Pathological Consequences

Understanding economic law is not your typical woman’s strong suit.  It would be nice if we could all just get along and have everything we need.  “You can’t have your cake and eat it, too” and “there’s no such thing as a free lunch” can seem unpleasant, so it’s best just not to think about it.

And the economic law that seems to dumbfound women more than any other is the Law of Unintended Consequences.  This manifests itself in the lefty notion that wanting to do the right thing is the same as doing the right thing, that even if their ideas fail spectacularly and make things worse they still deserve credit for trying something.

Recognizing this Law requires humility, for it’s the economic manifestation of “You are not God!”  However, in many ways today’s woman is actively encouraged to think of herself as God.  Not only does she share the solipsistic instincts of her forbears as a “bringer of life”, she’s now taught that she has the right to end that very life growing inside her if she finds it inconvenient, her beauty is worshiped on social media to an extent that even Helen of Troy would have found intoxicating, improving her self-esteem alone is reason enough to do anything she wants, she’s entitled to have men she’s never met pay for her children if she can’t get their father to do it (and she has the right to make the father do it even if she keeps him from playing any role in its life), any oath of marriage she may have taken matters less than how she feels about her marriage afterwards, and if men find either her appearance or behaviors unattractive, it’s their problem and not hers.

Now that she has political power, this new brand of hyper-solipsim (bad) merges with her natural desire to prevent the suffering of others (good) to create the basis for a heightened welfare super-state:  Pathological Altruism.  She’s right, she cares, so what she wants to do is exactly what should be done.  The noble aversion to the suffering of our fellow human beings thus becomes corrupted by creating a false idol out of her belief in her own noble intentions.

Nobody likes admitting that they were wrong.  However, the stronger one’s belief in oneself, the harder this becomes, and nobody has been trained to believe in herself more than the modern Western female and Anointed leftists.  Tell a single mom how spoiling her child was a bad idea, and she’ll respond by telling you that she only did it because she loved her child so much; her grown son’s inability to manage his finances can’t be her fault.  Likewise, the War on Poverty has nothing to do with the devastation wrought on Detroit, and rising insurance premiums will undoubtedly be everybody’s fault except for those who supported Obamacare.

And the “stimulus” didn’t work only because it wasn’t big enough.

The Law of Unintended Consequences applies to both the economy at large and to out own lives.  Nobody can know all the potential results of whatever decision they might make.

However, males are naturally more inclined to understand how things work and therefore more able to correctly calculate the potential consequences of a certain action.

More importantly, men are naturally inclined to lead their own households.  Yet even if they screw up, the unintended consequences have limits.  When governments rule our lives instead of fathers, the unintended consequences can be enormous and affect millions of us.  A father exercising his authority over his family is NOT trying to play God, but a team of economists de-valuing our currency for the Greater Good most decidedly IS.

And a decent father will admit it when he makes a mistake.  When’s the last time you’ve seen Harry Reid do that?

Not unlike the hyper-hypergamy that now rules our sexual marketplace, we now have Pathological Altruism running our families, churches, education system, and government:  oblivious to consequence, certain that empathy makes right, insisting that we revere its good intentions as God.

We’re supposed to pretend that all of our prisoners raised by single mothers have nothing to do with single-motherhood because single mothers love their children just as much as anybody else.  If we point out how Democrats consistently run our cities into the ground, we’re either racist or just aren’t wise enough to know how much those same Democrats truly care.  Not only are we ever to reverse such policies, their blind obedience to the Concorde Fallacy has us accelerating them instead.

Lefties love pointing out to Christians how they shouldn’t be judged.  They have a point, for no man can see into the heart of another.  I don’t know which leftists want to run us into the ground and which are merely misguided.  I can never be sure if a crackwhore single mom loves her children as much as a woman who cleaned up her act and kept her legs together until she found a decent guy to raise kids with.

But another verse you’ll rarely hear lefties refer to is Matthew 7:20:  “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”  Their hearts may or may not “be in the right place”, but their fruits are rotten to the core.  They declare “let there be light!” and instead of illumination we get some flashing strobe thing that gives half of us seizures.

Neither beautiful women, politicians, single mothers, bleeding hearts, nor supposed “experts” are God.  It’s time we stopped acting like it.


This entry was posted in Family, Feminism, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Pathological Consequences

  1. Man, thanks for this post. This post is exactly what I was trying to convey to Paul over at Sunshine Mary’s; or at least the application of these principles when applied to the search of a wife.

    Obviously this has further reaching principles as well. I need to find a way to convey the idea of evaluating a person’s worth and character without using the word Judgment, as it seems to get Lefties and Progressives into a fit of rage. Maybe something along these lines:

    “I decide to trust a person based on what their past actions have brought them. I realize that people can change, but I understand how difficult that can be. If they show they’ve grown and changed, I’m more than happy to change that decision. I merely don’t want to risk myself nor those I care about on the chance that someone will backslide into previous problematic behavior.”

    • @LoB Philosophy is practical for the self-consistency. Searching for a wife? I understand the urge. The Manosphere came from the seduction community be returning the focus from searching for better women to searching for a better man women will fall into. You must know of marriage 2.0, etc. I wish you well. Maybe time is short and you want a wife soon.

      I interpret your comment to ponder how to express logic to an emotional spaz without triggering the spasdic reaction: not possible. I would suggest you defend your right to judge for your rightful purposes and in fact not in principle, unless they overlap.

      (1) You cannot reason with the unreasonable. Why are you trying?
      (2) The anathma idea itself is leftist anathma. Why are you attempting to impose on them without sufficient strength or authority?
      (3) Any words of negative (fearful) emotions are anathma, and a defense against the anguish of taboo truth. Why are you trying to be logical and conceptually sterilized at the same time?
      (4) You cannot express an idea without expressing that idea. Why are you trying (not)?

      Don’t play their game. Game (seduction) works on emotive-centric ‘people’ not on logic-centric people. Put your strengths on their weaknesses. Logic is for civilized people who cooperate in good faith; seduction is for uncivilized people you can’t better handle forcibly. Essentially, whatever women can do, men ought to be able to do better. Game is woman’s intrigue on logic crack. It’s not really manly, but it is ideal in a female-centric social environment.

      O’s hero and very effective thinker Sal Alinsky, from Rules for Radicals, p. 49:

      “Power is the right word just as self-interest, compromise, and
      the other simple political words are, for they were conceived in and
      have become part of politics from the beginning of time. To pander
      to those who have no stomach for straight language, and insist upon
      bland, non controversial sauces, is a waste of time. They cannot or
      deliberately will not understand what we are discussing here. I agree
      with Nietzsche’s statement in The Genealogy of Morals on this

      From Art of War []:

      “Sun Tzu said: The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy.
      2. To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.


      “14. Hence the skillful fighter puts himself into a position which makes defeat impossible, and does not miss the moment for defeating the enemy.
      15. Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.”

      • Martel says:

        “I interpret your comment to ponder how to express logic to an emotional spaz without triggering the spasdic reaction: not possible.”

        I respectfully disagree. I wish I could find the link, but I recently read a study that indicated that there’s some part of the brain that’s hyperactive in lefties. Certain words and phrases can kick this part of the brain into high gear, and after they’re used they literally don’t hear anything that’s said afterwards.

        I’ve found that by softening my language when I initially begin a conversation with a leftie that I can circumvent this process and actually get them to hear me out. I don’t use words like “judge” or “immoral” at first and I emphasize the ways in which I agree with them (and everybody’s right about something). Once I’ve proven that I’m not some inhuman monster but that I’m often bothered by the same things they are, they’ll sometimes listen.

    • Martel says:

      Your final paragraph quote seems about right. I sometime use “I’m not trying to damn them, but I have every right to observe their behavior and not want to associate with it. And frankly, I guarantee you sometimes see it the exact same way. How many friends do you have that (fill in whatever bugaboo they just said they can’t stand in people)?”

      Thanks for the compliment. I haven’t been able to pay attention to blogs (including my own) for a bit, but now I’m back.

  2. donalgraeme says:

    A good read as always.

  3. Pingback: Pathological Consequences | Viva La Manosphere!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s