Those Who Really Get It And Those Who Really Don’t

One of the things that I have noticed over the years, but haven’t really addressed in this blog, is how certain professions seem to be rather extreme in their “red pill” or “blue pill” viewpoints. By that I mean that members of this profession are rarely “in the middle” when it comes to their understanding of human nature. They either really get it, or they are completely clueless about it. The two that come to mind right away are cops and priests.

I have a few friends who are police officers, or are otherwise connected to law enforcement, plus some I know through church. And they fit this profile perfectly. There is one former cop whom I am familiar with who, to best of my knowledge, has never heard of the ‘sphere. And yet he gets women better than almost any non-Spherian I have ever met. Correct observations, correct analysis. The works.

At the same time I have encountered cops who were the biggest White Knights you would ever encounter outside works of romantic fiction. Always blame men and defend women? Check? Pretend women aren’t running wild? Check. And the list goes on. The messed up aspect of all this is that they often would make correct observations. Or at least be exposed to events which should show the truth.

With priests I have noticed the same. Some are very much attuned to “real” human nature, especially of women. And others are the biggest excusers of it that you can find.

I am curious what my readers, if there are any of you left, that is, think of all of this. What are you theories?

My own theory is that people like cops and priests, since they are exposed to the nittiest and grittiest of human behavior, can’t really ignore everything they are exposed to. They have to try and make sense of the madness of it all. But for many, the conclusions reached by a “red pill” analysis are too bitter a pill to swallow. They don’t want to accept everything that comes with a full recognition of reality. So they retreat to the mental and emotional safety that “blue pill” thinking provides. Say what you will, but that kind of mentality demands much less of a man than acknowledging the truth does. At least, that is my operative theory.

 

Incentive V. Motive Force

I recommend that my readers, if they haven’t already, read Dalrock’s two most recent posts: “Headship makes all the difference”  and “Incentives matter.” There is an important point or clarification that I think should be made here, especially with regards to the first post.

People like Gilder believe that women civilize men. Another way of putting it is that they feel that women are the motive force which pushes men to become civilized. Women push, and men are moved. This is not at all how it works.

Rather, women can act as an incentive to men to civilize. However, it is men who civilize other men. [And women too, while we are at it- but that is for another post.] And the approach used, if one wants to succeed, is always the tried and true method of the carrot and the stick.

The stick takes the form of punishment and discipline. Discipline must be taught, must be encouraged, and perhaps even beaten into a man growing up. Without it he will revert to his “factory default setting” and become a thug. [At the same time it is possible to go overboard and beat out the masculinity from a boy- in which case he doesn’t truly become a civilized man at all, as he is not a man.]

The carrot, however, can be a couple of things. Respect being one of them. Access to a good job and position in society being another. But the most powerful carrot is the promise of a woman… and with her a family. The promise of locking down a loyal woman, and the attendant sexual access that comes with it, is a powerful incentive for men. The kind of incentive which will make them endure the “stick” and become civilized.

However, as others have pointed out, that only works if the carrot is edible. When women are no longer seen as marriageable, when men no longer see them as ‘worth the effort’, then it all falls apart. Without the carrot, men won’t finish the “civilizing” process. It seems that there are two primary outcomes from this: they resist the discipline, and becomes thugs, or they  simply endure it as long as they have to and then become the so called “grass-eaters.” Either way, the fail to live up to their potential and the civilization they live in suffers for it.

This is something that used to be understood in the past. Unfortunately our society has thrown it out, along with so many other necessary bits of knowledge. As things continue to fall apart, I anticipate efforts will be made to try and address this. There might even be an effort to seek out what was lost. But I do not anticipate any actual solution happening- society won’t want to give up what it has “gained” for itself.

Trust Issues

Today’s post will tag along with my previous post, found here. It was prompted by the following comment, left by a man named Cem:

A lot of perspectives in this particular site revolve around Christianity while other RedPill venues focus on short term gains such as “bang”, “lay” etc. I want for myself to apply a moral but also sharp RedPill understanding in order to secure a marriage with a worthy girl. For religious reasons, I refrain from sex since it’s before marriage forbidden in my belief. I am Muslim and 30 y/o. That being said I study RP for more than 5 years tracing it back to the Mystery and Neill Strauss’ book, and have considerable experience of day-time pick-ups and dates. Only difference is that my efforts don’t lead to bed, as my choice. While some argue that this is not game at all, I can say that I garnered enough understanding about the ways of women (not just in intersexual dynamics but also other social areas) and that this discipline opened my naive eyes. Five years ago, I’d never have thought that taking an engaged woman home would be so easy. However, now I see every woman as a conniving covert-whores who spread their legs after enough gaming, and can’t trust any woman’s loyalty. How does a man get past this?

To begin with, I am glad to see my readers come from a variety of backgrounds. Different perspectives add a lot to the blog.

A few thoughts came to my mind after reading Cem’s comment. The first was that it was interesting to see a Muslim back up the writings/reports of secular, Christian and Jewish men (I don’t know of any major ‘spherian’s who are Muslim, if one is let me know in the comments below. The second was to note that Muslim men can, just like Christian men, choose to learn without giving into sin. The final bit was that distrust of women is universal- which really shouldn’t have been as surprising to me as it was. But enough about all that. What I want to talk about is this part here:

However, now I see every woman as a conniving covert-whores who spread their legs after enough gaming, and can’t trust any woman’s loyalty. How does a man get past this?

This is tough. Real tough. It doesn’t matter what your faith tradition is, women are still women. And when they are allowed to act as they are in the West, the vast majority will choose to use that liberty for license. That is the thing about the modern era: we have allowed women to act like they’ve always wanted to act throughout history. Women haven’t really changed, or at least, their nature hasn’t. What has changed is the social environment in which they find themselves.

This is my fancy way of saying this simple and ugly truth: Women weren’t really any more trustworthy in the past than they are now. My previous post showed some examples of 2000 year old+ thought on how far you could trust women to keep their legs shut.

So how do you deal with it? Well, here is my advice to Cem, and to other men who worry about trusting women.

• The possibility of betrayal is part of the human condition. Only God is trustworthy, everyone else can betray you and one shouldn’t be surprised to find oneself betrayed. Family, friends… it can be anyone. Accept it, and don’t let fear of it get you down. Instead vow to be stronger than your fear.
• Not every woman is a harlot. There have always been some who have showed restraint, whether in permissive cultures or restrictive ones. Even today some women don’t sleep around. The goal of any man intending to marry is to look for those women. And don’t marry if you don’t find one.
• You can reduce the chances of betrayal by being in an environment which discourages and penalizes such behavior. Stack the deck in your favor by leveraging whatever you can against her betraying you.

Will this resolve the uncertainty forever? No. But it will help give some peace of mind. The truth is that this world will always carry with it risks and disappointments. That cannot be stopped. Instead we must do what we can to get the odds in our favor.

Toxic Femininity

These days we hear plenty about so called “Toxic Masculinity.” The phrase is naturally enough a ruse- the whole point of it is to tar all masculinity as toxic. Its goal is nothing more and nothing less than to eradicate all signs of masculinity from the public sphere.

Rather than go into a full on rebuttal of this distorted thinking, I want to take a different tack today. I want to talk about the possibility of a “Toxic Femininity.”

What would such a thing be? What would it look like? How would it manifest?

---

As Dalrock and many others have pointed out for years, there is a massive wave of female rebellion going on in the West. Such a rebellion has likely not been seen in all of recorded history. And this rebellion is manifesting itself in some truly ugly ways.

What I want to explore is which feminine behaviors have become toxic in the west today as a result of that rebellion. And I hope that my readers can chip in and help out too. There is a lot of truth to the old saying that many hands make light work. So hopefully my readers will offer their thoughts in the comments below.

The way I see it, there are a few steps to all of this. They are:

• Identify what constitutes female nature
• Determine those parts of female nature which either are, or can be, destructive if left unchecked
• Identify which of those are now running rampant in the West today

Some things are easy enough to identify- hypergamy, for example, is a major and obvious one. But there is more to be found. I’ve written other posts before which have covered some of these behaviors, but I want this post to be a sort of compilation of all of them. A go-to resource in the future, if you will. Hopefully it will be useful to more people than just myself.

---

Examples of Toxic Femininity:

Hypergamy-

[To be updated as time passes]

 

Power And Control

Zippy has a new post up which demands a follow-up: With great power comes great incontinence. Short and to the point, I am tempted to repeat all of it. Instead I will merely quote what I see as the key parts. They are:

 

• The most primal power of men is violence

• The most primal power of women is sex

• [O]ur society is willing to punish crimes of violence but is not willing to punish crimes of sex

I think it should be readily apparent to all my readers, but I will repeat it all the same-

Society and Civilization can only exist when there are structures in place which control the base, primal natures of human beings. Failure to control that primal nature leads to savagery in the end, and that means chaos. Towards that end, the building and the maintenance of civilization requires that the primal nature of both men and women alike must be strictly controlled and regulated.

For men our most primal power is violence. Thus, to control our primal nature requires the strict regulation of male violent tendencies. Fail to do so, and you have disorder.

For women, their most primal power is sex. Thus, to control their primal nature requires the strict regulation of female sexual tendencies. Fail to do so, and you have disorder.

The problem right now is what Zippy notes- we regulate violence extensively, but not sexuality. The result is that women are now the primary source of disorder in the “Civilized West.” This will not change until sexuality is regulated with the same fierceness as violence is.

Unfortunately, what we see now is that efforts are being made to double down on the regulation of the male capacity for violence. And further efforts are being made to double down on the deregulation of female sexual tendencies. Rollo has a new post  where this is discussed in the context of The War on Paternity. While most previous efforts to ensure paternity in the past have been dismantled, new technology has changed the field. DNA testing means that a man really can be certain, for the first time in history, that a child is truly his. That naturally conflicts with female sexual power. Thus, it has to go. Hence we are seeing increased efforts to limit when paternity testing can take place, and when it can be used to change a man’s situation (legally, at least).

I have some more thoughts I may add to this post as I develop them. In the meantime feel free to comment below.

Tissue-Paper Walls

A few days ago a first time commenter left a comment on an old post of mine, A Must Read Story. There is a small part of her rather longish comment that I want to examine. The key part is in bold:

it’s very difficult to have high self-esteem when you do everything “right” but still have poor luck with the opposite sex, and it creates a very lonely feeling when you follow your values but end up getting victimized for it. Our society is simply set up so that selfish people appear to get ahead–that goes for Chads sleeping with hundreds of women, and the slutty girls having “fun.” Eva is the equivalent of the beta male looking on confused, and just because you can’t imagine a woman sharing that experience with you, doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. In fact, most women are profoundly insecure. The ones who are open about it–like Eva–haven’t learned the lesson that YOU perceive all women to be adept at–hiding their feelings and vulnerabilities.

Most women are profoundly insecure.

That little tidbit is the subject of today’s post. I’ve written on it before, in my post Beta Farming. I explained my reasoning at the time of why women might be insecure. Some of my reasoning:

Much of this insecurity comes from the gap in physical prowess between men and women. We men are much more capable of defending ourselves and imposing our will on our environment than women are- at least at the individual level. But whatever its source, it has a profound effect on female behavior. Women are constantly, and often at an unconscious or subconscious level, trying to alter their environment to make it feel more secure.

Having thought about it more, I can think of additional reasons for female insecurity.  One of them is that women know (mostly at an unconscious level) how vulnerable pregnancy and child-raising makes them. Another is that women, again unconsciously, realize how limited their peak fertility and SMV window is. They worry about optimizing that time, and covering for when they are no longer at their peak. There is plenty of room for speculation there, and my commenters can feel free to contribute.

However, I want talk about how the insecurity should be handled. One of the problems with that insecurity is that ill-intentioned men can exploit it. Often times quite easily. And course, it usually isn’t entirely unwillingly. But exploitable it still remains.

At the same time, I think that this insecurity is something that good men can relieve or buttress. They can, in the right scenario, build up women’s confidence in a positive way. This can help women resist that lure of exploitation or build up a wall against it. Men can supplement the tissue paper or paper mache walls that women may have with walls of stone and gates of iron.

Unfortunately, our society isn’t exactly eager to see this happen. Fatherhood has been trashed, both as a social as well as a legal force. Fathers are essentially powerless to protect their daughters these days, especially when they are older. Likewise, our society does its level best to keep women away from actual good men, who though few in number still exist. Certainly it tries hard to keep women from marrying such men when they are young.

Now, what I am saying gets awfully close to white knighting. I will admit that gives me pause. All the same, I think the argument is potent indeed that strong men are needed to protect women- from themselves. But for that to happen men need actual power to go with that responsibility. Our present cadre of White Knights, especially in Churchian circles, is what you get when you take that power away from men. Men become modern caricatures of Don Quixote, assaulting windmills left and right and ignoring the real threats all around them.

I will leave with two questions I want to pose to my readers.

First, what methods can be used to protect women, assuming the necessary social structure was in place?

Second, if that structure is not in place, how can it be created, or what workarounds can be used if it cannot?

 

Splitting Eros Leads To Disaster

One of Dalrock’s recent posts examines the consequences of the elevation of romantic love to a moral force:

The simple fact is the moment you attribute moral value to romantic love you are creating a rival to biblical sexual morality.  In biblical sexual morality it is marriage that creates a moral space for sex and romantic love (with romantic love not separated from sexual passion).  We have overturned God’s order here, and are now claiming that romantic love is the moral space for marriage and sex.  This is deceptively subtle, and at the same time demolishes the moral meaning of marriage.

…

Passionless duty sex was for marriage, and passion was for adultery.  Courtly love built upon this idea with a twist.  It added a new concept of romantic love, separating out the emotional aspect of sexual passion.  This newly separated concept of romantic love was worshiped and seen as sanctifying.  CS Lewis summed up the concept of courtly love as (emphasis mine):

“The sentiment, of course, is love, but love of a highly specialized sort, whose characteristics may be enumerated as Humility, Courtesy, Adultery, and the Religion of Love.”

What Dalrock is examining here is a situation where Eros has been split in two. As a reminder/refresher, the ancient Greeks believed in several different concepts of  “love.” The three principal loves were:

• Eros- sensual love associated with the body
• Philos- love in the form of friendship that is associated with the soul
• Agapos- the self-sacrificing love that comes from God and is thus associated with the Spirit

Now, Eros is a bodily love. However, emotions are as much of the body as the actual “rubbing together of bodyparts.” Which is my way of saying that Eros properly contains both Romance as well as the actual physical acts of intercourse. Passion and Romance go hand in hand, if you will. Dalrock is making a mistake by calling it “Romantic love.” It is really just the emotional aspect of the love we know as Eros. It is not something separate.

What has unfortunately been going on for centuries now is an attempt to split Eros up into a “dirty” part, sex, and a “pure” part, “romance.” However, no matter how many games you play with this, it cannot be done. Eros encompasses both. Any attempt to separate the two is inherently insane. We should expect that craziness will follow from it. Thus, to me it is no surprise that efforts to separate Eros have helped “break” marriage in the west. We have gone against God’s plan for human beings- disaster is to be expected.

God created Man as a union of body, soul and spirit. Marriage, as an institution/sacrament coming from God, relies on a healthy state of that union. If they are unhealthy, or there is discord, then marriage will suffer accordingly. Marriage encompasses each of these loves, because marriage affects and is affected by all parts of that union. Trying to remove the physical component of Eros from marriage effectively breaks that unity and creates disorder in that man or woman- and thereby brings disorder into the marriage. It affects both husband and wife because in marriage the two become one.

Remember, Man was made for marriage. And by marriage I mean what God intends by marriage. Trying to fit man into anything other than what God intended is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It doesn’t work. Alas, we are seeing the proof of that all around us in the West right now.

Update: I should make it clear that the mistake that I think Dalrock was mistaking was calling it “Romantic Love.” I don’t think he failed to grasp the other parts of my post. One of his older posts in fact notes that courtly love is always sexual.

The Strain

There is a terrible condition out there now that is afflicting many western men.

If not treated, it can lead to a lifetime of suffering, and in some circumstances, even death.

Even worse, many men do not realize that they have it.

What is this awful malady, pray tell?

It is Oneitis.

 

To give it my best try at describing it…

Oneitis is the belief that one single, specific, identifiable person out there is THE ONE for you and you must wait until that person finally recognizes this; that is, that single person is your soul mate whom you must, nay, are destined, to be with and it will become so in the end, despite your soul mate not realizing it at the time.

 

A person with oneitis will forsake all other possibilities and options to be with The One. This “crush” will override reason and can blind someone to the glaring red flags found in their “soulmate.” This is, of course, terrifyingly disastrous for the person with Oneitis. They will endure unnecessary frustration, angst and misery.

This can come about several ways. For one, they will ignore other, better romantic options. Two, they will give more and more power over to the other person if a relationship does develop. Three, they will be blind to the flaws in the other person, even when such flaws should compel a reasonable person to run away.

Now, all of that is descriptive. Here is the prescriptive part of the post:

Readers, Commenters and Fellow Bloggers, warn your male friends and family about the dangers of Oneitis. Tell them that is is deadly, and can and will ruin their life.

Explain that there is no such thing as a “Soul Mate.” It is pagan nonsense. Point out how it clouds reason, and blinds them  to other, better possibilities. Remind them that there are BILLIONS of women on this planet- there are plenty of other options out there. Help them understand that it is highly unattractive to women, and will only frustrate their romantic endeavors.

Do the men in your life a favor, and help cure their Oneitis. The whole world will be better off for it.

The Way We Met

[See update at the bottom of the post.]

I ran across the following story via a friend. Apparently it is part of some Facebook feed called The Way We Met:

“I was best friends with George for 10 years before we started dating. We met in High School and developed a really special friendship over the years. I always felt more comfortable telling George something than anyone else I knew. He became my most trusted companion and we hung out all the time. People who didn’t know us always thought we were dating. When we went our separate ways for college, we didn’t talk as much anymore but our friendship remained just as strong. George was always there for me after every bad relationship ended to help me pick up the pieces. I would often say to people, “I think friends can be soul mates, I really think George is mine.” It was odd how we would say the same thing at the same time and always knew what the other person was thinking. I always knew how much George meant to me, but it wasn’t until after my Mom got remarried that I started to look at him in a different light. The day of my Mom’s wedding I came down the stairs and he looked up at me with a big smile and said, “You look beautiful baby,” and then kissed me on the cheek. I don’t know why but something about that moment has always stuck out so strongly to me. The rest of the evening I kept staring at him and thinking about how handsome he was, what a gentleman he was, and how much I cared about him. We danced with each other all night and I realized how perfectly we fit together. It felt like home. After that, it took a couple weeks of nervous deliberation but we finally decided we wanted to be together. It’s crazy to think that my soul mate has been with me this whole time, I just wasn’t ready to accept it yet.”

There are a couple of images that accompany this. They are side by side for comparison:

Now some of you might recognize these images. That is because I featured them in my recent post, Telling Photos. Now that I have included the text that accompanies the photos we can finally start with the making of sense.

So what do we learn from both of them together? Here are a few things:

• The guy (George), was a beta orbiter for a long, long time.
• The gal (whose name I don’t have), had numerous broken relationships. A reasonable inference can be made that [those relationships, or at least some of them, were sexual, although it is not certain].
• The gal believes in Soul Mates. Ouch.
• The gal’s mom was either a divorcee or was a widow. That is not good news for good ol’ George [if it is the latter].
• They are probably somewhere between 24 and 28 years old.
• George majorly stepped up his attractiveness over those ten years.
• She was somewhat overweight at first, and it seems she has managed to get at least some of that weight off.

[A number of these are red flags. They are indicators of possible problems with her as LTR material. That doesn’t necessarily mean she is poor material, but they should prompt caution.]

Here is the thing- if someone who wasn’t “Red Pill” savvy read this piece, they would probably find it sweet. Those of us who are savvy, however, would probably have an entirely different reaction. I found the story sad, not sweet.

You see, reading the piece and looking at those photos tells me that the woman here wasn’t having issues accepting that she was supposed to be with George. Rather, the problem from the beginning was that George just wasn’t sexually attractive. He was too “Beta”, if you will. Since he wasn’t sexually attractive to her, his other great traits meant jack. However, as the years passed by George grew in confidence, and it shows in that second photo. Eventually his attractiveness grew to the point where she no longer dismissed him as a sexual partner. At that point his other great traits were able to come to the forefront, and before you know it you have this:

“I realized how perfectly we fit together.”

Among other things, this story serves as further evidence in support of Rollo Tomassi’s SMV chart:

What happened here is that the girl’s SMV started out much higher than George’s. However, as time went on his SMV continued to climb and climb. Meanwhile, age has reduced the girl’s potential SMV. However, her (presumed) weight loss had the effect of reducing the effective loss of SMV that she felt. The end result of all of this is that both are pretty close in comparative SMV at the time of this photo.

I mentioned before that I find this sad. The reason why is simple: George is now attractive enough that he can get the attention of decent looking girls (I suspect that while most readers would disagree about the actual number, most would agree that she is at least attractive). Yet what does he do with that newfound power? He goes after the girl he has been crushing on for a decade. A girl with all kinds of baggage (which she freely admits to). A girl whose mother probably was a divorcee. A girl who might very well be reaching her “Epiphany phase,” and thus looking to “cash out”on what remains of her SMV.

George seems like a decent guy, and now probably one with options. He should have focused on younger women with less baggage. Instead he married a girl with more red flags than a Communist parade.

Now that I have fleshed out the rest of this story, I invite my readers to comment further. I believe some good solid lessons can be derived here. Sure, most will already know them, but a refresher course never hurts. Plus you never know, there is always the chance for some newfound wisdom.

*For the record, the couple put all of this out there. They made it public, not me. I am merely commenting on what is effectively a public statement of theirs.

Update: Made a few corrections to try and clarify things; they are in brackets. People came to more conclusions than I was expecting in this post.

Update 2: I wrote a followup post which addresses the problems with this one- In Defense of George.

Prayer, Anger And Peace

In my recent Tradition Thursday post, reader Pedat Ebediyah left this comment:

This is hard.

If we plant truth in our hearts, but see evil men sowing their wares, how can we NOT be angry?

In this wicked generation, when we peruse the landscape, how can we not feel some kinda angst in the face of what we see?

Can I pray and STILL be pissed off?

Elspeth then replied with this comment:

I was thinking the same thing when I read that part. I have prayed and asked God to help me NOT be angry about a thing anymore. Is it better when angry not to pray at all? And what about the command to:

Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: Neither give place to the devil. Eph 4:26-27

Emotions, anger especially, are a dangerous thing. They are often but not always one and the same as feelings. Whether separate or not, they are dangerous because they are associated with our Body. Thus, they are tied to the material plane and the effects of sin. Emotions, if we let them control us, take us away from God.

This is why Jesus told us to let go of our anger. If we go to bed angry then that anger will fester within us, and like a rot it will grow. Over time it will consume us. The same goes for any emotion.

It may be shocking to hear for some, but our faith is one that should eschew emotionalism. Emotions cloud the reason, and thereby allow the Evil One to slip past our defenses. They are a weakness, not a strength. Sure some of them can feel good, such as happiness, but again that and any emotion can be deceptive. Plenty of evil works evoked happiness in their makers.

Instead we should be experiencing/demonstrating the fruits of the Holy Spirit: charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, generosity, gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, self-control, chastity. These are things not of this world, but of the spiritual world. Thus, they are both safer and more fulfilling.

Now, to the specific questions:

Can I pray and STILL be pissed off?

If you are praying earnestly, then your anger should abate. You should not aim to be angry after praying. If you are, then your soul is not stilled, and your prayers ineffectual. I recommend praying aloud this part of Psalm 37:

Fret not yourself because of the wicked,
    be not envious of wrongdoers!
² For they will soon fade like the grass,
    and wither like the green herb.

³ Trust in the Lord, and do good;
    so you will dwell in the land, and enjoy security.
⁴ Take delight in the Lord,
    and he will give you the desires of your heart.

⁵ Commit your way to the Lord;
    trust in him, and he will act.
⁶ He will bring forth your vindication as the light,
    and your right as the noonday.

⁷ Be still before the Lord, and wait patiently for him;
    fret not yourself over him who prospers in his way,
    over the man who carries out evil devices!

⁸ Refrain from anger, and forsake wrath!
    Fret not yourself; it tends only to evil.
⁹ For the wicked shall be cut off;
    but those who wait for the Lord shall possess the land.

(Psalm 37:1-9)

As for this question:

Is it better when angry not to pray at all?

The answer is no. Quite the opposite, in fact. You should pray when you are angry. You should also pray when sad, or afraid, or experiencing any emotion. We cannot overcome the weaknesses of our flesh on our own. Only God can do this- if we allow him, for He never forces his healing/mercy/love on us. Prayer is an important component of this. You should pray to your Father in Heaven that He give you peace; that you might no longer be troubled.

The Psalms are an excellent source of such prayers. Another that I might recommend would be Psalm 62:

For God alone my soul waits in silence;
    from him comes my salvation.
² He only is my rock and my salvation,
    my fortress; I shall not be greatly moved.

³ How long will you set upon a man
    to shatter him, all of you,
    like a leaning wall, a tottering fence?
⁴ They only plan to thrust him down from his eminence.
    They take pleasure in falsehood.
They bless with their mouths,
    but inwardly they curse. Selah

⁵ For God alone my soul waits in silence,
    for my hope is from him.
⁶ He only is my rock and my salvation,
    my fortress; I shall not be shaken.
⁷ On God rests my deliverance and my honor;
    my mighty rock, my refuge is God.

⁸ Trust in him at all times, O people;
    pour out your heart before him;
    God is a refuge for us. Selah

⁹ Men of low estate are but a breath,
    men of high estate are a delusion;
in the balances they go up;
    they are together lighter than a breath.
¹⁰ Put no confidence in extortion,
    set no vain hopes on robbery;
    if riches increase, set not your heart on them.

¹¹ Once God has spoken;
    twice have I heard this:
that power belongs to God;
¹²     and that to thee, O Lord, belongs steadfast love.
For thou dost requite a man
    according to his work.

(Psalm 62)

Finally, remember these words of our Savior:

Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid.

(John 14:27)