On the Significance and Value of the Meet Cute Experience

Under what circumstances is a Meet Cute of crucial importance?

Readership: Christians; Men;

A Summary of the “Meet Cute” Discussion

Starting with Scott’s post, Probabilities (2020-2-24), there began a debate, largely between Scott and Derek, about the importance and value of the Meet Cute experience.

As I was following this discussion, I found that both sides had noteworthy points, and recognized that neither side was entirely right or wrong.  Since then, I’ve been contemplating how this might be sorted out.

In a follow up study of Scott’s posts, Trajectories (2020-2-28), I made a comparison between two life trajectories, a legalistic path on the one hand, and a hedonistic path at the other end of the spectrum.  It was presumed that if a man wishes to have a fulfilling marriage and family, he should shoot for a trajectory somewhere in between these two extremes.

But the next question was, what does this trajectory look like from the ground?  A legalist is focused on remaining inside the confines of moral acceptability and on maintaining his own righteousness.  A hedonist is focused on maximizing his own pleasure and expanding his life experiences.  But what does a man aiming for an ideal trajectory focus on?

At first glance, we might think he should be focused on Christ, or his God-ordained purpose in life, or on preparing himself for marriage.  But for a young, inexperienced person, these goals are almost just as nebulous.

To fill in this blank, I’ll offer a brief list of tasks a young man can focus on that should take him in the right direction.

• Building character.
• Developing charisma.
• Coming to terms with himself.
• Earning an education and preparing for a career.
• Developing an abundance mindset as opposed to a poverty mindset.
• Maintaining good nutrition and developing physical strength and health.

Although the above things can certainly help, they are woefully insufficient to get one into the elite Christian married club, as Jason has adamantly pointed out.

I believe the main difference between Scott’s and Derek’s stances is in the values and norms proscribed by the non-shared environmental socialization factors, including the perceived ideal, and this is combined with one’s individual locus of passion and purpose for living.  Thus, all the argumentation is centered around the discussion of various elements of an underlying hierarchy of values and ideals.  I will explain this in the remainder of this essay.

Biblical Courtship is not Perceivable to the Majority

Those of us who have been following Christian Red Pill sites for a while are well aware of how the church in the west is converged.  That is to say, it has very few identifying characteristics which distinguish itself from the wider secular culture.  This convergence extends to include the expected (but unspoken) norms for “dating” and romance.

Moreover, there are a plethora of influences pushing us into fornication, and setting us up to fail.  These influences include gynocentric cultural norms, converged churchianity, well-meaning but ignorant friends, our own fleshly nature, and for some, their own family members too.  To make matters worse, these influences are quick to shame us if we fail to either (1) have Meet Cute opportunities, or (2) take advantage of those opportunities.  The only other option is to become a prudish legalistic hermit, which was essentially the outcome of the Purity Movement, and it has also been argued that this path might be even worse, because there is no opportunity to experience God’s grace and learn something from your choices.

This is why Bruce Batsche summed up the past discussion as,

“…current conditions incentivize men seeking a good marriage (good by male standards anyway) to fornicate.  As Scott said (more or less) somewhere, the best way to ensure marriage to a woman who wants you forever is to choose one who wants to fornicate with you a lot over an extended “courtship” (my interpretation of what he said).  Hard for a woman to fake genuine desire for an extended period of time.  So a Christian is incentivized to sin to get a good marriage – twisted really.”

But I have to point out, this has only become necessary because it is the norm, and there are virtually no other options available to the average man, short of converting to be Amish (or its near cousin, Mennonite, such as brother Derek).

So for a man in this situation, Scott’s advice becomes highly relevant:

1. Find a woman who is really crazy about you, a Meet Cute who is consistently displaying IOI’s.
2. You need to be on the edge of losing your self-control, which is an indication that (1) you need to be married, and also that (2) you have the necessary degree of desire for her.
3. You need to keep a clear head and vet her on many other checkpoints.  Deep Strength has offered a large number of posts dedicated to the task of wife vetting.
4. Be sensitive to the feedback you might receive from trusted friends, family members, and those in your faith community.
5. Plan for a wedding and resist having sex before the big day.

Bruce and probably others have thought or said to look for a woman who wants to fornicate with you.  This is not exactly right, and I think this is just a male view of the situation.  If a woman is intentionally trying to fornicate with you, that should be taken as an orange flag.  You don’t want a woman who rushes into a sexual relationship without any qualms.  Such a woman is probably not inexperienced.  The idea here is that the woman should have a spontaneous, genuine enthusiasm about showing natural physical affection to you, like she can’t keep her hands off of you, she wants to hold hands or kiss…  Immature women might show their attachment by getting jealous, making petulant demands, or $h!t testing you.

But the thing that everyone seems to miss is that it is possible to love someone, and to be “in love” with someone, without having sex.  It is possible for a woman to be in love and not be focused on the sexual.  But we are inundated with the half-baked argument that love is a justifiable reason for having sex, and this blurred understanding has blinded the eyes of many once-innocent souls.

For instance, the verbs “date” and “marry” are too often used as euphemisms for sexual relations.  It would be much more honest if people really said what they mean in this regard.  As a result of this misnomenclature, “I love you” is commonly interpreted to mean, “I wanna shag you!”  But this debases the glory of loving others and being loved.

Problems with the Meet Cute experience

If we reconsider the SMP from both the male and female perspectives, and from both the high and low SMV male perspectives, we discover the inherent errors of the cultural norm.

Consider this.  If a young man of average SMV falls in love with a girl, then that is usually seen as an embarrassing inconvenience.  But if a girl gets her panties soaked for a man, then we invariably see what Scott described in a recent comment: $h!ts and giggles from friends setting them up to be alone, followed by playful touching, then sneaking off, kissing underneath the bleachers, and so on.  And all this inevitably leads to sexual adventures — riding high in the back of the truck under the moonlight, escapades on magic blankets in beautiful secluded spots, etc.

Of course, the Meet Cute experience only happens to high SMV men.

The reason I find this interesting is because if a man is really bonkers about the girl, then we have the potential for a marriage commitment from him, which is labeled “good” by Christians.  But when the girl’s feelings take center stage, then we have the makings of delicious, illicit (to coin a new word: illicious) sex, which is portentously labeled “evil” by Christians.  So why then do we see practically everyone, Christians included, encouraging Meet Cute’s when they happen?  Are they hoping that the man will get hooked on the sex and pursue marriage with her?  But if he isn’t eager to marry the ho, then that renders him as a bad boy?  But if he does choose to stay with her, or even marry her, and she loses the Tingles later on, then it must be because he’s selfish and incompetent and so deserves to be thrown aside?  These are the opinions we are used to hearing, even within the church.  But obviously, we’re stuck in first gear with this rhetoric because no one is thinking that far ahead.

We’re still only talking about high SMV men.  Low SMV men are invisible to women.

Derek’s stance hereby becomes evident – that the present cultural emphasis on (her) feelings of sexual attraction is faulty.

Ultimately, a Meet Cute is a high SMV man’s challenge to find Christ.

In conclusion, the Biblical conscription of marriage is d@mn near impossible to attain through an independent discovery.

A Hierarchy of Ideals

So what makes Derek or Ed so special, that they could attain an “ideal” Biblical marriage?

For Derek, I would have to conclude that it was an absence of the negative influences described above, and the presence of positive influences that gave Derek a trajectory that is close to the ideal.  Namely, having a Christian community that offers real opportunities for viable pairings at an early age, and which offers the correlating teaching and guidance to move towards marriage, are absolutely necessary to enter into a fulfilling Christ-centered marriage.

For Ed, he summed up his approach in terms of finding a helper for his divinely ordained purpose in life.

“The thing that Scott’s article brings to mind for me is that very few men in our society are trained to think in terms of having a mission in life that would outlive you. More to the point, they have no idea what it looks like in a woman, so they can’t identify a prospective wife who will be supportive of that mission far, far down the road. How I learned it as a young man, I’m not sure I can explain, but it was a major criteria when I decided to marry.”

I suppose it is possible for a man to make it on Christ alone, but not probable, given the average level of maturity.

Thus, those who are without a strong internal sense of Christian purpose, and those who are lacking the constant, caring support of a network of wise believers, the choices for men default to the following,

1. Hunt the world over for a submissive, obedient virgin to wife up, who is also willing to marry you and have your babies.
2. Meet Cute and explore in the hope that you’ll wind up there eventually.  The usual pitfalls can be expected – jealousy, STD’s, out of wedlock births, divorce, etc.
3. Withdrawal, isolation, masturbation.

Red Pilled Dad (R.P. McMurphy) describes Why deregulation of SMP makes pairing up hard. (2020 March 31)

Note 1: In the western MMP, the outcome of option 1 is likely to be the same as option 3.

Note 2: If a young man actually goes abroad in his search for a wife, the outcome of option 1 is the same as option 2.

“I heard pollution in the world is way down because everybody is staying inside masturbating right now.  Which got me thinking… hear me out here, but I’m pretty sure I’m right about this.  I think… I think coronavirus was created and released by Greta Thunberg in an attempt to combat climate change.  You heard it hear first.“

Conclusions

Derek argued that the overall marital satisfaction is not necessarily dependent on the intensity and frequency of sexual passion.  Derek summed up his position as,

”So precisely, my personal stance is that the Meet Cute approach can be beneficial or detrimental, but that—in comparison—respecting one’s vows is more important.  Jason’s stance is, as far as I can tell from witnessing dozens or hundreds of marriages, is the most important component of a successful marriage.”

Jason’s stance is cited as follows.

“One of the most plain truths I got from the bible was “have your yes mean yes and your no mean no” […] My parents knew each other six months and married.  My mom always said “your father and I never kept a match or score on each other.” My dad always said “Your mother and I just took our wedding vows seriously.  It was a promise before family, friends and god.  It was just understood, and especially after your older brother… we only had each other… we had to make it work.”

The difficulties with Derek’s argument includes the following.

1. It requires a community of mature believers offering constant instruction and guidance to a pool of young people large enough to allow assortative pair selection – something 95+% of men these days don’t have, and never will have.
2. The approach of unwavering commitment and devotion relies heavily on vows and willpower, which are insufficient without the help of the Holy Spirit.  In other words, this method would be a hard grind for unbelievers, and unlikely to attract their longitudinal adherence.

There is one point of overarching importance: Commitment may be significantly less challenging if a man seriously considers his God-ordained mission in life, and considers the suitability of a particular, potential wife with respect to her ability to play the role of a helper and companion to him in that mission.

For those men who cannot achieve Derek’s approach, presumably because of the lack of maturity and a supporting network of believers, Scott’s approach towards marriage becomes the next best option.

Scott’s main position is that a wife’s (sexual) enthusiasm has to be present from the onset, and if it is not, it is highly unlikely to suddenly materialize eight years down the road.  Scott also argued that one major benefit of the Meet Cute path is that the sex is likely to be regular and rather satisfying.  The marriage covenant is better maintained through regular sexual intercourse, and if the woman has a high level of enthusiasm for having sex with her husband, then this contributes to the stability and satisfaction of the marriage.

The problem with Scott’s position is that it relies heavily upon emotional bonding, and while this can be quite strong, it is not consistent over time as it tends to wane.  At some point, commitment through thick or thin will need to emerge among the top shared values, and the difficulty of making this transition may prove to be the fatal hiccup for the union.

One positive aspect of Scott’s position is that it allows a man to gain an added appreciation of the grace of God.

The cultural norm, including the Meet Cute phenomenon, all seems easily understandable to us, maybe even inspirational.  Many readers may relate to Scott’s testimony because they have fond memories of past experiences.  But we should be aware that we might find it easy to accept this as fact, merely because we are familiar with it.  But in fact, this process is not God’s ideal.  It has a high likelihood of failure, as Scott has attested, and it is fraught with heartache and frustration, mainly because it does not place Christ first.

Remember, a Meet Cute is a special case scenario which is glorified as the romantic norm.

Of note, the inherent power structure of both paths conform to the God-honoring Respect Model of courtship.

Another key problem with both paths is that the longitudinal outcome of the marriage goes back to what Sharkly said under “Probabilities”:

“Relationships are not usually controlled by what you do as a man and a leader, the relationship is always controlled by the least emotionally mature partner.  The relationship cannot grow above the point that the least mature partner will not sustain.  So, if the man is the weak link, he can improve things, by getting his act together.  But, in our generation, most of the time, the entitled victim spoiled feminist goddess (daughter of the King) is the more emotionally stunted one.  So, almost all progress in the marriage is dependent on her maturing in Christ.  You as a husband can do cartwheels, send smoke signals, hire a psychologist, call a prayer meeting, drop hints, but until your wife chooses to grow up, or has an epiphany, you’re stuck having the level of development in your marriage dictated by that rebellious immature girl’s selfish choices.”

Given that the adolescent libido peaks long before emotional maturity is achieved, most young people are like a child playing with a loaded weapon.  All the pressures, all the responsibilities, and they don’t know what they’re doing.

Related

• Σ Frame: Models of Courtship and Marital Structure (2018 October 3)
• Σ Frame: The True Ontology of Power (2019 May 16)
• Σ Frame (Lexet): Courtship and Power (2020 February 17)

The War on Ideals

What is the value and purpose of having an ideal?  What is the proper place of ideals?

Readership: All; Christians;

Quoted texts have been adapted below in an easy-to-read format.

We should have ideals, in the sense of something unreachable on this plane.  Society needs something out of reach to which people aspire.  People who give up because it is out of reach are wrong people; they need fixing or marginalizing so they don’t hurt the rest of us.  We need a vision of what could be, in theory.  The problem is we keep ginning up our own theories.  Not only to do we ignore the image granted by the Creator of all things, but we see humanity fighting it tooth and nail.  This is the part which makes it out of reach, makes it an aspiration.

We know humanity, granted a near perfect setting with all the proper intellectual background and cultural experience necessary to understand God’s Laws, will still turn away from it.  Some nations do so more readily than others, and God’s prophets indicated Israel was probably the worst.  They had the truth, exclusively granted by God Himself into their hands, and kept trying to bury it so they could ignore it.  Even with all the best humanity could know and understand, forcing them to see it won’t change a thing.  Truth by itself is simply not enough.  It requires something mankind cannot obtain without divine help.

So we learn the prophets like Micah raised a standard literally beyond human reach in order to make it clear it has to come from God, not from us.  Sure, we could approach it, and probably gain quite a bit, but we’ll never actually get there on this fallen plane.  We have to obtain it on a different level.  So the prophets promised this thing would surely come, but they knew better in their own hearts than to expect a literal fulfillment.

Still, the issue is not fixing problems, but building a proper norm.  This is the second thing Micah raises.  Man’s instinct is to wait until something comes up, then react.  This is simply backwards, a perversion of what God revealed.  We have to be proactive in grasping His Laws with our minds and hearts, then proactive in building a normal society as He defines it.  Again, we know we will never actually arrive there on this earth, but we also know we can aim for it and keep trying.  God promises to fill in the rest inasmuch as He demonstrated with Israel when they were faithful.  All those grand miracles were part of His promises to any person or group who embraces His ways. ~ Ed Hurst [1]

“…we currently live in the world that is the final result of an all-out war on ideals, and scratching back to those will take effort.

The reason we have a war on ideals is because the concept of an ideal is an offensive anathema to most people around us.  Having an ideal means that if you did not meet it, you are being judged.  It hurts people’s feelings to be compared to an ideal that they did not obtain.  But beyond that, even if we could stop the hemorrhaging of the beautiful, the ideal and sublime by simply getting our guttural society out of that mindset, we would not agree on WHAT those ideals are, and HOW to obtain them.

So, I continue to offer my ideals, my path to get back them.  Readers can say it’s too slow, its making a deal with the devil, it’s moral relativism.  Whatever…” ~ Scott [2]

Jack [2]: “The war on ideals…” – This is basically what young people are up against.  One’s focus should be on the mission that God outlines for one’s life, but we (as a culture) can’t get to that point because we don’t even know what to believe anymore.  There needs to be a standard, a structure, an ideal, to serve as a foundation to launch from.  For Christians, this should be the Word of God, but even though many Christians might subscribe to the Word as an ideal, the conditions on the ground are too messy to make any sense of its practical implementation.

The Takeaway

Many large businesses have a habit of analyzing their core ideals for the sake of philosophical unity within the company culture.  But have religious institutions ever done the same?

If a church ever took the effort to identify, not what they cognitively believe, but that which they believe in practice, they may find some room for improvement.

The same goes for the individual man.  If you would ever keep a journal, or analyze your emotions, like anger, sadness, resentment, joy, etc., or meditate on your motivations, or study why things happen as they do (and not as you might expect), then you may discover that you are not the person you presume to be.  If this is the case, then maybe you’re too far off the ideal, or maybe you’ve been clinging to the wrong ideal for someone of your particular personality and/or calling in life.

It’s time to go back to the basics and realign our reality into one in which it is at least possible to reach some semblance of the God-ordained ideal.

References

1. Radix Fidem: Ideals and Norms in Micah (2012-8-5)
2. From the discussion under Σ Frame: Sexual Compatibility is dependent on Sanctification (2020-3-2)

Related

• Σ Frame: Fighting Fires (2020-3-20)

List of Female IOI’s

If a woman had the hots for you, would you even know it?

Readership: Single men;

Out of all the discussion of Scott’s post, Probabilities (2020-2-24), it has become evident that a man’s ability to detect and read female IOI’s is a crucial factor in determining his socio-sexual life trajectory.

Comprehensively, an IOI is anything that uniquely reveals her humility and heart-trust towards you, which are absolutely essential to establish a stable, meaningful relationship.  Women feel vulnerable in this state, so they tend to think they have made their interest clear.  But in fact, men are generally obtusely inept at detecting this emotional-spiritual state.

This information has been sparsely covered in the secular Manosphere, and virtually untouched in the Christian ‘sphere (to my present knowledge).  So here’s a list of female IOI’s to watch out for, broken down by category.

Emotional IOI’s

• Acting extraordinarily clumsy, silly, or stupid, especially if she’s laughing at herself for being that way.
• Laughing or giggling (genuinely) at little things that no one else is laughing about, especially things you do or say.
• Glorification – Others may notice that she has changed as a result of being with you. If so, someone might say she’s a different person around you, or something to that effect.
• She feels embarrassed to talk to others about how she feels about you.

Eye Contact

• Dilated pupils.
• Extended eye contact (more than 3-5 seconds). If she’s talking to you directly, the timeframe for an IOI is extended to 6-10 seconds.
• Eye contact combined with a warm smile.
• Frequent Gaze – In a public setting, you catch her staring at you from across the room more than 2-3 times within half an hour.
• Looking at you with a gaping mouth.
• S1ut Eye™ – Wide eyed, and looking like a deer in the headlights. Be sure to verify that she only looks at you this way, and not at every guy with a SMV higher than her own.
• Staring – She can’t take her eyes off of you.

Non-Verbal Communication (AKA Body Language)

• Animated antics when interacting with you, especially twisting her body in a rhythmic fashion, jumping or skipping, or lifting her hands above her head.
• Anxiously smoothing or straightening her clothing, or checking her hair and makeup, as if preparing herself to meet you.
• Loosening or unbuttoning her collar.
• Mindlessly stroking or playing with her necklace or other accessories.
• She eagerly takes advantage of an opportunity to hug you.
• She attempts to communicate with you using hand movements and/or facial expressions. (BTW, if you can’t understand it, just make some weird gesture back.  Don’t ignore it or let yourself appear confused.)
• Stroking or massaging her body in an amused or nervous fashion.
• In east Asia, if a woman strokes a man’s lower leg with her foot, she’s inviting him to have a sexual relationship.

Physical IOI’s (Position, Posture, or Habits)

• Her toes point towards you when she’s standing near you.
• Her knees point towards you when she’s sitting near you.
• Her shoulders are squarely facing you.
• She moves her hands excitedly whenever she’s talking with you.
• Open body posture – She shows the palms of the hands, the inside of the wrists and lower arms.
• Flushed or reddened face, neck, or upper chest area.
• She assumes a military posture while in your presence.
• Playfully or nervously touching her hair, face, or neck.
• Breathing patterns change, either deeply, erratically, or she exhibits shortness of breath.
• Increased pulse rate. You can feel this if you have the chance to hold her wrist, or put your forearm around her neck.
• Touching your body casually – brushing against you while passing, sitting next to you with body contact, etc.
• Touching your body intentionally, especially your arms, chest, shoulders or head.
• Soon after meeting you, she starts paying more attention to her appearance, e.g. getting her hair done, wearing makeup, buying new clothes, dressing more attractively, etc.

Situational IOI’s

• Chewing food with her mouth open when she’s sitting near a guy she likes at a restaurant. (To make sure she’s not an uncultured, low-IQ cow, watch how she behaves when he is not around, or ask her friends if she usually has this habit.)
• Deviating from her schedule to spend (more) time with you. Leaving work early; staying up late.
• Going out of her way to interact with you, like crossing the street, or breaking away from her circle of friends.
• Losing her train of thought while talking to you, especially mid-sentence.
• Sitting near you when given a choice of sitting elsewhere.
• Unnecessary or exaggerated acts of kindness. For example, giving you a gift out of the blue; Serving you a drink on her own initiative.

Verbal IOI’s

• Asking for help – Example: “Would you help me move some furniture?” or “Would you come help me bring the tea into the living room?”
• Coded Speech – She says something that has a double meaning. This falls under plausible deniability, but if she does it frequently, it’s an IOI.
• Freudian Slips (AKA parapraxis) – Casually and innocently using a word which sounds similar to the word intended, but which reveals her deeper psyche. For example, she says, “I’m twenty-sex years old… I mean, twenty-six.” Or “Would you like to go over me again?” (Using “me” instead of “it”.)
• Loaded Language – Rhetoric used to influence an audience by using words and phrases with strong connotations associated with them in order to invoke an emotional response and/or exploit stereotypes. For example, saying your name or the pronoun “you” in a drawn out, emotionally flighty, or flattering way.  Or if she says “It’s sooo hot in here!” it could be an IOI.
• Nicknames – Using terms of endearment, especially pet names or flattering nicknames.
• Pointed Suggestions – Example: “I like to play tennis. Maybe you should try playing tennis (with me) sometime.”
• Secret Language – She says something that either implies something else or has an esoteric meaning known only to you, which usually brings to mind an earlier conversation or interaction you had together.
• Subliminal Speech – A language of the heart that is extremely rare and hard to explain. Only very intelligent and sophisticated women do this. I’ve never seen it described anywhere.
• Suggestive Innuendos – Examples: “Maybe I’ll see you there!” or “If you need anything, I’m just a phone call away!”
• Word Semantics – Playing with fuzzy semantics to form suggestive euphemisms. A woman will often do this to test your intelligence, your level of experience, and your awareness.  For example, she just spilled her drink all over her dress.  Instead of saying, I need to go clean up, etc., she says, “I need to take this dress off.”

Tips for Detecting and Reading IOI’s

• Watch for IOI’s using your peripheral vision.
• Be aware of when you can feel the weight of her stare.
• The best IOI’s from the best quality women are given when she’s unaware of sending you an IOI.
• No one woman will show all of these IOI’s. Her personality determines which set of IOI’s she displays. Extroverted personalities will be more expressive and animated, while introverted ladies will show IOI’s indicating her amusement.
• Her psychological state also has an impact. For example, if she’s sad or depressed, then IOI’s will be curtailed. Also of note, women who are intoxicated will show IOI’s more freely and be less discriminating in who they show them to.
• IOI’s that are blatantly obvious should be interpreted as a red flag. For example, I worked at a summer camp when I was in college. On one occasion, the head cook (40-ish and married) asked me to accompany her to deliver some food.  On the way back, she casually asked me, “Wanna climb in the back of the truck and ride me?” I laughed it off as a joke. She was probably just checking her own SMV, but I’m sure she was half-serious.

Tips for making yourself more likely to Receive and Detect IOI’s

These achievements alone will do miracles for your ability to detect IOI’s.

• Learn to be heart-led. Don’t get lost in the vanity of your mind.
• Develop your spiritual discernment and wisdom to know what’s going on around you.
• Be consciously aware of your desire. Accept it as a part of your nature.
• Become comfortable with your body and appearance. Dress better if necessary.
• Love yourself (and her) enough to act with grace and dignity.
• Value yourself enough not to chase after low hanging fruit.
• Respect yourself enough not to waste your time pursuing any woman who is married, or who isn’t giving you clear IOI’s from the get go.
• Trust God with yourself (i.e. your sexual nature). Don’t kill opportunities before they appear.

Note: I may edit or add to this list in the future.

Related

• Σ Frame: List of Slut Tells (2017-10-15)

The Battle of the Prophets

A follow-up review of the value of Jordan Peterson’s contributions.

Readership: All;

A brief review of Jordan Peterson’s contribution

Two years ago in 2018, when Peterson climbed to notoriety, I devoted three studies to Peterson, which covered idolatry and the magic he wields over young men.  Since then, his popularity has leveled off, so I thought it would be worth reviewing the value of his contributions.

At the time I did these studies, I could not discern the significance of Peterson’s spiritual nature.  I only regarded him as an exceptionally accomplished man who had a novel approach in dealing with the conundrums of modern life.  Based on this assumption, my first post, The Objectivity of Offense Constitutes Respect (May 6, 2018), analyzed his contributions and discovered that that he has pioneered a robust response to a new style of dishonest debate that has developed in recent years.

In my second examination of this topic, Breaking the Fifth Wall – A New Protocol for Post-Truth Debate (June 13, 2018), I further explored Peterson’s approach and found the fundamental nature of Peterson’s power, and why he has gained a widespread following.

“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.”

In that same post, I described his technique as “breaking the Fifth Wall” (borrowing from film and literary terminology).  I defined the “Fifth Wall” as the boundary between those who believe the premises of, and agree with the argument presented, and those who don’t.  This post also examined three case studies that adopted this new approach to argumentation and conflict.

Peterson breaks the fifth wall by questioning the larger picture – the meaning and purpose of life, and most poignantly, the overall meaning and mechanics of debate itself.  This has since become the new paradigm of modern argumentation, and this added level of awareness is desperately needed to truly “globalize” the world.

Upon review of the debate, you can see that Cathy Newman was not a true opponent of Peterson.  She was an enabler for Peterson to mainstage his new approach towards global feminist post-modernism.  It was a brilliantly showcased example of the Hegelian dialectic.

On a side note, I also identified that the Red Pill is a Fifth Wall wrecking ball, in that it cuts down the battle lines between Feminism and Christian conservatism by reverting to the basic strata of the socio-sexual ontology, which cannot be adequately disclaimed as false.  It takes us back to the basic premise that we are all humans under God.

My last post on this subject, How to Dismantle the Idol of Fandom: Breaking the Fifth Wall (May 26, 2018) examined elements of fandom as a form of idolatry, and considered how ethical systems may be bypassed, and false beliefs exposed, through the debate techniques launched by Peterson.

After finishing these three studies, I surmised that Peterson qualified as a prophet.  But even so, I found his person to be less interesting than what all the attention on him would warrant.  In conclusion, I decided it was not worth my time to give him any further airplay.

What is a Prophet?

In a previous post entitled, On the discernment and wisdom of true morality (February 2, 2019), I defined prophets as individuals…

“…who have an extremely exceptional sense of discernment in a particular longitudinal area… within that particular discipline.”

This is not to say that prophets are always completely correct or infallible, but only that they give us a glimpse past what the average man can see.

Vox Dei might fall into this description of a prophet.  I say this because Vox was also the first (to my knowledge) to categorize men according to the socio-sexual hierarchy, which has since become the standard fare of discourse within Red Pill lore.

Interestingly, his self-chosen pseudonym, Vox Dei, means “the voice of God” in Latin, and could be interpreted as a profession of his own conscious ability to perceive the things of this world through a prophetic lens.

What did the Prophets say concerning Peterson?

Looking back at all the noise surrounding Peterson over the last two years, it is easy to recognize that he is a pawn, though quite an original and gifted one.

I could not see Peterson’s role in this at the time, but Vox was on it.  He embarked on a continual rant against Jordan Peterson that seemed unfounded at first.  (See his label, Jordanetics.)  But as months of internet discourse examining Petersons repeated “sins” and underlying beliefs went on, it became apparent that Peterson was more of a figure of Darkness than one of Light.

Ed Hurst was onto Peterson’s game as well, but he took a neutral stance.

“[Peterson] supports the globalist agenda because he isn’t aware that it’s not where we need to be.  Most of his best work is limited to correcting a lot of the madness of those who work toward a globalist one-world culture.  In other words, he’s very pragmatic about how globalism can work, but doesn’t examine the question of whether it should.  So when he criticizes some aspects of globalist activism, he has exceptional clarity about what’s wrong with it.”

“Peterson worked on a UN project that is devoted to globalist policy.  What he did was help remove a lot of senseless junk from a report so that it stuck with the primary issues.  But the primary issues were how best to achieve globalist goals.

Peterson is an example of someone who is heart-led, but committed to the wrong god.  He doesn’t follow the teachings of Jesus, though he does seem to understand some parts of what Jesus taught better than most Westerners.”

Adam Piggott had quite a bit to say about Peterson, first in favor of him, but then as time went on, Adam reversed his opinions of Peterson.  His two big clues included the facts that (1) Peterson was sympathetic to the Left, and (2) Peterson wasn’t as Red Pilled as he had once presumed.  A short time later, Adam identified Peterson as a Globalist shill.

Adam Piggott summarized his impressions and assessments of Peterson in his post, My Jordan Peterson greatest hits collection. (2020 February 10).

University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan B. Peterson ignites a global debate that is absurdly reductionist: is he a hero or a villain?

Conclusions

Peterson’s identification as a Globalist is what clinched it for me, because I believe any progress made towards the enterprise of Globalism — one world government/religion, homogenization of culture/race, etc. is inherently evil.  Globalism is simply the 21^st century iteration of Babelonism.

Jordan Peterson fits the description of a prophet, however, he is a false prophet.  The quality that makes him false is the spiritual authority he serves under.  By false prophet, I don’t mean that he is a liar or deceiver, although that may be part of the definition in other examples.  I mean that his concepts and viewpoints may very well be accurate and powerful, but at the end of the trail, his mastermind will have empowered the Globalist agenda, and led people en masse, away from the knowledge and blessings of God.

Related

• Radix Fidem (feat. Ed Hurst): The Current Path of the US (2018 November 30)
• Lexet Iustitia: Jordan Peterson: False Prophet (2018 December 16)
• Σ Frame: Current Trends in Prophecy (2020 March 13)
• Radix Fidem: Your Own Word from God (2020 March 26)

Things men found attractive 50 years ago are still attractive today.

Women are averse to admit what men find attractive.

Readership: All

I came across this feminist leaning article which paints several manifestations of the traditional archetype as hopelessly outdated – but in fact, they are not.

The List (Christine-Marie Liwag Dixon): Surprising things men found attractive 50 years ago (2018 January 17)

The hamster is high on this one, so we’re going to knock the rpm’s down a few thousand cycles.

The problems with this article could be summarized as follows.

• A. It claims that some things were attractive 50 years ago, when in fact they were not.
• B. It claims that some things were attractive 50 years ago, but that they aren’t now, when in fact they still are.
• C. It claims that some things that have always been attractive should not be considered attractive.
• D. It was always attractive, but the article tries to politicize the reasons why.

To identify the error, each of the following examples is followed by A, B, C, or D.

Lighter Skin (C)

The article makes the case that having a preference for lighter skin is evidence of racism and discrimination.  But having this preference is not limited to whites nor western culture.  This is true for Asians too.  In fact, most cultures worldwide prefer lighter skin, so it’s really about aesthetics, not racism.  This is proven by the fact that skin whitening cream is the most popular cosmetic product worldwide.  Even within the black community, lighter skin is considered more attractive.

Rail-Thin Bodies (B)

Voluptuous, hourglass bodies have always been considered the icon of female attractiveness.  This hasn’t changed, and it never will.  I believe the preference for thinner women since Twiggy hit the scene in the 60’s is a response to increasing obesity.  There’s also the fact that thinner women tend to age better.

Flat Chests (A)

The argument offered for this claim is pretty short and weak.  The important thing to men is that a woman’s breasts are attractive.  Breasts are attractive if they are symmetrical, round, plump, firm, and supple (no sagging and no cellulite).  In other words, youthful and healthy.  Size is secondary to the overall presentation, but it receives more attention because it’s more obvious in fully clothed women.  Women care more about size than men do.

Flat Butts (A)

Przybyszewski wrote that the fear of cellulite caused women to do anything they could to eliminate “what they identified as water, wastes, and fat trapped inside women’s hips and thighs.”

There’s a big difference between being fit and sleek, and having jiggly cottage cheese spilling out of her clothing.  The word “flat” does not describe this difference.

The desire for more boyish figures was not entirely to please men or to conform to fashion.  Battleground: The Media, edited by Robin Andersen and Jonathan Alan Gray, noted that “the changing shape of women’s bodies has in many ways served to reflect larger cultural values.” Throughout history, “a thin, straight figure was prized” at times “when women were striving to demonstrate their equality.”

Whatever…  A thin, straight figure is prized by women in other women who value “equality” because men prefer a voluptuous package.

Exposed Legs (B)

In Fashion: A History from the 18^th to the 20^th Century, Akiko Fukai wrote that “the young found that displaying their physique was the most effective means of setting themselves apart from the older generation.”

The article implies that this social movement was an act of rebellion, which I interpret as the psychological projection of the author.  But in fact, physiological and generational differences exist nonetheless.  In Asia, showing a lot of leg is the universal cultural signal of youth, beauty, and fertility.  Westerners tend to focus more on breastyness and cleavage.

Androgyny (A)

Coinciding with the preference for more boyish figures was the rise of unisex clothing and androgynous styles.  This echoed a similar trend from the 1920’s, when “androgyny [began to be] associated with the search for greater independence for women,” wrote Rebecca Arnold in Fashion, Desire and Anxiety: Image and Morality in the 20th Century.  Arnold wrote that the rise of androgyny in the 1960’s helped to “denote freedoms gained and the rejection of a preceding claustrophobic femininity.”

Heh…  The article makes it seem as though men liked and wanted this change.

I remember from the 1970’s, that “greater independence for women” was interpreted and understood to mean “more emotional independence equals maturity”, as in, not being “clingy”, dependent on a man.  Looking back, I see this was a deceptive attack on humility.

When I was in college, I dated more than a few women who were disgusted by their feelings of natural attraction for me, and overtly apologized for being too clingy.  When I told them that I actually enjoyed the affection, they interpreted my honest humility negatively as neediness.

The Lolita Look (B)

…”prepubescent look”.  Lithe, young-looking Lolita types like Twiggy dominated the fashion world.  This “look of exaggerated youthfulness expressed the associated sensibility that maturity, in dress or behavior, was a dirty word, a sign of premature death, and therefore something to be warded off as long as possible”.

Feminism used the SMV of youth to separate the ideas that fertility (youth) and emotional maturity are both attractive.  This was truly confusing to younger men.

Going Braless (D)

I clearly remember all the hype surrounding the anti-bra movement in the 1970’s, but I cannot actually remember seeing women going braless at all.  Maybe this is simply because I was a child and I wasn’t into the habit of scrutinizing older women’s bodies, or maybe because, as a child, I did not go to places where young women were making their fashion statements.

Fashion designer Yves Saint Laurent contributed to making going braless not just a form of protest but also a fashion trend.  His sheer designs were always modeled by women who wore no undergarments beneath them.  This, too, was a political statement.  Dazed wrote that “the decision was less about pleasing the onlooker, and more about asserting equality between the sexes.”

I don’t believe that bralessness is all about equality.  I believe most women who actually go braless, do so for various practical reasons, including these…

• To be more comfortable.
• To make their bodies more accessible to men.
• To compete with other women.
• The Feeelz of personal freedom.

Long, Straight Hair (B,C)

I remember this was one of the most beautiful and inspiring things about people’s appearances back in the 60’s to 80’s.  Both men and women parted their hair in the middle, and “feathered” their hair on the sides and back.  Big hair had a heyday with the 1960’s “beehive” hairdo’s, followed by the “flip” in the 1970’s.  But the emphasis on big hair reached its zenith in the 1980’s, and became an icon of the times.  To this day, men still find long hair attractive, and I’m sure they always will.

Subservience (B,D)

“The 1960s might have been a time of change, but ads from the era show that women were still expected to be homemakers and sex objects.”

Men still find sexy maids attractive.  Arnold Schwarzenegger is a conspicuous example, and she wasn’t all that sexy, because subservience alone is usually sufficient.

“In The Feminine Mystique, published in 1963, Betty Friedan summed up the frustration of the generation, writing, “A woman today has been made to feel freakish and alone and guilty if, simply, she wants to be more than her husband’s wife.”

Friedan is describing a healthy guilt for being dissatisfied and ungrateful, but that’s not the husband’s fault.

Sobriety (B)

Still attractive to marriage minded men, but not so much to Players.

Smoking (A)

Back in the 20^th century, smoking was a big thing.  Anyone who didn’t smoke was considered square or unsophisticated.  To put this in perspective, in 1960, about 42% of the population smoked.  If you remove children and the elderly from that calculation, that figure jumps to about 80% — 4 out of 5 people — that’s nearly everybody.

But smoking is not what made women attractive, being sophisticated and “hip” is what did it – and back then, this included smoking.  Nowadays, tattoos might be the modern equivalent.  They’re thought to be cool, but that does not necessarily make them attractive.

Unemployment (B)

By the late 1960’s, more women were working than ever.  While they were making great economic strides, working women faced a certain stigma.  It was far more acceptable for single women to work than married women, as a woman’s primary duty was still expected to be to her family.  In 1967, just 44 percent of married American couples lived in dual income households, compared to more than half of married couples today.  Working wives and mothers were thought to destabilize home life and their families.

It’s a luxury for a woman to be unemployed.  It’s a joy for a woman to be busy as a homemaker and raising children.  Too many women have fallen for the lies that claim otherwise.

Leg Makeup (C)

My aunts (from the Silent generation) told me women were doing this as early as the 1940’s.  I suppose body paint would be the modern equivalent.

The article made no mention of how this is attractive to men.  So I’ll point out that the thing that makes this attractive is the artistry and the way it draws attention to the body.

Athletic Skills (B,D)

“Athletic women were “in” at the end of the 1960’s, but not for the reason that you might think.  Athletics were viewed as a way for women to maintain “attractive” figures.  Women became more active in sports in the 1960s, especially in high schools and colleges, although women’s sports were not considered to be on par with men’s sports.”

Being physically fit and active is still attractive to men.

Conclusions

The article is somewhat dishonest, because the headline implies that these things are strange and are no longer attractive to men.  In fact, most of them are still attractive to men.  Nothing has changed except the degree to which women are willing to concede what men prefer.

These days, the standards for women’s personal qualities have gone down so much, that women themselves are no longer attractive to men.

This article is proof that the hamster still dominates women’s concepts of what men find attractive.

Why not cut to the chase and ask a man?

Related

• Σ Frame: Opal’s Femsplaination of Cakeface (2018-6-17)

New Page: Argumentation and Debate

Announcing a new page on Argumentation and Debate, which includes some “new” dishonest debate tactics.

Readership: The intellectually gifted; Others who are interested;

Announcement

From the end of February to the first half of March, there was a record-breaking amount of discussion in the comments at Σ Frame.  It started with Scott’s post, Probabilities (2020-02-24) which was about the Meet Cute phenomenon.  The discussion soon exploded into quite a few tangential topics.  Since then, I’ve been busy addressing several of these tangent issues in separate posts, and I’m nowhere near being finished.

While reviewing many of the comments, I realized that it would be good for us to brush up on our argumentation skills, including myself.  I have taught a course in debate for a few years, and as part of the course materials, I’ve put together a summary of Argumentation and Debate which contains an extensive (but not exhaustive) list of logical fallacies.  (That last link goes to the new page.)

At 7,500 words, I don’t expect the average reader to make it to the end, much less memorize every word by heart.  So here in this post, I’d like to draw the reader’s attention to (1) the most important stuff, and (2) the most problematic stuff.

The Crux of Intellectually Honest Debate

The list of intellectually honest debate tactics is short and easy to remember.

1. Revealing errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts.
2. Revealing errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic.

All other debate tactics are intellectually dishonest.

Noteworthy Intellectually Dishonest Debate Tactics

Here, I’d just like to point out a few errors I’ve seen in the recent discussions at Σ Frame.  These include…

• Accusation of Appeal to Credentials
• Ad Hominem
• Appeal to Hypocrisy
• Changing the subject
• False Dilemma
• Finding Small Error
• Ill-Defined Words
• Oversimplification
• Stereotyping
• Strawman
• Vagueness

Maybe there are others I’ve failed to notice.

Widespread or “New” Intellectually Dishonest Debate Tactics

I’ll also draw attention to some dishonest tactics that have become prevalent in society over the past decade or two.   I’ve made a few additions (in green font) which don’t appear in your average debate handbook, and therefore might be considered “new”.

• Apex Fallacy
• Assertion of Non-Existent “Rights”
• Cherry Picking
• Citing Irrelevant Facts
• Group Polarization
• Political Correctness
• Selective Peer Approval
• Tone Policing
• Trolling

Final Statements

The new paradigm in debate includes argumentation at the meta-level, which is not easily discerned.  Because of this,

• I do believe it is possible for an argument to be riddled with errors, yet still be truthful at its core.
• I also believe an argument can be flawless, but still be unwise or gravely mistaken in its proposed application.
• I also believe many arguments are used to fatigue the opponent, and to create an acceptance through repetition and familiarity.  These strategies are ubiquitous in MGM, and they go largely unnoticed.  I don’t believe these strategies have a name, nor have they ever been detailed in writing.

Note: I’ll offer the following suggestions for a name: Oversaturation; Smokescreening; Snowstorming.

The purpose of posting this page on Argumentation and Debate is to help us as a community (1) sort out the facts, (2) reason together, and (3) come to a better apprehension of the truth.  I hope that the information will be empowering, more than it will be disheartening.

I need to mention that commenters are not the only ones guilty of intellectual dishonesty.  I’ve read through several of my past posts since I started compiling this material, and because I had a fresh review of these fallacies on my mind, I’ve found some of these errors in my own posts, which was quite surprising and embarrassing.  This only reinforced my conviction that this page needs to be included in the header, and that I/we need to be more mindful of being intellectually honest in the future.

Perhaps I’m being overly critical, unwise for criticizing my readers, or overly stupid for admitting error, so I’ll leave it to the reader to identify errors.

If anyone takes up this challenge, I would appreciate an attitude of learning with sincere humility.  Please include links, quotations, and/or citations.

Related

 

Fighting Fires

The church wastes a great deal of financial and spiritual resources in patching up the fallout from the shoddy Socio-Sexual/Marriage Marketplace.  These energies could be much better spent on education.

Readership: All; Church leaders; Parents; Those who hope to be parents;

Introduction

In a previous post, Parenting is for the elite. (2020-3-16), I discussed how being a married parent tends to be an exclusive status among the elite.

However, there are two groups of women who do not enter into the blessed Inner Circle of the Parenting Elite.

1. Women who commit abortion.  (No children.)
2. Single mothers.  (No marriage.)

Obviously, these women have the potential to join this elite group, but for some reason, they choose not to join the parenting federation.

Their reasons are varied.

Although many of these women claim that they prefer to remain unmarried and/or childless, I have my doubts about how honest they are being with themselves.  If it’s true, then I would presume they prefer to remain single because they can earn a decent income on their own, and they cannot find a man worthy of their standards, who earns more, and who is also willing to commit to marriage.

They might think they’re elite, but there is something important missing.

 

Women who Commit Abortion

Concerning the first group, the church teaches us that we should love and accept those women who have had an abortion (should they ever be found out).  But laced within this stance, there is an implicit assumption that God’s design for women to be mothers isn’t optimal enough for them.  No, every princess needs to have a “season for singleness”* while waiting for a wealthy (or otherwise high quality) man to be her husband, or none at all.  We would never deprive a Christian woman of her opportunity to live wild and free in the process of “discovering herself”* if she so wishes, simply because she isn’t beautiful nor wise enough to attract an elite man’s commitment in marriage.  As a consequence, a woman having an abortion, for whatever her personal reasons, has come to be accepted as the norm, even within the church.  However, this is a topic that tends to stay within the women’s circles, and the men never become aware of this implicit treachery of procreative potential.

And… the church continues to teach us that we should love and accept those women who have had an abortion!

* It is fairly well known that all too often, a “season for singleness” is merely a polite euphemism for riding the carousel and becoming jaded (AKA “discovering herself”), but it is also implied that this “season of singleness” must not be interrupted by the inconvenient duties of childbearing and childrearing.

Single Mothers

Concerning the second group, I’ve met some women who actually preferred to have an independent lifestyle and have a child with a man of their choosing.  Often times this is a sugar daddy who is already taken.  It seems that there are some women who don’t care too much about commitment as long as their lives are comfortably numb and ostentatiously secure.

Likewise, the church teaches us that we should love and accept those women who are single mothers.  But laced within this stance, there is an implicit assumption that God’s design for mothers to be married isn’t optimal enough for them.  No, every princess needs to have a wealthy (or otherwise high quality) man as her husband, or none at all.  We would never deprive a Christian woman of her opportunity to have a child, even out of wedlock if she so wishes, simply because she is neither beautiful nor wise enough to attract an elite man’s commitment in marriage.  As a consequence, a woman having a child out of wedlock, for whatever her personal reasons, has come to be accepted as the norm, even within the church.

And… the church continues to teach us that we should love and accept those women who are single mothers!

Something smells fleshy…

Confusion over Cause and Effect

For those women who wish to join the ranks of the married, parenting elite, there is no other way to do so, except to remain sexually chaste until marriage.  This usually requires women to marry while they are still young (< 25-ish).

There are many ways that the church has skirted around the unpopular teaching of chastity, but ultimately, the only real solution is for us to make the following crystal clear to young people…

1. That chastity (i.e. true sexual purity) has value for many reasons.
2. That young women can have a clear choice about how their lives will turn out.
3. Most importantly, the steps young women can take to precipitate that choice into reality.

In sum, the church needs to focus on the cause-and-effect relationship between the two broad choices of (1) chastity and contentment in marriage and family, and (2) sexual promiscuity, dissipation, and a less favorable life outcome.  But these cascades are not properly and adequately addressed in church catechism, and I don’t believe it ever has been.

Instead of emphasizing these fundamental concepts of procuring spiritual excellence in living, the church teaches us to love and accept those women who have fallen short of the target (i.e. by choosing to have premarital sex, committing abortion, or having a child out of wedlock).

But while this goal of extending unconditional love and forgiveness is indeed scriptural and necessary, it has replaced the goal of reaching towards the upward calling of Christ.  As such, it has become a self-reinforcing feedback loop which propagates these same bad behaviors.  That is to say, since these behaviors have become the acceptable norm, there remains no motivation for young women to exercise self-control and remain chaste.  No matter what mistakes they make, they will always find kind, loving church folks who will totally ignore how badly they have screwed up their lives while serving up casseroles and cookies.

Gynocentric government policies and court systems that are generous to disobedient wimmin only serve to exacerbate the longitudinal failure to discipline.

Is the need for introspection and repentance even a thing anymore?

Or is it only for when she fails to stick the landing and is certain to lose the rewards for being obedient?

No, it’s too late by then.

Conclusions

Parenting is for the elite, but it shouldn’t be.  Not all (would-be) mothers are elite, but many more of them could be.  The church might increase the yield ratio by going back to the basics of why sexual chastity is of value, and why a timely marriage may be the best option for many young women.

At some point, it needs to be made undeniably clear that illicit sex is morally unacceptable and that it has long term consequences.  But few church leaders have the balls to spell out all the negative consequences of extramarital sex.

As a consequence, church staff and parishioners consume vast amounts of their time and energies, as well as fiscal and material resources in fighting the fires of sexual promiscuity, dealing with the consequences of abortion (e.g. counseling guilt and difficulties in subsequent relationships), and meeting the needs of single mothers.

The bottom line is that a great deal more spiritual efficiency could be achieved if the church focused its energies on preventing fires, rather than fighting them.

Related

• Dalrock: The normalization of the trashy single mother. (2012 October 18)
• Dalrock: Single mothers and the failure of Christian men; it is time to Man Up! (2013 March 15)
• Dalrock: Don’t overlook single mothers. (2015 January 26)
• Σ Frame: Abortion and Birth Control (Page)

The Parable of the Jigsaw Puzzle

Insert male tab into female socket to form a beautiful composition.

Readership: All;

A man and a woman are much like two interlocking jigsaw puzzle pieces.

One piece has a tab, and another piece has a recess.  These two parts fit together, forming a picture or pattern on the outside surface.

No adhesive nor tape is necessary to join these pieces together, because the interlocking geometry of the pieces allows a mechanical containment of one inside the other.

Some puzzle pieces may have tabs and slots that fit together, but their pictures don’t match, and so the resulting montage doesn’t form a beautiful composite image (of God).  These two pieces are mismatched (or “unequally yoked” ~ 2^nd Corinthians 6:14).

What happens if we remove the tabs (emasculate men) and fill in the recesses (masculinize women), and make the pieces amorphous (androgynous)?

If the tabs and recesses are removed, then there is no geometrical design (sexual attraction; spiritual identity) to retain cohesion (bonding).

Moreover, what we have are pieces that resemble those few pieces with straight sides that comprise the periphery of the puzzle (edge of society).

By being pushed to the side (the “edge” of society), these pieces are segregated into a (progressive) stack, and assembled separately to form a frame (boundaries of morality).  This frame then becomes the border (moral limitations) of the entire puzzle (society).

The four pieces with two straight sides are “special”.  These are sent to the intersectional corners (of society).

Completing the border (building the wall; establishing personal boundaries) is an important step in completing the puzzle.  Without these pieces in place (social structure and moral accountability), it is rather difficult to determine exactly where the other pieces belong (what is morally right and contextually appropriate), and how they might fit together (establish normal intersexual relations leading to marriage and family).

If we demand that all the puzzle pieces should have flat edges and are all the same size, shape, and color (social-sexual equality), then we don’t really have a puzzle.  This is more like a ceramic tile floor.

If the pieces are all the same, and they cannot join together in the usual interlocking fashion, then these tiles require an adhesive or mortar to keep them stuck in place (contracts, laws, and government policies).

But if we snip off the tabs and artificially fill the sl0ts, then in reality, what we are left with is a pile of cardboard chips which can never be pieced together into a finished puzzle (functional society).

These shards are only good for one thing – to use as tinder to light up the (moral, spiritual, and societal) bonfire.

Related

• Dalrock: Debasing marriage (2012 October 6)
• Christianity and Masculinity: Understanding the world and the mission (2014 February 4)
• Attention Land (feat. Adam Baker): 5 Things We Can Learn From Jigsaw Puzzles (2014 September 1)

Parenting is for the elite.

Not only marriage, but also parenting is for the elite.

Readership: All; Parents; Those who hope to be parents;

Introduction

Dalrock once made a very strong argument that marriage is for the elite, but that it shouldn’t be.

• Dalrock: Let them become elite. (2017 September 26)
• Dalrock: Is Christian marriage only for elite women? (2019 January 14)

In the latter, Dalrock wrote,

“Most women can’t attract an exceptional man.  All of those women who are married to the poor excuses for men that we look down on?  They are every bit the losers their husbands are!  If they had better options they would have taken them.  Even if a woman had better options but chose a poor slob for a husband, this generally tells us the woman was gifted with attractiveness but blew it due to being below average in wisdom.  Granted there will be a handful of true exceptions, but these aren’t the rule.

So when we look down on unexceptional men as unworthy, we are implicitly looking down on the loser women who can’t do any better.  But as Romans 12:10 reminds us, this isn’t a Christian way of looking at things.  It also sets marriage up as something only for elite men and women.  For if we take the non-elite men out of the marriage market, who will their counterpart women marry?”

That’s the current conundrum that few want to face, and it’s true.

I’ll take this assertion a step further.  Not only is marriage reserved for the elite, but also parenting – but it shouldn’t be.

Parenting is for the Elite

The common belief is that raising children “properly” requires parents to have every amenity imaginable to be fully accessible to their children — the best schools, designer clothes, money to invest in special hobbies and interests, such as taking private lessons in foreign language, or piano or violin lessons.  Anything less than this would be “depriving your children” of what is presumed to be a “full life”.

This attitude reeks of materialistic arrogance.  Why should we listen to such people about how to raise our children?

In times past, these things were considered luxuries, but now, they are necessities.  They are considered necessities, not because children cannot become mature capable adults without these things, but because parents want their children to be the best, or at least, better than their peers at school.  They don’t want any other parent or child to look down on their child, because that would create negative Feeelz.

But you know, that’s just how life is.  Even in a “perfect” socialist country like China or North Korea, there are still class differences, except it is not determined by how hardworking, or skillful, or business saavy your father is, but by whether he is an official within the Communist party.

Because of the Jones’, the average couple won’t consider having children until they have everything else settled in place, and also have a few years to enjoy it all for themselves –without any children.  But all too often, this expectation would put a couple past the wife’s fertility window.

To be realistic, the average person is not elite, and so it is unreasonable for the average couple to postpone having children until such-and-such a goal is met.  Furthermore, it is uncharitable to expect them to follow the life script of the upper class when their lower or even middle-class budget prevents them from obtaining all the exquisite trimmings.

Furthermore, the children themselves don’t really care about money that much.  What they want is a stable, secure, love-filled home that has both a mother and a father present.

The Elite are Parents

These observations are not just idle preponderances of the fears and wishful thoughts of others.  I have been an educator for some time, and I’m also a parent, so I am exposed to this crowd on a continual basis.  I have seen these expectations play out for decades.

The difference between the people who are married with children and those who aren’t is quite noticeable.  Whenever we have a parent-teacher meeting, I always know who the parents are just by looking at them.  The parents are very well-dressed, and they have an air of confidence and dignity.  Those who are not parents look common and shabby in comparison.  At certain gatherings, this vast chasm is astounding.

The fathers are mostly professional, dignified men — calm, quiet observers of their children’s progress.  Many of them can be seen driving their children to school in a newer model, sport-performance car, which is usually either black or white in color.  I shouldn’t need to mention, only elite men have the money and leisure to drive their children to school in a Lexus or Benz.

Occasionally there’s a working man who has a great physique and a lot of charisma.  These men all have Frame, and they don’t take any $*** from people.

And the mothers!  They are tall, thin, always well-dressed and meticulously groomed, many of them have long hair, and the ones who don’t are cute as a button.  They have a butt on their @ss — the natural result of the regular sexercise necessary for impregnation.  Mammary glands that point to the far recesses of the heavens — providing nutritional sustenance to the babes in their care.

I can’t help myself from noticing.

I hardly ever see any parent, dirty and harried from a long, tough day’s work, come in driving an old beat up Ford to pick up their child.  The children of those parents always take the bus.

The point is, only the most excellent specimens of humanity are reproducing.  From an evo-psych viewpoint, this may be all for the betterment of the race.

Anyway you have it, it seems that you really need both marriage and children to get into this group.  Of course, the prerequisite for both is to be elite.  Of course, this is not a Christian view, but it is commonly perceived as the (expected) Christian norm.

Conclusions

We tend to look at those married couples who are elite, as I described above, and think that every Christian family should be like theirs.

We are happy to see those elite couples getting married and having children, but we think it unfitting or even embarrassing for those of humbler means.

But this kind of attitude denies less well-heeled families the glory and honor of being a parent.

Granted, raising children isn’t cheap, but the joys and blessings of being a parent should not be reserved for the elite only, nor should they be excluded from unexceptional Christian couples.

Related

• The New York Times (Claire Cain Miller): How Did Marriage Become a Mark of Privilege? (2017 Sept. 25)

Current Trends in Prophecy

Prophecy continues to be ongoing, but do we remain ignorant of its influence?

Readership: Christians; Those following either Vox Day or Jordan Peterson;

Introduction

As mentioned in a previous post, How to Dismantle the Idol of Fandom: Breaking the Fifth Wall (2018 May 26), one avenue of apprehending truth is through prophecy.  Prophecy imparts a conscientious awareness of things that would otherwise not be regarded, and this additional knowledge shifts our perspective of understanding what is right and true.

However, we live in a world of false prophecy these days.

Fake news, gaslighting, and various ad hominems, are usually embodiments of false prophecy.

Censorship is often done to crimp the dissemination of certain aspects of the truth, in order to support the contrasting messages of false prophecies.

The Babylon Bee might offer some examples of fake news that would be true prophecy.

What is Prophecy?

First of all, I know there will be a lot of readers who misunderstand what prophecy is, so I’ll have to discuss this first.

The common myth surrounding prophecy is that prophets can predict the future.  This is not exactly true, nor is it the purpose of prophecy.  But because of scriptures like the following, it is easy to jump to this conclusion.

“…when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.” ~ Deuteronomy 18:22 (ESV)

What is not commonly understood is that if a prophetic message says something about the future, then it is because God wishes to outline a judgment on the present situation by revealing the eventual consequences thereof.

Perhaps Jonah, one of the most famous minor prophets, will illustrate that prophecy is not so much about predicting the future as it is about reframing the present.

Jonah only issues a single proclamation about the future.

“Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” ~ Jonah: 3:4 (RSV)

But reading further in Jonah, we find that, as a result of Jonah’s prophecy, the Ninevites repented of their evil ways and violence, and God did not destroy the city.  But since Jonah’s “prediction” did not in fact come to pass, does that make him a false prophet (according to Deuteronomy 18:22)?  If he was a false prophet, then his story would have never been included in the Biblical canon.  In fact, Jesus identified Jonah as one of the greatest prophets when he said “the sign of Jonah” was referring to Himself.  (Matthew 12:38-41; Luke 11:29-32)

Jesus himself offered an alternate (or supplementary) method to diagnose the nature of a prophecy.

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.  You will know them by their fruits.” ~ Matthew 7:15-16 (NKJV)

A true prophet is one that enlightens people to recognize truth, prepare themselves accordingly, and pursue God’s will for mankind.  A false prophet is one that leads people further into complacency, idolatry and dissipation.  Sometimes, the gist of a prophecy is evident, but in other cases, the effect of a prophecy is not readily apparent, and can take years to unfold.

Vox and Peterson

We might consider Vox Day and Prof. Peterson both to be social prophets, under the loose definition offered above.

In his series of posts tagged “Jordanetics”, Vox Day has invested a considerable amount of cognitive and emotional energy in addressing the fundamental nature of Peterson’s influence.  Here, I believe what we are witnessing is a battle between two modern day prophets, where one prophet (Vox) is attempting to expose the other (Peterson) as a false prophet.

In this YouTube video, entitled, ‘Vox Day Exposes Jordan Peterson and the Left’s Plan to Take Control of the Nationalist Movement’ (2018 May 7), Vox teams up with Alex Jones to discuss his viewpoints.

I will not comment (yet) on whether a particular man (e.g. Vox, Peterson, or another) is a false prophet or not.  Instead I will leave that for the readers to debate and to decide for themselves.  [I give my opinion in a follow-up post, The Battle of the Prophets (2020-3-27).]  However, I will say that if Vox is to be successful in his assails on Peterson, he needs to adjust his strategy as follows.

• Vox has been primarily focused on Peterson’s arguments, the facts, and his interpretation of the meaning that arises from these.  Instead, Vox needs to place a greater emphasis on a grand purpose (or vision), and that purpose needs to be greater than simply depedestalizing Peterson and his arguments.
• Vox needs to expand his Frame to include the viewpoints of those who don’t agree with his (or Peterson’s) interpretations of meaning.
• Instead of investigating the specific mechanics and meanings of the arguments, Vox should match and discuss Peterson’s presumed strategy of Breaking the Fifth Wall, and address the overall mechanics and meaning of the debate itself.
• By taking the argument to the next level of awareness, viewers would be better informed to understand what the stakes are, and to see where they stand.  This could be done simply by showing how Peterson’s philosophies are a continuation of Marxism, or Feminism, and do not promise a return to traditional Christian values in society.  Vox mentions this strategy in the video, but (to my present knowledge) I don’t think he has actually chased it down.

Concluding Statements

In conclusion, a wider, better Frame for a debate might be to delineate the battle which has been going on in the west since the 1770’s, if not earlier, and has manifested in various forms throughout the years.  Some historical examples might include populism/immigration vs. landed bourgeoisie/tradition (ca. 1830’s), federal sovereignty vs. states’ rights (ca. 1850’s); industrialization vs. agrarian society (ca. 1870’s), gold standard vs. silver standard (ca. 1890’s), suffrage vs. temperance (ca. 1920’s), Communism vs. McCarthyism (1950’s), feminism vs. the family (1980’s), and nationalism vs progressive socialism (ca. 2010’s).  We might describe this battle as something like ‘the entrenching New World Order versus the local, patriarchal, Christian, traditional, nuclear family structure in revival’.  I doubt that this particular Frame would attract popular appeal, but taking this approach (or one similar) would be a step towards the right direction.

I believe Vox is presuming that Nationalism is the same as Christianized Traditionalism.  This is not exactly right, because Nationalism describes the political structure, whereas Christianized Traditionalism addresses the social structure.  Both are needed for a theoretical return to normalcy, so this association is probably accurate enough to get some traction.  But to clinch this take, Vox needs to (1) spell this out more clearly, and (2) get past the staged politics involving the Left vs. Right dogma.  The whole political contrivance of dueling parties is being revealed to be a divide and conquer contraption intended to keep society occupied with infighting, while the Deeper State encroaches over the whole world, and continues to lumber towards it’s clandestine objectives to restructure society.  As a result of this new awareness, the old Left vs. Right arguments are quickly disintegrating in strength and value, as new lines are being drawn.  This is largely why society is becoming so volatile.

Related

• Quillette (Carol Horton): Jordan Peterson and the Failure of the Left (2018 May 22)
• Radix Fidem: Your Own Word from God (2020 March 26)
• Σ Frame: The Battle of the Prophets (2020-3-27)