How much is one man’s view truly applicable to others?
Readership: All
Theme: Problems with The Red Pill / Misunderstood Models
Length: 1,400 words
Reading Time: 7 minutes
Intro
The previous post, How to be Happy, No, Really (2024/4/19), discussed how the secular Red Pill subtly promises men the eternal bliss of sexual humility in the arms of an endless series of paramours.
Here is another problem that is closely related to this. It concerns the nature of a man’s role of authority over his own life, over women, and the place of humility and love in apprehending masculinity and truth.
This issue recently came to a head in a volley between Giuseppe Filotto and Adam Piggott.
The Filotto Piggott Debate
Posts are listed here followed by Jack’s notes.
- Giuseppe Filotto: On the most important aspect of life (2024/3/29)
- Adam Piggott: I can’t wait to go to your funeral knowing I could’ve changed that outcome (2024/3/30)
- Giuseppe Filotto: Daddy-itis (2024/4/13)
- Giuseppe Filotto: Don’t despair young man (2024/4/13)
- Adam Piggott: Man Pining for Chick to Like Him (2024/4/16)
- Giuseppe Filotto: On the aim of life (2024/4/16)
- Adam Piggott: The Aim of Life (2024/4/18)
In post 1, Filotto’s position begins with a tortuous description about his lifelong journey to find the truth through the emotional pursuit of love, lust, and sex, enduring heartache, loneliness, and pain, and thereby reaching his human limits. He emphasizes the central importance of rolling with the punches and staying honest with oneself, and by doing so, one can eventually see a Truth that is larger than the whole.
In 2, Piggott responds to an email from a reader who is apparently going through the painful process that Filotto described. His attitude is careless and yet challenging.
“The world doesn’t owe you a damn thing.
Nobody else is going to do it for you.
Courage, honesty, and truth are everything, both moral and physical.
God put us here to test us. We get to hang out with Him afterwards if we rose to the challenge and conquered this life in the correct manner.
Men are greater than women. But with that status comes the responsibility and weight of actually having to do something with our lives. So do something.
I repeat, nobody is going to do it for you.”
In 3, Filotto responds to an annoyingly pessimistic reader in a similar manner that Adam responded to his.
“Imagine being so weak, so incompetent, so scared of life that you don’t even bother to TRY and find a good woman and make a family. Imagine being such a wuss that you whine and cry about “the gubment” not being on your side. When has it ever been on the side of actual men?
He states that it’s good that weak men are self-selecting out of the gene pool.
He goes on to describe the love, joy, and contentment that comes of having a family.
In 4, Filotto responds to Adam’s post (2) and does a total 180.
“This man’s depression would be gone if he had a hot woman who loved him dearly by his side. So, telling him that he needs to first conquer the world before he can get that woman is not going to help him get out of that rut.”
“Here is the thing though: No matter who you are, there is someone out there that suits you and would make life a LOT more worthwhile for you. The hard part is finding her. And then both of you recognising it in each other.”
He goes on to address several challenges, motivations, and sources of confusion and doubt. He ends with,
“Stay strong and keep walking, do NOT despair, remain standing when all around you have fallen, and you will eventually find her too. But not if you despair and black-pill yourself. That is not the Way.”
In 5, Piggott recounts a recent news story of a man — a murderer — who did not respond to the challenges of life in a constructive manner. He warns of the dangers of putting the cart before the horse – of prioritizing women over faith and purpose.
“You don’t attract a woman and then conquer the world; you conquer the world first and by doing that you might attract a woman that suits you. Or you might not. Deal with it.”
Adam agrees with Filotto that much of life is uncontrollable and unpredictable, but he emphasizes that we should not let these things define us.
In 6, Filotto summarizes his position and compares it to Adam’s. His main contention is that Piggott offers no motivation to other men. Filotto doesn’t say this explicitly, but the way I read it, Filotto views Piggott’s arguments as an expression of fear and rejects the legitimacy of these fears on the grounds that nothing is certain.
In 7, Adam rejects Filotto’s position as personal mysticism and psychological projection. He emphasizes the importance of living life as a masculine man with a noble purpose.
He writes,
“The real measure of success or failure of your life is whether or not you willingly choose God and are able to create a life that is worthy in His image. In other words, you end up a saint. That’s it, that’s the only real measure of success or failure in this life. Not whether you were happy, not whether you thought you were a good person, not whether you fathered ten children, not whether you were rich, or good looking, or successful in a worldly way.”
“Making a man of yourself, in the real sense, is anything devoted to this goal.”
He ends by emphasizing personal responsibility.
Summary of The Filotto Piggott Debate
First of all, let me extend my appreciation to these two men for sharing their viewpoints and thereby allowing the rest of us to reflect upon our own faith perspectives.
There’s a lot of room for miscommunication and misunderstanding in this back and forth, and it’s easy to get swamped in a plethora of minor points in their arguments. So here, I’ll just sum up what I believe are these two men’s positions.
It is clear that Filotto values community, family, hope, love, and joy. He is looking at the challenges of life from a human and somewhat mystical perspective, recognizing that the most important things in life are to be thankful for the small blessings, be honest with one’s self, and stay motivated to endure the challenges of life. He assumes that for most men, giving up on finding a wife and having a family is essentially giving up on one’s self and forfeiting God’s love in doing so.
Meanwhile, Piggott values masculine identity, purpose, social order, and responsibility. He is looking at the situation from an eternal and independent perspective — what is most valuable to God, recognizing that the most important things are to fill one’s role as a man, to manage one’s personal weaknesses, to stay free from idolatry (i.e. lust, pedestalizing women, etc.), and to do something worthwhile with one’s life. It is assumed that the love of chicks is distinctly separate from and is diametrically opposed to the love of God.
Both Filotto and Piggott are devout Sedevacantists. Both men agree that much of life is uncertain and unpredictable, and so many things are not under our control, and that we are dependent on the grace of God. Where the two men strongly differ is that Filotto believes life and love are a process of discovery, while Piggott believes life is what you make of it, and love is not for a man to decide.
13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:
Fear God and keep His commandments,
For this is man’s all.
14 For God will bring every work into judgment,
Including every secret thing,
Whether good or evil.Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 (NKJV)
Conclusions
It is impossible for two men of such contrasting teleologies to come to any agreement on any of the matters discussed. This difference in viewpoint is a major source of confusion and disagreement, as it affects one’s understanding of all things pertaining to life, love, women, marriage, masculine purpose, and even faith itself.
How might we distinguish and label these different paradigms of faith, such to preclude constant bickering and the endless talking past one another? Would it be sufficient for a man like Filotto to describe himself as a man on a mystical journey of life and love, and for a man like Piggott to describe himself as a man of principle and personal responsibility? Would stating this much be enough for others to recognize their respective faith paradigms without going through an insightful but fruitless debate?
Related
- Σ Frame: Only God can grant a successful marriage (2020/5/20)
- Σ Frame: We’re on a mission from God. (2020/8/21)
- Σ Frame (NovaSeeker): Viewpoints on Man’s Confusion about How God Works in the Life of a Believer (2021/3/29)
- Σ Frame: Taking Headship by Force (2021/5/26)
- Σ Frame (NovaSeeker): The Noetic Nose Knows (2021/9/6)
- Σ Frame: Identifying Your Spiritual Domain (2021/12/1)
- Σ Frame: The Path to Contentment (2023/1/18)
ArchAngel
caterpillar345
Soup Sandwich
Lexet Blog
Novaseeker
Oscar
Red Pill Apostle
Jack
thedeti
Σ Frame 
Vox Day would say those two men like constant bickering, because that is what Gamma males like to do.
The hardest parts in dealing with unobtainium are:
Both a delusion bubble or a disillusion bubble can prevent making progress towards a goal. Usually it involves some changes need to be made, which are hard to do. And there is always some luck and randomness that needs to be accounted for as well.
LikeLike
I think the latter view is best. There is no such thing as every man finding love and having a family. Jeremiah died without family. But he fulfilled his Mission. And is now awaiting his ultimate reward.
LikeLike
Purpose and reproduction are orthogonal issues. In Western society they are not viewed as such, because they like to put them on the same performance scale.
Examples: You are good athlete at high school – you get the hot chicks. You are good performer in the office – you get the trophy wife. etc.
This is a fallacy.
LikeLike
Drink!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s a novel idea: they’re both right.
LikeLiked by 3 people
BtM,
Yes, I believe they are both solid in the faith but nevertheless are quite different. They are both more or less correct within their respective paradigms. Comparing their viewpoints demonstrates how each man stands on his own before God, and how different believers can be.
LikeLiked by 2 people
They are both bringing their respective biases to the table. Filotto is on his third marriage and has 3 kids — one by his second wife, two by his third. Adam was married for 10 years, his wife left him around 2 1/2 years ago, he has no children and is a voluntary celibate.
So I’m not surprised they take the positions they have: Filotto in the “get married and have kids because it’s your duty and you’re a p_ssy if you don’t” camp; Adam in the “remain celibate until God gives you a wife” camp. Filotto in the “marriage and children for the glory of God and Western Civ” camp; Adam in the “voluntary celibacy and spiritual discipline for the glory of God and who cares about Western Civ” camp.
Filotto is a devotee of Vox Day, who is also in the tradcon “get married and have kids anyway because you have a duty to save Western Civ” train of thought. Filotto has children and a tangible legacy. Adam has himself and his devotion to work and spiritual discipline.
It’s all about where you’re coming from and where you perceive yourself going, before you die and afterwards.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I personally don’t recommend marriage to men now, for several reasons. Most men aren’t attractive enough. Most women lack the requisite character. Society and government are openly hostile to married men and marriage in general. The risks are too great and the rewards too paltry to justify the risks.
LikeLiked by 7 people
thedeti,
If women had the requisite character for marriage, most men would be attractive enough. Most women have had the fire of hypergamy flamed by their parents and have been taught to circumvent, through self provision, one of the main means that hypergamy is forcibly tamed.
We’re now on our third generation from the first real mainstream feminists (Boomer wives) and the men have finally caught onto the notion that marriage is not something they should default to. That is a monumental shift in thinking which I would attribute to the simply observation of women’s behavior. My guess is that it will take a few generations for women to reverse the trend and start considering what men want from marriage.
LikeLiked by 4 people
thedeti,
3 offspring per 2 women is a 1.5 birth rate per woman, which isn’t even close to “saving” anything. Filotto missed that fact by putting reproduction on his performance sheet. Bearing children is simply not his achievement, but he is pretending as if it is.
To transmit values into the future, your tribal group needs to have a consistent birth rate above 3 per woman, ideally 2 girls per woman. This isn’t going to happen even for the tradcon camp. These boomers will all leave the gene pool regardless, because their “western civ” failed and got replaced by superior paradigms.
LikeLike
Drink!
LikeLike
That doesn’t even consider the Filotto’s first wife. If she stays childless, that would drop the balance to 1.0, which is an extinction-level birth rate. At that level there are no “future generations of women” to consider anything, because they don’t exist. Total evolutionary failure.
Nevertheless these fools consider paying through three marriages a “civilization” achievement, while reproduction is just orthogonal to that. Any ape can reproduce.
Have they managed to achieve anything beyond that, instead of just keeping a marriage bureaucracy running? if not then there is no “civilization” to save.
LikeLike
Take three drinks!
LikeLike
They are both missing the elephant in the room.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And they’re both partially wrong. It happens.
LikeLike
Exactly . Which is why arguing over who is right in this case is dumb.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The back and forth of Filotto and Piggott strikes me as being similar to Job and his “friends” lengthy discussion on righteousness, blessings and judgment. In the end, they all had a misunderstanding of God’s sovereignty and got a good talkin’ to from the Almighty.
Filotto appears to have a tendency to make an idol out of family. Piggott seems to have a bent towards performance based righteousness. Either position is theologically dubious, but understandable given God often chooses to bless people through family and in his sovereignty he often rewards those human behaviors that reflect Godly principles (a cause and effect model with high correlation between certain behaviors and outcomes).
There are examples in scripture that remind us that while correlation exists between family being a blessing and behaviors resulting in desirable outcomes, that the causation of these are ultimately God’s doing. Matthew 20‘s parable of the vineyard workers clearly shows that God gives to whom he wants without regard for human effort and the real life example of this is the thief on the cross in Luke 23. In Proverbs we know that a wife will tear her own house down (Proverbs 14:1) and that it is better to live in the desert or rooftop than in the house with a contentious wife (Proverbs 21:9). Men and women are roughly a 50/50 split in the population which means not all men can have a good woman clearly showing us that for some men it is more of a blessing in life to be single.
LikeLiked by 4 people
RPA,
Here’s another clue. Usually, the thing that one desires and values the most is the thing one is most deficient in.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Very true Jack, very true.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The macho and the musho man are driven by the fear they may become the other. The macho over compensates, often getting fat from neurotic over indulgence, and frequently tears men down. In their attempt to be as manly as possible they tend to become catty and passive aggressive due to constant stress, hence talking down to other men who need aid. Getting married because “that’s what real men do” is typical normies thinking, and often nowadays doesn’t end well.
I have a cousin like that; his younger brother was getting married so he went and married a chunky, overbearing, and bossy chick. First chick he could grab. Macho dude has been ruled by her ever since, and his kids are completely beaten down. They try to play and get energetic and she starts screaming at them. Sure, they have to learn to behave but… There is a difference between learning proper etiquette and getting the life beaten out of you. Ironically, for all his tough guy talk his kids will not grow up to be like him. Nah, they are becoming the typical children of the helicopter mom / Karen. Broken, passive.
The musho fears coming across as stupid, becoming over bearing, making mistakes, so they tend to navel gaze and become consumed with anti social tendencies. In their fear they will become aggressive they become passive. They often claim to be nice or kind but are really… fearful. Safe. I won’t go into this type of man much, since his kind is the typical lefty / hipster and the entire Red Pill is hyper focused on not being “beta”.
In conclusion, both men are two sides of the same coin, and are a byproduct of an unhealthy society that divides it’s doers from its thinkers, its rough men from its priests or, as the saying goes, it’s warriors from its scholars.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t follow Adam as closely as I do many other sphere bloggers, but I get a sense that his celibacy is at least partly attributable to “once burned, twice shy.” In other words, the probability of history repeating itself is great enough that he is not about to expose himself to that type of risk. No reasonable man can blame him for that. Apparently he also “burns” less intensely than the average man, or at least has it under control, in which case one has to admire his self-discipline, which is truly a divine gift. Also, I have to believe that a man of his spiritual and intellectual ability is hindered by what many such men now confront in the western world: the dearth of emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually mature women.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yeah, but does he admit to that openly? I don’t read his blog at all, so I don’t know, but if he pretends that his celibacy is moral, spiritual, or mystical, when in fact it’s the result of a pragmatic risk assessment, then he’s being deceitful, beginning with himself.
Of course, it could be both spirituality and pragmatism, but again, he needs to be explicitly honest about that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
His conversion was a result of his divorce. I believe he still believes himself to be married in the eyes of the Church, which is technically correct. Hence to go out and date again, and especially to sleep with someone, would be committing a mortal sin.
LikeLike
I’ve wondered about Catholic doctrine on divorce in light of 1 Cor 7:15. It would seem his case would be one that the verse directly addresses.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This looks like a very effective way to control and prevent his reproduction.
As a result he is harming himself. This goes directly against the ultimate commandment.
LikeLike
Drink!
LikeLike
In reality there is no chance. God permits it. Even our sufferings like Job.
Our Loyalty is first of all to God. Then the rest afterwards. If we must choose. Always choose God.
Even if it leaves us bereft of any of the Goods of this World. But compared to God it is incomparable.
There are quite a few who are successful in marriages and with their families. God blessed them indeed. And they have their own paths and burdens in life.
But one constant remains. Loyalty to God first and foremost. Finishing the Race as Paul did fulfilling our Mission.
Whether as a lone man like Jeremiah or successful Family men like Abraham. Faith and Loyalty to God remains.
Increase your chances. But if it doesn’t land. Trust in God. Job said: “Even if he slays me. I will Trust in Him” (Job 13:15).
LikeLike
Job is poetry, not the Good News.
It might sound convincing for yourself, but you should consider what readers might think of your style of evangelism.
LikeLike
MR,
Job is poetry, there is no arguing that. It is poetry that teaches the overarching lesson that Info laid out in his comment.
Job is held out to Satan by God as being an example of a righteous man. God, in his sovereignty gives Satan permission to afflict Job. The exchanges between Job and his three “friends” give us biblical truth about human behavior and assumptions that God corrects at the end of the book.
Job makes the error of implying God made a mistake in his lamentful thoughts that it would have been better to have not been born in the first place. The friends make error after theological error about the nature of God, the most prevalent being the causation of works to God’s blessing, which is the legalistic view of faith, if one could even call such an attitude faith. If Joel Osteen had a couple similarly minded buddies, they would be the modern version of Job’s friends.
LikeLike
Job definitely contains the Gospel. Job requests an advocate to speak on his behalf to God. Take a wild guess as to who that is.
Job demonstrates to us that even the most righteous of men is incapable of meeting God’s standard, and requires a savior. That’s the Gospel.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@RPA
I believe the Blessings of Righteousness and Curses of Wickedness are likely broadly True on a larger scale.
But individually the situation of Righteous Men can often be like Job.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Info,
Agreed. Simply by the trends we see in human behavior, and the results from those trends, we know that God often uses natural consequences as a means of expressing his will.
Other times, we see material blessings and an ease in life given to those who buck the trend and seem to get a temporary stay of God’s judgement. Politicians that after many years as modest public servants only to find themselves unbelievably wealthy from their service is a good example.
I believe the behavioral trends are why Deuteronomy 5:9 says that God punishes to the 3rd or 4th generation. My take is that the culprit is familial learned behavior with each generation passing their sins onto the next until someone figures it out, changes behavior and reverses the trend.
LikeLike
This is true about behaviors and habits, but there is a spiritual component that is more powerful. Sin dampens spiritual discernment and changes the way one sees the world and one’s cognitive perceptions and processes such that confusion, fear, guilt, and paranoia are introduced. Sin also afflicts one’s desires and spiritual disposition such to inflict a curse. All these things are passed to the children by osmosis. This also causes people to make less than ideal choices and decisions which affect the children in the long run. Another reason that I learned from my pastor is that God wants parents to see the consequences of their sins falling on their children as a corrective lesson to them, hopefully to bring them to repentance.
I say these things out of experience. I guess every family has some generational curses, but my family has some very bad ones. My grandfather, great-grandfather, and great-great-grandfather were all Freem@s0ns, but my father made an explicit (and bitter) break from his father and this family tradition when he was a young man. Being the 2nd generation removed, I’ve seen how it plays out, and I’ve been praying that the curse ends at 3 generations rather than 4. I can see how it has affected my father, me, and my children. My father is blind to certain spiritual forces / influences that I can see clearly, and I think my children can see things more clearly than I can. The interesting thing is that it appears that we’re all breaking free from this curse at about the same time — my father in his old age, me in midlife, and my children in their young adulthood. This is about 100 years from the worst offenses committed by my great-grandfather. (He was a very high ranking M@son. My grandfather and great-great-grandfather were paeons in the order.) That is one saeculum, according to the Strauss Howe Generational theory.
I hope I haven’t destroyed my credibility by confessing this.
LikeLike
Dude, we’re all sinners descended from sinners. We know the deal.
LikeLike
@Jack
I am well aware of generational curses because I have read about and watched videos in regards to experienced Christian exorcists. It seems they all have come to believe in Generational curses.
LikeLike
Two often I have seen churchies explaining away their misery with Job. While doing literally nothing about it.
Or worse: Clergy blackpilling their sheep with it.
LikeLike
A reasonable man does not judge a thing by its abuse.
LikeLike
I’m going to disagree with that, understanding of course that I could be wrong, and both your and my opinion fit within the boundaries of Christian doctrine.
The way I see it, God wrote the laws that govern the universe. That includes the laws of probability. I think God could micromanage the Universe, but I don’t think He does.
Obviously, neither of us knows for sure, nor will we know for sure until eternity.
LikeLike
Nothing happens that isn’t allowed by God.
Because the Ripple effects of one action can have huge impacts down the line. Maybe God can predict the impacts of Probability to complete accuracy. And put limits to ensure that his plans are fulfilled no matter what while somehow allowing human free will.
Even opportune interventions in Time in reaction to our decisions.
Hence God can reveal the Future to us whilst ensuring that it gets fulfilled no matter what.
But I see your point.
LikeLiked by 1 person
According to my understanding, and speaking as a Christian well-educated in natural physics, our concept of ‘chance’ represents events that occur outside the limits of human understanding and control. What we call ‘chance’ is ultimately determined by God in ways that are beyond our comprehension. It is my belief that ‘chance’ is orchestrated by God in response to human limitations.
When in doubt, take a chance.
LikeLike
@Jack
Hence back in the day of Ark of the Covenant the effectiveness of casting lots to determines God’s decision.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Jack
I think “Chance” is where we may be supposed to act in Faith. And probably where Divine Providence comes into play explicitly. Yes we may all make our choices but “Chance” is where God takes a vote.
LikeLiked by 1 person