Game in Hobbiton, or, Bilbo demonstrates the neg
January 29, 2014 § 101 Comments
Sometimes a brass tacks example can be helpful, especially for those who prefer the concrete over high-falutin abstractions.
Backhanded or ambiguous compliments are a “tool” of charmers and rhetoricians which have been around since Hobbits tilled the soil of the Shire. Variations on the theme are as multifarious as the variety of human conversation. By creating some ambiguity and personalizing the interaction, they engage the mind and emotions of the listener. Whatever you may think of Bilbo’s speech, he clearly had the attention of his audience.
They are also as obvious as the nose on your face: one would have to live in an isolation chamber or a bomb shelter to fail to encounter them from time to time. So we should attempt to distinguish between the neg, as a tool in the secret gnostosexual toolbox of Game, from conversationally ubiquitous backhanded or ambiguous compliments in general. In order to do so we shall consult The Prophet (content warning):
You’ll also note that a lot of these unnervingly ambiguous observations focus on a girl’s presumed inability to cut loose and have some fun. They are designed, in other words, to eradicate anti-slut defenses and persuade her to open up… to you, the fearless judger of her feminine worth. Some others focus on her social naivete, or her craving for attention. Sprinkle to taste. Some of these negs fall under the category of cold reads; the difference being that cold reads are usually unambiguous compliments worded to entrap a girl deeper into conversation by getting her to talk about herself.
Seduction is the art of contrived concealment. You want to seduce without revealing the machinery of your mind, or the purpose of your words. You introduce the dangerous idea, and if you are successful, she picks up the idea and joins you in her own seduction.
When it comes the to prescriptive canon labeled “Game” (again, content warning) Christians know right off the bat that some things are off limits. For example “always keep two in the kitty” (that is, keep a harem of women and “spin plates” so that no one woman ‘controls' you) is clearly contrary to Christian doctrine and morality. Not to mention stupid and a sign of low self-esteem.
The problem arises with more subtle or ambiguous “tools”. The “neg” as described by the putative experts on Game is obviously morally evil when it functions to eradicate anti-slut defenses. It is also morally wrong when it functions as a kind of lie. Without actually getting into the breakdown, here, what is clear is that open-eyed wise discernment is needed — if there is anything good left over here at all that Tolkien hadn’t already demonstrated decades before Roissy was in diapers. Separating the gold from the dross in “Game” isn’t just a matter of picking which tools are good and which are evil. Each tool has to be broken down and re-discerned, re-filtered, re-constructed so that the remainder after discernment is morally acceptable.
This brings me to what I would ultimately like to propose in this post. Lets call it Rule 36: Any man who has the wisdom and discernment required to extract what is good from “Game” without being perverted by what is not, does not need to go to perverts for advice.
Deficiencies in fatherhood cannot be filled in by the Church, and they cannot be replaced by the “wisdom” of sexual perverts. Note the word cannot. If the Red Pill is supposed to be about accepting reality as it actually is rather than as we would like it to be, then accepting this reality should be a part of it.
 That is, the tools – the concrete actions recommended by PUAs under the heading “Game”, as distinguished from description and analysis.
 Only a man who is a pathetic slave to sex can be controlled, via sex, by a woman — or a harem of women, for that matter. Don’t be that guy.