The blog where I rant about things that should be obvious to everyone

Saturday, December 3, 2011

The heart of game part 2

The second principle is frame control. When I was first getting into game I would ofter mistake state control for frame control and vise versa, but they are two very distinct things. State control as mentioned in my heart of game part 1 post is the ability to keep your internal state. Frame control on the other hand is controlling the way facts are interpreted.

One of the most famous examples of frame control is Mark Twain's story of Tom Sawyer whitewashing a fence. If your not familiar with the story Tom is being punished by being made to work on a Saturday. The punishment is to whitewash a long length of fence. In the end using frame control he gets a number of other boys to pay him to do his work for him.

Hello, old chap, you got to work, hey?”
Tom wheeled suddenly and said:
Why, it’s you, Ben! I warn’t noticing.”
Say – I’m going in a-swimming, I am. Don’t you wish you could? But of course you’d druther work – wouldn’t you? Course you would!”
Tom contemplated the boy a bit, and said:
What do you call work?”
Why, ain’t that work?”
Tom resumed his whitewashing, and answered carelessly:
Well, maybe it is, and maybe it ain’t. All I know, is, it suits Tom Sawyer.”
Oh come, now, you don’t mean to let on that you like it?”
The brush continued to move.
Like it? Well, I don’t see why I oughtn’t to like it. Does a boy get a chance to whitewash a fence every day?”
That put the thing in a new light. Ben stopped nibbling his apple. Tom swept his brush daintily back and forth – stepped back to note the effect – added a touch here and there – criticised the effect again – Ben watching every move and getting more and more interested, more and more absorbed. Presently he said:
Say, Tom, let me whitewash a little.”
Tom considered, was about to consent; but he altered his mind:
No – no – I reckon it wouldn’t hardly do, Ben. You see, Aunt Polly’s awful particular about this fence – right here on the street, you know – but if it was the back fence I wouldn’t mind and she wouldn’t. Yes, she’s awful particular about this fence; it’s got to be done very careful; I reckon there ain’t one boy in a thousand, maybe two thousand, that can do it the way it’s got to be done.”
No – is that so? Oh come, now – lemme, just try. Only just a little – I’d let you, if you was me, Tom.”
Ben, I’d like to, honest injun; but Aunt Polly – well, Jim wanted to do it, but she wouldn’t let him; Sid wanted to do it, and she wouldn’t let Sid. Now don’t you see how I’m fixed? If you was to tackle this fence and anything was to happen to it – ”
Oh, shucks, I’ll be just as careful. Now lemme try. Say – I’ll give you the core of my apple.”
Well, here – No, Ben, now don’t. I’m afeard – ”
I’ll give you all of it!”

So you can see that by using frame control Tom Sawyer took the facts on the ground, him whitewashing a fence, and instead of interpreting them the most natural way instead took the interpretation that he was doing it because it was a fun awesome thing to do.

You can also see from this story why frame control and state control are so easy to confuse. In practice they are often tied at the hip. For Tom to exercise this frame control he had to have great state control. His state (which was a lie by the way) was one of being so absorbed by whitewashing that he did not notice what was going on around him. The truth was that he was itching to go swimming, and he desperately wanted that apple. But by maintaining his state he was able to frame the situation in such a way so that Ben gave him his apple and willingly helped him.

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

What is a Christian

With the man vs god seiries over at In Mala Fide, the conversation over at Vox Day's about whether or not a lesbian couple of 20 years can be Christian or not, and Dalrock's posts about the church being co-opted by feminist dogma, I've be revisiting some old ideas on what it actually means to be a Christian.

When I was in college, there was a time where I really had to sort out a lot of things as far as drawing dividing lines between the groups that I would identify with. Many of my ideas of what people believed were challenged as I met a wider group of students all of above average intelligence and all proclaiming to be Christians. In my Christian high school everyone was specifically a conservative Christian. I thought that those two just went together and anyone who was liberal and Christian was nothing more than the go to church on Easter because their parents did kind of Christian. But at college I met Christians who believed in theistic evolution, that the earth was more than thousands of years old, worked as advocates for global warming, supported wealth redistribution, were openly feminist, and in general supported all kinds of evil things that I would not have dreamed of being capable of existing in the Christian community. And yet, they also read their Bible's, prayed, went to chapel in the morning to worship and when worshiping would raise their hands, and talked about how the Lord would speak to them. They genuinely seemed to have relationships with Jesus Christ. So what was I to make of it?

In the end what I concluded that anyone who has a relationship with Jesus Christ and submits themselves to his lordship is my brother in Christ. And what I also had to conclude was that God will enter into a relationship with anyone where they are at, without requiring change from them first, nor would their conversion result in instant change in all areas. My case here is anecdotal but as I've read the Bible sense, my belief in this view has only grown.

So in the end I find it almost impossible to tell if a person is a Christian based solely on their beliefs, as long as they do believe that Jesus is God in the flesh and rose from the dead and is Lord of their life. Everything else can be in very deep states of confusion, and often is. Among things not required for being a Christian are: believing that the Bible is God's word, that going to church is good, any sort of cosmological beliefs, being a Catholic, being a Protestant, and a whole host of other things that we commonly assume one must believe or do to be part of the body of Christ.

Over the years I've also seen how some of my closely held beliefs, beliefs that I've identified with and even reveled in, have been wrong. Young earth theory would be one example. And this is despite the fact that my deep, intimate, personal relationship with Jesus Christ goes back to at least when I was 7 years old, probably further.

But now I know that basically belief does not matter. Christianity is not about beliefs, it is about relationship. And in that relationship God is both generous and patient with us when it comes to us changing ourselves to become more like Him.

As far as telling whether someone else is a Christian, its not where they are at right now, its where are they going. Are they getting more and more like Jesus? If so then they are not faking it. And as in acknowledging this, I cannot discount the idea that a woman who is currently engaged in a lesbian relationship that has gone on for 20 years is not a Christian. Nor that a church that supports some feminist ideas is not Christian.

On the other hand, there is a large segment of society that thinks of itself as Christian but clearly is not. For them Christianity is about rules and a specific moral code. Relationship does not factor in. These are the false Christians that Christ spoke of in Matthew 7:22-23
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Sunday, November 20, 2011

The heart of game part 1

A while ago I wrote two post on what game is. At the time I included a lot of PUA concepts and game techniques. But now as I've been thinking and studying more about it I believe that there are basically three main principles from which all other game ideas come from. I'm going to break it up into three posts so stay tuned for the next two.

The first and most important principle is state control. State is your internal mood or mind set. Your state could be described as happy, sad, angry, contemplative, distracted, etc. State control refers to how well you manage your state in the context of social interactions. That is if you are in one state how easy is it for someone else to change your state. If it is very easy, then your place in the social pecking order is going to be low. People will often change your state just for fun. They do this because ultimately changing your state gives them a kind of social power. Kids have an intuitive sense about this, and this is why they tease. If a kid who is getting teased does not change their state then the teaser will either have to escalate until they do get a state change or stop because they are not getting any power from the interaction, in fact by failing to get a state change they will eventually have to change their state and therefore lose power.

The key is not to just have an immovable state, but to recognize where the changes are coming from, and not let those changes come from the prompting of other people. For example if some one comes up to you and informs you that your friend just died, they would not be taking any social power from you if you changed your state to sad or even distressed. They did not change you state, the information that they relayed to you changed your state. If on the other hand they followed up by saying “Ha got you, your friend is fine” then it is an attempt to take power from you. You can change this situation to your advantage by in turn changing their state. So if you tell them “That's not cool” and then don't let them leave until they have apologized (changed their state), then the situation changed from them taking power from you to you taking power from them.

Here are a few examples of how state control works.

In a recent In Mala Fide article the author describes an interaction between him and his wife. As recorded in the article it goes
By giving this angry response he is changing his state at her prompting from whatever it was to angry, and by doing so he is giving her power. The exception would be if she backed down after his response and was apologetic, but as you can imagine, that was not how it went down.

When I was in high school we had a tradition for birthdays. If they found out that it was your birthday, during lunch one of the other kids would turn out the lights, announce it, and then the whole cafeteria would sing happy birthday to you. There was a kid, lets call him Bert, who was very easy to illicit a state change from. So some other kids got the idea that it would be funny to announce his birthday and sing to him everyday. Throughout the song he would get up and scream at everyone that “It's not my birthday”. By doing this Bert was demonstrating 0 state control.  This went on for about a week, and it may have gone on even longer if the school officials had not stepped in. If Bert had had more state control he would have either done nothing, or may have tried to change their state by saying something like “Not today guys, my mom just died” and then in the ensuing sympathy “Ha gotcha, man you guys are easy.”

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Playing too much defense

I've always been an apologist by nature. And during the Bush administration from 2000-2008 I spent a lot of time and effort defending W and the republicans. Of course I didn't endorse everything that they did, but the criticisms that came from the left were so ridiculous that I felt compelled to speak out against them. For example when we first invaded Afghanistan, in my small christian high school full of neo-cons, there was only one teacher that was outspoken against the war. His reasons basically applied to every war as they were the same reasons that he opposed the death penalty. So I supported the war all throughout high school and most of the way through college. I supported the Iraq war too. It was easy because the opposition was saying things like that they are a peaceful country, or that there were no weapons of mass destruction there (fyi we pulled out something like 700 tons of yellow cake uranium). By defending against arguments like this, I felt solidarity with the Republican party and the current administration. All the accusations such as saying that the president was stupid because he used the word evil, or that he was poisoning us by reversing Clinton's arsenic in water standards that had not been implemented yet, or any number of the other things that were so off the wall as to be literally insane only served to deepen my devotion. I started thinking that all criticism of W or of republicans in general was just coming from useful idiots.

It took $700,000,000,000 to shake me to my senses.

And now that I've stepped outside of the two party system, I can see that all those things that I was so concerned about before was nothing but theater. And the show goes on. I can hardly read any news or listen to any talk radio without hearing comments on the show. The latest big distraction is that the allegations against Herman Cain are fairly transparently false, as the women accusing him have a history of crying sexual abuse and also seem to be really enjoying their 15 min of fame. Why is this nothing more than a distraction? Because with the exception of Ron Paul and perhaps Michele Bachmann, all that this election is determining is who will get the prestigious roll of presiding over the transfer of wealth from tax payers to bankers and Wall Street investors.

The problem with judges

Throughout human history in as far is it applies to the western world through Judaism and Christianity, the men who have been give the role of interpenetrating text have always had a common problem. They cannot help but insert themselves or their beliefs into the interpretation. This started with the Torah. At the end of the Torah in the book of Deuteronomy in chapter 4 and again in chapter 12 it explicitly says not to add anything or to remove anything from the law.

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.”

What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.”

But despite this, by the time Jesus was born, there was a massive code of oral laws that the Jews kept, and even held above the original written law. So the rabbis not only disobeyed the direct commandment not to add anything to the law that was received by Moses directly from God, but they held what they added in higher esteem than they did the Torah. Jesus with his ministry and death wiped away all of these oral traditions (for those that accepted Christianity anyway). The slate was clean, and there was even a new admonishment against adding to the word of God found at the end of the book of Revelation:  

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Granted those verses were written in the context of a single book, and therefore can only reasonably be applied to the book of Revelations, but it still serves as a reminder that we are not to add to the word of God, no matter how good we think we are at interpreting His word.

Unfortunately the clean slate did not last long. The Catholic church did the same thing adding many doctrines that were considered divine interpretations that held (and hold) the same weight as the word of God. And from that you get some truly nutty ideas that simply are not in the Bible, such as the idea that Mary was born without a sin nature. I admit that I don't know the whole history of how the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception came about, but I have read all of the Gospels many times, and it ain't there.

Because of these interpretations the church has split many times, making the East Orthodox church, and the Protestant denominations.

The reason that I bring this up when talking about judges in America today is because they do the same thing. They have set themselves up as priests with divine right to interpret the law, and their interpretations are considered to be on the same level as the law.

And we get the same sorts of problems, such as the decision of Roe v. Wade. For example, this is taken from the actual text of the decision.

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution.” 

So there is no right to privacy and they know that there is no right to privacy in the law that they have been tasked with interpreting, but because other judges put it in there they will decide to act like it is there. Then you get this little dozy. 
This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."
They actually take a right that they previously admit is not even in the law that they are interpreting, and then say that it is “broad enough” to cover whatever it is that they want to do. The rest of the decision comes straight from fantasy land with such excerpts as: “Although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute and is subject to some limitations; and that at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach.” Translation: “There is a right to privacy. It comes from somewhere, we don't actually  where. But what we do somehow know is that this right is not absolute. Blah blah blah states rights blah blah blah I dead babies.”
And now this decision, which is complete madness, is precedent for new decisions.

The point is that Judges are going to interpret the law poorly. They just are. It seems to be one of the conditions of being human. But by knowing this you can recognize good law and bad law. Good law is exclusively taken straight from laws written by legislators, only appealing to legal president in cases where there is ambiguity in the language of what the legislators wrote.

The other take away is that judges, along with priests and rabbis should not be treated like divine avatars of the holy ones who can do no wrong when inserting themselves between the people and the law. They are humans, and unless they are remarkably different that other humans that have come before them, they are quit bad at their jobs. Mostly in the past when the slat gets so so very dirty, it is only going to be wiped clean through revolution and blood. It would be nice if in America we could figure out a way of doing this by simply removing precedent, and tossing out judges regularly on the basis of being extraordinarily bad at their jobs.

Friday, November 4, 2011

Why study game

For those interested, there is a debate going on over at about whether or not game theory or pickup artistry has any place in the men's rights movement.  I've thrown in my two cents, and I'll repeat what I wrote there here.

So let me tell you all how it is that I have ended up on this site, for those of you who don’t think that there is any connection between MRA and PUA. My background is conservative christian. I was raised by God fearing parents, went to a private christian high school, and then to a christian college, which I graduated from in 2008. As christian I opposed feminism, and supported traditional family values, the nuclear family, etc. But I was still definitely in the blue pill camp when in came to gender relations. I remember hearing a speaker at my college who told this long story about how he was in love with this girl all through high school, and she never gave him the time of day as she only had eyes for a football player that didn’t know that she existed. Well finally she gave up on the football player and started going out with the speaker. They got engaged. Then the football player noticed her, pumped and dumped her, and left the speaker to pick up the pieces. He then did (what I thought at the time was) the noble thing and married her, and I left the lecture hall thinking about what a good guy he was[for those Christians reading my blog who still see his act as noble, consider the situation with the genders reversed and see if you still think the same thing]. It was not till I stumbled onto first Vox Day’s blog, and then from there to Roissy’s blog, that I really had the scales removed from my eyes. Thanks to Roissy, I’m aware of all kinds of worship of all things feminine and hatred of all things masculine that before just went unnoticed. It’s the reason that I found In Mala Fide, and then by extension this blog. Without Roissy, I would not even be convinced that there is a reason for this blog. And it’s not just that Roissy also writes about MRA, its that through his writing on game theory, I’ve gained a much clearer understanding of what it means to be feminine and what it means to me masculine. As a Christian man, I don’t believe in per-marital sex and I have faithfully practiced that belief. So as far as going to clubs and picking up sluts, I don’t have any use for game. My use for it comes from being able to see the world more clearly, and with that increased clarity, I can see the need for MRA which I missed before.

Sunday, October 30, 2011

A broken legal system

After reading the heart wrenching story over at the spearhead I couldn't help but think how Biblical law works.

In Deuteronomy 19:16-19 we get one of the best parts of the traditional Jewish justice system.

16If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong;
 17Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days;
 18And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;
 19Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.”

Anyone who for any reason makes a false accusation willfully and knowingly, such as in the cases of false rape accusations, should receive the maximum allowable sentence that could have occurred in a guilty verdict. By doing so, we would put the evil away of false rape accusations, of false child abuse accusations, of most weapons that women use to destroy good men in an evil court system.

Saturday, October 29, 2011

Celebrate the Damn Holiday

During this time of year a lot of Christians get their panties in a bunch over the celebration of Halloween. I admit that I am a recovering panty bunching Christian myself. But the simple fact is that there is nothing wrong with kids dressing up in costumes and walking around the neighborhood. In fact, there is no action that we can take that is sinful.

Sins do not come in the form of actions. It is not movement of molecules, or transfers of energy that are sinful. If it were any different than rocks would be capable of sin. If it were different, to go back to the topic of holidays, you could map out the orbit of the Earth and highlight the Halloween portion of the orbit, saying “See here. This is the part of the Earth's orbit that is sinful.” Of course no one preaches that rocks commit sins, or that parts of the Earth's orbit is are sinful, while other part are righteous.

The reason for this is that sin is exclusively the realm of the heart and mind. This is why so many actions can be considered righteous in some cases and evil in others. This is why when Phinehas butchered two people by driving a spear through them, it was attributed to him as righteousness, but when Cain slew Abel it was attributed to him as sin.

This is also why Jesus preached a new standard of righteousness in Matthew 5:28 when saying that to merely lust after a woman is that same as committing adultery with her.

So what is the key? How do we determine motivations? Jesus tells us in Matthew 22 when saying what the greatest commandments are: to love the Lord with all your heart and all your mind, and to love your neighbor as yourself. He then goes on to say “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” What Jesus is saying here is that any action taken with a heart or a state of mind that does not put God first, or that puts yourself before your neighbor, is sinful. And conversely any action taken with a heart or state of mind that puts God first, or puts your neighbor before yourself (without violating the putting God first part), is righteous. So by this definition celebrating Halloween may or may not be a sin based on the reason for celebrating it.

If you are decorating your house and yard for Halloween so you can look down on the yards of your neighbors as their yards are not nearly as cool, you are sinning. If you don't decorate your yard or pass out candy because you dislike your neighbors, you are sinning. And of course if you celebrate Halloween by mocking God and preforming satanic rituals, you are sinning.

Laundry list Christians (that is those who have a long list of things that you must do or believe before being a REAL Christian) are fond of pointing out that the roots of the holiday are pagan rather than christian. And they point out rightly that we are not to follow pagan practices. What they miss however is the relationship with follow pagan practices and motivation. The Israelites were forbidden to following pagan practices in as far as they were related to idol worship. The pagans also made a practice of eating, but the Israelites were not forbidden from doing that.

In basically all cases where the Israelites were forbidden from partaking in pagan practices there is a direct idol worship link. Take for example Leviticus 19:28 “Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.” This is often cited as a reason to not getting tattoos. But this is not some incitement against all bodily marks, it is condemning the practice of ancestor worship. If you play football and you put dark marks under your eyes to cut down the glare, you are not violating Leviticus 19:28. Another example is Jeremiah 10:2-5 which is often cited to condemn Christmas trees: “Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.” Again, the take away should not be that decorated trees are intrinsically evil but rock gardens are okay. What is condemned is the practice of worshiping trees as idols. And don't tell me that by singing “Oh Christmas Tree” people are engaging in devil worship. Appreciation is not worship. You should sooner condemn songs like “The Star Spangled Banner” or “America the Beautiful” as idol worship than a song like “Oh Christmas Tree”. But very few laundry list Christians have that as an item on their list. The reason of course is that being a laundry list Christian is not about trying to serve God but rather to usurp God's role as judge.

So to bring it back to Halloween, boys that dress up in a bed sheet are no more worshiping ancestors, death, or the devil, than girls who dress up as princesses are worshiping the Queen of England. There once was a time when Halloween was about idol worship, but that time has long since passed. And as it is no longer intrinsically about idol worship, there is no longer anything intrinsically sinful about it. The fact that there is still some small sect of people who do practice Halloween as a pagan ritual does not change that. And for you laundry list Christians reading this who disagree, let me ask you this: if earth worshiping druids started to observe the Sabbath, even doing it on Saturday instead of Sunday like good laundry list Christians do, would you stop? If the answer is no, then unbunch your panties and go out and enjoy Halloween.

Friday, October 28, 2011

Just be yourself

When it comes to attracting women, the advise that is often thrown around is to “Just be yourself.” This is very poorly worded good advise. What they should be saying is to keep a consistent internal state, don't try so hard, and keep a strong frame. All of this can be interpreted as being yourself, but if you are a person who by nature tries hard to please, changes their internal state to meet others expectations, and tends to get pulled into other peoples frames, than you will validly interpret this advise as the staying the course which is not what the adviser meant, and not a good idea.

To better illustrate what I mean by keeping a consistent internal state, not trying so hard, and keeping a strong frame, consider the following example. When I was in college, I lived in a dorm that housed 32 guys. The floor was not divided up between age groups, so every year the seniors (hopefully) graduated, and a new batch of freshmen came in. And every year the freshmen were largely intolerable socially for the entire first semester, and about half of the second semester. The reason is that they came in all doe eyed, so eager to please, and so afraid that they would not make any friends. They would laugh heartily at every joke anyone told no matter how unfunny the joke, or how God awful the delivery.  They would listen enthralled to any story, be up for any activity, and never let on what was really going through their heads. One of my friends and I were really into the card game bridge, and decided to teach some of the new freshmen how to play. We played regularly with them for that whole first year. It was not till a whole 2 years later that we found out that they dreaded every minuet of it. There was even one occasion where two of them saw us coming and one pulled the other into the stairwell where they hid under the stairs till we passed by. I only heard about this nearly 2 years after it happened.   

This is the way that we tend interact with all new people (hopefully not to that extent), especially with men who are meeting new women. The issue stems from the fact that with new people we don't have any past validation of their interest in us or affection. So say you meet someone new and excitedly ask them if they want to go to a haunted house for Halloween and they say “Aren't haunted houses for kids?” To “be yourself” is to keep your state by remaining excited, not getting mopy about them insinuating that your a child, by not fall into their frame that haunted houses are for kids, and for gods sake by not being try hard and saying “Ok, than we can do something else! Anything else! I would do anything to be with you! please love me”.  In short, don't be like a doe eyed college freshman so eager to please, and so needing to be loved and accepted. 

Saturday, October 22, 2011

Abortion is not a state issue

One of the most amazing logical disconnects people have is on the issue of abortion. First there is the most repeated straw man that a woman should be able to do what she wants with her own body. This of course is wrong because the issue is not her body, the issue is the body of her child. Some people might say that the fact that the child is dependent on the mother as a host body, or because it cannot live aside from the mother somehow changes the rules. Of course that is absurd. I don't have the right to kill people dependent on me, nor should I. In the same way dependence is not a justification for murder in the case of an unborn child.

Then you get these zany ideas (and when I say zany I mean Charles Manson devil worshipping level of evil) about how it should be illegal except for cases of rape and incest. This assumes that there is something wrong with abortion other than the fact that it is murder. If it is murder, than the child’s lineage should not matter. The cost to the mother is unfortunate, but just because someone inconveniences you does not mean that you have a right to kill them. Even in cases where the guilt lies with the same person who is inconveniencing you, you still don't have the right to kill them. Take the case of my friend who lived in an apartment where the residents above her broke their toilet and instead of calling the land lord to get it fix, just kept using it while the sewage dripped down into her bathroom. As they were also not paying rent at the time, they should have fit the bill in every way to make their killing permissible either by my friend or the land lord. The were inconvenient, and dependent. But still to murder them would be a crime, as it should. It's no different in the case of a child conceived by rape and incest, except for that it might be a bit more extreme, but the rules are the same.

The last major fallacy that seems to infect most of the right is the idea that murdering children should be a state issue. Of course if you don't mask the act of taking a baby and sticking a fork in its skull until dead behind terms like abortion, then the reason that it is not a state issue becomes perfectly clear. Its against the 14th amendment right now, without changing any laws, as the 14th amendment does not allow for denying anyone of their life without a trial, and in many states doctors are already legally forced to admit that unborn children are separate living beings. Even if the constitution was set up in such a way that it was a state issue, any leader who does not see protecting innocent life as something that comes before honoring some piece of paper, is not fit to lead a herd of lemmings of a cliff (ok I guess you still may consider them for US public office).

Game in the opera

One of the reasons that I started getting into game is that I really enjoy intellectual dissection. Before I learned anything about game, my tool for dissecting social dynamics would have been more like a machete, but after reading just a little bit about game (specifically about shit tests) I noticed that I had a much finer tool like a butchers knife. Now after several months of reading game blogs and a couple of books I've actually got a scalpel.

With my new found skills one of the most interesting things that I see is the the principles of game are followed by almost all the story tellers. Whether its books, TV, movies, or whatever, most romances go as expected according to game theory. This is interesting because most people when first hearing about game tend to brush it off.  And yet while their conscious mind rejects game, their subconscious already is following the all of the principles. This just serves as more evidence that the rules of attraction are biologically imprinted on each of us.

Another thing that is interesting is being able to see story arcs in a new light. For example, I very much enjoy musicals. One of my favorites is The Phantom of the Opera. For those who are not familiar with the story, it revolves around a man who due to a horrible facial disfigurement present at birth, has hidden himself away in secret passages underneath the Paris opera house. In the book you get more details about his life, and get to know that his own mother was afraid of him due to his face being sunk in resembling a skull. I don't actually recall if he ran away from home or was thrown out, but either way he spent time in his youth as a freak in a freak show. He eventually escaped from there and actually went on to do some amazing things.  As the book unfolds it becomes clear that he is truly a renaissance man, speaking contemptuously of Mozart as a composer, and achieving great things as both an architect and an engineer. On top of this, despite his disfigurement, he is quite gifted physically. He is almost supernaturally strong, and has a singing voice that far outstrips any of the performers in the opera. But because of his face he is unable to relate to any other human being and finds himself utterly alone his entire life.

So the musical takes place during the portion of his life where he is in the opera house trying to seduce a chorus girl as the Phantom. He gives her singing lessons, and does it all while hiding in the walls, completely unseen. Then as he tries to escalate the whole thing, trying to get her used to him by hypnotizing her and bringing her to his lair. In the end the relationship blows up and he tries to kidnap her and then lets her go, never to be seen again. But as I was last listening to the musical, I realized that more than because of his facial disfigurement, the phantom was rejected because he is a stone cold omega. One clear place this is demonstrated is in the song towards the end of the musical, Past the Point of no Return, which is a song written by the Phantom who is forcing the opera house to preform his work by means of terrorism. In the lyrics you can see a total disconnect between how the Phantom's mind works and how normal social dynamics work, and this disconnect is far more disconcerting that any facial disfigurement. Take for example the section

Past the point
of no return -
no backward glances:
the games we've played till now
are at an end . . .
Past all thought
of "if" or "when" -
no use resisting:
abandon thought,
and let the dream
descend . . .

The song is sung by the Phantom to the chorus girl, and the message is that in the play their relationship is done being playful, and now they are going to get serious and have sex. The total disconnect between sex and play inspires more dread than the fact that he wears a mask, and is clearly a sign of him being an omega. The song then makes a 180 during which the phantom declares his undying love, by softly and sweetly singing

Say you'll share with me
One love, one lifetime
Lead me, save me from my solitude

Say you want me
With you here
Beside you
Anywhere you go
Let me go too 

These lyrics are fine by themselves, but the fact that there is no transition from the above internal state to this state makes the whole thing unsettling.

Specifically the phantom's problem is a lack of state. An alpha male knows who he is and knows what he wants and what he is doing. As such his inner state is stable. Other people can come up interact with him and if he was happy before he will continue to be happy, if he was angry he will continue to be angry, and so on, only slowly transitioning from one state to another. This is because his validation does not come from the people immediately around him at any given time. An omega on the other hand will rapidly jump from one state to another based on insignificant social interactions, often wildly misinterpreting small exchanges or even lack of exchanges. It is by being like this, far more than from having a disfigured face, that drove the phantom from society, and kept him from being able to build relationships with anyone. Of course it is a fictional story, but it is by following these game principles that the story actually works.

Monday, October 17, 2011

Herman Cain

Herman Cain's relationship with the tea party.

Bububbut he's better than Obama.

The West does not owe slave descendants anything

The thoughts that most conservatives have about reparations generally is either in the camp of thinking that whats in the past is in the past, or that due to disproportionate representation of black people on the welfare roles that we have already paid. What neither of these take into account is that fact that the idea that slavers went to Africa and rounded up a bunch a free men to use as slaves is almost entirely a myth perpetuated by the book and the movie Roots (which was both fictionalized and plagiarized by the way). The truth is that in almost all cases American slavers sailed to Africa where they met up with African slavers who sold them slaves. This should be evident by the fact that the native Africans were no more or less civilized than many of the Indian tribes that Western Americans came across, but they did not conqueror and enslave them. If they had run into Indian slave traders in any kind of large numbers (I certainly can't say that it never happened) there would have been just a large a trade of Indians as slaves, but the fact remains that it was unique to Africans.

This is not to say that all white men who bought slaves were righteous. The right thing to do would have been to free them as soon as they had been purchased. But consider another case. If you came across a man who was desperate for cash and in his desperation offered to sell you his wife's engagement ring which was clearly worth thousands of dollars and though you could have paid full price, you take advantage of the situation and buy it for only a few hundred. Is that the good christian thing to do? No of course not. But on the other hand, after the transaction is made do you owe that man anything. Again no. In the same way, American slavers did not owe the slaves that they purchased freedom because they did not enslave them. The truth is that those who made it to America where the lucky ones. There were certainly some bad slave owners in the south, but in Africa to treat a slave as being more valuable than a horse was the exception.

If your still not convinced consider another example. In Nazi Germany, Oskar Schindler rescued many Jews from concentration camps. The rescued Jews basically worked for him in his factory as slaves. At the end of the war did he owe them reparations? Of course not. By acquiring slaves he was saving them from the gas chambers, and is considered a hero for it. This is not 100% analogous with American slavery, but it demonstrates the principle. If life as a slave in America was not worse than life as a slave in Africa it means that Americans do not owe former slaves anything. In fact we did give them something: freedom. Something that they or their ancestors would not have gotten in Africa where the slave trade is alive and well to this day.

Saturday, October 15, 2011

Abusing Chivalry

Most men have the idea impressed on them that they should protect the weak. This is particularly manifest in the idea that a man should never hit a woman. The assumption with this idea is that the man is always stronger than the woman, otherwise it would not matter, as is made obvious in that severely handicapped men generally are not held to this standard, but find themselves falling more into the societal category of women in that they should never be hit either. What is less engrained is the idea that if you are on the receiving end of special treatment you should not abuse it. That is to say if you are a woman or in some other societal role where men are to refrain from being violent towards you, you are also obligated to refrain from being violent towards them. But more and more its getting to the point where this second half of the unspoken contract is completely ignored. Take for example the recent event with Phoenx Jones, the costume wearing, pepper spray wielding, crime patrolling, self styled super hero.

Phoenix Jones Stops Assault from Ryan McNamee on Vimeo.

In this video he is patrolling with his side kicks and sees a street fight taking place under an overpass. He immediately runs in and breaks up the fight with pepper spray while his side kicks call 911. Then one of the girls who was watching the fight starts chasing him around attacking him with her high heel. Now clearly there is no question that Phoenix Jones could literally kill this girl with his bare hands if he so chose, but she correctly assumes that he will hold up his end of the societal contract while she flagrantly breaks her part of it. And the real kicker is that the only person charged with anything in this case was Phoenix Jones, while clearly he was on the receiving end of assault.

Contrast that with the more recent case of two women assaulting a man working at McDonald's (read the story here).

In this case the worker behind the counter questioned a $50 bill that they gave him and in response one of them reached across the counter and slapped him, and then threw herself over the counter while her friend started walking the long way around to reach him. They also assumed that he would uphold his end of the societal contract while they flagrantly broke their end. In this case they were wrong. He responded by grabbing a metal rode and beating them. One of them just suffered a fairly deep cut, but the other suffered a broken skull and arm.

It's interesting the way that the story is reported. They keep it in terms like there was an altercation that got violent. The sense is very much, something bad just happened and then the McDonald's employee went crazy. It never mentions whether or not the $50 bill they gave him was counterfeit or not. So most likely what happened is that they gave him a fifty, and as per store policy he had to check it out make sure that it was not counterfeit. In their intoxicated state the two women took this as a slight and then go on to assault the worker. He excessively defends himself. So unlike the phrasing in the news report that he attacked unruly customers, or that it was a fight the escalated out of control, this is a case where a man was attacked by two women and responded. It is totally inappropriate to say that he attacked them, as they were literally chasing him behind the counter with intent to harm when he “attacked”.

At least in this case all parties were changed with crimes. However if we keep going on with the idea that men should just sit there and take it or run away while women attack them instead of responding we'll get more and more of these incidents. Also, it needs to be made clear to women what their role in the societal contract is, as many of them clearly think that theirs is a place of privilege and the the contract only goes one way.

Monday, October 3, 2011

Accidental Alpha

When I still in school, before I knew anything about game, I was visiting my friend Ishmael back home over Christmas break. At the time he was renting a house with some other guys, one of whom I found out owned his very own gorilla suit. It was the best costume that I had ever seen, covering the whole body, with a fake gorilla head and everything. Being the 6'3” broad shouldered beast that I both was and am, the suit did not fit me. Ishmael on the other hand could get right in it. It was just to great a suit to not use, so I had to think of something. Prior to being shown the gorilla suit our plans had just been to rent a movie and hang out. So in the interest of using it right then, before I went back to school, Ishmael and I came to an agreement. After exchanging some “I will if you will” type pacts it was decided that he would wear the suit to the video store and I would lead him with a rope looped around his neck. If anyone looked at us funny in the store I was to lead him over to them and ask “Would you like to touch my monkey” after which he would offer them his hand.

At the store itself most people avoided eye contact. I think that we only actually went up to 2 groups, one middle aged couple, that was not that amused, and one lone attractive girl. As we were browsing the new releases moving slowly around the outer wall, we found ourselves in the same general space as her. She looked over at us bemused, and as per our pack, I walked right up to her maintaining eye contact and asked “Would you like to touch my monkey?” She laughed as she shook Ishmael's gorilla clad hand, and then instead of moving on as I was planning on doing, she started up a conversation. She was trying to find common ground at first asking what kind of movies we liked. And then she said something like “You know I bet my dog would really like you.” Now I really don't like changing my plans after I've made them, and so I was wanting to get on with our evening and spend time hanging out with Ishmael before I had to go back to school. So as she was trying to start up a conversation I was trying to disengage without being rude. As she was talking I was switching between looking at her to browsing over movies on the rack in front of me. Eventually we were able to get away and went on to watch a movie and share a few laughs before I had to leave. As we got out of the store into the parking lot we let out the laughter that we'd been holding in. We couldn't believe how much attraction had been generated while purposefully acting like annoying jackasses.

It wasn't till much later after reading about game theory that what happened started to make sense. The first thing that we were doing was peacocking. That is we were dressed in a way intended to draw attention. Secondly under the additional social presser of peacocking, by making the agreement to walk up to people and ask them if they wanted to touch my monkey, we demonstrated social dominance. If we had not done that and instead avoided eye contact and slunk away from people who looked funny at us, then it would have been less attractive than if we had done nothing at all. Finally, by being genuinely disinterested in actually picking anyone up, I naturally had alpha body language. The end result was that it was actually awkward not to go for the insta-date either by asking her to come watch a movie with us or inviting ourselves to her place to watch and meet her dog.

Cat Logic

When I move around the house, on occasion my cat will start racing from room to room ahead of me. This has always been a particular source of amusement for me as from what I can tell what is going on in his mind is first observing that his master is taking a step towards the living room. This observation is processed with inscrutable cat logic. The final result is that he decides that he has to run into the living room as fast as he is able to go in order to beat me there. I then go into the living room to be met with a wild stare, and as I turn around and hear the sound of his legs furiously propelling him past me again the process is repeated.

Whats so funny about this is that for some reason that is not based in any real logic, but makes perfect sense in cat logic, my cat expends tons of energy to ensure that he is the first to arrive in every room. I suspect that it is some sort of game, and he's probably winning, but who knows what goes on in the mind of a cat.

That said, I also found this article on why atheists don't have to showrespect for other religions quite amusing. For the most part it is full of normal atheist talking points about how religion is evil and whatnot. But what struck me is that the author admits that many religions are harmless, and then goes on about the importance of making more atheists. So as I try to look at it from their perspective, what I see is first the observation that there is no god/supernatural/after life. Everything that we do ultimately will not matter as we are all going to die anyway. After death it does not matter whether you've lived a good life or a miserable life, as your consciousness is simply gone. Everything can be explained by science, which ultimately means that we have no free will. These observations are then processed by inscrutable atheist logic. Then the final result is the burning passion to make everyone else believe that there is no god/supernatural/after life/morality/free will. And as I look into those wild atheist eyes, I find myself thinking “You go atheist, live that dream”.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Chris Christie's hypothetical presidential run

The worst smell I have ever smelled was my dog right after being sprayed by a skunk. I was delivering papers at the and had to just keep going despite the terrible smell of my companion. I distinctly remember at one point my dog crapped on the lawn of one of houses I was delivering to, and as I bent over to clean it up, I actually found the aroma pleasant. The smell of the skunk spray was so bad and so overwhelming that even the smell of dog shit was pleasant by contrast.

This is why Chris Christie looks good.

He looks really good when he is going toe to toe with public employees who's sense of entitlement is running rampant. He shows a willingness to fight hard battles that most politicians lack. Unfortunately that's the end of the positives. Take for example here where he is responding to questions about his appointment of a Muslim judge. When asked about the issue of Sharia law he goes on to say that its crazy because the guy is an American citizen and has sworn to uphold the law. This of course completely ignores the fact that we have had rulings in the US that were based on Sharia law. Were the judges in those cases not American citizens? Did they somehow avoid taking the oath to uphold the law before being sworn into office?

Then there is the issue of immigration. You remember how Rick Perry was blasted for supporting in state tuition for illegal aliens? Christie passed the same bill in his state.

Then there's climate change. He has bought it hook line and sinker. Even after the East Anglia email scandal where the whole world was able to see confessions of falsifying data in order to reach predetermined conclusions. And yet ol Christie somehow missed it. And he missed resignation of Dr. Ivar Giaever. And Hal Lewis. And Chris Landsea. And Paul Reiter. And this petition of 31,000 scientists from. And the admission that there has been no warming since 1998.
And any politician who still supports global warming initiatives is either stupid or receiving kick backs from the green machine.

So the point is that Chris Christie might be trying to make the state of New Jersey smell like dog shit, but for a state that currently smells like skunk spray it's progress. As a nation, we need to do better.

Monday, September 26, 2011

A Game Resource

A while back I made a couple of posts that were intended to give a compact overview of what game is coming from the perspective of someone who has never heard of it before.  Well heartiste has put out a great post on that topic.  It's different in that it is not what game is, but rather what game is not.  So here you go, compact list of anti-game written far better than I ever could have.

Jesus and Game Part 2

I put this post together mostly from skimming the book of Matthew. And from it I've found texts that demonstrate the alphaness of Jesus.

Jesus is a leader of men. When he wants someone to do something he does not ask. He tells them.
Matthew 4:18-20
And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.
And they straightway left their nets, and followed him.
Here we see that Jesus just went up to a group of strange men and told them “Follow me”. And they did it. He didn't ask “Would you like to follow me?” or “If its not too much trouble, could you join with me?”.
Matthew 10:5
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not”.
He does not say: “Okay guys, I want you to go into the city. Can you do that?”

Jesus has a massive frame. Often the Pharisees would come up to him with some sort of verbal trap designed to make him back off, apologize, or incriminate himself. These are huge shit tests. And Jesus passes every one by bringing people into his frame instead. Never once does he qualify, apologize or back off. And he always does things in such a way so that after his response, he is innocent and the Pharisees are guilty and sputtering with rage.
Matthew 9:10-12
Jesus eats with sinners and is accused.
And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.
And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
This might look like beta justification, but it's critically different in that there is no I language, and it also is a reframe. By making his analogy he casts the Pharisees as being out of line. Now instead of him cavorting with sinners, the Pharisees are framed as being heartless.

Matthew 12:1-4
At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat.
But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
Instead replying to their accusations Jesus reframes the issue. Now instead of looking like a law breaker, he made the Pharisees look like ignorant hypocrites.

Matthew 15:1-11
Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
Jesus is caught breaking the law as it is understood, but instead of apologizing or qualifying, he turns it around on the Pharisees. After explaining how their (seemingly unrelated) teachings go against the law, he nails them with the line “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.”

There are many more examples than these, and I purposely left out many that involve miracles, even though they are valid. But a man coming of as alpha by preforming a miracle is too easy. Much like it is not so impressive to see a rock star being alpha.