Racial Discrimination in the US is Alive and Well

A little story about my Dad’s fight against Intersectional Feminism in his career.

Readership: All

The Competition for the Corner Office

My father worked for the same company for 45 years. During that time, he had several promotions, and he was also passed over for several promotions as well. As it happened, many times the management chose to give out promotions based on affirmative action, and not because of ability, which predictably resulted in the position being given to many single moms, gay blacks, and other minorities with poor language and social skills.

Every time my father was passed over for someone of lesser ability, he argued with the management about why he was a better choice. In response, the management pleaded with him to ‘play ball’, and to be more considerate to those in need. In other words, they gave out promotions based on who needed the dignity and extra income the most, and not on how much more professionalism or profit that person might bring to the company. Surprisingly, this company grew to be the leading company in its field during my Dad’s career.

The discrimination that Dad experienced wasn’t just because of the middle management. No, this discrimination was institutionalized. The company my father worked for is one of 107 major employers that are signatories on Human Rights Campaign’s Business Coalition for the Equality Act. It is also one of 609 major businesses (spanning nearly every industry and geographic location) that earned a top score of 100 percent and the distinction of “Best Places to Work for QTBGL Equality”.

But my dad could never claim to be a victim of discrimination, because he was an intelligent, white, protestant, middle-class, married man with a family – all the wrong types of intersectional lowerarchy.

The Hypocrisy of Intersectional Hierarchy

As you well know, most companies brandish a similar version of the following disclaimer somewhere on their websites, claiming that they do not tolerate discrimination.

“The United States Government does not discriminate in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy and gender identity), national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, genetic information, age, membership in an employee organization, retaliation, parental status, military service, or other non-merit factor.”

These companies say that they do not discriminate on age, sex, race, gender orientation, etc., but in fact, they do! The discrimination takes the form of favoring those people who belong to the same ‘intersectional hierarchy’ proscribed by Fourth Wave Feminism, and rejecting those who are white, married, qualified, and professional. I am sure this is not the first time you’ve seen this pointed out.

Obviously, my Dad’s company prides itself for ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’, but there is still a lot of discrimination. The discrimination is against competent, white, protestant males.

But this hypocritical ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’ trope only applies to the masses. It doesn’t apply to the executive board and top-tier management. At that level, the old merit system (and cronyism) is still in effect. This brings me to the next topic.

Promoted to a Position of Incompetence

My father had another observation about how promotions are handled. He noticed that people would get promotion after promotion, until they attained a position which was obviously above their capability, such that they were unable to perform well, nor feel confident about their work. Then, they would stay in that position indefinitely, because they were unable to impress their managers that they were able to handle any more responsibility. In addition to the losses incurred through their mismanagement, those employees under their management also suffered as a result of their poor performance.

So here is where the merit system kicks in – when the person is so obviously incompetent for the job, that, if not for the ‘non-discrimination’ policies in place, that person would face a dismissal.

My father’s proposed solution to this phenomenon was practical, clear and obvious – once a person has been promoted to a position of incompetence, and it becomes clear that they are unable to perform at a higher level, then they should be demoted to their previous position of competence, but should remain at the higher pay level. After this, an equivalent ‘promotion’ should be awarded by regular salary increases, instead of moving them up to a totally different kind of job.

But you know, as wise as my Dad was, no one ever listened to his ideas. Most people wanted my Dad out of the picture. When he retired, he had to go six rungs up the management ladder, well into the upper levels of administration, and then ‘go ballistic’ before he found a manager who would agree to grant him the pension benefits outlined in his contract – what he signed on for when he joined the company in 1965.

You would think that after so many years of service to this company, his life’s career, that he would be treated better. But even though Dad’s employment contract didn’t change, the American social contract did. There isn’t any social contract between corporations and employees anymore. This happened to my Dad, who is a late member of the Silent Generation. The Boomer Generation is going to discover this same absence of a social contract very soon (and social security too), and on a much larger scale.

Related

• Sigma Frame: It’s Tough to be White (January 22, 2015)

Advertisements

Why do Women Incite Others to Emote?

Women are naturally drawn to create emotional responses in others. Will they choose to use this skill for the good of their relationships, or for their own destructive, egotistical self-centeredness?

Readership: All

It is well known that men are rational, and women are emotional. Just as men prefer to deal with issues using reason and logic, women prefer to deal with life from an emotional standpoint. Women prefer to deal with things on an emotional level, because this is an arena where they are most comfortable. The world of emotions is also where women can wield their feminine powers most dexterously.

As such, women are naturally and powerfully drawn to gossip, drama, and controversy. They take an extreme interest in children, who emote readily and easily, in family feuds, and in troubled individuals who are wrestling with complicated emotions. They get a sense of power when they can influence these situations, and, depending on the particular woman, it matters very little whether that influence is positive or negative. They are too focused on the emotional exchange, and the associated power play, to ever consider the long range outcome of their influence.

A woman does want to continuously elicit emotions out of her man. Women need emotional investment from men to feel cherished and valued. Women say that a man’s display of emotion proves to her that he wants her and is willing to be involved in her (emotional) life. Women are continually plagued with doubts about how much the man really loves them. Women are deeply unsettled by this doubt, and are uncomfortable with feeling this way. But it is a need within them that comes to the surface occasionally, and when it does, they need to know that they are loved, secure, and protected. To satisfy this need, women will be happy with getting any emotion out of their man (even anger) rather than silence. Shit testing, jealousy games, pointless arguments, baiting tactics, among many other methods, are all ways in which women do this.

[Eds. note: Some Red Pill theory stands at odds with the above claims from women. So these claims might be interpreted as a rationalized explanation for women’s felt need to incite emoting from men.]

If there are no emotions at hand, then they will do what they can to stimulate or incite an emotional response from others. Women have an aspect of their nature that drives them to incite others to emote. This drive is so powerful, that women will become quite confrontational and provocative in their efforts to transform the social interaction into an emotional one.

Problems that women face in their elicitation of men’s emotions

Women want to create and observe emotions from men, primarily as a means to connect with him in a way that is meaningful to her. But from the men’s point of view, they just hate it when the emotional response she is pecking at is always something negative, like jealousy, anger, frustration, etc. If a woman continues to carry this habit over the long term, it can really undermine the man’s good will toward her, and he will eventually grow to regard her as a nuisance to be avoided. Women don’t seem to realize that if she is always creating negative emotions, then the man will eventually wise up and shut her out. Instead, men want their woman to create more positive emotions in the relationship.

When a man gets to the point where he has to shut her out, in order to maintain his own peace of mind, men usually take the approach of offering no emotional response. This can be expected, because, for a man, too many ups and downs will cause emotional fatigue. He begins to see the cycle, and then writes it off as static nonsense. Then, when women realize that they are no longer being taken seriously by the man, they become disgusted and angered. This is because, not only do they feel powerless to influence the situation, but they also feel like he is apathetic towards them, and apathy is interpreted as the opposite of love. This is largely why women are attracted to troubled, dysfunctional men, and also why a lot of men who remain passively ‘nice’, calm, and reasonable get kicked to the curb, and possibly cuckolded out of spite. In short, too much drama brings a bad, long term outcome.

So, the main problem that women face is being caught in a dilemma between (1) being an attractive, sweet, respectful, kindhearted woman that a man would actually want to keep around, and (2) settling their own uncertainties (through shit testing, etc.) as to whether she wants to continue being around this particular man. It’s kind of like a push-pull game. It gets more complicated because both of these two extremes have their own unique sets of conundrums (too much to write here). Anyhow, women expect men to do the work of keeping the balance between these two extremes by flexing a dominant pimp hand. Hence, the stereotypical attraction for bad boys and AMOG’s.

Another problem that women face is that men prize having a masculine constitution at all times, and therefore scorn emotional expressions as weak beta faggotry. The code of conduct among males never allows a man to display fear, worry, or indecisiveness, much less any display of gushy verbal dribble. Any man who does so will immediately lose respect among his contemporaries. Ironically, many men also consider it to be inconsiderate to show their anger, lust, aggression, drive, or ambition around females. This belief could have been inculcated into men at a formative age, through their mother’s or teacher’s expectations for them to act in a Chivalrous manner.

[Note to Red Pilled men: Chivalry is not a Christian practice, nor is it conducive towards instilling Tingles in a woman.]

Positive Emoting vs. Negative Emoting

The previous section should serve as a warning to ladies. In summary, men hate what they consider to be useless emoting for no rational purpose. Every single time a woman shit tests a man and forces him to emote, and he knows it’s just to pamper her own self-esteem and lack of faith, it takes him one more step towards thinking, ”Do I Really Need This Shit?”

So why doesn’t a woman emotionally test a man by initiating affection instead of initiating nagging or bitchiness? He’d have to be pretty cold to reject affection. Why not just ask for a hug? Or give him a kiss? Or speak plainly about your thoughts and feelings. All these types of approaches will build your relationship because he will know that you feel safe with him, and it will make him feel wanted and respected by you. Try to consider what you could do that would give him a positive emotional impression of you.

[Eds. note: These last two paragraphs should be memorized by young women, and used as a rule of thumb to govern their motivations and behavior in their efforts to elicit emotions out of others, especially men.]

But why don’t women take the positive path towards emoting their men?

Probably because in their mind it is easier to do things that make him mad, than to do things that please him. It’s dangerously easy for women to take the negative emotion route, and this is because it’s dramatically effective in the short term towards getting an immediate emotional payoff in response.

The positive approach does the opposite, but this requires a lot more thought, work, consideration, and effort out of her. Also, the payoff is long term, and not dramatically immediate. It would be an enormous benefit for women to take the long view, and accept the extra intensive labor involved as an investment in their future happiness. But too many women neglect this opportunity, while most other women remain ignorant of this.

There are some women who really understand that men’s opinions of them are affected by whether their emotional contribution is either positive or negative. Women who understand this, will purposely elicit positive emotions in order to obtain favorable responses from a guy.

Faithfulness Maintains the Balance

Women will say that a man being emotionally unresponsive, or ignoring her, is the best method to lose a woman. But Red Pilled men will say that being emotionally unresponsive, or ignoring her, is the best method to teach a woman. That’s quite a difference of opinion, and so the level of faith, commitment and emotional investment would make a huge difference in which of these two perspectives would actually play out to be the real case in any particular relationship interaction.

It should be intuitively clear to the reader that faith and trust are central elements of a successful relationship. I believe faith and commitment are the answers to the women’s questions of uncertainty. Yet many women continue to shit test, etc., and force men to emote, long after marriage, which obviously is a lack of faith. I mean, he’s living with her, paying all her bills, fixing all her stuff, sleeping with her every night and dishing out regular passionate orgasms… He has given up all opportunities to lay other women, just to be with her in a proper relationship. Once a woman proves herself worthy of his commitment, and he has chosen her, the book is closed in his mind. There is no going back. No reconsideration. Period. Forever. He knows his decision. This is how most men are, concerning marriage. All the evidence to believe that he loves her is there, yet, it still isn’t clear to her that he is in for the long haul. That is why I say that shit tests and forced emoting are evidence of a lack of faith.

Ladies should be warned that this lack of faith and trust, evidenced by continual shit tests and forced emoting, will start rocking the boat, and if continued unchecked, the relationship will eventually capsize. This problem is greatly exacerbated when women who cannot elicit sufficient emoting to their satisfaction from their men, then turn to their sons, neighbors, and other men in their search for an emotional response to confirm their status. Moreover, women who go overboard with the shit testing and forced emoting signal themselves as faithless, low-class, unworthy partners.

The Almighty made humans (not only women) with two natures, and then gave us the choice of which one to conform to. The feral, ‘flesh’ nature, or the regenerated identity in Christ which acts out of faith.

“Your beauty should not come from outward adornment such as braided hair or gold jewelry or fine clothes, but from the inner disposition of your heart, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in God’s sight. For this is how the holy women of the past adorned themselves. They put their hope in God and were subject to their husbands, just as Sarah obeyed Abraham and called him lord. You are her children if you do what is right and refuse to quiver in fear.” ~ 1 Peter 3:3-6 (NKJV)

Every woman has the penchant to rebel from their lawful male authority and it started with Eve. The answer is quite straightforward, but difficult to apply. Women need to face the fact that their insecurities and doubts cause trouble in their relationship, and learn to counteract their natural tendencies.

In other words, women should learn to develop a sense of self-awareness and exercise their personal moral agency. If a woman knows this, then she can address it whenever these feelings come up.

Conclusions

A man and a woman in conjugal union should share the same heart and mind, and be pulling in the same direction. Regardless of how high a level of commitment is shown by the man, the partnership is doomed if one partner is constantly dramatizing, and creating emotional tension and uncertainty, just for the sake of nursing their own faithless doubts and insecurities.

Another thing to consider is this. The older a woman gets, the easier it will be for a man to give up on her and leave, whenever the woman cannot control herself, especially when the negative emoting reaches epic proportions. But it’s a lot harder for a man to justify leaving when his woman is faithful, emotionally mature, spiritually secure, and passionately affectionate towards him.

The choice is pretty simple. A woman can either (1) support the man she chooses, make him emote positive emotions, and he’ll cherish her for life, or (2) shit test him and tear him down with negative emoting, which will make either him or her eventually leave.

If you are a woman reading this, then carefully consider the results of both paths. This is the empowerment that ladies have.

H/T: Spawny’s Space: Shit Test Diagnosis and Cure (June 16, 2018)

Related

• All Things Bright and Beautiful: How to survive a rough patch in marriage (May 30, 2018)

Opal’s Femsplaination of Cakeface

Commenter Opal offers a hamsterbated excuse for why women wear makeup. SF reveals the men’s point of view.

Readership: Discerning Men

Cindy Crawford, without (left), and with (right) makeup.

Recently, I came across this query on Quora: Do men prefer women without makeup and with long hair? The answer should be intuitive, but with the current widespread corruption of beauty standards, apparently it’s not.

‘Opal Smith’ wrote the top answer, with 169 upvoters (all women, except for five White Knights, including one g@y, one Muslim, and one musician). She writes,

“It’s funny that so many men say this. It’s for a few reasons.”

No, it’s not funny, and there is just one reason, really. The reason men prefer their steaks rare is so they don’t waste their time and emotional energy getting aroused by a woman who is actually not all that great. Maybelline doesn’t make a woman any more nubile nor respectful, nor does it improve the gene pool of potential children.

“Men dislike high maintenance women because they think they’re selfish, when in fact, they just care about their appearance and love themselves. They see this as vanity when it’s just self love.”

This woman thinks ‘high maintenance’ means spending an hour to dress up her cake face. Heh… If she can’t understand what men really mean by ‘high maintenance’ then it’s definitely vanity. She should improve her posture. Moving on…

“Second, Men forget that women enjoy makeup and doing their hair. Looking our best makes us confident (not everybody enjoys it but quite a few women do).”

Confident – not because she’s truly beautiful, but because she can look better than she does without artistic fanfare, and possibly even better than her friends do – from a distance – all to bask in the limelight of attention. After all, popularity breeds contentment!

“The other issue is that men have no idea whatsoever what natural is and isn’t. Natural is uneven skin tones, dark circles, spots and sparse eyebrows that might need a tiny bit of filling in. Natural hair is plain one dimensional brown.”

That first sentence was, well… blonde, but the rest is exact! Those blotches, bags, and pockmarks tell us how many years she’s been drunk and DTF. But if she takes care of herself, there should be an absence of tribological clamshell fatigue striations, leading to a premature freak rupture at some unpredictable point in the future. You can paint over the cracks, but it won’t remove the flaws.

If possible, men would conduct a non-destructive evaluation to test for cumulative damage, such as beachmarks and striations, shown in the figure below. [I trust the analogies and puns are clear.]

Continuing on…

“Natural in mens eyes is brown mascara, light eyeshadow, slightly tinted brows and bronzer lightly applied. They think natural hair is a nice chestnut with a little bit of a lighter brown highlight. They don’t know what’s natural and think they’re being nice, but they’re actually negging you on some level by doing this.”

She has the idea that ‘natural’ is a style of makeup application. She must look pretty – pretty bad! A mere highlight is conservative in her view! No wonder she gets negged. And she’s ‘known’ a few PUA’s, or else she wouldn’t know what a neg is called.

“If a man asks you to intentionally be less confident, less happy and put less effort into your appearance, it’s a way to keep you ‘his’, and so that he is less worried about others looking at you. I see it as a strange thing. Would you ever tell a guy ‘oh stop shaving/washing your face/wearing cologne’ because it’s not ‘natural’?’’

In thinking that guys are worried about ‘keeping her’, she’s projecting her insecurities onto men. And women are known for dressing down their man, so they can feel less insecure. (Men should never take ‘fashion advice’ from a woman!) So that last line of reasoning is also projection.

“In extremes, makeup can look bad. But most guys saying they like ‘natural’ girls are full of it.”

She’s dismissing the argument because she can’t compete without a buff coat. It’s long past time for her to develop some inner beauty, if possible.

Then she offers these photos as an example.

While I will admit it is less glamorous, I feel the presentation on the left is more befitting of ‘wife material’. Opal comments,

“A prime example of natural makeup vs. no makeup. A guy who says he likes ‘natural’ girls will still go for the girl in the right. Because she’s highlighting features without being too bold or making it look like she’s wearing a lot of makeup.”

No Opal, this photograph is a prime example of a (slightly) past prime lady, which fits your case.

My readers should notice that ‘the girl in the right‘ is a Freudian slip, revealing her true Feminist preference for drag.

Even in the case she offers, a guy who says he likes ‘natural’ girls will still go for the girl on the right, but not because she looks better wearing makeup, but because she’s more likely to move fast. Whereas, a guy who’s seriously interested in a LTR will take his time to know someone looking like the girl on the left, because she’s not an attention whoring clownface.

FYI, here’s what guys mean by ‘all natural’. In case you’ve missed it, there’s a bit of youthful innocence involved. Guy’s want to see the healthy ‘glow’, and makeup only hides that.

On another, similar query on Quora, Do men prefer women without makeup? Is it really true that men prefer women to wear less makeup? Adam Holme offered a good example of Amanda Kimmel.

“Do you ever watch Survivor? Everyone on that show looks better ‘au naturel’, here’s the most painful example, Amanda Kimmel, who goes from flawless and unique [on the left], to common and forgettable [with makeup]. Makeup is an attempt to hide reality with a lie. What lie could ever be attractive?”

To answer Adam’s question, there are cases when lies are more attractive. For instance, if you happen to look like this lady below, please go to your vanity chest – NOW. We will forgive you.

Related

• The Rules Revisited: What Men Think of You Without Makeup (April 1, 2013)
• Red Pill Chick: Overestimating the Value of Makeup Has on a Girl’s SMV (January 6, 2016)

The Trump Look

President Donald Trump has an iconic, hard gaze that we see very often.

This look is not one of icy hate or bitterness, as many liberals like to imagine. It is a look of determined Frame. Nothing goes past him without getting filtered through his world view.

He holds this expression whenever he is listening intently, or speaking his mind.

Trump never makes the mistake of using second person ‘you’ while holding this expression. To do so would be granting authority to the person spoken to, and would be a descent into contempt. If he does use second person, it is to put his finger on a specific motive or behavior, to make it clear that it is unacceptable and needs to be improved.

It is not a cold, heartless look. Underlying the tough as nails exterior, there is always confidence and a glimmer of hope in his eye. There is dignity and self control.

But Trump is not the only man who ever wore this look.

Put aside your political biases for a moment, and just consider Trump’s Russian contemporary, Vladimir Putin, as a red blooded man.

Putin rose to power through the Russian KGB, so we know he’s got to be one h&ll of a SOB Alpha male with a capital iron ‘A’. He also carries this steely eyed gaze.

We often find that men who have this look are labeled ‘sexist’ and ‘misogynist’. A fair translation of this femtalk would be, ‘raw, masculine power’, and of course, we know that’s ‘toxic’ to those ugly, low T underlings who seek to flex their own flab.

This is Richard Branson, the founder of the Virgin group, Virgin Atlantic, Virgin Records, etc. It’s a small wonder that he has never had a sexism charged placed against him merely by virtue of his company name. Look, he has the same look as Trump does.

Look how Branson is objectifying this poor woman! That’s some serious ‘sexism’ right there!

Well, when you’re a British Knight who’s worth 5.1 Billion, the possibility of a spurious #metoo reverse-sexual harassment is significant, except it doesn’t matter, because 5.1 Billion could cover more than 5,000 million dollar settlements. To put that into context, that’s more than a hundred gold diggers a year for 50 years. H&ll, he could pay off any one claim with pocket change! But seriously, Sir Branson has never had any #metoo accusations. Is it because he’s never been close to a woman? Heh… It’s probably because he’s a world class alpha male, with an SMV in the triple digit range.

But the Trump look is not limited to politics and business. Many of those ‘old school’ movie stars have the same appearance. Here’s Chuck Norris.

An outspoken Christian, Norris is the author of several Christian-themed books, such as The Justice Riders. His subject matter varies from martial arts, exercise, philosophy, politics, Christian religion, western novels, to biography. He was twice a New York Times best-selling author. Also in 2006, Norris began penning a column for the news website WorldNetDaily, sharing his views on politics, American social issues, sports, and health.

He has also been in a few TV commercials promoting Bible study and prayer in public schools, in addition to efforts to reduce drug use. In his WorldNetDaily columns, he has expressed his belief in Biblical creationism, that those who are troubled should turn to Jesus, and is quoted as saying ‘true patriots’ do not stay clear of discussing religion and politics.

Speaking of Patriots, Mel Gibson has been noted for having Kamikazi eyes, combined with the deranged, ‘bite your head off’ Jack Nicklaus grin. This is the warpath version of the Trump Look, which men develop when they’re marching off to conquer massive onslaughts of teeming whoards of poon. This picture was taken shortly after he made the news for making ‘anti-semitic’ comments. Obviously, he was quite proud of himself.

And here’s another movie hero who dominated politics later in life, much like Ronald Reagan did.

Schwarzenegger began weight training at the age of 15. He won the Mr. Universe title at age 20 and went on to win the Mr. Olympia contest seven times! He was said to have the most perfect body in bodybuilding history. Not only his muscular structure, but even the veins in his arms and legs were symmetrical!

After he became the Governator, he cleaned up Californian politics quite nicely. How can you trim the budget when you can’t even trim the fat off of your own @$$???

Another star, and one of my favorites, is Clint Eastwood.

Eastwood singlehandedly made the Trump look famous, even while Trump was a philandering, young business tycoon. And he clenches that cigar just as straight as his Winchester (and probably something else too).

Sir Winston Churchill, largely credited for saving Britain from Nazi Germany during World War Two, also carries the Trump look. This is the look of a man who stands up to Hitler and says,

“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.”

Going back even further, we find that the Trump look has been around for quite a while.

President Theodore Roosevelt, famous for his phrase, “Get action!” had the Trump look, and beamed it through spectacles, no less. This is the President who transformed the U.S. from being a backwoods hick country, recovering from the civil war, to a major world power. He built the navy to be the largest in the world during his presidency, and paraded it around the world. He took Cuba and the Philippines back from Spain. He was also famous for his big game hunting safaris in Africa.

Can females wear the Trump look? The female actor in the Neo-Bond film, John Wick, also shows this look. But somehow, it just doesn’t work for women. The impression is there, but somehow, it’s just inappropriate – not conducive to the feminine enticement to breed.

Moral of the story: More men, and fewer women, need to develop the Trump look.

Related

• Chateau Heartiste: When the Fuggernaught Meets the Unconverged Man (February 26, 2018)
• Chateau Heartiste: Spot The King (June 13, 2018)
• Dissention: Some Thoughts on the Ongoing Epidemic of ‘Cuckface’ aka ‘Soyface’ (June 13, 2018)

Breaking the Fifth Wall – A New Protocol for Post-Truth Debate

In a world where no one recognizes truth or ethics, what do we fall back on?

Readership: All

This essay is outlined as follows.

1. The Ideal Debate Dynamic
2. The Current Debate Dynamic
3. Analysis
4. Case Study 1: Controversy surrounding Jordan Peterson among conservatives
5. Case Study 2: Dalrock’s analysis of Dr. Paige Patterson’s Ouster
6. Case Study 3: Sigma Frame on Presumed Slut Shaming
7. Conclusions

The Ideal Debate Dynamic

J.T. Anderson has offered a succinct description of an ideal debate interaction dynamic.

“Learning is growth. Growth is life. God is for life (and against that which stifles life.)
Learning primarily takes 3 forms: asking and answering questions, testing assumptions, proving and disproving hypotheses.
In a pro-growth environment, leaders will encourage inquiry, challenge assumptions, and attempt to disprove prevailing hypotheses. All of this is done for the betterment of the community… including for the betterment of the target of criticism (hence if one can’t handle criticism he shouldn’t be in leadership.) Of course these criticisms should be delivered with courtesy, but they should be delivered nonetheless if we’re to foster growth.
Unfortunately, many people reject growth in favor of stagnation… which might be synonymous with what you refer to as idolatry. In what we might call a pro-death environment, leaders indoctrinate their followers in an echo chamber. Untested assumptions are propagated as fact, and the longer they’re spoken, the more ‘true’ they become. And anyone who challenges the prevailing paradigm is ousted as an ‘enemy’ or a ‘heretic’ rather than given a fair hearing.
Those who are for life and growth cannot remain in unity for long with those who stand against such things. I think this is why Jesus was so harsh on the Pharisees. Though they were religious, they were anti-life, and therefore Christ treated them as an enemy.
Perhaps assessing whether there is growth or stagnation in the community is a good ‘fruit test’. Though even well-intentioned leaders can attract dogmatic followers. But we can at least assess how the leader responds to the necessary challenges of growth.”

The Current Debate Dynamic

Debates are typically won by the person who has the stronger Frame (or in some cases, the most positive public image or reputation). In the past, when the Righteousness vs. Guilt (RvG) ethical system dominated the west, the person who had the facts straight, and who had the most sound reasoning, naturally assumed the stronger Frame. Because everyone agreed to the tenets of the RvG structure, which dictated that facts and logic are fundamental truths worth building a legitimate argument upon, then everyone naturally agreed as to who the winner of the debate would be.

But since Feminism has introduced elements of the Honor vs. Shame (HvS) pseudo-ethical system into western society, this is no longer the case. The goal of having a debate in the HvS system is to enhance one’s own dignity and honor using reasonable narratives, rationalized justifications, and emotional appeals, and not to convince using facts and logic. This is why we see so much ‘virtue-posturing’ these days. Virtue-posturing is an attempt to augment one’s honor and social position within the HvS mindset.

Feminism has also introduced elements of the Power vs. Fear (PvF) ethical system as well. This is adamantly made clear in the article from Everyday Feminism, How Can You Tell if You’re Being Sexually Empowered or Objectified? Ask Yourself This Simple Question (April 14, 2015).

“How do we know when someone is being sexually liberated versus being sexually objectified, since they sometimes can look similar from the outside?”

“Well, the answer is simpler than you think: The difference is in who has the power.”

Granted, their concept of ‘power’ is more attuned to a purely emotional sense of indignantly rebellious, egotistical, cock riding sure insolence, rather than the more traditional definition of authority and brute force. However, this power has, in the past decade, developed into the form of government institutionalized social policies and law. Thus the same ethical structure applies.

Analysis

First, let’s consider a hypothetical (but quite possibly real) example for the sake of discussion. Here, a RvG oriented proponent arguing for certain elements of a patriarchal Christian society would have clear facts and reasoning supporting his stance. (Many of these supporting facts and arguments have been covered within the Christian Manosphere.) But a HvS/PvF oriented Feminist opponent could reasonably claim to win the argument (in the eyes of fellow Feminists) merely by shaming the proponent for simply having such perspectives. This can be easily done by pointing out any characteristics of the GvR system which bring shame to anyone within that system. The PvF system applies within the arena of motive.

Remember, in the RvG system, the ‘bad guys’ are those who are shamed, since shame is somewhat analogous to guilt, in that it is an indicator of wrong doing. But the ‘bad guys’ in the HvS system are not those who are shamed, but instead are those who instill shame on others.

The surprising result is that any narrative which shames the RvG proponent could sincerely be considered ‘right’ by an HvS opponent, since truth is defined in the HvS system as that which garners honor. In this case, through a carefully contrived comparison to an apparently dishonored opponent.

If an observer is aware of this dynamic, then it becomes obvious that constructing a narrative specifically to shame an opponent, merely for the sake of winning an honor (virtue) based argument is not an inherently honourable thing to do, and is also duplicitous on many levels.

For instance, ‘female objectification’ and slut-shaming are condemned by the same individuals who seek to shame those who are presumptuously labeled as ‘chauvinist’ slut-shamers. It’s just a juvenile blame and shame game.

But if the participants in the debate remain unaware of this little game based on the separate pseudo-ethical system, then this debate becomes a fruitless exasperation for both the Christian/Traditionalist and the Intersectional Feminist/Liberal. The debate only serves to generate more tension and animosity.

The fact that this is now necessary, indicates that a shared faith in an ideal interrelational dynamic has broken down, and how lost many people have become in their personal search for truth and the meaning of life.

(I know some readers are trying to draw a link here to the post-modern expression of Chivalry. This is a topic to be covered in an upcoming post. Let it suffice to say that the western RvG system is presently conflated with Chivalry. For a discussion of this claim, please see here, and for an example, see here.)

Case Study 1: Controversy surrounding Jordan Peterson among conservatives

An earlier post, How to Dismantle the Idol of Fandom: Breaking the Fifth Wall (May 26, 2018), discussed the nature of fandom, and how to enhance an effective communication with the proponents of extreme fandom.

“The earlier part of this post describes how fandom lies somewhere between having a healthy respect for an influential figure, and pedestalizing them above their true spiritual position (i.e. idolatry). I feel it is important to make a clear distinction between them, so that we know exactly where the line is between having a ‘healthy’ regard, or an ‘unhealthy’ regard, for the person or ideology in question.” […]

“The latter part of this post describes some applications of this distinction, and points out how an added degree of awareness will strengthen one’s Frame when interacting with someone who holds certain values or beliefs that are foreign to one’s own. People may or may not be consciously aware of their own values, beliefs, and pseudo-ethical systems, and so they may never introduce these perspectives into the argument. Being able to understand a proponents unique underlying values and belief systems and speak to that person in their own ‘language’ [is an ability that will level the playing field].” […]

“I am not making a conclusion about the ethics of criticism in this post, but I am suggesting that the standard protocol for public debate needs to be modernized.”

The basic tenets of the two opposing, conservative based frames in this controversy are summed up here.

• Peterson’s opponents point to the fact that he is a Leftie, and suspect that he is a ‘controlled opposition’ by/to the Left. IOW, they see him as a Trojan horse.
• Peterson’s proponents, who want to see the entire corrupt pseudo-Marxist university system destroyed, see him as a ridiculously good frontman for standing up to Feminists and their ilk. IOW, ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ idea.

The quality that makes Peterson valuable to both the Left and the Right in both cases is his ability to transcend the pseudo-ethics of both the Right and Left political subcultures. Doing so explodes the politico-babble and takes the game of the argument to a whole new level.

A new standard protocol for public debate should address this issue, because whether or not a pundit can break down the fifth wall is the key point of making the truth plain to all. This is the new standard for social sharpness. Anyone who can see this should be climbing the walls to widen his Frame and develop this same skill – for the money, for the popularity, for the political power, for the confident alphatude… whatever he can get out of it that floats his boat.

This is real power in a post-truth world. This is why Peterson’s fan base has skyrocketed.

Peterson himself seems to be content with the money and the popularity, so we should not be surprised to see his philosophies gel. Some people will be disappointed with that, but this reminds me of a SF Axiom: When you’re ‘on the ball’, figure out why you’re on the ball, so that you can stay on the ball! Peterson has broken the fifth wall, and that’s all he needs to do to remain in a position of influence.

But Vox and others (now including Rollo), never address this skill. They focus instead on his socialist sympathies, latent agnosticism, and various factual incongruences. It seems like they’re already too preoccupied with the sociopolitical nuances to see the bigger picture of how breaking the fifth wall can be used in their own personal discourse.

Case Study 2: Dalrock’s analysis of Dr. Paige Patterson’s Ouster

The recent calumniation of a noteworthy figure in the Southern Baptist Church, Dr. Paige Patterson has been a hot issue of discussion in the Manosphere lately.

• Dalrock: He had to know they would one day come for him.(May 26, 2018)
• Dalrock: Patterson’s crimes against feminism.(May 28, 2018)
• Christianity and Masculinity: Patterson counseled rightly and apologized wrongly(May 29, 2018)
• Dalrock: What is off about Patterson’s “two black eyes” story?(May 29, 2018)
• Dalrock: Hysteria grips Man-Up Headquarters.(May 30, 2018)

To break the fifth wall, it is imperative to extrapolate the goals and motives of the opposing factions. What are the goals of each side?

In the second and fourth posts above, Patterson’s apparent goal is to teach people (i.e. battered wives) about how the process of repentance works, and how people can facilitate that process by being obedient to God’s Word. Concerning the husbands’ repentance in the story – who can come to the Lord without experiencing His grace and mercy? (Grace is when you get something better than what you deserve. Mercy is when you don’t get something bad that you do deserve.) It seems obvious that the false religion of Feminism is seeking to eliminate grace and mercy from the equation.

Admittedly the process does appear ugly and ‘unfair’ from the human viewpoint, but the Lord deems our souls worthy of a sacrifice, even that of His Son, Jesus.

Praise God that he turned around! That’s the power of faith and obedience.

In the last post listed above, Dalrock does a nice job of spelling out the goals of the SJW’s.

“The goal of feminists wasn’t just to destroy the man, but to get complementarians to agree that all Christians should:

• Never counsel anything short of divorce if a husband is accused of abuse.

• Accept the full breadth of the Christian feminist definition of abuse, which is anything that a husband does or doesn’t do that upsets his wife.”

In the third and fifth post above, it is aptly shown that Patterson was largely in the right, concerning Christian doctrine, but verifiably offensive to Feminist sentiments. Thus, he was caught in the crux of the battle between Christianity and Feminism, and became a casualty. I would consider this to be a major blow against Christianity, and from the perspectives of both sides too.

One more insight I would add to Dalrock’s analysis is that Mohler and Burke proved to be Churchian stooges – snakes-in-the-grass who betrayed Patterson at the crucial moment when he most needed to be backed up by other outstanding theologians. If they had both stood behind Patterson, then their solidarity would have made Moore and the SJW’s blink. Perhaps the church as a whole is too converged for these guys to be aware of that. So they still have the mindset that it’s morally right to pamper the wimminz.

The point made in this post is that Dalrock has broken the fifth wall by revealing the essential nature of the altercation, which is eye opening to all his readers. This is evidently true because many commenters left statements of praise, such as,

“[Thank you Dalrock,] Your blog is like a monastery in the midst of a dying civilization.”

Dalrock has a fairly consistent habit of breaking the fifth wall, and this is one of the main reasons his blog endures as a standard go-to source of truth in the Manosphere.

Case Study 3: Sigma Frame on Presumed Slut Shaming

In the old days, slut shaming was a common tool used to keep women’s hypergamic nature from unraveling society. It seems to have been used by women much more effectively than by men. The usual idea here was to typecast morally loose women, or even women who were expressive of their sexuality, as ‘bad’ women*. The attachment of shame to extramarital sexual encounters served as a very effective check on women’s branch swinging ambitions, and thereby formed an institutionalized social norm which supported the continuance of monogamous marriages.

* Since the advent of Feminism and the Red Pill, we know that most all women are ‘bad’ by this definition.

The new dynamic concerning slut shaming is that shame is incurred, not on those who are sexually promiscuous, but on those who choose to point out the promiscuous behaviors of others (i.e. slut shame), thereby reversing the outcome with respect to societal stability. The new dynamic seeks to preserve a sense of dignity and honor, whether or not these attributes are actually merited.

With that said, let us now consider a ‘debate’ between a young wimminz, Madison Witham, and her ex-boyfriend, Justice Champion. Their story is covered in the following news articles.

• Fox News: Teen who accused boyfriend of slut-shaming her prom dress reveals photos of gown (May 5, 2018)
• Dalrock: Shame on him who thinks evil of it. (May 24, 2018).
• Daily Mail: US high school student, 16, who dumped her slut-shaming boyfriend after he said her prom dress ‘showed too much skin’ finally reveals the offending gown – but says she WON’T be attending (May 25, 2018)
• Sigma Frame: If the shoe fits… (June 1, 2018)

For her to ‘win’ the argument, she only has to convince a sizeable number of people within her social community that her stance is right or acceptable, and that her ex-boyfriend is the ‘bad guy’ for shaming her, as she claims. It doesn’t matter whether he actually had those intentions, she only needs to make it appear that way. Playing the ‘victim card’ works quite effectively here.

But if we knew for certain that Champion did not actually send the ‘you look like a slut’ message, and that it came from another guy, then it would become evident that the ‘slut’ label had, rather appropriately, hit home, and she would thereby lose all standing with everyone. Rather predictably, this aspect is never brought out in the news articles, because that would be questioning the larger narrative.

The last post listed above reveals a discrepancy between the narratives and the screen shots offered by the Witham and Champion. It is argued that Witham had a backup man who sent the “You look like a slut” message.

“She [probably] claimed that message was from Champion, and tried to use that message to defame Champion in an arrogant power play that she probably thought was humorous. But beyond her expectation, the news went viral, and then she was unable to back out of the lie without being ousted, so later, she had to decline going to the prom with Champion.”

“[If this is true, then] She is hamster spinning a false narrative, and she is chatting with and probably sleeping with (at least) two different men!”

This perspective is a potential fifth wall breaker, because generally, the Red Pill is a fifth wall wrecking ball. However, the truth of the matter will probably never reach the general public.

Conclusions

In any discussion or debate, the extent to which a critic or an observer, can accept an argument or criticism, respectively, is confined to how much they can agree with the perception of truth offered. Currently, there is nothing new or different about this precept, except that in the modern, post-truth world, truth itself has become a subjective part of the argument. So in order to have an argument or critique that conveys any applicable meaning (including how to decide who the winner of the debate should be), we must first identify what each person considers as truth within the context of their own pseudo-ethical structure, and work from there.

Because this dynamic requires such a long description, I have called it ‘breaking the fifth wall’ to make the discussion more conveniently eloquent.

The main points I wish for readers to take away from this essay are listed as follows.

• The structure of both formal, and informal styles of public debate have drifted far from being the ideal tool for analyzing facts, expressing viewpoints, and revealing truth.
• In the past, western culture had an RvG ethical structure, but ever since just before the turn of the century, western society has gradually adopted elements of both the HvS, and PvF ethical structures. This has had a colossal and divisive impact on public debate.
• Adherents to the RvG system (e.g. Peterson, Dalrock, and SF) seek clarity and truth above all else. Proponents of the HvS system seek to garner honor, while shaming their opponents. Constituents of the PvF system wish to rearrange the power hierarchies of society, and will invent seemingly unrelated arguments that serve to promulgate their wishes.
• In my opinion, being joined (e.g. LTR, or marriage) to someone of a different pseudo-ethical structure is more catastrophic than being joined to someone of another ‘religion’.
• Presently, there are few (if any) ethics in place concerning public criticism, but a valuable criticism should consider both sides of the argument (i.e. break down the fifth wall) with as little bias as possible, no matter which ethical systems are applied. Dalrock and Peterson, two examples discussed in this post, utilize this technique regularly, and I also attempt to do the same.
• If, in fact, the Left is using Peterson as a tool to divide the Right, this may be counteracted if the various Right wing factions would all agree that Peterson has masterfully broken down the fifth wall, and then address this fact within their discussions as a starting point of agreement. All other discussions which do not address this fact, will arguably become divisive.
• Getting into the habit of considering as many different viewpoints as possible is a powerful tool in strengthening one’s Frame. Be aware that the other participants in the debate may intentionally fail to address (or may be entirely ignorant of) other Frames and viewpoints. Breaking down the fifth wall is a master class application of exerting Frame.

Related

• Boxer: Speech Acts and Psychopathy (June 4, 2018)

A Brother Is Borne Out Of Adversity

Good fights produce good friends.

Readership: All

Here, we’ll explore one verse in detail.

“A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity.” ~ Proverbs 17:17 (NKJV)

Most commentaries on this verse interpret it to mean that a true friend will stick with you through good times and bad. A friend who loves at all times is a ‘rainy day’ friend. When tough times come, a true friend will see it through with you.

While this perspective is implicitly and intuitively true, this verse could be interpreted to have another meaning. As a comparison, the Chinese have a proverb that is roughly translated as,

“Good fights produce good friends.”

The idea is that people don’t really know and understand one another until they fight over an issue. But when they have a fight, they often discover that they really want the same thing, but are trying to go about it in different ways. As a result of the fight, they uncover their shared interests, and find that they are indeed friends.

The implications of this Chinese proverb resonates deeply with my experience in life, so I looked up the original meaning of the verse in Proverbs, to see if it might also be interpreted this way.

The Hebrew meaning of the word ‘love’, (157:oheb) is ‘a human love to a human object’. Other verses which use this word in various ways, mention the love of sleep (Proverbs 20:13), the love of idolatry (Hosea 4:13), the love of a slave towards a good master (Exodus 21:5), a woman’s love for man (1 Samuel 18:20), and also a man’s love for his wife (Genesis 24:67; Genesis 29:20).

The stipulation that follows, ‘loves at all times’, is what denotes the faithfulness of a true friend. It goes without saying, that if a friend betrays you, even once, he is not a true friend.

The word for adversity (6869: sa-rah) is interpreted as ‘ a narrow path’, ‘tightness’ or (hilariously) ‘a female rival’. Tightness certainly ramps up the competition. The patriarch Abraham was known as the father of faith, and Sarah was the name of his wife. Of particular interest, the word could also be interpreted as ‘adversary’ (i.e. an opponent), which points strongly towards the Chinese concept.

Paramount to the present study, I wanted to determine whether the preposition used in conjunction with ‘adversity’ could be interpreted in another manner, namely, is it ‘for adversity’, or ‘from adversity’? I am not an expert in Hebrew, but from what I could gather from BibleHub, the original Hebrew could be best translated as ‘of adversity’, so this interpretation also tends to support the meaning of the Chinese proverb.

Perhaps the key to understanding the usage is found in the word, ‘born’ (3205:yalad), which means ‘to bear, bring forth, or beget’. Perhaps the English word ‘borne’ could better represent the idea. So another translation of the latter part of Proverbs 17:17 might be, ‘a brother is borne out of a tight female rival’.

Joking aside, the concept behind the Chinese proverb seems to hold up as an acceptable exegesis of the verse in Proverbs.

In further support of this argument, the remainder of this post will recount three true stories of how friendships were forged out of offenses.

Case Study 1: Fights Beget Friends

Here, I’ll retell a family story about my uncle.

When my uncle was in high school, back in 1953, he had a quiet personality, and he was really thin. He was so thin, that other guys taunted him by calling him ‘Sticks’. One guy, Richie, was especially hard on him, pushing him around, knocking his books on the floor, flipping his cafeteria tray onto his lap, and generally making his life very hard. One day, my uncle had had enough, and he made a bold declaration to Richie in front of everyone who happened to be around them at that moment. He said to Richie,

“If you ever touch me again, I’m going to give you a knuckle sandwich!”

Richie laughed it off with some additional taunts, and no one took it very seriously. Richie always thought he could beat Sticks in a fist fight, and most of their classmates believed the same, but he was wrong. Later that week, Richie shoved Sticks in the back as he was walking down the hall. As a result, Sticks fell down and cut his lip. So Sticks left his books on the floor, stood up, and worked Richie over.

No one blamed Sticks for fighting back, because Richie was famous for bullying Sticks. Even the teachers looked the other way and refused to either punish Sticks or sympathize with Richie. Everyone thought Richie got what he deserved.

After this incident, Richie changed his attitude towards Sticks. He apologized to Sticks, and Sticks accepted. Soon, they started hanging out together after school. Richie grew to respect Sticks, and they became lifelong friends. My uncle also began to own the name, ‘Sticks’, and he would allow his closest friends, including Richie, to call him by this nickname. This was a mark of true forgiveness and grace. Eventually, the name morphed to ‘Stix’, which was considered a pretty cool nickname back then.

When my uncle died last month, Richard was there to give a eulogy. He retold the story of how he and Stix became friends. He said, in so many of his own words, that Stix taught him how to appreciate the goodness in other people, and how to enjoy life. He also said, while weeping, that Stix was a good man (quite a compliment these days), and that he was the best friend he ever had.

Case Study 2: AMOG’s Need Friends and Fellowship Too

When I was 6 years old, my family moved to a rural neighborhood. There was another kid who lived down the street who was a year older than me, and he was a lot bigger too. He also had two older brothers, so he enjoyed being exposed to a lot of masculine viewpoints. In the quick, he was a bully. He walked around the neighborhood, seemingly with the sole purpose of extolling his AMOG status among the other children in the neighborhood. Whenever I was playing outside, he would walk across our yard, and push me down on the ground. If I tried to stand up, he would push me down again. Since he was older and bigger than me, and since his brothers had taught him how to fight, there wasn’t much I could do. This happened with such regularity, that after a while, whenever I saw him coming, I would just sit down on the ground and give him a really hard look, because I was angry that he was disturbing my play time. He would just laugh at me, and walk away. Conflict averted.

One day, I saw him coming across the neighbor’s lawn towards our house. At that time, I was just about finished playing, so I went into the house to avoid him. But he came and knocked on our door, looking for me, which was out of the ordinary. I knew who it was, so I refused to answer the door.

Eventually, my mother heard him knocking and came to the door. I stood a long distance behind her and watched them talk. He asked her if I could come outside and play with him, and when she turned to look at me, I shook my head and refused, because I believed it was just a ploy to get me outside where he could bully me and push me down in the dirt. My mother understood the situation, and she talked with him for a long time, maybe 20 minutes.

After that, she came to talk with me. She urged me to go outside and play with him, and I objected with a brief summary of the history of our interaction. My mother asserted that something was different that time, and that I should give him another chance. She also said if I went outside and he still pushed me around, then she would never ask me to go play with him again. So I took her word, and went to the door to talk with him.

First, he apologized, saying he was sorry that he pushed me around. He said that he wouldn’t do that anymore, and that he wanted to be friends with me. I believed him, and went outside to play with him. Ever since that day, we became pretty close friends, and we played together nearly every day. One of our favorite activities was playing war games in the woods adjacent to our neighborhood.

He did change. He was still an aggressive person, and he often challenged me and the other boys to do push-ups, wrestle, climb ropes, wade through deep streams, and to never act ‘gay’. But instead of making it seem like a fearful test of qualification for acceptance into (perceived) ‘manhood’, he made it fun and challenging. He even said the same things – “Get away from me, you faggot!” “Come on, you fat-ass wuss! Give me one more (push-up)!” – But instead of having an angry, belligerent countenance, he smiled and laughed when he said these things. That made all the difference.

A few years later in high school, he became a star. He was the captain of the wrestling team, and he was the leading quarterback for the football team. His girlfriend was the hottest cheerleader on the squad. He was also a straight A student. I liked him because he had a real appetite for life, he was very intelligent, and he had a very congenial but presumptively sarcastic sense of humor. After graduating, he joined the Marine Corps, served a tour in Iraq, and then became a drill sergeant for the remainder of his service.

Many years later, I asked him what had changed in his life, on that day he apologized for being a bully and invited me to be his friend. He told me a little story.

“My brothers went 4-wheeling, and they wouldn’t let me come because I was too young. I started crying about that, and I complained that I would be stuck at home and bored all day because I didn’t have anyone to play with. My brothers told me, ‘That’s your own fault. If you weren’t such a big-headed bully, you would have a lot of friends. Time for you to do something about that. See you later!’ After that, I realized that I had to change my attitude. I had to stop intimidating people just for the fun of it, and start giving them a chance. So after they left, I went looking for you.”

In short, he was humbled. He realized that he needed other people, friends, to have a full life, and that he cannot always be the beneficiary of a relationship. He also learned that he can be the head manager of those relationships in which he is the dominant figure. That’s gold!

Case Study 3: Reframing an Offense to be Objective Establishes Respect

When I was in college, I got a job working at a Honda plant over the summers. I took this job because it was the best paying job I could get as a young man with no working experience. I worked as a spot welder for a while, but after the boss discovered that I had learned how to MIG weld in my high school shop class, he moved me over to another assembly line to work as a welder. On this assembly line, there were three groups working on batches of the same parts. Each group had a welder, and an inspector. My inspector was a very short black man, somewhere under 5 feet tall (150 cm.). I was a fairly strong white guy who was 6’3” (190 cm.).

Now welding is a hot, dirty job. On one sweltering day in July, not long after we started working together, I was sweating profusely. My sweat was dripping down inside my shroud and preventing me from seeing clearly through the visor. Overcome with heat exhaustion and exasperation, I pulled off my hood and wiped my face, and exclaimed,

“Ahh boy! It’s so hot in here!”

The next thing I knew, my inspector threw down his tools and marched up to me. He was wagging his finger and shouting at me, saying,

“Look here! I ain’t no boy! Don’t ever call me no boy! You hear me?”

I was shocked. It took me a moment to realize that he had heard my off-the-cuff complaint about the heat, and had interpreted my innocent, Charlie Brownish interjection, ‘boy’, as a personal insult directed towards him. I looked down at him for the longest time, wondering what I should say.

At first, I thought of telling him the truth – that it was just an innocent exclamation, and that I wasn’t talking about him. But he was visibly angry. He kept direct eye-contact, and continued to wag his finger while he waited for my response. A lot of coworkers started to stare at us.

After a moment, I realized that if I told him the truth, he wouldn’t believe it. He would just think I was a racist coward who was resorting to a passive aggressive denial. I was also impressed with the courage this guy was showing. No doubt, he must have prepared himself for the worst reaction out of me.

[Eds. note: The inspector interpreted the casual statement as a subjective offense, but his confrontation was an attempt to transform it into an objective offense. Kudo’s to him.]

Finally, I realized that the wisest thing I could do was to own it and apologize to him. So I said,

“I’m sorry. I won’t call you a boy any more. I’m sorry.”

He backed down, and slowly strutted back to his jig and resumed working as if nothing had happened. The other workers around us, many of them black, gradually shifted their steely gazes off of me, and returned to their tasks as well.

After this incident, to my great consternation, I started to attract a lot of respect from the black community within the factory. One black guy invited me to visit a prostitute with him. He said he would pay for both of us. I recognized his invitation to be an honor (of sorts), but I declined. Another black guy heard that I played bass guitar and invited me to join his band. The floor supervisor, who was also black, started giving me a lot of favorable attention too.

One day, while I was working with my welding hood on (and unaware of anything going on around me), I took a big step backwards away from the jig, and I accidentally stepped on the boss’s foot. I whipped my hood off and turned around, and I was very surprised to see him standing there, wearing a hood himself, and watching me weld. After he took his hood off, he said I was the only welder in the plant that produced work that always passed inspection without needing to be reworked. He also told me that, after watching me weld for the past few minutes, I was the best welder he ever saw. I was impressed by his statements, knowing that he has seen a lot of welders.

After this incident, we often talked at length about various subjects, and race relations came up frequently. I was able to talk with the boss about a lot of issues that most other whites were not at liberty to discuss with blacks. For example, I asked the boss why blacks always voted for Democrats, even though the KKK were also avowed Democrats. He said that the Democratic party was ‘the party for the people’, and while it is unfortunate that the KKK are also Democrats, they too recognize that the Democratic party respects the common man, such as themselves.

Through this intermittent dialogue, we developed a mutual respect for each other, which transcended all superficial barriers of race. The next summer, the boss called me to ask if I would be coming back to work with them that season. I did go back to work there for another summer.

Through all of this, I gained a new appreciation for the black community. They had some strict boundaries, but they also had the courage to enforce them, and they were very graceful when treated with dignity and respect.

They understood that a brother is borne out of adversity.

Conclusions

During an altercation, humans open themselves to a volatile, heated interchange, and by doing so, they make themselves emotionally transparent and vulnerable. Through this contention, they each present a convincing, nonverbal, and visceral expression of what is most important to them. It is conducive to the formation of a deeper friendship because it is a form of acceptance, in that it doesn’t ignore or reject the other person. Often, the contenders are unable to control the outcome of the clash, and thus, the emotional expression characteristic of a fight can often become an act of humility, faith, and trust in a higher power.

The application of the scriptural truths discussed earlier prove that most modern day sympathies, such as Political Correctness, and the subjectivity of offense, are a genuine thorn in the crawl concerning the real process of establishing eternal, Biblical quality friendships. Without an issue at play, and the genuine interests being expressed by those involved, people cannot discover their role in the scrimmage, and what their shared interests might be. As a result, they miss the opportunity to truly understand one another.

The moral of the story is that being too proud, too complacent, or too fearful to create waves is a recipe for failure. Don’t be hesitant to draw boundaries and enforce them, even if it might get you involved in an altercation. Remember to keep it objective, and look for common ground where an alliance might take root and spring up.

Related

• Sigma Frame: The Objectivity of Offense Constitutes Respect (May 6, 2018)
• Saving Eve: Fights Strengthen My Marriage (May 8, 2018)

Notice: Dark Brightness Relocates

[UPDATE (June 20, 2018): DB’s blog is still at the same server (WordPress), but he has reinstalled his blog using a new address. (The errors in the details of the original post below have been corrected.) He discusses these issues in the following post below.]

Dark Brightness: Some Reorganization (June 20, 2018)

---

Notice to the blogging community: Dark Brightness has relocated or transferred reinstalled his blog platform to a new server and address.

Old address: http://pukeko.net.nz

New address: https://blog.pukeko.net.nz

If you rely on a subscription, or a reader, such as WordPress Reader, then you may have been wondering why it’s been a while since you’ve seen any new posts from Dark Brightness. So, make sure you update your subscription information, if applicable.

I sent him an email to ask him what has been happening with his blog.

Dark Brightness,
I noticed your blog is down. I’m curious to know what happened?
Is there anything you would like me to tell the blogging community?
Wayne

He responded in his usual curt, staggered, enigmatic prose, which always stimulates an electrifying introspection.

The technical issues should be sorted. However, my employer is meeting as they are concerned about the blog. Today.
Also make sure you are going to https://blog.pukeko.net.nz. The old insecure address does not work.

As he writes, the old address was ‘insecure’ and no longer functions. Apparently, that means it was hacked, or the hosting agency (perhaps the university where he teaches) suspended or terminated his account.

His old platform presently looks like this.

DB gives a cursory explanation of the situation in these posts.

• Dark Brightness: Broken and lost posts. (May 15, 2018)
• Dark Brightness: This is the Third and a Half Iteration (May 17, 2018)

If you’re the type who prays, you might consider asking for DB’s blog and livelihood to be preserved, and even that it might grow as a result of this persecution.

 

Related

• Sigma Frame: Amerika Disappears! (May 9, 2018)

The 10 Commandments of Feminism

Whether you are willing to admit it or not, the truth is that women are superior creatures to men, in mind, body and soul. Here are the 10 Commandments of Feminism that men should memorize and obey!

Yvonne DeCarlo (1947), AKA Lily Munster, and Zipporah, the wife of Moses in the 1956 classic film, The Ten Commandments.

1. Men and women are EQUAL, but men are NOT. Men are either worshipful Alpha idols, or disposable Beta resource suppliers. We do not recognize any other supposed ‘male’ who is not one of these two.
2. In order for a woman to achieve self-actualization, a woman’s egotistical self-esteem needs constant stroking in order for it to grow. Women need to have the liberty to ‘find themselves’, by doing whatever they deem necessary.
3. All women are entitled to ‘respect’, which means that their egos shall never be deflated by any means, such as logical reasoning or mansplaining, and the fantasies defined by their solipsism shall not be challenged or ridiculed.
4. Sexual lifestyle and reproduction is uniquely within the domain of women’s power. The choice to reproduce is dependent upon the particular preferences of each individual woman, and a woman’s reproductive (or abortive) choices shall not be subject to a man’s opinion or criticism.
5. Alpha males are merely sperm bank studs which rightfully serve our hypergamy, and make the dissipation of our self-actualization, and (later after we hit the wall) reproduction, an enjoyable process. Other non-Alpha males who seek reproduction only threaten to degrade the species.
6. Alpha men capable of generating Tingles are rare and hard to come by. Therefore, women retain the right to form collective unions (viz. ‘soft harems’) in order to monopolize Alpha worship services.
7. In the absence of Alpha services, in the event of a middle-age strike for example, women retain the right to settle for a small Beta orbiter workforce, or a very obedient Beta husband, for the purpose of extracting comfort, security and resources.
8. A ‘good man’ is one who works to earn money, offers credit card services without vetting, covers all the woman’s expenditures, supports a woman’s career ambitions without question, and (most importantly) who can create the soul renewing Tingles on demand. By this definition, there are no good men.
9. Any man who insists on his own reproductive agency is a selfish, rebellious, ham-fisted, usurper of power and should be castrated castigated immediately.
10. Women retain the right to define courtship, marriage, and even rape, in any way that suits their individual imperatives. Government social systems, the court system, and society at large shall support the superiority of women and their particular feminine imperatives.

Anyone who doesn’t wholeheartedly agree with all ten of these holy commandments shall be labeled as ‘sexist’, ‘chauvinistic’, and ‘misogynistic’, and will be subjected to public shame and ridicule, face the loss of employment opportunities, and be ostracized by all of Leftist society. So read it well!

Related

• Infogalactic: The Ten Commandments
• Sigma Frame: The Ten Commandments of Christian Fellowship (June 25, 2010)

My Unhappiness Is Your Fault!

Who is responsible for her happiness? Who is responsible for your own?

Readership: Men in intimate heterosexual relationships

The Problem

Women have an annoying habit of expressing emotionally laden sentiments carrying the effect of,

“My Unhappiness Is Your Fault!”

And how can you respond to that? Is it true, or is it hamsterbation?

This is a question that has received only vague, intermittent attention from the pulpit and the Manosphere. Instead, most of the attention has been placed on the question of how to make a woman happy.

[Eds. Note: Har har har! A foolish question indeed! A woman’s happiness is implicit. She’s either happy, or she is not. There is not much you can do to make her happy, but there is a lot you can do to p!ss her off! But fortunately, (and if a man has the stomach to tolerate a lot of drama), he can pour on the unhappiness until she snaps out of it and embraces her own happiness. This is also the same iconoclastic masculine approach that attracts the calumniation of Feminists, probably because it is ego shattering (for her), and it works. BTW, if you take this approach, she might not stick around after she finds her own happiness.]

Over in the comments section on Dalrock’s post, How to spot a faker. (April 3, 2018), commenter Nitpic hit on this question when he wrote [emphasis mine],

“Actually, the wretch [Pastor Wilson] is sort of right, although in a very different way than he would like to be. Every reasonable man will tell you that worshiping your wife is a way to make her miserable, not the way to make her happy. And so if you listen to both of Wilson’s pieces of advice – don’t worship her and make her happy, it might work. Just don’t listen to his advice on how to make her happy. As for the theological mambo-jumbo he tries to wrap his crap in, I’m kind of surprised the women don’t get mad about his message: if the woman’s happiness is dependent on the acting’s of their husbands being endowed with the divine unhappiness, it implies inevitably that women are mere tools of God’s corrective force for the benefit of men and thus have less free will than men and thus are logically inferiour to men.”

Those are some deep ramblings. (I’ll conclusively address the issue of Women’s Agency eventually.) Lately, we find a lot of men, like Nitpic, reacting to the implicit treachery in the pulpit by questioning the meaning of it all, and what is actually right. But Nitpic is nitpicking at a deeper truth, which is that husbands and wives do have a considerable influence on each other. It happens to be more complicated than what Pastor Wilson or even Dalrock are hinting at.

The Analysis

First, we should make a distinction between genuine unhappiness as an emotional expression of unfulfilled desires, and the common, low grade, impertinent b!tchiness that accompanies selfish, spoiled, immaturity. A lot of women are quite happy being b!tchy, but they say that they are unhappy in order to power play a guilt trip on the man. We are talking about the former here. Women of both varieties might say the same thing, that they are ‘unhappy’, so it remains up to the reader to discern which description is applicable.

Also, there is another issue of a man not being able to contribute to a woman’s happiness (i.e. ‘No Contribution’ in the figure below), as opposed to being able to contribute to her happiness, and not as opposed to contributing towards her unhappiness. (This distinction should be made evident by the figure below.) This is a complicated topic (that is unique to each man) which I’ll not get into here.

In the analysis, there are several possibilities and consequences that could be present.

1. If both the male/husband and female/wife are happy and content with the relationship, then they’re obviously mature enough to handle the responsibilities of marriage, and they have also discovered the secret of maintaining a good relationship.
2. If either the male/husband or female/wife is not happy, it COULD be an indicator that the other partner is a selfish, immature lout, and is failing to fulfill their marital duties to their spouse, similar to what Pastor Wilson describes. But Pastor Wilson neglects to mention that the female could be contributing to the unhappiness, as well as the male. He also doesn’t mention that there are other possible causes.
3. Pastor Wilson overlooks the fact that the unhappy partner could be that way because of THEIR OWN lousy spiritual condition, their OWN sinful past, their OWN sinful beliefs, and their OWN sinful choices. Of course, the poor spiritual state of one partner would tend to drag the other person down as well. This assessment is more in line with Biblical precepts.
4. It is quite possible for both partners to be well-adjusted, spiritually mature people, but yet feel very unhappy and discontented with their relational/marital experience for any number of reasons. Some of the more common causes include such things as conflicting values, incompatible personalities, different love languages (a short, explanatory video), different sexual blueprints (see DSR’s podcast interview with Jaiya), and unequal sex drives.
5. In addition to these conflicts of personality and interests, we must not neglect to recognize that Satan specifically targets sexuality and marriage with a vengeance. Mr. Lucifer S. Satan seeks to aggrandize these implicit conflicts in order to achieve his own treacherous ends.

The Frame

Concerning the effects of gender, it is fairly well known that the wife has much more influence than the husband towards creating happiness in a marriage. For more on this, please bookmark this excellent but lengthy article from Biblical Gender Roles: Why Unity In Marriage Has More To Do With The Wife Than The Husband (November 23, 2016). [Eds. note: If SF says it’s lengthy, then you’ll need to bring your razor and toothbrush.]

Because of this dynamic, it may be more accurate to use the husband’s happiness as an indicator of his wife’s spiritual maturity, and less accurate to trust the converse proposition as an indicator of the husband’s worth. (Sorry Pastor Wilson!)

So whenever she says,

“My unhappiness is your fault!”

There is one of the following going on.

1. She is actually pretty happy (being a b!tch), and she is just giving you a sh!t test. You might consider flipping the table on her, by teaching her an alternative vehicle of happiness through discipline. If you’re lucky, you’ll wean her off of the BT.
2. She enjoys the drama of putting you on the spot, and watching you jump through her hoops, all for the pleasure of her selfish entertainment. In this case, don’t admit her argument.
3. Her statement is an instance of psychological projection, which is a deception of perception.

“…people mistakenly believe that the traits they Project onto others, are really the true characteristics of others. Or in other words, people who are constantly dishing out a heavy dose of Projection are in a state of denial. They are denying that those traits are truly their own, and not those of the person being addressed.”

In any case, she either claims or believes that you are creating misery, but in fact, she is the one creating misery for you. Thus, it may very well be that the truth is this…

“Your unhappiness is my fault!”

But a woman who has the clarity to comprehend this is not so likely to convey this same sentiment. (Although men will dream all day long of hearing this statement from their woman, as she remorsefully works at her evening tongue job.) Thus, if this statement is ever encountered, it may be taken as a virtue signal of questionable intent.

So whenever she hides behind this mask of ‘unhappiness’, give her something to be happy about, such as a witty neg (with a smile), or a playful smack on the derriere. Let a fun interaction displace her mind’s focus from her claimed unhappiness. Forming a good interactional habit of making love fun will wean her off of a poor habit of self-centered self-pity. This is how her general happiness can be enhanced by your presence.

The Reframe

Although we are quite familiar with how a woman can destroy a man’s happiness (quite easily anymore), a man should not be expecting his woman to create his happiness either. A man needs to find a way to be happy with the decisions he makes in life. Hence, he can be happy that he chose a particular woman (or not), and that he has certain fundamental needs met through her. He could also be happy about investing in her spiritual growth, and seeing her grow and become more worthy of the love she receives. But he shouldn’t be fooled into thinking that his own happiness emanates from her inner being. In other words, if she is happy, then it will be easier for him to enjoy his own happiness, but if she is not happy, then he should still be happy. For more on this angle, please see the following posts.

• Illimitable Men: How to be Happy (October 22, 2015)
• The Red Pill Forum: How to become happy – Male, Female differences (May 11, 2016)
• Reddit/The Red Pill: A Red Pill World Is A Happy One (March 31, 2017)

Related

• Deb Blum: If You’re Blaming Him for Your Unhappiness, You’re Not Ready to Leave (ca. 2014)
• Sigma Frame: Happy Wife, Happy Life (October 20, 2017)
• Psychology Today (feat. Meg Selig): 10 Ways You Are Causing Your Own Unhappiness (January 24, 2017)

If the shoe fits…

When you make some off hand comments, and the shoe starts to fit someone, you might just become that persons’ springboard to internet infamy.

Readership: All

Last month, there was a lovers spat that went viral, which involved a fine young hoe, Madison Witham, and her ex-boyfriend, Justice Champion. The incident was described and discussed in the following articles.

• Fox News: Teen who accused boyfriend of slut-shaming her prom dress reveals photos of gown (May 5, 2018)
• Daily Mail: US high school student, 16, who dumped her slut-shaming boyfriend after he said her prom dress ‘showed too much skin’ finally reveals the offending gown – but says she WON’T be attending (May 25, 2018)

This is rather old news by now, so I trust that the reader is familiar with the altercation.

I don’t think anyone has pointed this out yet, but there is a discrepancy between the facts offered by the hoe and her ex.

She offers screenshots of text messages showing a man saying,

“You look like a slut b, no offense.”

She claims this message was sent by Champion, ascribes avarice on his part, calls it ‘slut shaming’, and thereby uses it to denigrate his honor.

But in the version from Fox, Champion offers his own screen shots of their chats, in which he responds to the dress rather enthusiastically by texting,

“It looks great”.

Also notice that in those texts shown by Witham, the male respondent calls her ‘b’ in each message. (I presume ‘b’ is short for ‘baby’, a term of endearment.) However, in the text shots offered by Champion, he never calls her by the nickname, ‘b’.

Are you with me here? There are two different men!

I get the strong impression that Witham had a backup man (not Champion) who sent the “You look like a slut” message. She claimed that message was from Champion, and tried to use that message to defame Champion in an arrogant power play that she probably thought was humorous. But beyond her expectation, the news went viral, and then she was unable to back out of the lie without being ousted, so later, she had to decline going to the prom with Champion.

In a follow up message, Witham responds with,

“I’ll stick with the dress and get myself a new man, bye.”

This statement shows that she is quite familiar with the habit of employing her hypergamic desires (with a pinch of hamster fantasy added) to ditch any particular man she is with in favor of the next one, or the last one, or the one next door, or whoever he might be. Her general mindset is that men, and probably sex as well, are just a smorgasbord cafeteria for her tingle indulgence. If she is having a bad day with one guy, she’ll use a little dreadette game to ‘put him back in line’.

So here we have the situation where she is chatting with and probably sleeping with (at least) two different men. She takes offense at the mere mention of the word, ‘slut’, and she dumps the guy who didn’t say it. Then she takes advantage of the feminist narrative, hamster spins a false narrative to restore her so-called honor, and becomes an internet celebrity in the process.

So this is the story of a tramps’ brilliantly evil Machiavellian behavior and abuse of feminine power. As long as a society ignorantly rewards and rubber stamps such pseudo-virtue posing with sensational attention and affirmation, society will be in downgrade.

On a more positive note, we see Justice to the Champion of this showdown, in that he can now move towards finding a more worthy woman than Withman.

Related

• Dalrock: Shame on him who thinks evil of it. (May 24, 2018)