during dinner and hand it to you. Learning how to keep a woman’s emotional state at the desired level takes a lot of practice and experimenting (which is fun) and can’t be described in a one-page column, but here’s a start: Women are attracted to Mystery, Uncertainty (not the same thing), Confidence and Arrogance when combined with humor, and believe it or not, Indifference. Observe the desirable women you know that are obsessed with their boyfriends and you will see that the boyfriends invariably exhibit these qualities, irrespective of whether they are decent guys or total jerks.

Gifts: Gifts can be good at eliciting emotions and even smoothing the rough spots, but don’t make the mistake of giving the wrong kind. You’ll go broke and not accomplish what you intended. Since women’s emotions are so powerful, realize that all gifts to women have a soothing effect and “goodwill time frame” that is proportional to the emotion evoked. This has nothing to do with the value or utility of the gift, believe me. Whether you’re in the early stages of a relationship or have been married ten years, never give expensive gifts, agree to extensive home remodeling that you don’t particularly want, expensive trips, etc. in the hope that it will improve her feelings for you. If you do, you’ll be paying for the expenditure long after your girlfriend or wife has stopped smiling at you for what you did. Instead, give little nothing gifts like a funny card, or a stuffed animal holding flowers, and say “I was thinking of you today.” Do this at unexpected times. A week later (or maybe even the next day), the $12 stuffed Dalmatian with the heart-shaped spots will be forgotten, and your woman’s attitude will probably (and understandably) be “What have you done for me lately?” But guess what? The same thing will happen a week after you agree to pay for her eight-year-old’s private school tuition, which is a $120,000 tab over ten years. You do the math. The exception to this rule is if you decide to give an expensive, useful gift to a woman who needs it and who has been exceptionally good to you already. Few men do this. Men usually give presents, take women to expensive restaurants, etc. in the hope that the recipient will be grateful. THIS DOES NOT WORK. Expensive gifts should always be unexpected rewards. They should never be attempted inducements.

Testing: Reread my 7/7 column’s comments on tests. Remember that testing will continue until one of you dies. Even if you break up, she will probably test you if an opportunity presents itself. Plan for this accordingly.

Flaking: The younger and hotter the girl, the greater the chance she will flake. Hotties and flaking are like alcoholics and drinking: If they can, they probably will. The only way to completely prevent an alcoholic from drinking or a hottie from flaking it is to create an environment where it cannot occur, like sending the alcoholic to live in the Saudi desert. To prevent flaking, only offer an activity if it is something you can do right now. Get her to do something fun and exciting with you right at that moment. If she demurs, end the conversation as quickly as possible and eject–don’t coerce. When she stops you from leaving and says to call her so you can make plans, don’t believe her, and call her on it. Tell her you like talking to live people, not voicemail. Tell her that maybe you’ll offer something else if you run into her again. Unspoken message: Seize the day.

What if you absolutely have to plan a “date” in advance with someone you suspect may flake on you? When you make the plans, give the girl something specific to do, like to be sure she’s wearing a silk scarf around her waist when you pick her up. Don’t tell her why, but make sure she realizes that she has to do it, or you’ll turn around and leave if she opens the door and isn’t wearing the scarf. She will spend all her time before the date wondering about this, selecting the perfect scarf, etc. She’ll be caught up in the mystery, drama, and anticipation (women love these things) and she won’t be thinking that “going on this date doesn’t feel right anymore.”

Initial meetings: Follow the three second rule. You’ve got three seconds from the time you first notice a desirable woman to the time you say something to her. If you take longer than that, cross her off the list and move on, because she’s crossed you off her list of possibles. Never work up your courage to talk to a girl that you’ve been looking at across the room for ten minutes. Women hate this. And for God’s sake, never use some service to track down the girl you lusted after in high school or college. This is called stalking, and unless you graduated within the past 6 months, chances are she now looks nothing like the goddess you worshipped from afar. There are better women who don’t have any bad preconceptions about you as close as the nearest Starbucks, Borders, Safeway, or QuikTrip. Unless you live in a remote area, pretty girls are everywhere. Always operate from a theory of abundance. There are more available women in your area than you could ever meet, but they’re not going to come looking for you. Get out and chat up as many of them as possible. Most will turn out to be frogs. Expect it. (And realize your high school dream girl that you were thinking about tracking down is probably a frog.) You won’t find a princess by convincing yourself that the one girl you’ve met in the last month is one. Meeting and dating lots of women gives you a much more accurate perspective and has the added benefit of making you more attractive to women, not less.

Dating multiple women: If you don’t want a woman to think of herself as your one and only girlfriend, don’t do things that would make her think that way. Don’t call her every day. Don’t see her three or four times a week. Be up front, and say “I think too many people get into exclusive relationships far too quickly, and it’s not healthy. I wouldn’t even consider having an exclusive relationship with someone I’d known less than six months.” Most people, and women are no exception, will accept most anything if it is not a surprise. Don’t lie and sneak around. If you see other women and she has a problem with this when she’s only recently met you, she is NOT the one. Next.

Enjoy women for what they are, and don’t imagine them to be something they aren’t. It may sound harsh or negative, but real women are seldom like what we see in movies written by male screenwriters or read about in novels written by male authors. The cute waitress where you eat lunch may visually remind you of Meg Ryan (or whoever) in the movie where she played a waitress, but don’t for one second imagine the real-life waitress to be as intelligent or interesting as the writers who gave Meg her lines. Flirt with the waitress and let her presence make your lunch more pleasant, but don’t start going there every day and turn her into some fantasy of yours (“One-itis”). At best, you’ll waste a bunch of better opportunities mooning around her at lunchtime, while she smiles at you but otherwise blows you off. At worst, she’ll eventually accept your advances, and (since you were fixated on only her and had no other women to compare her to) you’ll end up married before you figure out that aside from being nice to look at (for now), there isn’t much else you really enjoy about her.

Don’t be ordinary. Talk about your job, school, hobbies, etc? Forget it! If she launches into the same old questions, accuse her of husband-hunting, and tell her you’re not ready for that. Be teasing and mysterious. Never give a straight answer unless it’s “No.” Women will complain that they “can never figure you out and it’s driving them crazy.” This is evidence that you are doing the right things.

Spank her. Spank her bottom lightly when she does something you don’t like. Spank her harder when she does something good. I discovered this years ago and the worst results I’ve ever gotten were neutral. The best were volcanic. (I don’t do this unless I know at least her first name, but that’s just me–it’s probably not necessary.)

When in doubt, tease. Keep the “Bratty Sister Frame” firmly in your mind (see 7/7 column). Call her on her girl-like behavior. If she mentions modeling, say, “Oh, you mean like a hand model?” Tell her that her long fingers remind you of E.T. If she’s cute but her clothes are odd-looking to your eye, ask her if she got dressed in the dark. You get the idea.

Sex in long term relationships: If a good long-term sex life with one woman is important to you, never get into a committed relationship (such as marriage) with a slender woman unless she is genetically slender. 200-lb. women who have always been heavy are usually comfortable with themselves and have good sex drives. Former 125-lb. hotties that gain 75 pounds after saying “I do” often lose all interest in sex and are a very bad bet for the long haul. I know dozens of men who found this out the hard way. Conversely, no man I know with a fat partner who has always been fat (I actually prefer the word “plush”) is dissatisfied with his wife or girlfriend’s level of desire. The old admonition about taking a long look at the mother before proposing is sound advice.

If you want to marry a rich girl: Rich women are no different than other women in that they are turned on by a man’s passion for his work. Keep in mind that not just any kind of work qualifies. Women are attracted to artists, especially musicians. Rock stars don’t get just high school groupies, they get rich actresses like Pamela Anderson and rich supermodels like Rachel Hunter and Paulina Porizkova. Singers in local bands do equally well on a smaller level. Women (including rich ones) go for other passionate artists such as actors, dancers, painters, and sculptors.* If you are a passionate artist, you’re a good bet to snag a rich girl, who will likely be happy to support you and your passion. If you go this route, keep the rich girl interested by pursuing your passion WITHOUT going through all her money! Live comfortably but don’t start to believe your own bullshit, getting her to fund your big (and inevitably money-losing) dreams of grandeur. NEVER let her dip into principal. If you do, be prepared to be thrown out on your ear. Any successful investment professional can tell you horror stories about rich women clients with artist husbands who cooked the goose that laid the golden eggs.

Maybe this will hold you clueless guys for a while. More later.

Man, he wrote this in 2003. As far as I can tell from reading all of his other articles, Ross didn’t attend PUA seminars, buy Mystery’s book or subscribe to David DeAngelo’s newsletter. Yet every last piece of advice he gives here jibes with most of what we commonly call “Game Theory.” Note: no mention of the words hypergamy or social dominance or manipulation. It’s just straight up advice, the kind that used to be transmitted from older males to younger males.

As I later found out, Ross got his game advice the old fashioned way: from his Father.

I talked to Dad about how this girl made me feel when I looked at her. He smiled knowingly.

“Son, she probably won’t look that way for long. She might, but don’t count on it. Enjoy looking at her for now. But here’s some advice: If you want to do more than just look at her, then don’t ever talk about her good looks or tell her she’s beautiful.”

“Why not?”

“Because everyone else is always doing that, and it gets old. Girls want a challenge, just like boys do. They don’t want the same old compliments, they want a challenge.”

“I don’t understand.”

“When you play shortstop, do you want the boys on the other team to all strike out every time? No, that would be boring. You want them to hit the ball to you, so you can throw them out at first base. Maybe you’ll bobble the ball, and the batter will get on base, but you want the chance to make a good play, right? If you tell a pretty girl she’s pretty, you’re not hitting the ball to her. You’re not giving her any challenge at all. You aren’t in the game. Get in the game. Hit the ball to her. Give her a challenge.”

“How do I do that?” Dad grinned at me when he heard this.

“Tease her about something. Say something about her that makes her jaw drop, and then act a little surprised at her reaction. But always be calm. Don’t ever be mean, but give her brain a little tweak, see how she reacts, and then do it again. You’re good at thinking on your feet. When a fellow sees a girl he likes, he plays with her, only not with a bat and a baseball glove, but with words and body language and facial expressions. Do that with this Jenny girl. And never back down, no matter what happens. Never break eye contact with her while the two of you are talking—let her be the one to look away. Think about it.” He saw my face register some comprehension, and he added another thought. “Don’t worry so much about her. Make sure you have fun. Figure out a way to tease her. And have fun.”

Many critics of “game” call “negs” and “cocky/funny banter” as manipulative, wrong, evil, dishonest, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Many people who seem to understand and support game are often troubled about using the term “GAME” itself, making it sound un-serious, or trivial, or whatever other criticisms they may use because they really just don’t get what it’s all about.

It IS a Game.

Like any other game, if you know the rules, know how it’s played, and you can discern the many variations and permutations that can arise during the course of the game, you will certainly enjoy playing the game. Even if you end up losing, a well played game can be enjoyed despite coming up short.

Unfortunately, some people simply can’t grasp the strategies and tactics, they never understand the subtle nuances of the action, and they simply write it all off as a waste of time. Others try to play, but don’t have the patience or self-awareness or humility necessary to learn from initial failure. Game is not for everyone.

But the entire point of blogging, talking, discussing and writing about it, is to at least make some men wake up to something they never even considered in the first place – that there is actually even a Game going on at all.

It’s a game called the human mating dance.

Nobody said you HAVE to play.

You are perfectly within your rights to take your balls and go home.


Alan Roebuck: A Nation That Honors Sin

A Nation That Honors Sin
By Alan Roebuck, on August 5th, 2011

HT: The Thinking Housewife

America does not just tolerate the sins loved by the Left – – Abortion, homosexuality, Balkanization through multiculturalism, and so on. Our leaders want us to love sin.

It is widely understood that Western Civilization — our civilization — is in an unprecedented crisis.  But a crucial element of this crisis is rarely discussed: that America’s leaders generally want us to approve of sin.  Not all sins, to be sure, but many. And a nation that approves of sin invites the wrath of God, in both the theological and the practical senses, as sinful activity is always destructive of individuals and society.

What is unprecedented is not the widespread occurrence of sin, nor even the widespread approval thereof.  These have been common through history.  It is the institutionalized, officially mandated approval of sin that is unprecedented.  Widespread sin is bad enough; even worse is the approval thereof. But worst of all is for society’s leaders to promote the approval of sin.

Observe how our leaders generally expect and require us to approve of homosexuality, abortion, fornication, moral relativism, mass immigration and multiculturalism that are Balkanizing America, demonization and demotion of whites, rebellion against proper authority, and all the other sins loved by the Left.  Disapproving of these sins is only permitted in private; our leaders want us publically to approve of and even celebrate much that is evil, perverted and destructively foolish.  We must, in other words, approve of sin.   Not all sins, to be sure, but many that no previous society in history has honored.  It is the institutionalization — the mandating — of this approval that is the problem. For what society’s authorities teach, most people believe. And people act in accordance with their beliefs. If sin is held to be good, more sin will be committed, leading to more destruction.

To describe these disorders as “sins” may sound excessive.  But the ills mentioned above are all manifestations of the most primal sin: rebellion against God.  The liberal, in his approval of these sins, is rebelling against God’s authority.  To understand the problem at its deepest level we must use religious language.

The mandatory approval of sin also demoralizes a nation. When America’s authorities did not require the approval of sins a man who found that his companions approved of what he knew to be wrong could always choose other companions. A man who realized that the worldview in which he had been raised was false and destructive was free – – albeit after a dark night of the soul – – to choose another worldview. But nowadays the man who disapproves of state-endorsed sins will find it more difficult to locate fellow dissenters. And if he cannot find companions to strengthen him he will be more likely to fall into despair, cynicism or nihilism as he sees the obviously wrong apparently in triumph.

And the increasingly intrusive apparatus of bureaucratic control forces many people to act as if they approve of sins they oppose. Think of the college professor who would suffer professionally if his companions knew that he opposed “gay rights,” of the nurse who would be fired if it were known that she opposed “reproductive rights” (i.e, abortion); of the college student whose grade would be arbitrarily lowered if he expressed opposition to the favoring of nonwhites at the expense of whites. The mandatory approval of sin forces many people to hide their true beliefs, and they often become demoralized at this erosion of their integrity.

Observe that our leaders do not demand only “tolerance.”  Normal people understand that sin is bad and therefore tolerance in the true sense of the word (allowing the limited expression of something bad in order to secure a greater good) is unstable.  Eventually, for most people, tolerance must change into either open disapproval or open approval, and our leaders must therefore demand that we approve of sin.  Furthermore, man only approves of what he believes to be good and so our leaders have no choice but to demand that we regard as good the sins which the Left loves.

To describe the crisis as unprecedented brings to mind the only possible precedents: Revolutionary France, Nazi Germany and the communist nations.  These societies did mandate the approval of many sins.  But observe that Revolutionary France and Nazi Germany burned out quickly.  Their leaders did not succeed in establishing stable societies.  This leaves Communism as the only possible precedent.

But Communism is the brother of today’s Left.  The communists were (and in a few nations still are) far more violent and tyrannical than the leftist rulers of the contemporary West, but their basic stance was essentially identical to that of today’s Left: religion is only opinion, society must be ruled by science, and man’s traditional allegiances to race, tribe, nation, and religion must be replaced by an allegiance to mankind as a whole.  In some areas today’s Left goes farther than the communists; for example in demanding that we honor homosexuality and that whites be lowered so that minorities may rise.  But overall the contemporary Left is the continuation of Communism by other means.  Since it includes Communism, the crisis truly is unprecedented.

The Sins They Want Us to Love

Consider: While homosexuality and pederasty were common in ancient Greece and Rome, there were no Greco-Roman equivalents of the Human Rights Campaign or NAMBLA, nor was same sex pseudo-marriage a part of law or custom.   Homosexuality was widely practiced.  But — and this is the key point — it had no official approval as it does now.  Indeed, homosexuality in the Greco-Roman world was analogous to drunkenness in contemporary America: widely practiced and even possessing a sort of folklore of its own, but officially regarded as a dangerous disorder.

Full verification of the general attitudes of ancient authorities toward homosexuality would require a book-length treatment. But consider these examples: Suetonius in The Twelve Caesars portrays homosexuality as one sign of a wicked Caesar’s vice and degeneracy. Plato in the Symposium portrays (in the words of the sage Diotima) the most noble type of love to be one that strives for immortality through procreation. And the Roman Lex Scantinia, a law code governing sexual behavior, imposed the death penalty for certain forms of homosexual conduct. The official approval of homosexuality was nowhere to be seen.

Consider also the status of abortion. Although abortion and infanticide were common in the ancient world there were no ancient equivalents of NARAL or Peter Singer, nor were there laws guaranteeing a woman’s “right to choose.”  To the contrary, the authorities regarded abortion as the sinful destruction of human life that it is, because it was universally recognized by the authorities that fertility is a blessing. Abortion and infanticide were seen, correctly, as desperate responses to difficult circumstances, not as “human rights.”

And at the time Rome was being overrun (or perhaps simply supplanted) by barbarians there was no Gothic equivalent of MECHA or La Raza, nor was the “celebration of diversity” institutionalized.   Mass immigration only occurred in the ancient world when one people invaded and subjugated another, which was only cause for celebration for the conquerors.   Many of the ancient barbarian peoples, in fact, violated the rules of multiculturalism by taking up the ways (including Christianity) of the Roman society they recognized to be their cultural superior.

Note again: It is not the widespread existence or approval of evil, perversion and destructive foolishness that is unprecedented.  Prior to modern times there were many individual writers who expressed their approval (or at least non-condemnation) of abortion, homosexuality, rebellion against authority, and so on.  What is unprecedented is a society’s political, intellectual, cultural and even (God help us!) some religious leaders officially telling us that good people must approve of these sins.  It’s the establishment of laws, rules and customs that institutionalize and formalize the approval of sin.

Think of it: Those of us who acknowledge homosexual activity and abortion as sins are not just disagreeing with the majority.  We’re officially branded as wicked.  If they choose to, leftists can attack us with a full array of society’s institutional apparatus: anti-discrimination laws, private attack organizations such as the ACLU, art that portrays vice as good and disapprovers as wicked, anti-discrimination brainwashing seminars, classroom lessons in which the instructors identify us as renegades and troublemakers, and even sermons from liberal clergy denouncing us.

Our leaders want us to love sin.  But to love sin is to be disordered, and since this disordered love has become mandatory, Western societies have become disordered.  Enough of the old order remains that these societies generally function at a tolerable level.  We can still generally procure the necessities of life and live in relative safety, at least if we avoid the dangerous districts.  But there is no mistaking the general downward trend.  Since we are officially required to approve of a great deal of evil, perversion and dangerous foolishness, America and the West will continue to decline until some force successfully opposes our current disorder.

Consider: We are told to love homosexuality, and yet this disordered love — along with the love of all forms of non-marital sex — contributes to society’s increasing sterility.  We are told to love multiculturalism, and yet this disordered love is dissolving our society into mutually hostile tribes.  We are told to love moral relativism and consequently to hate the “judgmental,” and yet this disordered love destroys man’s ability to think and to act properly: If nothing is really true or good then nothing has real value, in which case passivity, cynicism and nihilism are natural and widespread responses.  And when people, especially the young, are told the absurdity that they must love that which is obviously wrong, they often draw the conclusion that reality itself is absurd.  Today’s mandatory love of sin is a prime cause of the passivity and nihilism that are so common among the young.  Society is literally being de-moralized.

Nondiscrimination

Mandating the love of sin makes sense when we consider that the Left’s prime moral directive – – and therefore America’s not-officially-acknowledged prime moral directive – – is Thou Shalt not Discriminate. To love what was once regarded as sinful is for the liberal a mark of sanctity, for it marks the one who is truly dedicated to the leftist revolution that will (allegedly) usher in, for the first time, a truly just society.

But all human activity, and especially the formation and maintenance of social order, is discriminatory. In a properly ordered society we discriminate against (that is, recognize as different and take appropriate action relative to) fellow citizens as opposed to foreigners, our spouses as opposed to other attractive persons, mothers as opposed to fathers, children as opposed to adults, law-followers as opposed to lawbreakers, and so on.

To live is to discriminate. But our leaders endorse the liberal principle of nondiscrimination, and no contrary principle is allowed to have authority. Christianity, American tradition, common sense: none of these trump nondiscrimination. Normal people assume that common sense will prevent our leaders from taking the nondiscrimination principal too far.  It was once widely believed, for example, that the demand for homosexual rights would not lead to the demand for same-sex pseudo-marriage.  But this belief has been proved false and since there is no theoretical limit on the left’s demand for nondiscrimination, it is as certain as the rotation of the Earth that the Left will soon be pushing for the legitimization of polygamy and bestiality.

In short, nondiscrimination is destruction, for it makes any organized, cohesive society impossible to maintain. To avoid discriminating against homosexuals we must destroy marriage, for if any group of adults living together is marriage then there is no reason to aspire to real marriage.  To avoid discriminating against women we must destroy masculinity and femininity, for if all are to be treated as sexless then there is no reason to aspire to real manhood or womanhood. To avoid discriminating against other religions we must destroy Christianity (and every other traditional religion), for if all faiths are equally valid then they are also all equally worthless.  To avoid discriminating against perverts and evildoers we must destroy the concept of sin.  Everything that makes man distinct from the animals is to be dissolved in the universal acid of liberalism.

To treat all as equal is madness, and the Left’s actual goal is therefore the obliteration of society and the suicide of America. Few liberals are consciously aware of this goal, but it follows necessarily from the nature of the enterprise. Ordinary liberals assume common sense will prevent liberalism from going too far, but they are wrong. Only an organized anti-liberal force can prevent the destruction.

Conservative Misunderstanding

The unprecedented nature of the crisis often leads conservatives to misunderstand what must be done.  When confronted with the well-orchestrated campaign to legitimize same-sex pseudo-marriage, for example, many libertarian-leaning conservatives oppose “defense-of-marriage” (DOMA) laws on the ground that it is not the proper business of government to define marriage.  Since there has never before been an organized movement whose goals include the official derangement of sex and marriage, these conservatives fail to grasp the meaning of DOMA laws.  Failing to understand that many of America’s leaders are committed to forcing the love of sin on the public, and thinking in terms of traditional politics, they see DOMA laws as a government power grab. In truth, they are precisely the opposite: A DOMA law is government attempting to block evildoers from perverting the official understanding of marriage.  DOMA laws are not analogous to a government commissar forcing citizens to obey government edicts; they are analogous to the police preventing criminals from doing evil.

Conservatives also fail to grasp the unprecedented crisis when they fail to acknowledge the radical nature of the Left.  Conservatives often assume that leftists agree with them in wanting the best for America, and that therefore conservatives can sometimes work with the Left toward this goal.  But the Left does not want to govern American society within the general framework of traditional American ways.  To them, traditional ways are sinful, and must be abolished, either by force or by manipulation.  The Left wants to smash traditional America, and the sins they want us to honor are to them virtue.  The Left does not just disagree with the Right on various concrete policies; it has a fundamentally different view of the True, the Good and the Beautiful. For conservatives to cooperate with the Left, they must act like liberals.

As a final example, observe that some Western conservatives are willing to consider making an alliance with socially conservative Moslems against the leftist menace. A high-profile example is Dinesh D’Souza, whose 2007 book The Enemy At Home: the Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 portrays non-radical Moslems as (conservative) America’s natural allies against both the leftists and the jihadists.  Another example is the blogger who goes by the pseudonym Bonald, who sees Moslems as worshipping (albeit inaccurately) the same God Christians worship, and who has stated the desirability of Western conservatives making some sort of alliance with Islam against liberalism. (To be fair, we must note that Bonald has expressed second thoughts.)

Observe that these proposals are not just for limited tactical cooperation between Westerners and Moslems, which has previously been proposed from time to time by Westerners.  No, what makes these proposals unusual (and mistaken) is their assumption of the possibility of a deep fellowship between Christians and Moslems.

In both cases it appears to be the insanely destructive nature of the left that drives a conservative to take such a counter-intuitive position. Perhaps they would argue that unlike liberals, Moslems do not aim to obliterate Western civilization, only to make it submit to Allah. Under Islam, they might argue, public obscenity would once again not be tolerated, fathers would once again be heads of households, homosexuality would once again be acknowledged as sinful, society’s leaders would once again formally acknowledge the existence of God, and so on. For these reasons, they might argue, Islam can support an important part of the conservative agenda.

Although these proposals are both mistaken (albeit with noble motives), it is not the purpose of the present essay to prove their falsity. It must suffice here to state that Islamic and Western societies are radically incompatible, and that liberalism’s unprecedented campaign of destruction via the imposition of the love of sin has driven some conservatives to make proposals that no true conservative of previous times would have made.

What Can be Done?

What can protect us from the disorder brought by the Left?  “Conservatism” is the traditional name for the defense of society’s proper order, but conventional conservatism is largely impotent to arrest the downward trend.  The obvious continued success of the left (despite occasional local setbacks) proves conclusively that conservatism is failing to do its job. But why?

The error of conventional conservatism is to assume our society is basically sound.  It is to assume we can defend our society only by opposing the latest initiatives of the Left and that if such initiatives are defeated, or at least watered down, then America will be safe and will continue to flourish.

But this is to fail to acknowledge the gravity of the crisis.  On average, the masses believe what their leaders say they ought to believe, especially on the most fundamental principles of existence.  When, for example, America’s leaders tell Americans they ought to be tolerant, nondiscriminatory and inclusive, especially of things that are obviously destructive, John Q. Public generally goes along.  Most Americans do not publicly dispute liberalism’s most basic moral principle that Thou Shalt Not Discriminate.  And since most Americans do not oppose liberalism, it continues its successful campaign of destruction.

It is probably for popularity’s sake that conventional conservatism assumes the soundness of society.  Few people like to hear bad news, and many people retain some conservative instincts despite their general acquiescence to liberalism, in which case a superficial critique of the liberal status quo — one that avoids challenging basic liberal assumptions that are widely held — will be popular.  But a physician who diagnoses a disorder must be truthful, not popular.

We must face facts: America, for the most part, approves of liberalism.  Most Americans at least act as if they approve of agnosticism, nondiscrimination, and socialism.  Many Americans disagree in their private lives, but most act as if they approve of these principles ruling the public square.  And therefore American society becomes ever more disordered.

This leads to an obvious question.  What organized force is capable of producing a more properly ordered America?  We must reject the two most common answers: “Political organizations” and “Nothing can be done; we just have to evangelize individuals and pray.”  Political organizations must be popular and therefore they cannot afford to oppose the leftist premises that are the ultimate cause of the disorder but are also popular.  And Christian evangelism concerns the beliefs of individuals, not the structure of society.  Evangelism and prayer may set the stage, but re-ordering society always requires deliberate, organized action.

Christian evangelism (at least of the protestant variety, and the author is a Protestant) only deals with the beliefs and actions of individuals, but social order is not determined by individuals.  Society’s order — meaning the totality of its laws, rules, regulations, customs, traditions, and so on — is distinct from the beliefs of its individuals, although each obviously influences the other.  Social order does not emerge spontaneously from the collective beliefs of its individuals.  Order is deliberately built through processes that are largely invisible and poorly understood.

Consider: Why has the passage of so many defense-of-marriage laws done nothing to defeat the leftist campaign for the full legalization and legitimacy of same-sex pseudo-marriage?  Because social order is not primarily created by the visible processes of politics such as elections and legislative action.  Something deeper is at work, as the left successfully manipulates the institutions that determine the basic beliefs and practices of Americans so that more and more of them become willing to allow same sex pseudo-marriage.

If the ultimate cause of society’s disorder is the institutionalized approval of sin, then the only organized force capable of opposing this disorder is the church, meaning both the totality of all believers in Jesus Christ and the institutional apparatus of church leadership.  Only the church is charged with preserving and disseminating the Words of God that authoritatively identify and oppose sin.

Exactly how the church will lead the re-ordering of society cannot be stated in advance.  All we can say is how it will not be done: Not by supporting conventional political processes, because these cannot arrest the disorder.  And not by having church leaders take over the civil government, because these are not the proper duties of church leaders.

But one obvious way the church could lead a cultural renewal is by teaching not just the Christian doctrine that is its primary teaching responsibility, but also principles of proper social order.  Theologically conservative churches already teach some of these principles indirectly; for example, when they teach the sinfulness of fornication and abortion.  But it is not enough to teach what is sinful for the individual to do. The order of society does not arise spontaneously from individuals practicing personal piety.  Society’s laws, rules, customs, and traditions must also be made right by sociopolitical action, and the necessary foundation of a properly ordered society is a general belief among the population that society’s order ought to be proper.  The people must believe, for example, not just that homosexuality is sinful, but also that law and custom must reflect this reality.  They must believe not just that husbands ought to have primary authority in the home, but that society’s rules should honor this truth. The church must teach the necessity of a proper social order

We must also speak to the individual who feels powerless against the liberal juggernaut.  What can one man do?

The individual man must inwardly reject the basic principles of liberalism while at the same time acknowledging that he will swim in a liberal sea for the foreseeable future.  Blogger Lawrence Auster has expressed this point well:

The starting point, the indispensable condition of any conservative or traditionalist movement, as well as of our personal spiritual survival, is that we say NO to the prevailing values of the liberal order and that we keep saying no, that we never accept them inwardly, even while recognizing the fact that they exercise effective control over society at present and that we may need to accommodate ourselves to them to a certain degree in our external interactions with society. [Emphasis in original]

How can we respond personally to the disordered liberal society wrought by the legitimization of sin? How can we maintain our spirit?  By fighting back, in whatever way we can.  Can liberalism’s reign of destruction be ended?  Of course it can, if enough men resist it.  And the foundation of our resistance must be recognizing sin as sin although the authorities praise it. We must refuse to accept the false system of liberalism and we must aspire to a more properly-ordered society in the future even as we live within the liberal system of today.  America, after all, is still our nation despite the sin into which she is sunk.  We must keep her alive, looking to a better future.

[The author is grateful to Professor Thomas F. Bertonneau for his insights about the beliefs of ancient Greco-Roman authorities.]


G.K. Chesterton On Motherhood

“To be Queen Elizabeth within a definite area, deciding sales, banquets, labours, and holidays; to be Whitely within a certain area, providing toys, boots, cakes and books; to be Aristotle within a certain area, teaching morals, manners, theology, and hygiene; I can imagine how this can exhaust the mind, but I cannot imagine how it could narrow it. How can it be a large career to tell other people about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one’s own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone and narrow to be everything to someone? No, a woman’s function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute.”

-G.K. Chesterton