Malcolm’s Lament

It is myself I mean: in whom I know
All the particulars of vice so grafted
That, when they shall be open’d, black Macbeth
Will seem as pure as snow, and the poor state
Esteem him as a lamb, being compared
With my confineless harms.

Macbeth, Act IV, Scene 3

A fallacy first explicitly pointed out to me by Henry Fielding in Tom Jones (the greatest book in the Western canon that nobody reads any more) was the natural human inclination to associate goodness with weakness.  Every student of Game learns this tendency and how to manipulate it to his own advantage.  First and foremost, it’s important to demonstrate our strength as men, for if a woman instead first sees us as good, her attraction to us diminishes.

However, there is another aspect of this fallacy to which some of us still adhere, most notably the Hedonist faction of the Manosphere.  We assume that betas are merely weaker than Alphas, that their rejection of the typical social dominance aspects of the mating dance is an attempt to change to rules of the game in such a way as to benefit their intrinsic weakness.  The beta’s ostensible morality isn’t based in any fundamental disagreement with the Alphas who always get the babes, he’s just got a counter-strategy.

And in most cases, this is correct.  I don’t have any surveys to back it up, but I would venture a guess that a large percentage of the guys who never get any action would behave no differently than the “assholes” they routinely deride were they given the same opportunities or knew how to replicate the assholes’ behavior themselves.  They celebrate feminism because feminism proports to raise their SMV.  They denigrate masculinity because they’re not masculine themselves.  It’s not about right or wrong, it’s ultimately about them.  Fundamentally, it’s not an ethic, it’s (bad) strategy.  When feminists deride nice guys for being creepy because they “expect” sex in exchange for being nice to them, these are the guys they’re talking about.

To swallow the Red Pill, these folks need to be primarily convinced of its efficacy.  Those who have a larger emotional investment in their strategy will resist longer than others, but to them, it ultimately boils down to being convinced that being nice to women doesn’t get you laid, learning Game does, so it’s time to learn Game.

Anointed male feminists like Hugo Schwyzer will deride Game not because they disagree with it, but because it’s a great way to neuter their competition.  However, those I label Hedonist Betas usually just need to be convinced that Game works and that they can learn it to accept it.

The Other Kind

But there’s another kind of beta who’s been more thoroughly corrupted and requires more intense reprogramming.  Yet these are those whom it’s much more important to awaken.

The insidious fallacy that goodness=weakness has infested our education system, our churches, and most aspects of our culture.  Some boys are naturally weak, but some who would grow into the types of Alphas we want them to be are metaphorically castrated in the name or morality.  They’re taught that in order to be morally upright, it’s imperative that they become more feminine.  They might be naturally inclined to believe otherwise, and on their own they could compete with the burgeoning barbarians in their midst, but they consent to the emasculation because they want to do the right thing.

There was a Colorado seven year-old who was suspended from school for throwing an imaginary grenade.  How violent!  Such monstrous behavior must be crushed:

But 7-year-od Alex Evans insists the imaginary grenade he threw at an imaginary box was necessary to rid the world of evil.

You see, he was playing a game called “rescue the world” in which he was pretending to save all of us from some vile force bent on humanity’s destruction.  A boy who plays out violent scenarios in his head is not practicing to be a beta, but he’s not microwaving kittens like a developing barbarian Alpha would, either.

In fact, his natural masculine instincts (blowing stuff up) combined with a developing sense of Justice shows that he’s learning how to be just the sort of man this world needs.

But that’s not good enough; he’s strong.  He might grow up to be a real man, and we can’t have that.  He must be feminized.


And the Meek Shall Inherit the Earth

Some believe that Christianity is the source of all this.   Despite the feminized dweebs infesting so many of our churches and the leftist distortion of Christian doctrine, I disagree.  We may well be calling Him Jesus instead of “Joshua” for merely linguistic reasons (and Joshua was a warrior if ever there was one), and “Son of David” doesn’t exactly evoke images of a tree-hugging hippie.

But what about the Beatitudes, all that touchy-feely stuff Jesus preached on the mountain?

Taken out of context, some of it does sound somewhat wimpy.  However, that sermon wasn’t delivered by a pencil-necked academic, it was instead a hardened workman with sufficient cojones to simultaneously take on both the religious and secular power structures of his day.

Furthermore, his audience weren’t exactly wimps, either.  These were fishermen and men who could more than likely kill you with a single punch.  And the message itself was not wimpy.

Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

If mercy is to forbear from inflicting punishment, then how can you be merciful if you don’t have the power to inflict punishment?

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Who’s more likely to break up a bar fight, a second-degree blackbelt in Brazilian Ju-Jitsu, or a ninety-five pound pacifist?

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

If a manboob who commands no respect weakly asks you to do something, is he being meek, or is he just being a wimp?

Contrast that with a man who has the power to crush you respectfully asking you to help him with something?  An ALPHA who deigns to treat you as an equal?  Such a man commands both the Machiavellian fear of compliance and the love that gets us to do what they want willingly.  Such meekness commands both actions and hearts.  It’s anything but feminine weakness, it just might be one of the most effective Game techniques there is.

Obviously, there’s a lot more to the Sermon on the Mount than I can get into here.  Women need to express their meekness differently, and “turn the other cheek” takes a lot longer to explain (although it doesn’t mean back away from a just fight).  Nevertheless, the “Christ wants us to be useless wimps” take on Christianity simply doesn’t hold water.

Malcolm’s Error

As I’ve said before, Hedonist Betas need merely be convinced of Game’s efficacy.  However, those who’ve been convinced that masculinity power is inherently immoral must also be convinced of its morality.  These Moralist Betas implicitly believe that for any man to have too much power over others is wrong no matter how that power may be used.  They buy into the fallacy that by removing themselves from the hierarchical power-game structure of inter-sexual relations that they can somehow diminish the hold that masculine power itself has over women.

False.  Not playing the Game doesn’t stop the Game.  It just ensures you lose.

However, sometimes these Moralist Betas have so thoroughly bought into the goodness=weakness (or goodness=feminine) fallacy that it’s become personalized.  They’ve been so thoroughly infused with a natural mistrust of their own masculinity that they don’t trust themselves with the power that Game could give them.

Although Malcolm was using his expressions of guilt as a ruse to learn Macduff’s true loyalites, his laments epitomize the worries of the Moralist Beta:

I grant him bloody,
Luxurious, avaricious, false, deceitful,
Sudden, malicious, smacking of every sin
That has a name: but there’s no bottom, none,
In my voluptuousness: your wives, your daughters,
Your matrons and your maids, could not fill up
The cistern of my lust, and my desire
All continent impediments would o’erbear
That did oppose my will: better Macbeth
Than such an one to reign.

“Those PUA’s are bloody awful, but that’s how I would be if I could do what they do.”

The irony is that a man who’s afraid to empower himself is usually far less likely to abuse that power if he ever gets it.  Malcolm’s introspection demonstrates he has a conscience.  Although it’s no guarantee that he’d be a benevolent ruler, the very fact that he’s self-aware to know he might not be renders him far less likely to become a tyrant.  If you’re worried that learning Game would turn you into an inveterate womanizer, it probably won’t.

Were Malcolm to buy into his own crap, he’d leave Macbeth in power and allow his bloody reign to continue.  Even if you might not use your Game perfectly, if you never learn it, you’re allowing the fear of the potential misuse your masculine power to enable the actual abuse of the PUA to continue without opposition.

Instead, follow the words of Macduff [emphasis mine]:

Boundless intemperance
In nature is a tyranny; it hath been
The untimely emptying of the happy throne
And fall of many kings. But fear not yet
To take upon you what is yours: you may
Convey your pleasures in a spacious plenty,
And yet seem cold, the time you may so hoodwink.
We have willing dames enough: there cannot be
That vulture in you, to devour so many
As will to greatness dedicate themselves,
Finding it so inclined.

My Delay

I read The Game long before I swallowed the Red Pill, for mine was the two-layered process of the Moralist Beta.  I understood that what Strauss described worked, but I couldn’t accept that it would be moral to participate in The Game myself.  I allowed my displeasure with the realities of female nature as portrayed in that book to interfere with how I allowed myself to respond to the new truths I learned from it.

Furthermore, although I correctly knew that I could conceivably abuse any new powers I might acquire, I overestimated my own dark side.  I’m not saying I’m perfect by any stretch, but compared to many of the men who have far more power than me, I’m a veritable saint.

So, I wasted time.  I continued to render myself impotent in the face of abuse, I failed to take advantage of a lot of opportunities that came my way.  I allowed my own warped definition of “meekness” to keep me from opposing some actual evil that I was supposed to confront.

I’ll never be perfect, but I’m finding that so far I’m using my newfound powers fairly well.

I’m therefore working to expand them.

And as I do so, I’m teaching any men who want to leave this world better than they found it to do the same.

This entry was posted in Alpha, Feminism, Game. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Malcolm’s Lament

  1. Johnny Caustic says:

    I’ve been told that in its biblical context, “meek” means not “weak” but “deliberately holding back one’s full force.” True?

    • Martel says:

      I believe I’ve heard something to that effect (others feel free to chime in). Regardless, meekness needs to be a voluntary choice to be virtuous, not some self-imposed prison of impotence with a self-righteous spin.

  2. This is a really great post 🙂

  3. earl says:

    “However, that sermon wasn’t delivered by a pencil-necked academic, it was instead a hardened workman with sufficient cojones to simultaneously take on both the religious and secular power structures of his day.”

    You know I was thinking about that recently. Jesus was your typical blue collar worker up until 30…so much like every other man he had a job to do and he did it to the best of his abilities. I’m willing to bet a lot of the lessons he learned in carpentry was involved in building his church.

    Sometimes you have to remember that Jesus had to go through the same process ever man goes through growing up.

  4. earl says:

    “Furthermore, although I correctly knew that I could conceivably abuse any new powers I might acquire, I overestimated my own dark side.”

    I was the same way…when I first learned game I knew I could abuse my power for evil and I didn’t want to but yet I still abused my power…now after some introspection I’m putting that power to good use for a higher purpose.

    And to be honest…isn’t that what happens with most guys? You grow up brainwashed into life of weakness…so you don’t know how to handle power when you first get it.

    • Martel says:

      What’s fun to me about Jesus’ occupation is that it must have made the cultural elites of his day even more infuriated every time He bested them. He probably had a working-class accent of some sort and might have even come across as rough around the edges, but He couldn’t have been sharper and exposed the idiocy of His “betters” in ways that He never could have as the son of aristocrat.

      In this there’s an important lesson in anti-snobbery for us today. Before He was a man of ideas, He was a man of action, a builder who knew how to work with His body. And His ideas were superior to all the scholars of all places and times.

      • earl says:

        That makes me wonder if a lot of his parables came from Him observing day to day activities.

        I mean we could all see a shepherd leaving 99 sheep to find one that is lost and feel great when he finds it. Or a woman who loses a coin and looks all over the place to find it…and rejoices when she finds it. When it comes to our livelihood none of us is different.

  5. Peregrine John says:

    Once again your story coincides oddly with my own. [To borrow Vox’ rather complex set of terminology,] I was naturally a sigma: outsider, oddly attractive to women, inexplicably annoying to alphas. Had no clue why, of course. In the service of Doing the Right Thing, I allowed myself to be trained in an array of beta traits, which put me on the express train to Gammaville. The alphas were either chick-magnet assholes, or ubermensch naturals who could be assholes or not as their personality dictated. I couldn’t be the 2nd and loathed the 1st, which left me with Good Boy Game, aka No Game At All – a mere hoping that doing the right thing would deliver feminine attention. The road to gamma is also paved with good intentions, and I’m pretty sure gamma is a variant of earthly hell.

    After my own slow awakening, and a shift toward alpha traits, eventually understanding them more clearly and with this terminology, I finally am on the sigma path I should never have left. Still considered strange, still irritating to those who think themselves my natural betters, but back to using my natural leverage, unconsciously drawing the women (and men, if I ever decided to cross that fence), and able to draw more strongly now that I (to paraphrase Macduff) do not fear to take upon me that which is mine. There are willing dames enough, absolutely. But now I can choose a morality without degrading myself otherwise.

    • Martel says:

      It’s an interesting life, isn’t it?

      • Peregrine John says:

        True; but wow, could I have used an owner’s manual – one that worked, that is. I descended into an embarrassment to manhood for a while, there.

  6. bawz says:

    I like what you’re going for here, but I don’t know if you quite ferret out the root of the subject.

    It seems to be an issue with integrating what exists as independent yet intersecting axises; the biological and the moral.
    We typically associate what is ‘good’ with what is ‘weak’ not necessarily for the feminine connotations, but rather for defying the primacy of the biological axis in favor of its more existential counterpart.

    By offering to share bread with another, you are lowering your ability to compete and raising another’s, failing your biological imperatives; yet in doing so, a more profound statement regarding ‘do unto others’ is made with those calories.
    Where it becomes interesting is when the calculus of risk reaches its threshold; when you are actually in dire need of the calories, how might a moral gain be of any concern? Further, when you are the one in need, how far on the moral axis will you slide for just another day of sustaining your place on the biological axis?

    I believe this is where we see the majesty of what J-Dawg was preaching. While males were decidedly more masculine in yesteryear when frontiers still existed, it was more decidedly a culture of “have-nots”; without a bloated welfare state to ensure you cannot fail, the importance of the moral axis to the biological one is greatly increased in order to generally diffuse chances of survival in a species that has yet to overpopulate.

    This cannot be reduced to an issue of women. The true ‘alpha’ recognizes that sexual contact plays no role on the biological scale. It is assumed, and if it is not supplied, he will raise his value on the biological axis until his desires can be met. Hence, the sliding scale of morality should not even be incorporated here, for it does a disservice to its original intent. It vacillates freely and on a dime as it is divorced from its original imperative and both participants, distributor and reflector can bask freely in the power that is a man’s capability for both righteousness and advocation for the devil as the circumstances may dictate.

  7. Martel says:

    “We typically associate what is ‘good’ with what is ‘weak’ not necessarily for the feminine connotations, but rather for defying the primacy of the biological axis in favor of its more existential counterpart.”

    More to follow (there’s a lot here), but part of this tendency is defined by our underlying assumption that the feminine is somehow closer to “the more existential counterpart” and that masculine strength somehow defies it.

  8. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/09/18 | Free Northerner

  9. Pingback: Beatitudes and Christian Attraction « stagedreality

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s