2 Frames of Reference for Identifying the Trust Factor

Not all women offer the preferred brand of trust. Can you identify the difference between Head Trust and Heart Trust?

Readership: All

The Confusion Surrounding Trust

In a previous post, The Trust Factor (April 18, 2019), we examined two kinds of trust, Head Trust, and Heart Trust, with the latter one being the favored condition, by far.

But for many men, this choice is not easily discerned. When a man is dealing with a woman, no matter whether the woman is into Head Trust or Heart Trust, she will give him S#!t either way. No S#!t, Sherlock!

With Head Trust, she’s giving him S#!t tests, and with Heart Trust, she’s giving him authentic S#!t. So since the S#!t is all the same either way, how does a man know if a woman is giving him Head Trust or Heart Trust? Since the state of Trust determines the longitudinal nature and outcome of the relationship, it is crucial for the man to know the answer to this question – before the S#!t hits the fan.

No Resting B!tch Face here!  That’s the look of the post-Sorority, pre-Wall indignance!  The way she is looking at that ring says it all – she loves the affirmation, but hates the source — all at the same time.  NRFS!

So here we’ll cover two Frames of reference containing perceptible indicators of the type of Trust she’s inclined to offer.

1. The Quality of the Source

It is common knowledge around the Manosphere that men strongly prefer to have a woman who is young, emotionally fresh, humble, and trusting, especially for marriage. One of the many reasons for this, is that such a woman can develop Heart Trust in a man very easily.

On the other hand, if a woman is selfish, rude, immature, vapid, flaky, dispassionate, proud, chronically angry, or a social media wh0re, then she doesn’t have the ability to accommodate a man as the focus of her Heart Trust.

If she has had a lot of sexual experiences with different men, then this gives her the carnal knowledge that reinforces her propensity to rely on Head Trust. Too much reliance on Head Trust, and an inability to develop Heart Trust (AKA being jaded), ruins a woman’s desirability and worthiness for a LTR or marriage.

Even if she’s sincerely seeking authentic Heart Trust, but she’s excessively immature, then Heart Trust will not manifest appropriately. In this case, she’ll rip apart everything good in your relationship, looking for something her heart craves, but which remains elusive to her. She can’t understand how her self-centered attempts to satisfy her desperate need for love are rocking the boat until it capsizes.

Women like this need Jesus, because they have a deeper hunger in the soul which can never be satisfied through a relationship with a man.

If you are in a “Missionary Marriage” like this, the rewards may be great, but the work to get there will be long and exhausting. Proceed at your own risk, and with much prayer and discretion.

If you’re not already married to Miss Problemette, then keep your distance and let God do His work in her first. If you get involved with her before then, you will certainly be used by her to shoulder her world of hurt and suffering, and found wanting in the end. If you feel “called” to get involved anyway, then that’s between you and God.

In summary, if the woman is low quality, you won’t get much Heart Trust out of her, and Head Games and salty S#!t will be conspicuously imminent.

Of interest, the following articles describe many more identifying features of low quality women.

• Σ Frame (feat. Deti): 16 Qualities of a Repulsive Woman (December 4, 2017).
• Major League Dating (feat. Marc Summers): 19 Types of Women to Avoid Dating (ca. 2018)
• Bad Ass Young Men: 8 Clever and Easy Ways to Judge a Woman’s Character (ca. 2019)
• The Power Moves (feat. Lucio Buffalmano): 17 Early Signs She’s a Low Quality Woman (ca. 2019)

She’s alive and kicking! This is the kind of gaze you should be receiving from your girl.

2. Her State of Humility

Another powerful way to determine the sincerity of the woman is in gauging how humble she is within your interaction. Humility is perhaps the single most important quality that a woman could have, in terms of building a LTR. This is true because humility requires and facilitates Heart Trust.

The qualities of true humility (as opposed to the shame resulting from the debasement of pride) were described in a previous post, Apprehending True Humility (April 7, 2019). Relevant aspects are listed here.

• Humility is the state of being emotionally aware of your needs and weaknesses and how you depend on God and others on a moment by moment basis.
• Humility allows one to become introspective, and examine one’s own heart and motives. A humble person asks him/herself, “What did I do wrong? What’s my problem? What’s wrong with me? What more can I do? How can I fit into this relationship better?”
• If a person has humility, he/she would be more loving, forgiving, merciful and compassionate.
• Humility makes one more emotionally expressive of one’s needs to others. As a result, one is more emotionally connected to people.
• Humility allows one to open their heart and experience love and grace.
• The experience of falling in love is all about humility. One’s desire and affection for the other person becomes a need that the other person fulfills. One then finds himself doing all kinds of introspection, leading to personal changes, all to try to fit into this relationship better.

Humility is also a hallmark of spiritual maturity, which is an indispensable foundation of a LTR.

If your girl displays these characteristics of humility, the chances are good that you’ve got a keeper! (Or at least one that will keep you.)

Conclusions

In sum, if she thinks you’re the studliest cock of the walk, if she is doing back flips to make the relationship work, if she is bending down and swallowing the last morsel of the Humble Pie you’re feeding her – and doing it all with a bright-eyed, eager, and thankful puppy dog smile (like the one on the Asian babe pictured above) – then rest assured, you’re enjoying the blessings of her Heart Trust, and you should do whatever you can to cherish her whole-hearted Love, and keep her head spinning around.

On the other hand, if she thinks you’re the lickyest doodle of the town, if she wants you to do back flips to make the relationship work, if she is dragging you down, Gaslighting you, and force feeding you the contentions of her double mindedness – and threatening to withhold sex or leave you if you don’t roll over on her command – then verum non indicavit, you’re suffering from the curse of her Head Trust.* If you’re single, you should do whatever you can to avoid this hazing ceremony in the Rush to ћǝllenization. If you’re already married to a battle axe, then your task is to break down her addiction to hard power and virtual fixes.

Unfortunately, women don’t come with an autonomous error correcting algorithm installed in their set of firmware. As a consequence, women don’t naturally grow into high quality specimens of femininity. They need to be led and taught to be so. If her father didn’t do the work of moulding her into a proper lady, then that duty falls to you, bud.

Of note, some women certainly hold more promise of potential than others. The following articles describe many more identifying features of diamonds in the rough.

• The Rational Male: Quality Women (March 19, 2013)
• Illimitable Men: Women of Substance are Made, Not Born (March 21, 2014)
• Return of Kings (feat. Jack Goldstein): Feed a Western Woman the Red Pill (November 22, 2014)
• Σ Frame: 16 Qualities of an Irresistible Woman (December 1, 2017)

* Exceptions may apply in the case of extreme immaturity, as described above, under section 1. The Quality of the Source.

Related

 

Advertisements

The Trust Factor

Trust is indispensable when activizing a woman. Yet, there are two kinds of trust. Which one are you pursuing?

Readership: All

Two Kinds of Trust

Human beings are naturally inclined to trust.

When trust is present, there can be a similitude of a relationship.

When trust is broken, then fear, anger, and retaliation result.

Whenever confusion and suspicion are present, trust is unable to form.

In sum, trusting is a monumental importance that carries potentially catastrophic consequences.

Our experience in life teaches us whether to accept or deny that uncertainty, usually in view of mitigating risk and maximizing Spiritual Efficiency.

Unfarcimoniously, I would go so far as to say there are two kinds of trust, and one of them is not in the dictionary. Neither is the first word in the last sentence, but you know exactly what it means – that’s trust.

The first kind of trust is in the head. It’s when you believe the person will do what they said they would do, or what you expect them to do. Contracts and business agreements rely on this kind of trust.

The second kind of trust is in the heart. It’s when you can feel free to be yourself, and “let it all hang out”, knowing that the other person will understand your intended meaning, accept your foibles, and extend the grace necessary to glorify your contributed value, whatever that might be.

InteresTingly, these two kinds of trust are rather mutually exclusive. You either have one or the other, and it’s very rare, if not impossible, to have both simultaneously.

Head Trust

When a woman has Head Trust in a man, the Manosphere labels this as her being in “transactional mode”. Operating with a woman in transactional mode is known as a Beta trait, but is actually more common among Deltas.

When a woman places Head Trust in a man, the Fitness Testing (AKA S#!t Testing) emerges. There will be no end to the contention until she finds his limits and pushes his buttons. He’s the pack mule, and she’s the driver. The quarreling with only end when she has attained full unconditional control over her domesticated beast of burden, and he has submitted himself, meek and mild, to her authority as the gatekeeper of his hard earned sexual release.

Meanwhile, Ms. Home Grown Hypergamy will be on the secret lookout for Mr. Wild Alpha Beast who can naturally draw her Heart Trust out of her vile pussycat thighs.

S#!t Testing happens, partly because her fallen nature of rebelling against male authority rears its ugly head, and partly because she needs to know the exact limit of that Head Trust. Knowing the limitations of a man’s capability determines the level of Head Trust that is appropriate. Going beyond this level of Trust would be foolish (in her view). This is why Fitness Testing becomes a top priority to her.

The pliability and accessibility that the man displays during Fitness Testing will determine the limits of her control over the relationship. A woman can wield more control over a man who is obsequiously “Nice” and reliably predictable (viz. he has a high Head Trust rating). But a man who exercises limits and boundaries, and who Pushes the Line (viz. his Head Trustworthiness is inscrutable) is difficult to subjugate.

It follows that guys who play “Nice Guy” tactics are presumptuously vying for the Head Trust relational structure. If the man proves to be totally predictable and dependable, then she can place a large amount of Head Trust in him.

Most guys naturally think this kind of altruism would improve the relationship. However, most females will utilize the dependable man’s predictability to attain dominance in the relationship. She might even call him boring, all the while entertaining herself by jerking him around.

The Courtly Love model of Chivalry also falls into the Head Trust category. In this case, there are necessarily a lot of romantic feelings (AKA sexual “thirst”) on the man’s part, which naturally increase his devotion to prove himself worthy of her Head Trust. This in turn, motivates him to provide accessibility of resources to the woman. Her confidence in his reliability feeds her self-indulgence, buttresses her ego, breeds her addiction to choice, and infuses the euphoria of power. The resulting synergy of deferential male lust and female empowerment is often falsely labeled as “love”.

Heart Trust

When a woman has Heart Trust in a man, the Manosphere labels this as “affirmation mode”. Having the ability to continually operate with a woman in affirmation mode is an Alpha quality.

When a woman places Heart Trust in a man, the Tingles percolate. She’s always short of breath and walks around with her headlights on. Heart Trust is an aphrodisiac. This is because Heart Trust opens up the heart. It brings a person to life. It encourages faith and confidence. It breaks down psychological walls. It overrules egotistical Pride. It defuses defense mechanisms. It inspires respect. It affirms hope. It opens the eyes of the Soul.

This is partly because his purposes in life are independent of the outcome of his relationship with her, and partly because the man can handle all her S#!t with a fair degree of finesse. As a result, she knows there is no limit to that Heart Trust.

Interestingly, the boundaries presented by the man’s Frame serve to remove the boundaries that trap the woman in her own self-constructed solipsistic ℏǝll. These boundaries will determine her sense of security in the relationship. How tight or loose that boundary needs to be, is dependent on the individuals involved.

It follows that the Bad@ss who sticks to Jerkboy’s will to power are presumptuously vying for the Heart Trust relational structure. If the man proves to be assiduously impervious to whatever she deems as a weakness, then she can place a large amount of Heart Trust in him.

Most guys naturally think this hardcore spline-fit would destroy the relationship. However, most females will intuitively grasp onto the steadfast man’s Frame to secure a position of boundless passion for the relationship. She’ll willingly submit herself to be his spritely play toy, all the while entertaining herself with notions of love and romance.

The Tingly Respect model of courtship also falls into the Heart Trust category. In this case, there are necessarily a lot of romantic feelings (AKA sexual “thirst”) on the woman’s part, which naturally increase her devotion to prove herself worthy of his Head Trust. This in turn, motivates her to provide emotional accessibility and service to the man. His confidence in her faithfulness feeds his self-esteem, buttresses his ego, breeds his confidence, and engages the efficacy of his power. The resulting synergy of deferential female desire and male empowerment is the “true love” described by fairy tales of yore, and is the garden variety topics of modern romance novels (AKA female pornography) – a consummation devoutly yearned for by females everywhere.

Related

• Do What’s Right: The necessity of Trust (February 22, 2019)
• Christianity and Masculinity: The issue with Leadership is Trust (February 3, 2018)

Jack’s Law of Feminism

A summary of the Manosphere’s formal definitions of Feminism.

Readership: Men

In a recent post, One Hundred Years of Men’s Rights Have Come To Nothing (April 12, 2019), Ballista emphasizes the necessity of properly defining Feminism.

Feminism is ultimately ill-defined to the point that anyone that seeks to be against it always fails.  A proper solution to a problem always begins with an accurate definition.

[…]

Yet few will come up with an accurate definition or an effective solution, nor will support the actions required to enact an effective solution. Therefore, the problem will never be dealt with.

Over the years, Manospherians have been kicking around descriptors to grab a better handle on Feminism.

Chateau Heartiste’s Definition of Feminism (ca. November 12, 2013):

“The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality and behavior and to maximally restrict and punish the exercise of male sexuality and behavior.”

Back in September, Dalrock broke new ground with his formalized definition of Feminism which captures the essential flavor of Feminism in modern Western society.

Dalrock’s Law of Feminism (September 6, 2018):

“Feminism is the assertion that men are evil and naturally want to harm women, followed by pleas to men to solve all of women’s problems.”

The second clause of Dalrock’s Law of Feminism is essentially a subtle assertion that women are subject to the authority of men. There is the expectation, shared by both sexes, that the health of the relationship is dependent on the behavior of the other. But this is a legalistic approach, which fails to implement God’s grace for the regeneration of the relationship.

Boxer’s Definitions of Feminism (January 18, 2019):

1. A conspiracy against all men and all nations, to offload the individual and collective responsibility for female misbehavior onto men.
2. An ideology (see Marx) which promotes a false state-of-affairs between men and their material conditions, furthering the support of women at the expense of man and his brothers.

Heidi’s Corollaries

1. “Feminism” has no meaning corresponding to reality; it’s simply a rhetorical tool.
2. “…if you’re a feminist, then you must naturally support the #MeToo movement, abortion, and exterminating 90% of the male population and keeping the remaining 10% caged up to be used as studs when needed. If you don’t support all that, then you’re not a feminist, and what you really want is for women to be treated like dirt!”

Jack’s Law of Feminism (January 18, 2019):

“Feminism is the assertion and justification of women’s rejection of male authority in favor of an institutionalized social ontology which is dictated by the Feminine Imperative.”

In summary, the panel has reached a consensus on the Law of Feminism as a working definition, and it’s not looking holy. In effect, it is a rebellion which seeks to invert the natural, God ordained hierarchy of authority. This hearkens back to the Sin of Eve, which has been covered in an excellent essay by L.T. Smash on Return of Kings, Men Have Foolishly Ignored The Warning In The Book Of Genesis (September 26, 2018).

Any feminist who disagrees with the above definitions is only seeking to evade the exposé of sin and shame that would result from being so eloquently pigeonholed. So you should always be prepared to expect this kind of response.

Related

• Alpha Game: The Accidental Imperative (December 27, 2012)
• Σ Frame: Jack’s Law of Red Pill Awareness (March 30, 2019)
• The Rational Male: The Feminine Imperative (Category)
• Wikipedia: Godwin’s Law

Harbingers of the Impending Collapse of the U.S. Social Security System

Current demographic indicators (Population Growth, Age Imbalance, Life Expectancy, and Immigration) all point to the future insolvency of the U.S. Social Security System.

Readership: Citizens of the U.S.A., and others interested.

Population Growth

The United States population is growing at an exponential rate, due to the following factors.

• Increased life expectancy.
• Reduced infant mortality.
• Immigration

The age and demographic structure of this growing population will determine, for the most part, the future feasibility of the social security system.

The following Population Pyramid for the United States from 1980-2050 clearly shows a columnar structure, indicating an aging population. In an aging population, there are a large number of adults, including seniors, and very few children. Growth is stagnated.

Image courtesy of Image Capitalist: Animation: U.S. Population Pyramid From 1980-2050 (November 22, 2017)

If you watch the animation, you can see that the width of the column steadily increases over time, which suggests that there will always be a larger population of younger citizens who are paying the pensions of an ever growing number of elderly retirees. However, by 2050, the column becomes so top-heavy that it begins to resemble a mushroom, indicating “negative growth”. So it is unclear whether this difference will cover the debt already incurred, in addition to the skyrocketing pension costs of the ever expanding retirement age in the future. It is improbable that higher taxes, and an influx of working-age immigrants (~18%) could cover this difference.

Snapshots of the years 1980, 2000, 2020, and 2040, taken from the above Population Pyramid animation, are shown side by side here for comparison.

Age Imbalance

Goss [1] argues that the primary cause of Social Security’s increasing expenses is due to the decreasing birth rate, which results in the age imbalance shown in the current and future year population pyramids.

“Adjusting birth rates to include only those children who survive to age 10 results in fairly flat total fertility rates near three children per woman from 1875 through 1925. From 1926 through 1965, this adjusted total fertility rate was still about 2.7 births per woman, on average, including both the temporary low-birth period of the Great Depression and World War II, and the temporary high-birth period after World War II. After 1965, however, the total fertility rate shifted to a new level around two children per woman. It is this apparently permanent shift to lower birth rates in the United States that is the principal cause of our changing age distribution between 2010 and 2030 and the resulting shift in the ratio of beneficiaries to workers.”

Chart 10. Total U.S. fertility rates with and without adjustment for survival to age 10, 1875–2005 [1].

“Chart 11 demonstrates even more vividly the impact of the changes in birth rates on the age distribution of the population. The aged dependency ratio (ratio of population aged 65 or older to the population at working ages, 20–64) has been almost flat since 1975 and was held down between 1994 and 2010 as the relatively low-birth-rate generations born during the Great Depression and World War II (1929–1945) reached age 65. However, this ratio will rise substantially between 2010 and 2030, reflecting both the attainment of age 65 by the baby boom generation (born 1946 to 1965) and entry into the working ages of low-birth-rate generations (born after 1965) that followed the baby boom. The dashed line in the chart illustrates what the projected dependency ratios would be if we assumed no further improvement in life expectancy after 2008. The chart demonstrates that through 2030, the upward shift in the ratio is almost entirely because of the changing birth rate. The illustration for the total dependency ratio (ratio of the population aged 65 or older or younger than age 20 to the population at working ages, 20–64) tells essentially the same story.”

Chart 11. Total and aged dependency ratios, 1975–2008, projected under alternative life expectancy assumptions, 2009–2085 [1].

“Chart 11 also shows that improving life expectancy after 2008 does begin to produce significant effects on the age distribution of the population after 2030. But the permanent shift in the age distribution between 2010 and 2030 because of lower birth rates remains the dominant factor for the increased Social Security program cost over the next 75 years.”

Life Expectancy

In the previous section, Goss [1] argued that the primary cause of Social Security’s economic crunch is due to the decreasing birth rate, and not due to the increasing average life span. Disregarding the effects of the increase in life span seemed questionable to me, so I did a little more research about the history of the social security system.

When President Franklin D. Roosevelt installed the Social Security program in 1936, it stipulated a retirement age of 65, which meant that people would have to work a regular job until that age, before they were eligible to retire with benefits.

The average life expectancy in 1936 for a working class male in America was 58! Which implies that the majority of men had to work until their dying day! These men expected to pay into the system for their whole lives, never knowing if they would ever live long enough to see a social security check.

Doing a little more math, in order to live long enough to be eligible for retirement under the social security program in 1936, a person would have to outlive the average life expectancy by 12%. So it’s obvious that Roosevelt cut pension costs to affordable levels by only making payouts to < 40% of those who paid into the system, and who also outlived the age of retirement eligibility.

If we applied this same arithmetic to the current life expectancy of ~78, then to install the same “tax until death” retirement system, we would have to set the retirement age at 88! But try to suggest this idea to any person of the Boomer generation, especially those set to retire in the next few years, and you’ll see the temper tantrum of the century. (I did this once, and I found it was surprisingly entertaining to see a Boomer so bent out of their typical “peace and love” character.) So naturally, no politician wishing to extend his career is going to pass a bill basing the retirement age on the average lifespan. (I suspect that Goss could be a Boomer who is doing backflips to avoid this conclusion.)

[Eds. note: Could POTUS Franklin D. Roosevelt actually have intended to get the country hooked on socialism?]

Immigration

Immigration could possibly tilt the system very hard, because immigrants don’t pay into the system before arriving in the U.S. A pessimistic outcome is therefore predicted, even when given the most generous estimate, which assumes that most immigrants are legally employed, and don’t collect state benefits, such as unemployment insurance.

For example, if an immigrant came to the U.S. at the age of 40, then he’s only going to be contributing to the fund for 25 years, whereas, a person who grew up in the U.S. would be paying into the fund for about 40+ years. However, the same individuals will be relying on Social Security payouts and health insurance benefits after retirement, for as long as they might live. This effect could be offset, if the retirement award is prorated based on how many years they worked in the U.S., or how much money they paid into the system.

On the other hand, immigrants tend to have more children than the native population, on the average. This would cause the bottom of the population pyramid to widen, which would provide a larger working class, and more taxable income to prop up pensions in the following 20 years.

The graphic results of the Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965.

Possible Solutions

There are two real solutions to the impending financial crisis.

1. Raise taxes, socialize everything, and continue enjoying the decline.
2. Work longer, have more children, and restart a new society.

It appears obvious that the Deep State is pushing the U.S. towards the first outcome. The Globalist powers in Europe have already advanced this agenda past recovery in France, Sweden, and probably Britain too.

If you are in favor of such a system, then there are practically no actions that need to be taken. Simply avoid getting married, don’t have children, and continue to vote Democratic.

But the message to conservatives in the U.S. who wish to avoid a socialist state determined future is pretty grim. There are a number of actionable steps that are needed, and none of them are easy.

• The traditional middle-class, nuclear family structure needs to be resurrected.
• Extend the retirement age.

Politicians will talk out of their @$$ǝ$, saying whatever will pander to the peace and get them reelected. American citizens need to tell politicians what they want in no uncertain terms.

What should the government be doing?

• Offer incentives for natives to have more children, such as tax breaks, and retirement options.
• Abortion could be more closely regulated by imposing restrictions on late term procedures. At the extreme, banning abortion “on-demand” may force an increase in the birth rate.
• Limit and/or regulate immigration to remain less than 10%.
• Government funded benefits could be prorated per individual, based on how many years a person has worked in the U.S., or how much money a person paid into the system.
• Restrict or abolish benefits offered to non-tax-paying citizens and non-citizens.

Conclusions

It would be difficult to crunch the numbers any further, to wring out exactly how much debt the present Social Security system would incur, if continued into the coming decades, but it looks pretty grim.

If nothing is done to correct this trajectory, then when Millennials and Zyklons retire, they may be facing ϟocialism ϟecurity (ϟϟ death camps).

But perhaps this is exactly what our Deep State Boomer politicians have intended!

References

[1] Stephen C. Goss, “The Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program”, Social Security Bulletin, Vol. 70, No. 3, 2010.

Related

• Boxer (feat. Derek L. Ramsey): The Consequences of Feminism (March 17, 2018)
• Boxer (feat. Derek L. Ramsey): Does Marriage Keep Society Afloat? (April 11, 2019)
• Do What’s Right: Economists Ruin Everything (April 11, 2019)

 

Apprehending True Humility

The word humility has two definitions. One is to be avoided at all costs, and the other is to be diligently sought.

Readership: All

A Description of Authentic Humility

Humility is a concept that is not well understood by most people. For those readers who are unfamiliar with the Christian concept of humility, I’ve compiled the following descriptions of its hallmark qualities.

• Humility is the state of being emotionally aware of your needs and weaknesses and how you depend on God and others on a moment by moment basis.
• Humility allows one to open their heart and experience love and grace.
• Humility allows one to become introspective, and examine one’s own heart and motives.
• The experience of falling in love is all about humility. One’s desire and affection for the other person becomes a need that the other person fulfills. One then finds himself doing all kinds of introspection, leading to personal changes, all to try to fit into this relationship better.
• If a person has humility, he/she would be more loving, forgiving, merciful and compassionate. A humble person asks him/herself, “What did I do wrong? What’s my problem? What’s wrong with me? What more can I do? How can I fit into this relationship better?”
• Humility makes one more emotionally expressive of one’s needs to others. As a result, one is more emotionally connected to people.
• Being in a state of humility, and being more emotionally connected to others, can make one feel more vulnerable to temptation and deceit, and more likely to succumb to it.
• Humility is a key ingredient in obtaining discernment, which is a safeguard against temptation and deceit.
• Humility requires and facilitates Heart Trust.
• Humility is usually taken as a mark of honor.
• Only the humble can know God.

One important aspect of humility is that it cannot occur simultaneously with self-centered pride, which has the following characteristics.

• Pride, and it’s sister, arrogance, repeals trust, and this has the effect of cutting a person off from making authentic connections with God and others.
• Pride may lead a person to believe that others are wrong, or that God is treating them harshly.
• If a person is proud and lacking humility, then he/she is prone to be less patient, more prone to anger, and more easily irritated.
• When a proud person who does not have a sense of humility is offended, he/she lashes out with anger and becomes bitter if the offense is not quickly rectified.
• Excessive pride is usually a cover for shame.

Girl with a Pearl Earring, by Johannes Vermeer, ca. 1665.

A False Concept of Humility

The first part of this essay described Humility as a spiritual posture that facilitates one’s connection with God and others, according to the Christian understanding of the word. But the secular understanding of the concept focuses on, and magnifies the dichotomy between pride and humility, while neglecting the overall sentient nature and purpose of true humility, absent of pride.

Within this vain, one noteworthy aspect of pride is that it is usually adopted by a person as a covering for shame. In this case, when such a person’s pride is abased, then their shame is exposed. Since a large number of people have this skewed perspective, the common perception of humility is based on the abjection of pride and is therefore associated with shame. As a result, the concept of humility within this paradigm takes on the worldly connotation of being shamed.

As a token snapshot of this common but hollow understanding of humility, we find this blabber on Wikipedia.

“Humility is the quality of being humble. Dictionary definitions accentuate humility as a low self-regard and sense of unworthiness. In a religious context humility can mean a recognition of self in relation to a deity (i.e. God) or deities, and self-debasement with subsequent submission to said deity as a member of that religion. Outside of a religious context, humility is defined as being “unselved”, a liberation from consciousness of self, a form of temperance that is neither having pride (or haughtiness) nor indulging in self-deprecation.

Humility is an outward expression of an appropriate inner, or self-regard, and is contrasted with humiliation which is an imposition, often external, of shame upon a person. Humility may be misappropriated as ability to suffer humiliation through self-denouncements which in itself remains focus on self rather than low self-focus.

Humility, in various interpretations, is widely seen as a virtue which centers on low self-preoccupation, or unwillingness to put oneself forward, so it is in many religious and philosophical traditions, it contrasts with narcissism, hubris and other forms of pride and is an idealistic and rare intrinsic construct that has an extrinsic side.”

This common understanding of humility is a cheap red herring substitute for true spiritual humility. Like all other dialectics of worldly Gnosticism, it gives one the satiating sense of (supposedly) knowing what humility is, thereby instilling a false self-confidence and contentment, without giving one a clue as to the real thing.

Hence, Screwtape is glad that, through this deceptive definition containing meaningless chit chat, your wakeup call has been diverted and transformed into dozing.

Portrait of the Artist’s Father, by Marcel DuChamp, 1910.

Humility Correlates with the Sufferings and Sacrifices of Love

It is commonly known that “Love Hurts”. But if we have a proper understanding of humility as a prime component of “being in love”, and how that humility invites suffering and sacrifice, then we can begin to understand how and why Love must hurt.

In his post, Letter To Josh Harris (February 3, 2019), Blair Naso explains the relation between suffering, selflessness, and humility within the context of a healthy marriage. [Emphasis mine.]

“The purpose in marriage is not to have a great sex life. The purpose in marriage is to become a righteous person by learning how to suffer for the benefit of your spouse and children. That suffering (along with traditional, Biblical roles for husbands and wives) creates selflessness, because you are focused on what others need you to do and not on what you want, and that selflessness creates humility, and only the humble can know God. Saving sex for marriage facilitates the pair bonding that enables [humility and the experience of falling/being in love].”

Concerning this same topic, Stephanie had a really good post describing the pitfalls of pride and the value of humility, Things I Want My Daughter to Know: There’s Beauty in The Valley of Humiliation (February 26, 2019). I’ll cite her writings, and add some of my own commentary.

“The Valley of Humiliation in John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, is an allegory to when we go through extremely difficult seasons of being humbled.  It can be from friends, but most likely the humbling or humiliation comes from people we call enemies.  It might not come from a person themselves at all, however, but simply be a time or season in your life when everything seems to be going terribly wrong, or you have no direction or can’t discern anymore from God which way is right to take.  Often it is a combination of all these things, which is what Pilgrim’s Progress describes, and is a season of affliction coupled with attacks meant to humiliate.  Whatever this Valley may look like at a certain time is not as important compared to the necessity of this being something you need to learn how to handle, and how to handle well.”

Women greatly value the sentient experience of “being in love”, as do most men, but staying in love requires one to continue on in the posture of humility. This is not easy! Life itself, and especially marriage, serves as a trial to see whether you will continue on in the humility of love, or resort back to pride as a form of ego preservation and self-defense.

“May you be a lady of wisdom, who when she is rightfully humbled, realizes it and acknowledges it with grace.  And may you have the wisdom to see even the slightest bit of Truth in a severely harsh rebuke or criticism, and choose to treasure it, instead of despising the Truth.”

Hard to do, but much better than the other choice; choosing to take things personally and clinging to an offended ego is the wide path to destruction.

Rahab, by Ted Seth Jacobs, ca. 1958.

“I can tell you assuredly though, accepting humiliation with a graceful and humble attitude reveals a beauty in a person like nothing one usually sees in this world.  It is very rare, because I believe this is the attitude that most models Christ.  Everything in our world today tells you not to accept going through this Valley.  That you will look foolish.  But the world’s “wisdom,” is not God’s wisdom, and it is foolish to seek to avoid these times of humbling.”

It is indeed foolish, because willingly resorting to pride, and refusing to follow through in faith and humility will doubtless erode one’s sense of discernment. Without discernment, one is unable to respond to a circumstance in an appropriate and purposefully effective way. Consequently, one is relegated to be either a foolish laughingstock of a believer, or else, condemned to a mediocre existence of fellowship among the wicked. That is spiritual foolishness! (Compare this to the foolishness of this world, which has much value in the eyes of God.)

“And something you need to understand is that everyone eventually goes through a valley, or several valleys of being humbled or humiliated in all kinds of ways.  No single person is allowed to avoid this pain, and it is something all of us must learn to “deal,” with in wise and graceful ways.”

God’s love will catch you, sooner or later. If He doesn’t, that would be the greatest tragedy possible in all of life.

“You can’t run away from a season of being humbled or humiliated, that only seals your fate as someone not strong enough to bear the name of Christ!  It is designed this way to test your faith, to see if you’re strong enough to hold steadfast to your anchor in the storms of life.”

The test of faith – will you choose humility, love, and life? Or will you wallow in pride, anger, bitterness, and alienation?

“Pilgrim’s Progress points out that you don’t have armor for your back.  This means that if you flee in terror, or run away, not trusting in God’s strength to pull you through (and perfect your character through humiliation), you will be attacked from behind as you are fleeing!”

Satan is eagerly waiting for you to give up and run back into his oily smooth, scaly arms, where he will whip you mercilessly with shame and regret, and lick up your tears with heartless compassion. He will then point out how God is a sinister joker, and warn you never to seek Jesus or… heh heh… twoo wuv again.

Demon Lover, by Boris Vallejo, 1979.

Why do people usually respond wrong when going through the Valley of Humiliation?

“In one word, it is their pride.  Pride and arrogance are what keeps us from seeing our own flaws, or from wanting to acknowledge our own blind spots or mistakes, especially when someone has pointed them out.  Doubly so if it is someone we despise.  And even more so than that, if it is done in public, meant to humiliate us.  But none of that takes away the true value of humiliation.”

Basically, pride is not wanting to ask for what you need, or not being willing to express your need, because you don’t want to depend on others, or have others depend on you. In essence, you don’t want to love and be loved by others, and you are rejecting the opportunity to find love.

“For one, [humility] serves to rid us of our pride or pretenses, if we allow it to, by acknowledging that we really aren’t perfect and may even need to go through this valley at this time.  If we repent of our pride, we are given grace to endure the season, and hope for what lies ahead (a better character for one thing).  But when we respond in pride toward our humbling, we don’t glean the benefits or blessings of learning humility, and our character is left with a glaring defect.  Remember: God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.  It is also foolish to honor an arrogant person, Paul tells us to give honor to those who deserve it because of their service and humility.”

“So many harmful things come from pride, because it allows us to keep moving in the wrong direction and often toward danger.  Unnecessary hardships, shipwrecking of one’s faith or the faith of others, and even important relationships can be destroyed when someone refuses to be humbled or accept rebuke and correction (be humiliated to a lesser or greater extent).  When we go through this Valley of Humiliation, we have God’s favor on our life if we keep a humble heart.”

“Although a person’s pride may make them seem strong, their strength is in their folly, which is why the Bible constantly warns against arrogance and pride, boasting of one’s sins they’ve gotten away with, or having a Pharisaical attitude and legalism.  It is a mysterious thing that the last will become first, that the humble will receive honor (and the arrogant, dishonor), but this is the way of our Lord.  It takes Strength and Humility to accept rebuke or harsh criticism, to take it in stride, learning how to correct our character for the better, and not holding on to bitterness or resentment.  Resisting this Valley is only human and natural, but nothing could be further from our benefit.”

“Often the truly strong are the humbled people, and those who are acutely aware of their own failings and shortcomings in the flesh.”

Related

• Christianity and Masculinity: How does humility play into headship (and leadership)? (March 25, 2019)

Jack’s Law of Red Pill Awareness

In a nutshell: Women are trouble! Choose wisely and maintain Frame.

Readership: All

Today, I made the mistake of perusing that blog, “One in the bush is worth two in the hand”, or some such name like that. Every time I visit this blog, I close the browser window with the impression that there are yet a lot of women who are still wishing to return to the glory years of second wave feminism (which I would place in the 1980’s and 90’s) – a time before the Red Pill awakening, when men were still clueless about the nature of women, chivalry was assumed, alpha studs lurked, beta orbiters abounded, no fault divorce, the widespread availability of abortion, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseam…

It sends shivers down my spine to realize that these same women are probably my own generational cohorts… (!!!)

Image: Hedy Lamarr as Delilah, in Samson and Delilah (1949).

One of the whimz left the following comment.

“Dalrock’s Law of Feminism: ‘Feminism is the assertion that men are evil and naturally want to harm women, followed by pleas to men to solve all of women’s problems.’

Question: isn’t it equally true that the Red Pill is ‘the assertion that women are evil and naturally want to hurt men, followed by pleas to women to solve all of men’s problems’?”

After reading this, I let out a long sigh and a chuckle, because I recognize that it is an ongoing challenge for many peeps to Get It Right.

Admittedly, there is a general tendency for men to wish that women would be more introspective and more responsible in exercising personal agency, because this would solve many of men’s problems in dealing with women. However, most RP men are aware that, for a woman to have this level of awareness, is a very tall order indeed.

I suppose women can intuitively sense this deficiency within intersexual transactions, and have picked up on this expectation from men, even while never realizing that it is caused by their own lack of discretion. Granted, this last statement contains a very cold and unloving assertion of the apparent ‘stupidity’ of females, but it is the general sentiment of men, nevertheless.

I am throwing this out there, because I have the firm conviction that a woman could vastly improve her eternal state, if she could understand with clarity how women do make this impression on men.

So here, I need to offer a correction (especially for my female readership), which I will call Jack’s Law of Red Pill Awareness:

One of the many conclusions of the Red Pill is that sexually liberated women are evil* and naturally want to indulge their feminine imperatives at the expense of hurting men. This should be followed by admonishments to men not to involve themselves in all of women’s problems, but only to establish the discipline of Frame for those females for whom they are directly responsible (i.e. wives and daughters).

An abbreviated version of this Law would be,

Women are trouble. Choose wisely and maintain Frame.

* I here make the claim that spiritual immaturity, commonly manifested as a lack of moral agency, is a form of latent evil, which should be considered in addition to the more notorious faculty of diabolical evil.

Related

• Return Of Kings (feat. John Hopson): How To Spot An Angel Of Death In The Wild (January 5, 2015)
• The Orthosphere (feat. Richard Cocks): When One Sex Attacks The Other, Both Lose (November 22, 2018)

The Mosh Pit of Sex Analysists

Dalrock, Bayly, Gudeman, Milton, St. Paul, St. Augustine, and St. Jerome mash out what makes sex and marriage mutual, good, and sanctifying.

Readership: Those who aspire to marriage; Those attempting to follow the debates between Dalrock, Pastor Tim Bayly, and David Gudeman,

Between Dalrock, Pastor Tim Bayly of Warhorn media, David Gudeman at Brain Legions, John Milton, St. Paul, St. Augustine, St. Jerome… there are a lot of quotes and views floating around. Some scientific analysis and Frame work is required to sort this all out.

It all started late last year, when Dalrock wrote, Does romantic love sanctify married sex? (November 20, 2018).  This post discussed the prudish views towards sex held by the early church fathers, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and St. Paul, and compared them to the views of the Puritan poet, John Milton, and modern day Pastor, Tim Bayly.

Dalrock cited Pastor Tim Bayly’s post on Warhorn media, Authority and submission: muscles needing exercise (November 17, 2018).  In this essay, Dalrock compared Bayly’s approach to Milton’s, and shows that they are rather similar in that they both agree that romantic love sanctifies sex.  Of note, Dalrock compares this view to those of St. Augustine’s and St. Jerome’s shared assessments, which were in agreement that passionate sex in marriage was disgraceful. Dalrock wrote,

Both sets of teachings are wrong, and you won’t find them in the Bible:

1. That sex with passion in marriage is a sin. (Jerome and Augustine)
2. That sex without romantic passion in marriage is a sin. (Milton and Bayly)

Dalrock uses the words, 1. “with passion”, and 2. “without… passion”, to make it appear like these two views are the diametric opposite, but not really. They are both very conservative discussions of what makes sex “good”, by various definitions. One of Dalrock’s running points is that brutish passion makes sex good too (see Dalrock’s Like a rutting buck post), and I’ll add that healthy men and women will usually agree.

To edit Dalrock’s points for the sake of accuracy, I feel these two views could be better represented as follows.

1. That sex with brutish passion in marriage is absent of love. (Jerome and Augustine)
2. That sex without romantic love in marriage is unbecoming. (Milton and Bayly)

David Gudeman at Brain Legions criticized Dalrock’s arguments in his post, Sex and the Straw Man–an Exercise in Logic (February 10, 2019).

Gudeman also highlighted Bayly’s reference to the nebulous concept of “good sex”, but then he got sidetracked in the analysis. It is difficult to pinpoint exactly what “good sex” entails, and even more excruciating to try to read this meaning into Milton. We are only left to assume that “good” means deeply gratifying, and not the other meaning of moral good. But under this assumption, however “good” might be defined for each individual, the important thing to be considered is that the qualities that make sex “good” are the same qualities that reinforce either sanctification or perdition. For example, some men might say spinning plates is good sex, while others would say marital bliss is good sex.

Gudeman said that he agreed with Dalrock on the whole, but also said that Dalrock was making a straw man argument that he attempted to pick apart.

Dalrock offered his rebuttal here: Is it a sin to go against God’s command? (February 10, 2019)

I don’t think Dalrock is making a straw man argument as Gudeman claims, but Dalrock does take the following liberties.

1. He makes some assumptions that he has not made explicitly clear.
2. He extrapolates real world conclusions from abstract principles.

Regular readers know Dalrock has a habit of doing the clatter, and this is what makes his posts so chillingly thought-provoking and interesting Lee satirical to read. I am thankful for that sense of serious light-heartedness, but I know other readers interpret the jesting as intellectual dishonesty. The magical logic of his arguments reveals the weakness of western epistemology’s heavy, over reliance on logos and deductive reasoning.

Concerning the former, for example, Dalrock seems to have the notion that, either you’re living out God’s will, or else, you’re not, and if you’re not, then it’s sin. (In the general abstract, I agree, but in reality it’s not so black-and-white.) So when Pastor Bayley said, “sex that is not mutual is not sex as God designed and commands it”, Dalrock interprets the “not… as God designed and commands it”, part as meaning “not according to God’s will”, which is therefore sin. This is what allows Dalrock to come to the comical conclusion,

“According to Bayly’s rules, a married couple that doesn’t feel romantic love or sexual attraction is violating God’s sexual design if they have sex with the goal of conceiving a child!”

Gudeman smartly pointed out the source of confusion in Bayly’s claim.

“It is not at all clear that “mutual” means “with romantic love” or “with sexual attraction”. From context, “mutual” seems to mean that both spouses freely agree to engage in sex; that neither spouse feels forced or coerced.”

If Gudeman’s assessment of Bayley’s statement is accurate, then Bayley seems to imply that spouses have the right to refuse sex if they don’t feel like it. This borders on agreement with certain precepts of rape culture, which claim that any sex that is not sufficiently satisfactory can be labeled rape. At any rate, it certainly does not agree with the Bible, as Dalrock pointed out in his earlier post.

What Sanctifies Sex and Marriage?

This debate also brings up the question of what sanctifies sex, and what sanctifies marriage.

Dalrock wrote,

“This isn’t to say that romantic love in marriage is bad.  To the contrary, it is truly wonderful!  But it isn’t sanctifying.  It is marriage that sanctifies romantic love and sex, but in our modern rebellion we have twisted this around and assert that romantic love sanctifies marriage and sex.”

I concur with Dalrock’s main point, but I partly disagree with Dalrock, Bayly, Gudeman, Milton, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, because they are presuming that sex, marriage, and passion, are separated from each other. Let me explain.

A postmodernistic rationale attempts to categorize these things and treat them as unrelated separate entities. To make the issue more confusing, our fallen sinful nature wants to pick them apart for various reasons. I also believe Satan wants to present a false dichotomy, saying in effect, you can have passionate sex, but not in marriage, or vice versa.

One very popular sub-dichotomy that is attached to this false belief, is that having children is an anathema to having a passionate sex life. Being a father myself, I know this is not entirely true. In addition, I’ve heard many women state, in so many words, that their sex drive becomes turbocharged after delivering a child.

Since we’re talking about sin and sanctification here, let’s break down the constituent elements of marriage.

1. Marital Commitment – This is intended to establish trust, and give the relationship a sense of security and permanence. As Dalrock elucidated, the following elements depend greatly on this point.
2. Self-Sacrificial Christian Love – Without this element, your relationship is going to blow up sooner or later.
3. Dopamine Rush Romantic Love – This element gives us the emotional fortitude to overlook the other’s faults, and withstand the sacrifices necessary for number two.
4. Brutish sexual passion – Without this element, one has no pressing, urgent need to marry, and should therefore stay single.
5. Having children – Here is the command to “be fruitful and multiply”, God wants more Christian people. It’s a sin to withhold the fruit of your loins from delivering on the purpose for which God gave us tits and bits, and the sexual desire to use them.

In view of these five factors, I agree with Dalrock that the commitment of marriage certainly sanctifies sex, but we must also admit that commitment sanctifies all the others as well. Marriage allows the other elements to take root, thereby evading the selfish sin of fornication.

However, Commitment does not stand alone in its support for the state of sanctification. In reference to the Parable of the Pie, romantic love, as well as brutish passion, are both indicators that the emotional and physical aspects of sanctification, respectively, are occurring through the sexual union. I believe perhaps this is what Milton and Bayly were confusedly digging at, in saying that romantic love sanctifies marriage. If one admits that the emotional soul bonding is a key element in sanctification, then this claim also begs Artisanal Toad’s question of whether sex equals marriage. I wonder if Bayly would go along with that?

Self-sacrificial Christian love and having children also add to the whole sum of sanctity in the sense that when these elements are present, couples are much more likely to experience the fullest joy possible of the relationship. This unique sense of belonging, joy, and contentment is what drives them to do what they can to preserve the entire family.

Here I am not saying that any one of these factors can sanctify either sex or marriage, but instead, I mean to point out that having all five elements in place presents the most robust form of God’s original design for marriage. Instead of arguing about what element sanctifies which other element, we should be talking about how we might obtain all five elements.

Note: I am not sure if Dalrock disagrees, or if he merely omitted these points because it wasn’t the main thrust of his post.

What is God’s will for marriage?

This debate brings up an interesting point about what God’s will for marriage involves. It’s safe to assume that it should include self-sacrificial Christian love and commitment. But…

• Does it necessarily include romantic love?
• Does it necessarily include sexual passion?
• Does it necessarily include having children?
• Does it necessarily include having shared values and shared goals, like having a child?

Saint Augustine and St. Jerome believed that “holy love” was devoid of both romantic love and sexual passion.

Milton and Bayly argued that without romantic love, sex is empty.

Bayly amplified Milton’s stance by calling it “brutish”, which Dalrock lampooned by arguing that “rutting” is what makes sex good.

Dalrock maintains that the institution of traditional marriage is what keeps it all together.

Saint Paul didn’t go into much detail on these topics, except to say that you shouldn’t deprive your spouse if they want it (cf. 1^st Corinthians 7:5). I’ll also add that it’s in your best mutual interests to keep your spouse satisfied. After all, marriage is supposed to fulfill these needs.

Based on Mark 2:23-28, I believe Jesus would say something to the tune of, “Marriage was made for human beings, and not human beings for marriage.”

Let’s examine the possibilities of error.

If it were God’s intention for a person to have all five of the aforementioned elements in marriage, and he bought into Satan’s lie that he can only have one or the other, then he’s making a grave mistake that would hurt his joy.

The problem is that too many people have bought into this way of thinking, and the sheer popularity of this belief reinforces the perpetuation of compromise and trade-off as the norm. Worldly influences only exacerbate this false dilemma.

On the other hand, if a person only needs one or two, but accepts the others as part of the package deal, then although it may seem burdensome, that would not necessarily detract from their joy in marriage.

Call me naïve if you wish, but I believe God’s robust design for marriage is that all five elements (commitment, self-sacrificial love, romantic love, passionate sex, and having children) should be bound together as a package deal. I can’t say that I have achieved all of this for myself, but it is what I believe, and it is the goal I proscribe for my own marriage.

Of course, I should add that it would be presumptuous, legalistic, and inadequate to say that this design is meant for everyone.

All arguments aside, the bottom line for the reader is this: What does God intend for YOU concerning marriage? It may not be what you currently believe. It might even surprise you.

Permit yourself for a moment to look past cultural constraints, and to dive deep into your heart, and dream a little bit. God just might allow you the desires of your heart.

Related

• Be Blesstified (feat. Aldtric Johnson): Only ‘Godly Sex’ is Good Sex (January 15, 2019)

 

What is glorification?

Glorification is a religious byword which has a practical meaning that most are unaware of.

Readership: All

In a previous post, Why do Christian women have the reputation of being whores? (February 23, 2019), I made the following statement.

“Truth be known, the only times I have ever seen women spiritually glorified is when they were having an affair, or were just about to. I’ve seen this so often, that now, whenever I see a woman glorified, I automatically jump to this conclusion.”

A reader sent me a private message asking the following question.

“What do you mean by a women being “spiritually glorified”? What does that look like? Sounds like a useful thing to watch for but I’m not sure what you mean by it.”

Generally speaking, glory is the brilliant, heavenly beauty and transcendental timelessness of the atmospheric presence of God. Thus, glorification coincides with the state of being close to God, and therefore, the glorified entity should exhibit more of the nature of God.

But ironically, people, places, things, ideas, and even fallen angels can appear glorified, even though they may be far removed from God’s holiness.

“For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. ¹⁵ Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.” ~ 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 (NKJV)

For example, film and advertisement industries explicitly present their lead actors and products, respectively, as being excessively glorified. The reason is because glorification is attractive, persuasive, and even seductive. If you are exposed to a person or a product in a glorified state, you can believe it and/or accept it very easily. It may even become your new mental standard of comparison. Compared to an entity in a glorified state, all other competing entities appear common and mundane.

Women appear glorified in the eyes of men when they display indicators of health, youth, and fertility. This is because aesthetic beauty is defined by how it appeals to the soul of a man. Contrary to what one might expect, such indicators are highly controllable, and most women are well aware of this.

The average woman might achieve more glorification if she loses weight, dresses attractively, and wears makeup in a “natural” style. Many women pile on the makeup whenever they’re seeking to glorify themselves for the purpose of attracting attention or affirmation. But women who are young and naturally beautiful actually display more true glory without makeup. This phenomenon was covered in a previous post, Opal’s Femsplaination of Cakeface (June 17, 2018).

There are many photo editing apps that are designed to remove wrinkles, acne and other aesthetic flaws from photographs of people’s faces. The intended effect of using these apps is specifically aesthetic, but in a larger sense, the desired impression is one of glorification.

At the opposite extreme, women who wear dingy, ragged clothing, get fat, get tattoos, chop their hair short, or dye it an unnatural color, are actively detracting from their own glorification. I believe such women are attracted to these fashion trends because the debasement of their feminine beauty is a glorification of death and destruction. They eschew the glorification of life and health within themselves because it is too closely associated with God, beauty, nature, and order.

This is a well preserved example of Chinese Buddhist art from the Liao Dynasty (907-1125) in China. The Guanyin Bodhisattva is the Buddhist/Daoist goddess of compassion. She usually appears as a female, but can also appear as a male, and sometimes with many arms. She is often depicted in a variety of open, relaxed postures. Note the bare breasts, the leg lifted and spread, and the tender sensuality expressed in the eyes and fingers.

Now to get down to the reader’s question: How does having an affair enhance a woman’s glory, and what does that look like visually?

The appearance of spiritual glorification in human flesh is challenging to define in words, but I’ll take a shot at it here.

When people get into a new relationship, they start believing in new possibilities for their lives. They feel loved, they have hope, they are willing to humble themselves. They get into the mindset of being their best selves at all times, or at least those times when social intercourse with the object of adoration seems probable.

Women display a market value change when they’re entwined with the Tangles, and especially after they get sexually imbued with masculine affection. There are many obvious physical indicators, which when combined, lead to a form of glorification.

• Her face glows.
• She’s happy and smiling.
• Her eyes are gleaming with hope.
• She has a sudden burst of self-esteem.
• She conducts herself in a more mature manner.
• She’s more content, and less emotionally needy.
• She is more confident, especially more sexually confident.
• She may become more animated and emotionally expressive.
• She’s dressing up and attending diligently to her hair and makeup.
• She is self-assured, and she speaks in a more direct, candid fashion.
• She stops using anger and feigned helplessness as tools of manipulation.

This phenomenon of glorification also happens to men too, but it’s less frequent, and less pronounced.

Note: If your worried about whether your woman might be cheating, Chateau Heartiste has a large number of posts on this subject. See these search terms: cheating; infidelity.

Related

• Chateau Heartiste: Signs That A Woman Is Cheating In Her Heart (August 7, 2014)

Red Pill Political Correctness

Blair Naso’s commentary on the Red Pill, including views of American culture and politics.

Readership: All

Σ Frame is pleased to present the following guest post from the long established Manosphere author, Blair Naso.

My name is Blair Naso. My real name is Austin Martin. You can find my writing here. I write about whatever I think is true about any topic I have been thinking about.

Most of my readers probably discover me from reading Return of Kings (ROK) archives or a certain Manosphere aggregator, though it seems by this point there are a lot of new readers who didn’t follow me four years ago. Sometimes I get referrals from this website. Jack has a large catalog of Red Pill type blogs on his sidebar.

On his page categorizing all these blogs, he listed me as a “hermit.” I’m not sure I really count as a hermit, but it’s true that I don’t read much of the Manosphere anymore and have drifted from most of my internet friends. I don’t wear the label Red Pill, and I don’t care about any movement. So I guess that fits me into the hermit type. In the last year or so I’ve gained a lot of followers, and the Manosphere has definitely changed, so I thought I would introduce myself and give my thoughts on the nature of the Manosphere.

I definitely appreciate Jack giving me the opportunity to promote my work. I will never ask people for Patreon donations. Nor do I have any grandiose notions of saving the world. I do this simply to have a creative outlet.

“Breaking Waves”, by Eric Johannsen.

I was, eh, a red-tinted purple pill when I came across the Manosphere in 2014. I soon became a staff writer for Return of Kings. Not quite a year later, in 2015, I quit so I could focus on personal issues. Admittedly, I handled this poorly, having just come off of some e-drama. I should have waited a month for things to die down. But I am very glad I took the time off to rethink things, and I am far more satisfied with my work over the last two years.

In 2017 I started back on my own blog, but I don’t really write about Red Pill issues anymore because I’m burned out on the topic. Saying “feminists suck” is a narrow topic that has become cliche. At this point, most people hate feminists. Women are crowd followers and wear ideology like a fashion statement. The label “feminist” signals that you’re a lunatic, so women don’t call themselves that anymore. Young women who are late Millennials and Generation Z burn any association with the label because it’s become so toxic. If you do meet a feminist in real life, she starts apologizing and assuring you that she doesn’t hate men.

What’s really amazing is that my old 2014-2015 posts on my blog get far more page views. I don’t know why, because they aren’t well-written. Maybe it’s because ROK is linked to them. Maybe they are more pedestrian and easier to relate to. Or maybe it’s because I just had some honest thoughts that men needed to hear. At any rate, I don’t know why people are reading them, though I still agree with most of what I wrote.

Anyway, my readers now aren’t the same I had during ROK, so I gradually quit talking about the site. It seems kind of tacky to talk some kind of glory days of when I wrote for a medium-sized group blog four years ago that I wasn’t at for a full year. I feel like a middle aged man who visits his old fraternity and finds that no one remembers him. Like the 19-year-old who visits his old high school at lunch.

“Facebook”, by Waldo Lee.

What really bothered me about ROK is that, however much Roosh tried to make it into a big tent, it devolved into an ideology. There was a certain atmosphere of Red Pill political correctness. You deviate from a certain position even a little, and the retards in the comments section will denounce you as a blue bill beta. I checked a few years later, and the exact same people were still taking up half the comments section. Do these people not have lives?

And it’s like the term “Red Pill” is a platonic ideal “we” are always trying to perfectly define. “We” are always using this Red Pill epistemology as a filter for every thought and viewpoint, to see whether it’s valid or not. I am always wary of this kind of philosophical simplicity, and so I am surprising that many of the readers at ROK detested my work, although I have to say that the feeling was mutual. Most of the staff writers agreed with me in how horrendous the comments section was.

I don’t usually trash talk people on the blog, but I’m extremely disappointed with how certain red pill writers have turned out. Many a great writer and vlogger has quit actually creating content and now just produces livestreams. Livestreams are lazy, and I don’t have sympathy for anyone who is deplatformed whose main internet content is livestreams. I don’t care about your bar banter. Half of it is people laughing at their own dumb jokes.

What I’ve really learned from watching — on the sidelines — the Alt Right rise and fade into obscurity in the span of about two years is that the solution to society’s problems is not creating a movement. Every fringe movement — left, right, social, political, religious — is very quickly subverted by the idiot masses who misunderstand the nuances.

The best example of this on the internet is MGTOW, which originally was a kind of libertarian sentiment. I think this is probably what happened to the Beatniks, the civil rights movement, and in general the counter-subcultures of the mid-20^th century.

Another really good example is John Wesley, whose ideas degenerated into a wide span of movements, none of which followed his original methods. Both the snake-handlers and the prosperity televangelists are the spiritual descendants of Wesley. In college I attended the Wesleyan Center, where they told us that the early Methodists fasted twice a week, as though this were a feature of Methodism and not the definition of Methodism.

Does the Manosphere still exist? The jargon “we” use have become relatively mainstream. A lot of old writers do very different topics and formats. Chateau Heartiste went from being a crass (though brilliant) pick-up blog to a traditionalist semi-Christian white nationalist news aggregator.

Will the Red Pill become just another social movement that made a ding in history and then fell by the wayside? Was it just a scream into the void, ultimately of no relevance to the socio-political landscape? Is the trajectory of history merely towards entropy, with any reaction just a token resistance? I certainly think Trump would have been elected without the Manosphere and the alt right.

Or was it just a symptom of an inevitable reaction, a single thread in the garment? A cell swallowed up into the greater organism of anti-progressivism, irrelevant in the large history but a vital part of the reaction’s inception?

In 2007 Keith Richards starred alongside Johnny Depp in the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise as Edward Teague, Pirate Lord of Madagascar.

I recently read Keith Richards’s autobiography. He talks about various club owners, art patrons, and drug dealers in London, without whom the British blues scene never would have happened, but of course who are forgotten in the final mythos of rock n roll.

I think Red Pill is just a synonym for truth. It was originally about the nature of women, but I really don’t see that as something isolated.

Around the age of 20, you should start realizing that society lied to you about the sexes. A little bit of Red Pill literature can speed up a young man’s learning curve, but you can come to all of this by just observing the world around you. The Red Pill isn’t a mystery cult. It’s not arcane knowledge that’s just being discovered. We aren’t translating the gnostic gospels.

The divide between men and women is only one aspect of our society’s problems, which is fundamentally rooted in a spiritual issue, which is that we’ve accepted the doctrine of the Antichrist. The consumerist way we approach sex is intimately tied into the consumerist way we approach everything in our society, and so it seems silly to build a movement narrowly focusing on just the sexual angle of consumerism.

The Antichrist isn’t so much a person as it is an ideology. The Antichrist takes the values of Christianity and inverts them. Lust is love, anger is justice, and flooding your community with criminals is compassion. The Antichrist promises you earthly wealth and will allow you to act on all of your animal passions. It is a doctrine that can only speak lies, because it is in lies that you can have whatever world you like. Any truth, no matter how small, sets a standard, and so the Antichrist must destroy all truth so that there will be no standards.

Feminism, ultimately, is a form of Marxism, which ultimately is a subversion of Christianity that glorifies base drives like anger, greed, and pride, while it simultaneously pathologizes virtues like family, loyalty, and mercy. This is not so different from Islam, which tells you that God will allow you to rape and murder as long as you do it to the right people. What the Koran calls “the great salvation” is spending eternity in a sex paradise.

You can see this in what most of Christianity has become. Pastors preach on how Jesus wants you to have good self-esteem, but they will almost never criticize divorce. This has already been covered extensively on Jack’s blog. Christians have exchanged one set of virtues for a different set and then tried to equivalate the two. The peace that Jesus gives which surpasses all understanding and is not of this world has been taught as mere world peace. This is most glaringly obvious in Pope Francis, but he is far from alone.

To defeat feminism, we must defeat the Antichrist. If people should return to the actual Christ, then feminism will not be a problem. If people actually read their Bible at face value, they would see that you cannot be a feminist and a Christian. Feminism is about women doing what they want with their lives. Christianity is about sacrificing every decision of your life to Christ.

For many years now all of our political and social discourse has been based Marxism, particularly in how we see the primary purpose in politics as the need to correct historic wrongs, spread our beliefs to other people, and unite the world under one system. The neoconservatives directly originate in Trotskyite Marxism. This is most clear in the Bush family, who did nothing for Christianity, the working class, or any notion of conserving American culture. How are they not fuctional Marxists? Everything the Bushes did was fiat economics, fiat wars, and fiat social restructuring. Because culture cannot be quantified, Republicans never once considered how the Aztec invaders and outsourcing were warping society. Even in the age of President Trump, these concerns are expressed in terms of job creation and wages, not small towns overrun with blight and Aztecs.

Most conservatives’ arguments against socialism is that it isn’t practical — not that it is evil.

Another example is our narrative of race relations. This is entirely based on a frame that whites have historically oppressed blacks just because whites are mean. Nothing is ever said about what blacks did to instigate it. Nothing is said about how the civil rights movement has destroyed the black community. This history is never taught dispassionately so that one can analyze it critically — it’s taught as a story of good triumphing over evil. Most people still believe that the civil rights movement was a fundamentally good thing, even though it ended in dozens of race riots.

American as an institution may have won the Cold War, but America as an idea lost.

All these terms, such as “Manosphere” and “Red Pill,” will probably one day be outdated, just as it is happening with the terms “Feminist” and “Hippie,” but these truths which remain vital to people’s lives are timeless. You can line up all the reactionaries in the country and assassinate us one by one, and within a generation these ideas will spring up again. As Elvis said, “Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain’t going away.”

Related

• Return of Kings (feat. Blair Naso): 5 Lessons From Church That Will Wreck Your Life (November 1, 2014)

Ed Hurst’s series: Return to Eden

Get the vision of a brighter faith community model!

Readership: Regulars who are following our development of Courtship Models

Ed Hurst, at Do What’s Right, has expressed an interest in our study of Courtship Models. In response, he has written a series of posts, well worth reading, which describe the socio-spiritual environment of a successful community. Based on Biblical studies of an Ancient Near East social ontology, which are contrasted against the Aristotelian social philosophies of Enlightened, Western society, Ed describes a structural model which may be refitted and adapted to our present age. The social model he describes as “a return to Eden” is presumed to be the best social environment attainable in a fallen world, this side of eternity.

The posts in this series are listed here.

1. Do What’s Right: Boundaries with women (January 29, 2019)
2. Do What’s Right: The best this life has to offer (January 31, 2019)
3. Do What’s Right: We know we need it (March 1, 2019)
4. Do What’s Right: Outreach to the Red Pill Community (March 1, 2019)
5. Do What’s Right: Foundation of a Covenant Community of Faith (March 2, 2019)
6. Do What’s Right: A kingdom of awareness (March 3, 2019)
7. Do What’s Right: Courtship and longing (March 4, 2019)
8. Do What’s Right: Treasures in a far country (March 5, 2019)
9. Do What’s Right: A few returning to Eden (March 6, 2019)
10. Do What’s Right: Our Brand of Evangelism (March 7, 2019)

The comprehensive message from Ed’s writings is the vision of a patriarchal social structure consisting of a benevolent local authority (i.e. the patriarch) combined with a hierarchical structure of leadership.

The overriding purpose of this structure is to maintain the peace and order, and to impart a sense of belonging (i.e. shalom). Ideally, the social structure should be limited to a geographically concentrated tribe of people who share the same values and beliefs.

Other RP authors (most ribaldly, Chateau Heartiste), stress the importance of having racially similar people within a community. Fulfilling this condition would certainly make social interactions go more smoothly, but Ed concludes that genetic homogeneity is not entirely necessary for the success of a community.

The proscribed social structure may be longitudinally perpetuated through generational blood and inheritance. However, the emphasis is on living relationships – relying not so much on blood kinship as on covenant kinship. That is to say, community members need not be blood relatives, but need only to remain faithful towards maintaining the shalom of the community.

In a private correspondence, I asked Ed to further elucidate the concept of a covenant kinship, since this is a socio-spiritual state that is completely foreign to western society, and will therefore be difficult for most of my readers to absorb (myself as well). He wrote in reply,

“The most powerful bond between any two or more humans is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit speaks most loudly and clearly through covenant communion. The notion of “covenant” is not easily understood from a Western context, but it is a personal commitment to something larger than the self, and represents a family or tribal sense of identity. The closest American equivalent is a powerful sense of nationalism, which tends to scale up too far, whereas covenant is much more close and personal. All faith covenants begin with a covenant commitment to God, so it rests on the identity He gives, unlike one that rests on shared DNA. It’s rather like spiritual DNA, or moral DNA.

The other analogy popularly cited is “contract”, but that’s inherently impersonal. A contract is a commitment of resources and labor, whereas a covenant is a commitment of the person regardless of resources or performance. In contrast, Covenant is about the persons and their commitment to the welfare of the whole. This type of social structure is the heart of Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) feudalism. Western feudalism can also be personal, but instead of shalom, the nexus is property and performance to maintain the sovereign’s favor.”

Ed uses the word shalom frequently, because this is an important concept which has no English translation. (After studying this word/concept for a time, I too have found a deep appreciation in it.) I might describe shalom in my own words as a state of belonging; being a part of something important, something larger than one’s self. It includes a spatial environment in which everyone and everything has a structured, ordered place. Acceptance, encompassing disciplinary mentorship and unconditional love, is available (ideally from one’s immediate family). Even though the external world may be far from being perfect, shalom can be experienced discretely in one’s subjective life experiences, thereby yielding the impression that the people, and space, and everything within one’s immediate proximity can be relatively meaningful, joyful, and peaceful. Shalom is also the intended reward of spiritual obedience.

Those who have crawled through the hood of hard knocks may scoff at the above description of shalom. But those who have, even once, had a glimpse of eternal glory will believe in the Truth of it, and may even hope to achieve the experience on a daily basis. So believe it if you can!

“Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden”, by Johann Wenzel Peter, ca. 1820’s.

A review of Ed’s short essays reveals how far off the path western society has wandered, in relation to God’s proscribed ideal. Moreover, it seems to be an impossible undertaking to Do What’s Right. However, Ed points out that the journey to restoration begins within each man’s heart. As such, it is available to anyone who wishes to pursue it.

Ed takes the time to point out that this approach is inter/non-denominational, because there is no demonImotivational group that has yet latched on to this vision.

Ed also attacks medieval Western feudalism, which includes the social construct of chivalry, just as Dalrock has gone to great lengths to expose. Most Red Pill bloggers have been deconstructing chivalry, thereby revealing some harrowing insights.

Ed suggests that men should be marrying women who are younger than themselves, as opposed to peerage romances. In the RP sphere, there is a rule of thumb that says a man should choose a woman who is younger than he is, but not younger than half his age plus 7. There is also the idea that couples should get married young, but also old enough to be fully mature. Putting these two ideas together, the ideal marriage arrangement would be between a woman in her early twenties, and a man in his late twenties.

These are all important findings that should be emphasized in our pursuit of a better courtship model, nested within a robust faith covenant community.

Related

• Amerika (feat. Brett Stevens): A Parallelism Primer (March 6, 2019)