Inspired both by Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech’s additions to the Catalog and the discussion on this post at Dennis Mangan’s blog, I’ve defined a new type of shaming language.I pretty much agree with Ferdinand here; while he emphasizes the splitting hairs over what "alpha" and "beta" mean, I would emphasize the confusion of prescription with description. Roissy is the archetypal exponent of game - and to my mind one of the best writers on any blog anywhere - and his blog mixes prescription and description, which a lot of conservatives, reactionaries, and others have great difficulty in separating. (To some of my private correspondents: you know who you are!) We saw this in spades in the game discussions among this blog and others along with Lawrence Auster.
Charge of Moral Degeneracy (Code Scarlet)
Discussion: The target is accused of being morally or spiritually deficient. Examples:
Response: The accuser is guilty of a logical fallacy – the argumentum ad antiquitatem. The moral goodness of an individual or lack thereof has no bearing on the truthfulness of what they espouse. Indeed, many “degenerate” people have contributed to advances in philosophy, science and art. The accuser is substituting blind, reflexive condemnation for rational analysis of the target’s arguments.
- You’re a sexual degenerate.
- You’re an evil, destructive nihilist.
- Your immoral behavior makes you an enemy of Western civilization.
Reading the responses to Dennis’ post, I’ve noticed that all the alt-right, HBDist and white nationalist opponents of game use the same arguments over and over. Beyond ample use of Code Scarlet shaming language (more on the WN side then the HBD side), they claim we’re generalizing the behavior of urban liberal women to ALL women, they consistently confuse description with prescription and they always, and I mean ALWAYS, split hairs over the definitions of ‘alpha’ and ‘beta.’
Calling PUAs "losers" or asserting that they love feminism because it creates the conditions for their craft is - well, you're entitled to your opinion, but it in no way changes the facts on the ground. Furthermore, much of the animosity towards game amounts to a belief that a lot of men should remain voluntarily celibate for a good long while. Feminism isn't going away in our lifetimes, and until the immensely anti-male family court system is radically amended and something done about no-fault divorce, which makes a mockery of the so-called marriage contract, men are well-advised to be extremely wary of marriage.
We've trod this ground extensively in previous discussions.
Allow me to point out what appears to be a non sequitur in Ferdinand's post, namely stating that the "moral goodness of an individual or lack thereof has no bearing on the truthfulness of what they espouse" (true) after mentioning the argumentum ad antiquitatem. The two arguments are not the same.
@ “much of the animosity towards game amounts to a belief that a lot of men should remain voluntarily celibate for a good long while...”
ReplyDeleteRubbish. In a stupid thread on “game” at the WN blogsite Counter-Currents Publishing I stated that, though I’m an atheist, the logical, straightforward strategy to make a catch is to (hypocritically) go to church. The fact is that there are still many traditional women around. In Manchester I met a Bulgarian “princess” studying English there for three months. If I have to make a sacrifice, the church is the place to find them, never Gomorrah! (My favorite phrase of Blade Runner: “That’s not my kind of place”—a bar with lots of Gommorites—which is exactly what the Bulgarian princess told me when I invited her to a typical English pub.)
As to the rest of your post, I’ll repeat what I have said in the parallel post: it amazes me that the believers in “game” never actually responded to my arguments about the Casanova/Abraham paradigm, which by the way I also posted in a thread at Occidental Dissent and the WNs in that blog who disagreed with me at least engaged me addressing my points.
Obviously, the Casanova/Abraham paradigm based on solid science is a refutation of the nasty little decadent ideology worth of the Jewish liberal campaign to undermine the traditional West.
When someone advocates behaviors and philosophies that are degenerate, nihilistic, and destructive, it is not "shaming language" to point that out.
ReplyDeleteWhat we have is a moral degenerate trying to latch onto something positive to spread his message.(PUA latching onto men's rights). It is just like a virus takes over a healthy cell to spread itself.
Dennis, you almost sound like a black man, cautioning your readers against marriage and commitment and heartily approving of a man(Roissy) whose primary goal in life it appears is to fuck as many women as possible. Are you sure that this guy isn't your long lost cousin?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/muskegon_county/Dad-of-23-gets-prison-for-non-support
I bet this tremendous alpha male could teach even Roissy a lesson or two.
Meanwhile, those geeky betas man are just slaving away at elite colleges educating their minds, becoming scientists and engineers and helping to advance civilization. I hear that there are some men in this world whose primary goal is to make a lasting scientific contribution to human civilization, rather than to maximize the number of women they fuck. The horror!
Thanks for the commentary Dennis, and thanks for pointing out the non sequitur.
ReplyDeleteIt would be more accurate to say that the opponents of game on your blog and others like it are making an appeal to morality - rejecting the gamist arguments merely because their proponents live and/or advocate immoral lifestyles. In conservative circles, though, morality is usually associated with what is traditional. I should have fleshed this out more thoroughly.
What some people miss is that guys used to be much better at 'game' than they are now. It was a generation that lost game (influenced by feminist nonsense), and is now getting it back.
ReplyDeleteDon't blame women for wanting to not be with wuss-bags.
Having said that, the alpha-beta conceptual confusion isn't splitting hairs. It's one of the main concept in 'game' circles, and I have never been able to get a consistent answer to what it means.
I do understand that some guys are confident, and some guys aren't. Some guys have emotional and social strength, and other guys don't. I *think* this is what 'alpha' is supposed to mean ... most of the time. But then I read stuff that makes it out to be something different.
My main objection to 'game' is that it tends to focus on ways to pretend one has confidence or strength, instead of actually going out and creating strength. This is then used for short-term relationships where the female is 'tricked' into thinking one is someone one is not. This ties into promiscuity, and hence there are moral objections to lots of 'game' techniques on multiple levels (it cheats oneself, it cheats the woman, it worsens society).
Actually creating emotional strength often takes a lot of time, and involves focusing on things other than girls. It involves becoming emotionally mature. These are not things I see in abundance in the 'game' circles I have briefly encountered.
Dennis, I've updated my post to remove the non-sequitur.
ReplyDeleteDennis, you almost sound like a black man, cautioning your readers against marriage and commitment and heartily approving of a man(Roissy) whose primary goal in life it appears is to fuck as many women as possible. Are you sure that this guy isn't your long lost cousin?
ReplyDeleteWhats the matter with warning someone away from a condition (marriage) that puts their health, wealth, and sanity in such jeopardy! What's the matter with wanting to have as many women as possible.....some collect butterflies....Roissy collects tail! And you have to acknowledge that Roissy isn't forcing anyone he's merely allowing women to indulge in their baser natures. A public service.
http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/muskegon_county/Dad-of-23-gets-prison-for-non-support
I bet this tremendous alpha male could teach even Roissy a lesson or two.
You don't see Roissy making these sorts of mistakes. He doesn't want to procreate and hasn't to this point committed any biological indiscretions.
Meanwhile, those geeky betas man are just slaving away at elite colleges educating their minds, becoming scientists and engineers and helping to advance civilization. I hear that there are some men in this world whose primary goal is to make a lasting scientific contribution to human civilization, rather than to maximize the number of women they fuck. The horror!
Good for them! Best to not let the spoils of said efforts get confiscated in a divorce or child custody/support proceedings.
Gamers are exactly as morally degenerate as prostitutes. Therefore, shaming them is exactly as appropriate.
ReplyDeleteBoth gaming (i.e., male promiscuity for status and excitement) and prostitution (female promiscuity for pay) result in civ-destroying outcomes including:
Spread of STDs, scarring of hearts such that marriage and commitment are imposssible, and the ill-conceived (pardon the pun) ooopsy conception of children who will grow up lacking their own set of committed, married bioparents.
"OH, NO, Game can be used to get a wife!" Hmm. Gamers who use the tactics to marry are misrepresenting themselves and victimizing the lady they conned. They are no better than the evil bitches out there who marry, dump, and leave broken and bankrupt the "betas."
You might say the spoiled "8" who got conned deserved it for her excessive sense of entitlement. How dare she expect that what she was led to believe (that you have superior genetics) is true?
Well, flip that argument around: The "beta" man who got conned by the evil bitch, how dared he expect that what he was led to believe (that such a fine example of horseflesh -- er, woman, would love him forever) is true?
No. Prostitution is wrong, whores should be scorned, Gaming is wrong, and Gamers SHOULD be shamed.
The goodhearted "beta" men who are celibate need to look harder for the nice girls. Get out of the nightclubs, and ask your aunt or your landlady or the nice lady you see at the supermarket checkstand to fix you up. Because YOU might not know where the good girls are, but SHE does. And middle-aged ladies LOVE to play matchmaker. We live for this stuff.
Calling PUAs "losers" or asserting that they love feminism because it creates the conditions for their craft is - well, you're entitled to your opinion, but it in no way changes the facts on the ground.
ReplyDeletePUA's either do or do not "love feminism because it creates the conditions for their craft". The "facts on the ground" don't enter into it.
"# Your immoral behavior makes you an enemy of Western civilization. [. . .] The accuser is guilty of a logical fallacy – the argumentum ad antiquitatem. The moral goodness of an individual or lack thereof has no necessary bearing on the truthfulness of what they espouse."
ReplyDeleteFails at logic. Saying morality is not necessarily related to the accuracy of observations is one thing. But it's pretty dumb to try to argue there is some inconsistency in people who care about the future of Western civilization objecting to the promotion of behavior they perceive as damaging to Western civilization.
"Furthermore, much of the animosity towards game amounts to a belief that a lot of men should remain voluntarily celibate for a good long while."
What is the point of encouraging celibate men to dress up like dorks and go try to catch herpes? Personally, I would rather see marriage (or at least marriage-like relationships) and childrearing promoted. But, sorry, I can't bring myself to empathize with the plight of men who are "forced" to choose between celibacy or learning "game" so that they can enjoy the type of lifestyle they know they're entitled to (a neverending string of sterile short-term relationships with extremely attractive women).
The vast majority of humans throughout history and prehistory have managed to find mates without special instruction. Basic social skills and a willingness to actually talk to women are more than enough to get you the woman you deserve. If you lack those, work on it. But don't imagine you have a right to bang scores of beautiful women or that learning the secrets of "game" can make this a reality.
"until the immensely anti-male family court system is radically amended and something done about no-fault divorce, which makes a mockery of the so-called marriage contract, men are well-advised to be extremely wary of marriage."
I agree the laws need to change. But, in the meantime, it makes no sense for a conservative to argue that men should stop reproducing and pursue hedonism. Life is not without risks. Yes, the paranoia spread by "MRA" and "PUA" types is not entirely without basis: if you get married, there's a chance your woman will cheat on you, lie about you to the police, divorce you, and take all your money. I don't care. Do it anyway. If you manage to get 2.1 kids out of her before that happens, you have done your minimum duty. The future belongs to those who show up, as they say.
Why compare promiscuous men with prostitutes? So promiscuous women can get a pass? A women who seeks out sex for status and excitement is fine apparently. Whores and promiscuous men are a danger to civilization (despite the presence of both in every civilization in history), while licentious women, a historical rarity (and a modern rarity outside of the so-called civilized world)
ReplyDeleteWell, flip that argument around:
Why would I flip arguments around? To be fair? I don't give a fuck about fair, because I'm not a pussywhipped liberal. There is another term for 'double-standard'. Reality. Men and women are not equal. The same standards do not apply to both. Attempting to shame men into relative chastity is foolish, ineffective, and only benefits sluts who go about business as usual with less and less social heat for it every day.
If you don't want men taking pussy down off the shelf for free, that is entirely the perogative of women who put it up there in the first place. It has never been shameful for men to fuck willing females. The bar on the kind of fleshmarket we have now has always been to restrict the license of women.
>>My main objection to 'game' is that it tends to focus on ways to pretend one has confidence or strength, instead of actually going out and creating strength. This is then used for short-term relationships where the female is 'tricked' into thinking one is someone one is not. This ties into promiscuity, and hence there are moral objections to lots of 'game' techniques on multiple levels (it cheats oneself, it cheats the woman, it worsens society).
ReplyDeleteActually creating emotional strength often takes a lot of time, and involves focusing on things other than girls. It involves becoming emotionally mature. These are not things I see in abundance in the 'game' circles I have briefly encountered.<<
One always needs courage and strength in life; sometimes you have them, sometimes you don't. If you don't, you have to fake it as best you can. And the faking is itself an honorable thing. Countless men have gone into battle with hearts racing, hands trembling, but faces composed.
I don't think any promoter of game would dismiss personal development, but you can't fix all your shortcomings.
Chechar -
ReplyDelete"the Casanova/Abraham paradigm"
It's not relevant. You are confusing two different matters here. There is 1) the ability to be attractive to women, and 2) the use to which it is put. Being a Casanova falls under 2. Having the opportunity to make the choice at all between Casanova and Abraham depends on 1. Without 1, the choice never even presents itself. This is the crux of the matter. This is what a multitude of young men either don't understand or are slowly figuring out: the behavior they have been taught to engage in deliberately precludes their even having the choice.
When you take away the very opportunity to choose virtue, you take away virtue as well.
YS -
"you almost sound like a black man, cautioning your readers against marriage and commitment"
Marriage in the old style is one thing. Marriage under the present legal regime in the United States is named the same thing but is entirely different. It is that second thing that is lethally dangerous. If you do not understand this you should shut the hell up until you do.
JSM
"shaming them is exactly as appropriate."
Here we go, a woman advocating shame as though it means anything. WHAT A SURPRISE.
@Thras,
ReplyDelete"One always needs courage and strength in life; sometimes you have them, sometimes you don't. If you don't, you have to fake it as best you can. And the faking is itself an honorable thing. Countless men have gone into battle with hearts racing, hands trembling, but faces composed."
This IS strength.
Game attempts to accomadate the whims of female behavior, traditionalist, the alternate right and white nationalist (or whatever you will) believes that the accomadation of sexual whims leads to disorder and social ruin.
ReplyDeleteOvid did not save the Roman Empire, nor will Roissy save America.
What some people miss is that guys used to be much better at 'game' than they are now.
ReplyDeleteAn alternate hypothesis is that being a provider used to work.
"Attempting to shame men into relative chastity is foolish, ineffective, and only benefits sluts who go about business as usual with less and less social heat for it every day."
ReplyDeleteHow does attempting to shame men benefit sluts? Wouldn't successful shaming *reduce* the number of men available for her to work over?
There IS a double standard, I agree. Men want to sleep around and women, really, don't. That's why hooking is the World's Oldest Profession. That's why SHE is the seller and HE's the buyer, instead of vice versa. (That's why gigolos are far, far rarer than streetwalkers.)
The relative chastity among "betas" is not, at least according to the evo-psych, HBD'ers, not due to *my* shaming, but the evolved instinct of young women to find the best genes (defined as "alphas") to be impregnated by that they can.
But humans ARE capable of overriding their animal instincts and make choices that are better for the long-term. (Which is why most provider- betas do eventually marry and impregnate their wives.)
K(yle) I'm on your side, really. You are young, hot blooded. It's tough out there. I understand. But hangin' with sluts and getting easy pussy hurts YOU, just as drugs do, makes you jaded, makes you stop looking for a good girl to make a family with, scars your heart because you've come to believe, from too much time spent with the hussies, all women are like that.
"If you don't want men taking pussy down off the shelf for free, that is entirely the perogative of women who put it up there in the first place. It has never been shameful for men to fuck willing females. The bar on the kind of fleshmarket we have now has always been to restrict the license of women."
ReplyDeleteHow about both? Bring back the shame of out-of-wedlock sex. (And, yes, men were shamed. They had "shotgun marriages" imposed upon them.)
@ “It's not relevant. You are confusing two different matters here. There is 1) the ability to be attractive to women, and 2) the use to which it is put. Being a Casanova falls under 2. Having the opportunity to make the choice at all between Casanova and Abraham depends on 1.” - Rollory
ReplyDeleteOf course. But the obvious point, as mentioned in the other thread is that, as Stefan Zweig put it a hundred years ago, “every Jack had his Jill” in Paris: which reminds me that our Gomorrean culture is pretty hostile for traditional, hetero relationships.
Let us not blame today’s Jacks, blame Gomorrah instead. As n/a said above, s/he “would rather see marriage (or at least marriage-like relationships) and childrearing promoted”.
I don’t see family values promoted in the game blogsites. Just the opposite: they promote suicidal Gomorrean lifestyles. Among the far-extremists proponents of game I even see something like chest-beating haughty gorillas or ostentatious deep-red chests so common in other male monkeys with harems. Such Neanderthal behavior will hardly save our civilization from the ongoing, all-out liberal assault.
A few passages of Zweig’s The World of Yesterday, who wrote about what he saw in Austria and Germany during the hyper-inflation years between the two world wars, might be germane with what I’m trying to say:
“Cheated the mothers who had sacrificed their children, cheated the soldiers who came home as beggars... Small wonder, then, that the entire youthful generation looked with exasperation and contempt at their fathers... the new generation lost every trace of respect. Homosexuality and lesbianism became the fashion, not from inner instinct but way of protest against the traditional and normal expressions of love... The comprehensible element in everything was proscribed, melody in music, resemblance in portraits, intelligibility of language; the dance saw the waltz replaced by Cuban and Negro forms... At last youth’s vengeance against the world of parents raged itself out triumphantly.”
After the forthcoming Economic Crash we’ll need a new Caesar (i.e, a Franco or a Pinochet) in each Western nation, and that means the need of turning the clock back as to sexual mores are concerned.
"a hundred years ago, “every Jack had his Jill” in Paris: which reminds me that our Gomorrean culture is pretty hostile for traditional, hetero relationships."
ReplyDeleteRight. You can not rely on that in the present environment. If you could - if society was still enforcing such values as part of the general structure in which we exist - none of this discussion would be necessary. It is only happening BECAUSE society has been breaking down and returning people to a state of uncivilized nature. Pretending we are still living in a civilized society when we manifestly are not is just no good. It will lead you nowhere. Returning to a condition where we ARE in such a society is a worthy goal, but we can not simply assume it into existence.
"I don’t see family values promoted in the game blogsites. Just the opposite: they promote suicidal Gomorrean lifestyles."
They promote two things: the lifestyle, and the knowledge required to enable it. Again, this is 1) ability and 2) goal. One can disagree with their goals while finding utility in the knowledge.
Anyway it's not just the hedonists. Vox Day for one - who is a pretty hard-line Christian - repeatedly links to Roissy with comments approving of the fundamental truth of what he says about female nature. Vox would never advocate the Roissy lifestyle. But he can separate the knowledge from the choices it gets used in, which you still are not doing.
@Thursday,
ReplyDeleteWhat some people miss is that guys used to be much better at 'game' than they are now.
"An alternate hypothesis is that being a provider used to work."
I think both are true. Financial strength was more important in the day, but men also intuitively (or through informal networks, or whatever) had a better understanding of what worked with attraction.
Feminism was feminine not in how it made girls, but in how it made guys. Guys who have consciously or unconsciously bought into this have become screwed up, basically.
One always needs courage and strength in life; sometimes you have them, sometimes you don't. If you don't, you have to fake it as best you can. And the faking is itself an honorable thing. Countless men have gone into battle with hearts racing, hands trembling, but faces composed.
ReplyDeleteAs Anthony says, this isn't faking courage and strength. Faking not being afraid, and doing so successfully, or being scared to death and doing it anyway, are courage and strength.
Faking courage and strength is not a good thing - the only way to truly fake them is to set up a completely "conned" situation - i.e. have an actor pretend to mug your girlfriend and then pretend to fight him off, lie about past achievements.
The only ways to "fake" courage that are not negative actually amount to "not faking."
Also, the claim that Ferdinand Bardamu appears to be making in the passage quoted by Dennis amounts to, essentially, that opponents of game are engaging in ad hominem attacks. This is not really so, because the attacks are not so much labeling the game proponent as "degenerate" and "nihilist" as much as they are labeling his argument "degenerate" and "nihilist." An ad hominem attack winds up being an attack against an argument that is done through attacking the speaker; e.g. you are a bad person and therefore I don't believe whatever you say. In this case, though, the attack is on the morality of the argument; the speaker's moral and spiritual deficiency is only relevant to the extent that it affects the argument they are making, so the attack is not truly ad hominem at all.
As far as the issue of prescription vs. description (aka normative vs. positive), I think that there are two things that Dennis is overlooking:
(a) Most of the arguments against "game" as a positive theory are not that it is a lie, but that it is only part of the truth. It isn't the whole trtuh, nor is it the most important truth in male-female relationships. The ideas of game may be part of the truth, but it is not the part that we need to concentrate on.
It's just like those people who continuously talk about all of the nasty things whites did to blacks and Native Americans. It is true; white people did do a lot of nasty things. But those things should not be seen as the central facts of western civilization.
(b) The rest of the arguments against game are of the normative variety. What offends Lawrence Auster and myself is that Roissy and his ilk are not interested in using his studies of female frailty to restore civilization or to build a better society. His entire idea is about how to use female frailty to satisfy his base urges, "getting his kicks in before the whole s**thouse goes up in flames" to quote Jim Morrison."
What offends me most about Roissy is the attitude he displays here:
As a man who is drawn to both the beautiful and the degraded, my aim is to act as a bridge between conservative men and liberal men, holding the liberal's hand tenderly to the conservative's crotch. I shall bring understanding between the two mortal enemies, and together we shall march into the nearest bar, our minds fortified with the knowledge of women's true natures and our hearts swollen with masculine conceit, and lay waste to that place, claiming battalions of p***y for our own. Without excuse, without apology. Without god, whether supernatural or political.
So he wants to end the conservative/liberal conflict, bring understanding between the two sides, in order to achieve our common goals as humans. And he cannot think of a better goal to dream of than getting laid.
@ “Ovid did not save the Roman Empire, nor will Roissy save America.” – kataphraktoi
ReplyDeleteThanks Kataphraktoi. What I believe you said it in a nutshell.
I don't have a problem with game. In fact, I have endorsed the idea of white racialist men doing all they can to make themselves competitive in the sexual marketplace.
ReplyDeleteWhere I diverge with the gamers is not with the game itself, but how they employ it. You have people like Roissy calling guys who get married and raise big families as "loser betas" and then calling people who have lots of commitment-free sex, often times leaving bastards in their wake, as "alphas". I am morally opposed to this behavior, especially considering the demographic and cultural crisis we are in.
I could care less about you being proud that you're "getting some". What I care about is the end result. And if you're going to call people who are the backbones of civilization trying to raise the next generation of white men and women losers and betas, yeah you're going to get some flack for it. There is nothing "anti-male" about it and no amount of this reverse psychology is going to make these fundamental criticisms go away. (I'd like to actually see the game people try to rebut the moral arguments instead of getting haughty and snobby about it).
It seems that every time we try to have a rational argument over this, the pro-game side of the argument gets shifty about what "alpha" and "beta" means as a way of evading debate. That is why I have called for consistency in the terminology. It isn't splitting hairs or being pedantic.
I'd expect better from people who, when talking about HBD topics, don't have the same problems with consistency and academic rigor when talking about racial issues, genetics, and etc. I don't think it's too much to ask or at all unfair. If, as the game crowd likes to claim, this is all scientific, then act like scientists instead of scorned women.
@Anonymous at 5:29pm,
ReplyDeleteWell said.
Dennis gets it. One consistent trait of the anti-game crowd is a lack of nuance. They take the biggest outlier and peg that as the average (ex. Yan Shen). There seems to be no gray area, any positive statements about game makes one a PUA hell bent on destroying Western civilization and re-enforcing feminism. How acting masculine props up feminism I haven't quite figured out yet. Let me be clear about my own beliefs. I am not a PUA, and I don't live the Roissy lifestyle. I agree that monogamy and marriage are the way to go. That being said I think a young guy can learn game techniques to attract women, which will help him find a good woman to settle down with. So what's wrong with that?
ReplyDelete"I agree the laws need to change. But, in the meantime, it makes no sense for a conservative to argue that men should stop reproducing and pursue hedonism. Life is not without risks. Yes, the paranoia spread by "MRA" and "PUA" types is not entirely without basis: if you get married, there's a chance your woman will cheat on you, lie about you to the police, divorce you, and take all your money. I don't care. Do it anyway."
I'm always suspicious of ideologues, even ones I agree with, because the ideology always comes first. This statement shows this clearly. It's always easy to tell people what they should do when there's no negative consequences for the proselytiser.
I'm happy to debate/argue/talk with the opposing side as long as it's a give and take based on solid arguements. If you have nothing to offer but name calling and snark then don't bother because it's a waste of my time and yours as well.
As a man who is drawn to both the beautiful and the degraded, my aim is to act as a bridge between conservative men and liberal men, holding the liberal's hand tenderly to the conservative's crotch. I shall bring understanding between the two mortal enemies, and together we shall march into the nearest bar, our minds fortified with the knowledge of women's true natures and our hearts swollen with masculine conceit, and lay waste to that place, claiming battalions of p***y for our own. Without excuse, without apology. Without god, whether supernatural or political.
ReplyDeleteA lot of aspergery people seem to read this passage a little too literally and miss the humour in it. Roissy, like most great writers, is a master of irony.
This quote from S.G. Belknap's great essay on game is apposite:
ReplyDeleteAnd even if this practice can still be criticized . . . there are many cases in which the pickup artists end up on top plain and simple: pursuing the same ends as the rest of us, just doing it better. When two people have met each other and enjoyed each other’s company, when should they call each other again? What should their emails and text messages say? Should they go to dinner? Try to run into each other? The pickup artist knows the answers to these questions, knows how to act in each of these situations in a way that is more elegant, more confident, and more advanced than the ways we act—in a way that is, simply put, more effective.
http://www.thepointmag.com/archive/love-in-the-age-of-the-pickup-artist/
Roissy's definition of an alpha male is pretty self serving, but I don't know how that negates his insights into male-female relationships.
ReplyDeleteIn any event, I explain the different senses of the term alpha male here.
Well, I admit that haven't read much Game stuff (I don't like it for the reasons that Anthony spelled out above, i.e. it's encouraging men to be fake [no, I don't like it when women are fake, either]), but when Ferdinand says this...
ReplyDelete"they claim we’re generalizing the behavior of urban liberal women to ALL women"
...I have to say that that seems like an accurate claim.
Look at the quote from Roissy here in this comments thread...
"...our minds fortified with the knowledge of women's true natures and our hearts swollen with masculine conceit...."
I don't see any cavaet there about urban women. Nor in K(lye)'s comment...
"If you don't want men taking pussy down off the shelf for free, that is entirely the perogative of women who put it up there in the first place."
Nor in Rollory's comment...
"the ability to be attractive to women."
These examples further confirm my impression that Gamers think they're talking about all women, not just urban women (or, as I like to think of the sort of women they're talking about, sluts).
Rather than debate the merit of fatalist D'anconia-nism... which Game-inspired futurists might or might not whole-heartedly endorse... why don't Auster's Virginal Crusaders admit that women like men who demonstrate Value, display Attractive traits, establish Comfort, and encourage Qualification (insofar as: what can you do to 'please' me?), and accept these processes as scientific proofs?
ReplyDeleteAnti-Game conservatives should expand themselves under such a premise if they would be taken seriously.
I don't understand any of these comments.
ReplyDelete@Cannon's Canon,
ReplyDelete"admit that women like men who demonstrate Value, display Attractive traits, establish Comfort, and encourage Qualification"
Is it not a tautology to say that women 'like' (are attracted to) attractive traits?
A lot of aspergery people...
ReplyDeleteNice.
...seem to read this passage a little too literally and miss the humour in it. Roissy, like most great writers, is a master of irony.
I must have also missed the humor when Roissy described in graphic detail, including the use of a blade, how to simulate a rap experience in order to heighten sexual gratification with one's partner. And when he described in the most gruesome terms his unconscious desire to see a disgusting redneck family he encountered on a DC Metro escalator have the flesh shredded from their bones as the descending steps merged with the floor. Or the time Roissy approvingly cited, as an excellent example of game, a reader's successful effort to convince his girlfriend that he believed she was cheating so he could break up and go on a gambling trip with his buddies, only to "reconcile" with her upon his return. And when Roissy repeatedly states, triumphantly and defiantly, that god doesn't exist, the body has no soul and only rots upon death and there is no justice in the universe except that which we impose on it with our will. I could go on but I won't.
We get it. Women are not attracted to wimpy, squeamish, spineless non-men even though most young men have been brainwashed into thinking the opposite. The marriage and custody laws are skewed heavily against men. Monogamy is unnatural for both men AND women. Understood. All of it. We now have numerous outlets on the web to learn about this and yet Roissy still gets significant circulation in "conservative" circles. Maybe I need to be more nuanced in my thinking.
That's "...simulate a rape experience".
ReplyDelete@ “I don't understand any of these comments.” - Rick Darby
ReplyDeleteIt’s because it’s a threaded discussion of a discussion started in other threads and in other blogs. In a nutshell, it’s about haughty chest-beating gorillas and ostentatious deep-red-chest monkeys that, inverting elemental reality, fancy their harems as “alpha” behavior and look down to our traditional family values. They call us “virgins” even if we have lots of kids in a traditional setting.
Elsewhere I noted that pop music—actually noise pollution—is everywhere: in the shops, hairdresser stores, cafes, restaurants, public transportation, business waiting rooms, on-hold telephone signals; and that just by listening to it I “know” for sure that the West is committing cultural suicide. When Solzhenitsyn visited the U.S. he said something similar, but no one understood him. He also said he preferred Franco’s Spain than the France of the 1970s, but no one understood him.
Music is only one of the psychological markers from which Lot (son of Abraham’s brother Haran) could know if a culture is degenerating. Another marker is sexual mores.
This family scene with the Von Trapp family, which took me a while to upload to YouTube (it’s heavily copyright protected), is the antithesis of the current degeneration. It conveys why all and each one of us who identify with traditional culture in our civilization must fight. Yes: it’s a Hollywood idealization of Salzburg, but since I have just re-read The World of Yesterday, which recounts how the REAL Salzburg was, Zweig’s own town, I see no harm to make a point with an image from one of the most beloved films by female westerners before our the culture degenerated even further.
Not to mention Plummer and Andrews dancing the Ländler. Every time I see it, albeit in homely mini-screens so far from those great old theaters of yore, I can only think of its antithesis: the heinous “disco” dancing and the game playing of today through which, compared with the elegance from a bygone era, makes it all-too evident that the westerners have lowered to truly Gomorrean cultural nadirs.
If Zweig resurrected from his grave and watched those Casanova-like lifestyles, it would be obvious for him that those who are fond of it are in their final stages of civilizational exhaustion, cultural suicide and spiritual death.
Petronius did not save the Rome, nor will promiscuous gamers save America.
Roissy is a master of hyperbole too. He is very good at baiting those who are easily baited. And they fall for it. Every. Single. Time.
ReplyDeleteThe most effective critiques of Roissy tend to come from those who are at least somewhat sypathetic to him, like Ferdinand Bardamu or Jacob M. (Hermes). Roissy, massively gifted and insightful as he is, is a broken human being. So are many geniuses.
Roissy is a master of hyperbole too.
ReplyDeleteThen there was the time he explained and defended the instance in which he hit the girl he was dating at the time, not from self defense but as a disciplining tactic.
Roissy is a master of hypnotizing people and leading them into his Hades. And it works on those with weak minds.
Eileen:
ReplyDelete"Well, I admit that haven't read much Game stuff"
Right.
"These examples further confirm my impression that Gamers think they're talking about all women,"
That right there is the POINT.
Women think "of course it doesn't appy to me". But it DOES. Even the very well-brought up, self-controlled women, who are completely aware of how they should behave and have the self-awareness to not give in WILL be affected by the behaviors under discussion, even if it isn't anywhere near enough to get her in particular into bed - but she WILL notice, and if the man does it right, low-key, with awareness of her being a "hard target" and that he's not getting any quick gratification out of her and shouldn't be trying for that, she WILL view him in a more favorable light.
It does work. Even on you. It works for the EXACT same reason that a man likes a woman with creamy skin and round breasts and a narrow waist and swelling hips.
You can see the principles discussed under the heading of "Game" at work in Jane Austen, if you know what to look for.
I know you don't believe it. It is really hard to believe until you see it in action experimentally. I have done enough of my own tests of this stuff to be absolutely convinced. I was insulted and furious and disgusted when I first came across this stuff too, but one thing I do believe in is experiment, and in changing my mind when the experiment tells me I am wrong. You don't know much about it by your own admission and reject it without knowing what you are rejecting. You very literally do not know what you are talking about. That is why you should not be commenting on the matter.
Chechar -
"In a nutshell, it’s about haughty chest-beating gorillas and ostentatious deep-red-chest monkeys that, inverting elemental reality, fancy their harems as “alpha” behavior and look down to our traditional family values. "
You are rejecting a fact of biology because it offends you, and tossing bad names at those who are pointing it out, without taking the time to think about what or why the argument actually is. You are reacting emotionally, not logically. You still have not confronted the difference between ability and the choice of what to do with it, nor the fact that many many young men have been psychosocially deprived of this ability, one which is essential to the existence of the very traditional family you claim to desire.
You are assuming your conclusion. That doesn't work.
Andrew -
"Then there was the time he explained and defended the instance in which he hit the girl he was dating at the time"
You completely missed the point of that piece. He wasn't defending anything. He was pointing out an observable fact of behavioral psychology, verifiable experimentally both in private life (for those who want to take the attendant risks) and in the many documented cases of domestic violence. Pointing out that something exists does not qualify as "defending" it. It simply exists. It doesn't care how it fits into your moral preferences.
You completely missed the point of that piece. He wasn't defending anything. He was pointing out an observable fact of behavioral psychology, verifiable experimentally both in private life (for those who want to take the attendant risks) and in the many documented cases of domestic violence. Pointing out that something exists does not qualify as "defending" it. It simply exists. It doesn't care how it fits into your moral preferences.
ReplyDeleteYes, Roissy was trying to make a larger point but in setting the scene, if I recall correctly, the word "deserved" was employed. The hyperbolic illusion becomes a reality. I can't find a link to the entry but if you find one, post it here.
@ “You are rejecting a fact of biology because it offends you...” (etc, etc)
ReplyDelete“Fact???” You better subscribe the Skeptical Inquirer and see how hundreds, and perhaps thousands of pseudo-scientific claims are being debunked. Shove under my nose those recognized, peer-reviewed scientific journals like Science and Nature which accept your theories as proven.
Otherwise shut up.
His entire idea is about how to use female frailty to satisfy his base urges, "getting his kicks in before the whole s**thouse goes up in flames" to quote Jim Morrison."
ReplyDeleteThis is basically true. Contra Dennis in the OP, the archetypal exponent of game is not Roissy, but Mystery, who is not a very skilled writer and doesn't give a crap about feminism, no-fault divorce, etc. Yet the main difference between Roissy and the more typical members of the SedCom, including its leaders and most prominent teachers, is that the former realizes that things are going up in flames and that this will, in the long run, be a bad thing for the comforts, security, and prosperity to which we have grown accustomed. The latter are pretty much indistinguishable from any other bread-and-circus-mollified proles whose mental life is sustained by the week-to-week anticipation of Monday Night Football, only they happen to have developed techniques enabling them to successfully get laid.
Roissy's greatest talent is his florid prose style, his knack for an eloquent turn of phrase. He also happens to have been the first, though only an anonymous blogger, to bring the connection between the truths about women's nature unearthed by the SedCom and the other social forces that are destroying our civilization to a significant audience. But yeah, he is not a conservative, doesn't care about saving Western civilization, and will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
Andrew -
ReplyDeleteDo you think no woman is ever capable of being enough of a jerk to merit a slap? If so, that's certainly a position you're allowed to take. I don't really agree with it.
Chechar -
Careful, you're getting angry.
"Shove under my nose those recognized, peer-reviewed scientific journals like Science and Nature which accept your theories as proven."
You mean the same way those same peer-reviewed journals accept global warming?
Mystery talks about this stuff in his book. "Try ten approaches the way I described, then ten approaches the other way, and see which works better." That's the scientific method. You don't need to see the stamp of authority on it to recognize the truth, or to interpret the results.
Petronius did not save the Rome, nor will promiscuous gamers save America.
ReplyDeleteThe thought behind this statement is one that runs, consciously or not, through a lot of the attacks on game. When did anyone ever say that game or PU Artistry was about saving America, Europe, or anywhere else? Nowhere that I can see; I've certainly made no claims close to that. Game is about finding what makes a man attractive to a woman.
Another discrepancy, for lack of better word at the moment, that I see here is that between the notion of game along with its theories of how and why men and women behave as they do, and that of sexual promiscuity. The first does not necessarily entail (ha!) the second, and I think that that's where a lot of rightists get hung up on the idea. Roissy obviously has no problem with promiscuity, but his ideas are still sound, IMO. Besides, the same methods he uses can be used to land a wife. And keep one. The Hawaiian Libertarian guest post about how game changed his marriage very much for the better is a classic.
Screwtape has terrific insight into human motivations and behavior. We can learn a lot from reading his letters to Wormwood. This doesn't mean we should take Screwtape as a role model. Lots of particularly evil people have insights we can learn from---some of the best are Hitler, Stalin and Lenin. Roissy isn't particularly more evil than most people---probably only in the 60th or so percentile range honestly, but he so infuriates many because he is self-aware of such and doesn't give a damn. On understanding the nature of the neurotypical woman, he's got at least half of the truth, which is a lot more than most who have an actual model in their head (most people aren't very contemplative, which makes them a lot more resistant to deliberate societal model-poisoning than geeks and semi-aspies).
ReplyDeletedoesn't care about saving Western civilization
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't go that far. Better to say he cares more about getting laid than saving Western civilization and is willing to sacrifice the latter to the former.
Besides, the same methods he uses can be used to land a wife. And keep one.
ReplyDeleteAy, but there's the rub. I'm willing to lay odds (your pot 'o gold up against my mortgage, say) that you're completely wrong.
Maybe we could use Glaivester as our test case, if he's up for it.
I'd say 1) That Game/PUA will increase your chances of rooting a slut. 2) sluts and marriage are incompatible. 3) A slut may temporarily be seduced into wedlock. 4) Long term though? 5) Mangan hands Hannagan the keys to his Merc, with a boot full of gold bullion and Hannagan lives for 10 more years as drunk as a Lord.
Eileen,
ReplyDeleteI believe you are a biologist or genetist, right? I would appreciate your opinion in this subject. Yes: it’s true that, through the courtship, the female ringdove explodes in excitement if the male coos in the right way; if he bows in the right way, etc. All of her female hormones squirt and she builds a perfect nest.
From a strictly scientific viewpoint (survival of the fittest), Eileen, would you agree with me that the key phrase in the above sentence is to build a perfect nest?
I am italicizing it because it seems to me that the latter-day Don Juanes boast how they use the right buttons to make human females explode in excitement but right after that they cheat the females; cheat themselves, and even cheat their own ethnic group by not building any nest whatsoever.
Yes: the art of wooing a human female is such old wisdom that it appears in the Jane Austen novels. But in 18th century England the purpose of all of that wooing was to breed, right?
A girlfriend told me that while males are turned on by the looks, the females are turned on by the ear (very kind words, etc.). But this doesn’t contradict my criticism of those who promote “game” as they do in the net. If we take the ringdove paradigm, that would be like making the female to explode and then aborting the chicks; or use a bird condom after the female dove accepted the male (which is exactly what’s happening in our deranged race).
Just curious how would you see this controversy from the viewpoint of the survival of our ethnic group. i.e., the main objective for any species?
Incidentally, recently I watched the YouTube video you linked in my blog last February about the bacteria. Very informative, thanks. In that entry you elegantly presented data that refuted Takuan Seiyo on the subject of the clash between two human ethnic groups. It was a great classroom for me.
Yes, there’s an obvious, commonsensical truth in the art of wooing (I use Jane Austen terms; never the f**kg Gomorrean terms like game). But is my “moral” appreciation scientifically right?: that the Don Juanes are degenerate human beings? I am assuming you have read my short post on Abraham and Casanova in my blog.
"1) That Game/PUA will increase your chances of rooting a slut. 2) sluts and marriage are incompatible. 3) A slut may temporarily be seduced into wedlock."
ReplyDeleteAll of these are true. 1) however does not exclude that Game/PUA _also_ increases your chances of attracting and retaining a non-slut. They are both women. They may react differently, or to varying degrees, but they will find at least some of the same things attractive, the same way men find certain things attractive about women.
Rollory said: "You can see the principles discussed under the heading of "Game" at work in Jane Austen, if you know what to look for."
ReplyDeleteSince you know what to look for please explain it to us.
Does Mr Darcy have Game? Wins out in the end but at first was despised. Mr Bingley? What about Mr Bennet?
Mr Wickham though, sure, there's our PUA/Gamer. What a top bloke he is. He had everyone fooled and tried to even seduce his mate and benefactor's younger sister.
According to Game theory though Darcy, Bingley and old man Bennet would be Betas and Wickham is the Alpha. Which says it all, doesn't it, about the way things were and what they are now?
Of course, if you all want to be Wickhams you're welcome to your gains, just don't tell us that you're the "alpha", top dog that is. A dog for sure, but you don't rule the roost. That job goes to the cock who impregnates and maintains the brood.
The only reason "alphadom" has any credence is due to the anonymity provided by large, decadent, Western cities, feeding like a large Paralysis Tick on the lifeblood of the "betas" they deride.
Of course, the law's in your favour which allows you to run your game without any of the traditional, cultural, inhibitors like a good old fashioned beating would have provided. Game doesn't run so well when it's spoken through broken teeth.
I'd be prepared to go a gaol term should one of you "alphas" ever cross my daughters. If more men did the same then we wouldn't have this problem, and that's the shame and the nexus with the "game".
"When did anyone ever say that game or PU Artistry was about saving America, Europe, or anywhere else?"
ReplyDeleteI read Roissy for some time.
He DOES, in fact, maintain that game will save Western Civ. I can't find the relevant quotes, but generally his argument approximately goes:
Feminism has allowed women to no longer require (Beta) providers. Because she can pay her own way and she's anonymous, she is now free to bed the Alpha of her evo-psych evolved desire.
Therefore, today's beta-providers have little chance of attracting a wife. So, OK, Mr. Beta. Here's how to get unmarried sex from modern liberated women: Act like an "alpha."
And then, after some undetermined amount of time of this scenario of men getting even for feminist man-hatred by using them for sex, shrugging and saying, "Ok, you asked for it," the feminists will see the error of their ways and return to acting like bride material ought. Meanwhile, fellas, Enjoy!
To be sure, he does occasionally assert that game can be used to get a wife, but virtually the entire focus of his blog is on helping Betas get promiscuous, uncommitted sex with a better-looking gal than the Beta could without game tactics.
*I* am skeptical that game will get that Beta a wife. Because when practiced as Roissy advocates -- and after all, he's the leader; he's setting the example, and HE's not getting married -- it scars the heart of young men and makes them cynically believe all women are just like the cheap sluts that game has enabled them to "do" -- so he loses his will to find a good girl to wed. -- just as Roissy has.
-- OR, even if that Beta does manage to find and wed that good girl, he may very well have silent chlamydia, picked up from his Game days, to pass on to her, scarring her fallopian tubes and destroying the chance for them to conceive children.
"I'd be prepared to go a gaol term should one of you "alphas" ever cross my daughters. If more men did the same then we wouldn't have this problem, and that's the shame and the nexus with the "game"."
ReplyDeleteThanks, Pat. Thank YOU for being a good dad.
Once again, we can blame the Boomers for being derelict in their duties such that young people are in this mess: They failed to shepherd their daughters and they failed to host the needed shotgun weddings.
Game is both prescriptive and descriptive.
ReplyDeleteIt describes what exists in a Judeo-American culture, and is prescriptive of how best to achieve within that sphere.
The Judeo-American culture is against child bearing marriage and has propogandised in that cause. Feminism and the rise of slutdom is the necessary consequence. Game is a methodology for the male "losers" in that culture to get some of the live snatch on offer rather than relying on hand relief. That is all.
Given that the Judeo-American culture is decidedly against child bearing marriage, and that Game is a reaction within that milieu, it is impossible that "Game" can achieve that which it is not about.
The only way that traditional forms of "Game", where it didn't require articulating as a methodology, because it simply was the way one behaved within a society that reinforced it's culture through law and conventions, is for the traditional culture to re-assert itself.
If one wishes to marry long term with children, one need seek a partner with a concomitant desire for the same. She will come from the same culture as you and will exhibit the character traits of that culture.
If one wishes to "get up to his nuts in guts", so to speak, then Game is for you.
Dennis, you are missing the point.
ReplyDeleteRoissy is probably quite right about the psychology of women and how to appeal to their base instincts in order to win a sexual conquest. And he may have some correct insights on how to win a wife.
However, his writing implies that the base instincts are all that women have. Moreover, marriage should be about more than just appealing to your partner's base instincts in order to keep her - the problem isn't with the insights Roissy has - it is that they need to have more of a context than he gives them.
Most of the posts you have about Roissy seem to lionize the man. I have seen no posts by you that seem to look at Roissy as a very flawed, in some ways sick, individual, who nonetheless brings up some good insights that are useful in context with a broader understanding of humanity.
Pointing out that women have base instincts and how female baseness impacts society is one thing; reducing females to nothing but their base instincts, and operating entirely on the idea of how to use those instincts to get them to perform for you is quite another.
A low key version of game is devastatingly effective with virginal church girls. I speak from experience.
ReplyDeleteExamples of game principles that work well with church girls:
1. Build attraction before trying to establish a connection.
2. Don't talk to women about logical subjects, no matter how interesting. Engage her on an emotional level.
3. Tell DHV stories that portray you as a leader of men, protector of loved ones etc. Incorporate these details into stories that showcase these traits as incidental details. Don't brag.
4. Be cocky yet funny. (This can be done in a low key manner.)
5. Dates should have multiple venues. This builds intimacy quicker by showcasing you in a variety of environments.
6. Stand and sit tall with good posture. Take up space.
7. Ask her to do small stuff for you.
8. Get her to imagine being subordinate to you, even in a dorky fantasy setting, like her being your bodyguard for the weekend.
10. Show you're not intimidated by her beauty by teasing her.
None of the above are remotely immoral and they work for all women. See the Belknap quote I posted above. Lots of game is just general good practical dating advice that no one else is giving out.
Glaivester:
ReplyDeleteRoissy does teach men how to appeal to a woman's sexual nature. But unless you count a woman's sexual nature as by definition base, you cannot say that he merely appeals to her base instincts.
As I wrote earlier, in a quote which Roissy approved, "Game is necessary for a relationship because attraction is necessary for a relationship and game is what creates attraction for women. But it is not sufficient and no one ever said it was."
A low key version of game is devastatingly effective with virginal church girls. I speak from experience.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that you can still speak, proves the quality of your so called "virginal church girls", or, that you're talking out your arse. I'd say the latter.
Give us an example of "cocky yet funny" in both high and low key manners if you would big fella.
Andrew E.'s response here is pretty typical of the Austerite variety of game haters.
ReplyDeleteAuster and his followers are logic choppers. Typical of logic choppers are very bad at discerning context and frequently interpret things by people they don't like in the most uncharitable manner possible.
Anyway, as I wrote over at Ferdinand's, I’d also point out that, for most conservatives, game will forever going to be tainted by its origins among louche seducers like Mystery and Tyler Durden. It will never completely live that down. You can make all the (logically correct) arguments you want about how the origins of game do not negate its insights, but your protests aren’t going to override the primal disgust most conservatives will feel at the men who gave these ideas their birth. The fact that Darwinism has provided strong confirmation of many social conservative ideas has not made it more popular among that constituency either.
Pointing out that women have base instincts and how female baseness impacts society is one thing; reducing females to nothing but their base instincts, and operating entirely on the idea of how to use those instincts to get them to perform for you is quite another.
ReplyDeleteA good point, and far subtler than what usually sends me reeling from casual discussions of Game, namely:
Pointing out that women have certain anatomical features distinct from men is one thing; reducing females to nothing but these anatomical features - even as a rhetorical convention - is quite another.
It may not be immorally offensive, or whatever, but it's atavistic and certainly gross. Can't we just say chasing "women" or, if you must, "sex", rather than "poon", "pussy", whatever? Can't at least conservative adults talk like adults?
I'm not directing this at anyone and I'm not mad because, like I said, it's a rhetorical convention, I'm just saying: why don't we set a new trend?
And just so you know that I'm not "white knighting" if this was a White man's culture, the whores these alphas do over would be forced to bear their progeny and hand it over at term for adoption. The sluts wouldn't get child support, nor would they get welfare. They'd be socially shamed and forced to live on the charity of their own family or "the comfort of strangers".
ReplyDeleteBut as it is we live in a Judeo-American, capitalist/socialist, society where the state cannot adjudicate what goes on the privacy of your home, but the state must pay, via taxation, for the results of those said "private" activities.
But another extension of the "privatise the profits, socialise the costs" milieu in which we live. Gamers are working within the paradigm, as the saying goes.
@ A low key version of game is devastatingly effective with virginal church girls. I speak from experience. – Thursday
ReplyDelete@ It describes what exists in a Judeo-American culture, and is prescriptive of how best to achieve within that sphere... I'd be prepared to go a gaol term should one of you "alphas" ever cross my daughters. – Pat Hannagan
@ Thanks, Pat. Thank YOU for being a good dad. – Just shoot me
Pat (& Just shoot me): you are absolutely right. Thursday’s 10 points would be impossible in the Austen world you referred to above: where decent girls just could not so easily go to bed or even dance with guys unless under direct parent supervision. Did you see my P&P clip from the other thread? In the two parties where Mr Bennet’s daughters met the gentleman, the parents were present.
Gomorrean games can only be played in Judeo-American decadent culture, not in the lands where Lot had large flocks and shepherds.
Thursday’s 10 points would be impossible in the Austen world you referred to above
ReplyDeleteCaptain Wentworth had some game.
Dates should have multiple venues. This builds intimacy quicker by showcasing you in a variety of environments.
Notice that I've just given a brief summary of the plot of P&P.
Good Lord, no one went on "dates" in P&P. They went to chaperoned balls, privately held piano recitals or card playing evenings. One had to have an outwardly acceptable character, have referees of a sort, to gain entre into that social world.
ReplyDelete"Dating" is an American thing. My understanding is that American culture has an entrenched notion that one must be available for multiple "dates", that is one-on-ones, un-chaperoned, with the idea being that one must try out and test a variety of choices from which one selects a partner, for short term, possible longer term assortment.
To the outward eye it seems rather mechanical, but it obviously works, or at least worked. The compunction to "date" is culturally still ingrained, it seems, but with now the added social requirment to engage in some sort of sexual transaction to display ones capacity to sexually gratify, or at least mollify, the other party. A Gamer would play on that social necessity when coming up against so called "church virgins".
As far as I am aware, an equivalent notion of "dating" is not found within Commonwealth countries, possibly excluding Canada. I don't know about Europe.
What you have done Thursday, is give an obtuse reading of P&P from within your own jaundiced perspective.
"I'd be prepared to go a gaol term should one of you "alphas" ever cross my daughters. If more men did the same then we wouldn't have this problem, and that's the shame and the nexus with the "game"."
ReplyDeleteGame doesn't work without a woman's consent. Why don't you just teach your daughters not to be sluts?
Someone high on mushrooms or acid said:
ReplyDeleteut as it is we live in a Judeo-American, capitalist/socialist, society where the state cannot adjudicate what goes on the privacy of your home, but the state must pay, via taxation, for the results of those said "private" activities.
CHILD SERVICES. Divorce. Domestic Violence.
Is it any wonder people are tired of taking people like Pat seriously?
Really, do we care about serious discussion, or is any idiot/liar going to say any idiot/lie with impunity?
A CONservative, CONNED:
ReplyDeleteA good point, and far subtler than what usually sends me reeling from casual discussions of Game, namely:
Pointing out that women have certain anatomical features distinct from men is one thing; reducing females to nothing but these anatomical features - even as a rhetorical convention - is quite another.
That's funny, cause you, and everyone like you teaches every younger man to expect nothing of women, ask nothing, look for nothing but those anatomical features!
Oh, I'm sorry! You say "she should be good without ever giving anything but some lame "goes to church" or "listens to her parents" platitude!
NEVER, EVER something about HOW SHE TREATS THE MAN. NEVER! NEVER! NEVER! OR WHAT WOULD MAKE THE MAN HAPPY!
OR THAT THE MAN SHOULD THINK ABOUT WHAT HE WANTS!
Because God Help Us All if a Husband looks for a certain amount of ACTUAL loyalty or ACTUAL love or ACTUAL sex-drive..... or maybe love of trains..... or anything in a woman!
Meanwhile women make up hundred point lists and the CONservative drools all over himself.
A REAL MAN should only look for:
A.That she has certain anatomical features
B.Does things that the CONservatives want her to do.
The man's opinions, wants, happiness....
THEY CAN BLEEP OFF!
BLEEP OFF!
But NEVER, EVER should a man point out that those anatomical features.... and maybe keeping her legs together... are the ONLY THING THAT CONSERVATIVES TELL HIM TO LOOK FOR.
How about a three point list Men?
Point One can be the CONservative point of certain Anatomical Features.
Point Two her looks score.
Point Three can be something you actually want!
THREE WHOLE POINTS! Such lack of Realism!
Rollory said: "You don't know much about it by your own admission and reject it without knowing what you are rejecting. You very literally do not know what you are talking about."
ReplyDeleteI didn't say that I didn't believe Game works or that it wouldn't/doesn't work on me. All I said was that I don't like what I have read about Game because it advocates being fake, and I hate fake. That is why I reject it.
What I mean by "advocates being fake" is that Game proponents are telling "beta" males -- who would not naturally act like "alpha" males -- to act like "alpha" males. In other words, to behave as something that they are not.
I also said that most Gamers seem to think that it works on all women IN CONTRAST TO what Ferdinand said. He said Gamers only believe/know that it works on urban women. Maybe it does work on all women. I don't know. (And neither can you until some actual CONTROLLED experiments are done.)
Please, learn to read more carefully.
(BTW - I don't care at all if libertine men and slutty women act fake, i.e. use Game or boob jobs or whatever to get laid - I don't care what those people do.)
Rollory said: "Mystery talks about this stuff in his book. 'Try ten approaches the way I described, then ten approaches the other way, and see which works better.' That's the scientific method."
ReplyDeleteHardly.
For starters, a sample size of one (i.e. one Gamer) is not statistically significant. And you'd need some controls, clearly. You might also want to make sure that your theories are falsifiable -- if you're going to call it science, anyway.
Note: I'm not saying anecdotal evidence is not valuable. It's not, necessarily, science though.
Jehu said: "On understanding the nature of the neurotypical woman...."
ReplyDeleteEureka!!
Thursday said: "2. Don't talk to women about logical subjects, no matter how interesting. Engage her on an emotional level."
You would've lost me right there. As many a guy did.
Dennis said: "Game is about finding what makes a man attractive to a woman."
I would say that would depend on what type of woman you were looking for. I have a feeling that Game does work on most women, maybe even the vast majority of women, but I don't think it works on non-neurotypical women, of which I will admit there are very few. I don't have any scientific evidence on which to base this, of course, but I can give you a little anecdotal evidence about myself. ;-)
I am not neurotypical (maybe obviously). Quite early on in my teens I realized that I was not like most women (I'm a geek), nor even like most men (I don't like sports, for instance, or most pop culture stuff). I figured it would be very, very hard for me to find a guy I would like/love and I had resolved to remain a spinster if I had to.
I was never "hot", but I was cute and had plenty of offers for dates (I'm of the pre-hook-up generation, although one-night stands were relatively common in my day). I went on a total of two. Couldn't STAND being out with regular guys 'cause they were just sooooo uninteresting. I gave up on dating pretty quickly.
Like I said, I was never "hot", but I can recall being hit on by three (maybe four, not sure about the fourth guy) "alphas" in the sense that they were very, very promiscuous. I don't know if they tried Game moves on me, but they had no success with me whatsoever -- because they were completely uninteresting to me.
I got lucky. Met my husband at university in my late-20s and we've been together ever since. He's the only guy I've ever slept with. So, I was a very late bloomer, and I'm not religious or anything like that.
My husband and I are both aspergery types and generally talk about very geeky topics. I can't ever recall him positioning himself as an "alpha"-type using any of the Game tactics I've so far seen online. He (like me) is so socially dysfunctional that I seriously doubt he has ever given a thought along those lines.
Having said that. There are, obviously, differences between men and women -- and I know that my husband is the top primate in our house by virtue of the fact of being the guy. ;-) The most inspired post of Roissy's that I ever read (and, again, I've only read about a dozen or so) was the one about hand-holding, something I'd been cognizant of for ages. There's no WAY I could hold my husband's hand in the dominant position! That would just be too weird. :-p That's the way I hold a kid's hand.
So, what am I saying? I guess I'm saying that, yes, obviously, there are difference between men and women and men are much more likely (approaching 100%) to be the dominant individual in male-female relationships and that nearly all women (including myself) have innate behaviors reflecting that. But, not all women will react positively to Game as proscribed by Roissy, et. al. Perhaps all "liberal urban women", but not all.
So, tailor your PU strategy to what kind of woman you're looking for.
Chechar said: I am italicizing it because it seems to me that the latter-day Don Juanes boast how they use the right buttons to make human females explode in excitement but right after that they cheat the females; cheat themselves, and even cheat their own ethnic group by not building any nest whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteOh, nature loves a cheater! Think of the cuckoo bird. Or think of all the camouflage out there in nature. Even so-called monogamous species like swans have what's charmingly called in biology circles "extra-pair copulations."
Looking at survival of the fittest from the point of view of the species ("survival of our ethnic group. i.e., the main objective for any species") is not the right way to look at what's going on. You will be misled in your thinking.
The only thing that matters in nature is the reproduction of genes. Not individuals. Not groups. Just genes. And the genes "don't care" about us -- we are just vehicles for their reproduction. (Sorry for anthropomorphizing genes there -- they, of course, don't think or have any motivations -- they're just being selected for or against according to the circumstances.)
And genes compete against each other within individual organisms, between organisms, and between groups. (Some of them also cooperate, too, of course.) So, in nature, you have these ongoing "battles" of genes trying to be the most fit -- battles at the genomic level, battles between individuals, and battles between groups. For example, a battle between two ethnic groups is just a battle between the different genes found in those two groups, genes which are probably found in differing frequencies in those groups.
So, cheaters will always be found within any group. There will always be libertine men found in human societies because they have some sort of "libertine genes" driving those men to use that strategy to reproduce. Meanwhile, you'll have individuals with other geneotypes -- more monogamous, for instance -- who will battle against the libertine simply because they have a different collection of genes. While you can look at it as a battle between libertine people and monogamous people, it's really a battle between "libertine genes" (whatever they might be) and "monogamy genes" (again, whatever they might be).
But, not everybody in a group can be a cheater 100% of the time. Such a society of any sort of animal would just fall apart pretty quickly. (See here under Theory.) (cont....)
(cont.)
ReplyDeletePersonally, I want to go back to a more monogamous Western society because I think that has benefitted my sort of genes the most. ;-) When the Western world really enforced monogamy across the board, then nearly everyone (i.e. nearly all guys) had an opportunity to marry and REPRODUCE (the most important part of life, biologically speaking), including nerdy, geeky, "beta" male types. I doubt the West would've been as great as it was, creating the modern world as we know it (I'm talking about inventions here and modern science and medicine, etc.) without ensuring that geeks had a chance to reproduce. What sort of society do you get when it's mostly the Big Men with power who get to reproduce? I think we need not look further than the Middle East or Africa for the answer to that question. So, I'm all for getting rid of no-fault divorce and reducing public support for single-mothers and all that.
Chechar said: "It was a great classroom for me."
That was a great discussion thread and I learned a lot from it! I think about that thread quite often, actually. Got to clarify a lot of my own thoughts, which is always very useful. But, I also learned that quite a few Ashkenazi Jews out there believe that they have brought (and continue to bring) civilization to Europeans. I really had no idea! Too many of them really do have a Messiah complex.
(Which reminds me, one of the originators of Game or at least Game-like pick up techniques is Ross Jeffries. Guess which ethnic group he hails from. Also, Mystery's surname, Horvat-Markovic, is potentially Ashkenazi Jewish.)
Pat:
ReplyDeleteAgain, your aspergery little mind seized on the word "date" and just ran with it, not bothering to think about what there is in common between finding a mate in 1800 and in 2010. I am quite aware of the differences in customs between the times and was relying on the ability of the reader to make some reasonable inferences from the context.
Anyway, the whole point of P&P is that Elizabeth sees Darcy in multiple settings.
Mystery is ethnically German with some possible ancestry in the Balkans. Most of the early pick up gurus happen to have been non-Jewish Canadians. Blame Canada!
ReplyDelete"For starters, a sample size of one (i.e. one Gamer) is not statistically significant. And you'd need some controls, clearly. You might also want to make sure that your theories are falsifiable -- if you're going to call it science, anyway."
ReplyDelete...
It is falsifiable (the hypothesis predicts a more positive audience reaction one way and a more negative reaction the other; this is easy to verify), it includes controls (doing things the socially accepted way), and the sample size is the audience, not the person running the experiment. The experiment is repeatable, by anyone who chooses to attempt it, and understands what the experiment is rather than going through the motions formed by preconceived notions.
The rest of what you've written confirms everything I said about you.
Dennis asks:
ReplyDeleteWhen did anyone ever say that game or PU Artistry was about saving America, Europe, or anywhere else?
Well, Roissy has said that Game is what's needed to save the West:
No, the solution is to give the New Girl Order exactly what it wants: Game, and an army of cads that practice it. Force feed the beast until it is choking on its own gluttony. The emissaries of the Great Lie must have the consequences of their ignorance and treachery shoved down their throats. In time, the unabashed pursuit of hedonism and the embrace of Darwinistic nihilism (two potent forces which, coincidentally, happen to have truth and pleasure on their side. Exhibit B: God is dead) will raze the neoliberal monolith to the ground, and from the ashes the eternal human cycle will begin anew, strengthened and revitalized. A complete reconciliation with our tragic destiny gives us the only chance to avoid it.
Notice the connection Roissy makes between Game and nihilism. I must be logic chopping again.
I must be logic chopping again.
ReplyDeleteWell, yes, you are. You just can't seem to help doing it. Is Roissy in that passage actually serious or is he indulging in a deliberately outrageous fantasy?
Is Roissy in that passage actually serious or is he indulging in a deliberately outrageous fantasy?
ReplyDeleteThere are undoubtedly fantastical elements in the passage. For instance, Roissy understands that nothing will literally be shoved down the throats of the emissaries. There is no "beast" literally "choking" on anything. There will be no "army" of cads. But none of this obscures the deeper arguments Roissy seeks to express in the passage about the power of Game and its metaphysical presuppositions.
It almost appears as if you've been gamed into a man-crush on Roissy.
I'm actually pretty critical of many of his assumptions over at his own site. I don't like it when he says stupid things and I don't like it when people say stupid things about him.
ReplyDeletePat,
ReplyDeleteI was raised in three different countries, and of those the one with dating (Canada) was the place hardest to get sex when a teenager. There you were expected to take a girl to the movies, buy her a Quarter Pounder, maybe even meet her parents before one of the dates before you got into her undies/panties. In Northern Ireland (a much more religious and in almost every way socially conservative place than North America) you got the sex first then you considered going out with the girl on a regular basis. Dating is a conservative feature of North American life. Incidentally, I get the impression dating is catching on in the UK with middle class kids. There's no end to America's influence.
Andrew E: It almost appears as if you've been gamed into a man-crush on Roissy.
Judging by this and other threads filled with angry socons it is the anti-Gamers who seem obsessed with Roissy.
How acting masculine props up feminism I haven't quite figured out yet.
ReplyDeleteGamers are not "acting masculine". In a traditional (aka masculine) society, they'd be stomped into the dust. Gamers are just another fungus growing on the rotting tree of Western Civ, just one more symptom of our decay.
@ Who_cares,
ReplyDeleteIt’s unnecessary to resort to insults. I myself have thought about the dilemma that what psychohistorians call “helping mode” of childrearing (social services, child protection, etc.) often ends up, paradoxically, in a noxious form of childrearing (Demographic Winter, Ethno-suicide, etc). The subject is so huge that I wrote an online book about it.
@ Three Things
You could have made your point without so many distracting capital letters and exclamation marks.
@ Eileen,
The way you recount your bio above makes me think you are exactly the type woman that I respect.
The Bulgarian “princess” I mentioned in the other thread was a married woman who treasured fidelity and I liked her for that. An “alpha” Mr. Wickham tried very hard to sleep with her throughout her stay in the U.K. to no avail. Yes: What top blokes Mr. Wickhams are...
“Oh, nature loves a cheater!...”
One of the problems with using metaphor is that one is easily misunderstood. This happened throughout the other “game” thread where almost everybody misunderstood my “princess” metaphor. Of course, I meant “cheating” Nature: having lots of sex without any kid: what is causing the Demographic Winter among Caucasians.
@ Rollory,
“It is falsifiable (the hypothesis predicts a more positive audience reaction one way and a more negative reaction the other; this is easy to verify (my emphasis)
Falsifiability is not about “verifying” hypothesis. It’s about refuting them: refuting hundreds, thousands of them. That’s why I recommended you to take a good look at the Skeptical Inquirer.
Incidentally, I’ve published in that magazine. It took me some time to grasp the logic behind the acid test to distinguish between real science and pseudo-sciences.
@ Matra,
“Judging by this and other threads filled with angry socons it is the anti-Gamers who seem obsessed with Roissy.”
Nope! I have never read a single article of what that guy has written.
Thursday said: Again, your aspergery little mind seized on the word "date" and just ran with it...
ReplyDeleteOooooooooo, cocky yet funny in a low key manner, you've shown me you're not intimidated by teasing me. Take me, I'm all yours Thursday!
You write like you've got a check box card to reference for all human interactions, being unable to intuitively come to human conclusions, and tick off the lines that approximate a non-droid response. Yet I'm the one with aspergers?
Come now Thursday, you can't use your Jedi Game mind tricks on me, the force is strong with this one.
...the whole point of P&P is [not] that Elizabeth sees Darcy in multiple settings... but that first impressions are often deceiving. The whole point of Game is to deceive with first impressions, with the object of cadging a root for your efforts.
If P&P has any reference to Game it would be an anti-Game manual. Wickham was the gamer, who impressed everyone at first sight, and Darcy, the "beta", turned many off with his aloofness.
In the end the cad & bounder was seen for what he truly was and Darcy won the day, and the girl. The novel is also critical of bad parenting, Mrs Bennet, the cause of Lydia's idiocy in accepting a superficial wanker like Wickham. Probably the same goes for your virginal church girls.
So yes, the novel's themes can be applied to modern life, even Game, but it's not all about "dating".
I get the impression that women love these period dramas for the sincerity in male female relationships, something they obviously desire.
btw, I hated that book in High School and dragged my way through it. I much preferred Shakespeare's Henry V. In fact the St. Crispin's Day Speech, prior to the Battle of Agincourt, was often recited (still is) before a Rugby game.
I recommend you look it up and see how real men behave, or at least what motivates them. To the victor the spoils! Oh, unless you're a Judeo-American in which case, you go around inveigling your way into the pants of sluts, or some poorly bred church virgin, and proclaim "I'm the King of the World!".
And PUAs in Judeo-America now-a-bed
ReplyDeleteShall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks...
That's funny, cause you, and everyone like you teaches every younger man to expect nothing of women, ask nothing, look for nothing but those anatomical features! - Three Things!
ReplyDeleteCould you rephrase that a little a bit, so I can figure out who it is you're mixing me up with?
Thursday: Herald of the Dauphin, Roissy.
ReplyDeleteThursday:
"The Dauphin desires thee thou wilt mind
Thy followers of repentance; that their souls
May make a peaceful and a sweet retire
From off these fields, where, Betas, their poor bodies
Must lie and fester."
Hannagan: "Who hath sent thee now?"
Thursday: "The Dauphin of Judeo-America."
Hannagan:
Let me speak proudly: tell the Dauphin
We are but warriors for the working-day;
Our ways and our gilt are all besmirch'd
With rainy marching in the painful field;
There's not a piece of feather in our host--
Good argument, I hope, we will not fly--
And time hath worn us into slovenry:
But, by the mass, our hearts are in the trim;
And my poor Betas tell me, yet ere night
They'll be in fresher robes, or they will pluck
The gay new coats o'er the PUA's heads
And turn them out of service. If they do this,--
As, if God please, they shall,--my ransom then
Will soon be levied. Thursday, save thou thy labour;
Come thou no more for ransom, gentle groveller:
They shall have none, I swear, but these my joints;
Which if they have as I will leave 'em them,
Shall yield them little,
tell the Dauphin.
Pat:
ReplyDeleteI'm beginning to think you just can't read what people write. Response seems pointless.
I want you to meditate on the following sentence of yours and see if you can discern where you went wrong:
So yes, the novel's themes can be applied to modern life, even Game, but it's not all about "dating".
If you figure it out, I'll respond.
How to argue like a Roissy fanboy: Equivocate. Play fast and loose with the meaning of the words "game," "alpha," and "beta." Deny, deny, deny that X, Y, or Z is an integral part of "game," even though on "game" blogs you all agree X, Y, and Z are what "game" is all about. Pat yourself on the back for how "logical" you are. Blur the lines between descriptive and normative arguments. When defeated, use shaming tactics against your opponent.
ReplyDeleteWe wouldn't be having these unending debates if the gamers were honest about their values. Why can't you just be up front about the fact that what you really care about is getting as much casual sex as you can? Why do you feel compelled to obfuscate and pretend that it's about "saving Western civilization"? You have your own pretty lies to which you adhere.
Proposition 1. Females cannot tolerate naked masculinity.
ReplyDeleteCorollary 1. Females oblige males to be dishonest to obtain sex.
Corollary 2. The more powerful the female, the more dishonest the male must be.
http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/theorems.html
I wouldn't go that far. Better to say he cares more about getting laid than saving Western civilization and is willing to sacrifice the latter to the former.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, I see your point. He does seem to have a tinge of real regret over what our society has lost since the sexual revolution. On the other hand, if, when forced to choose between traditional Western Civilization and sexual liberation, he would choose the former, how much can he really be said to care about the latter? Of course, we don't really know what someone would choose until the moment of decision comes.
I second the idea that many here are missing the hyperbole and/or irony in some of Roissy's comments. All the same, there are certain non-conservative ideas he's quite serious about. For example, while I do think he recognizes that the old system was a better deal for the Average Joe, it strikes me that his mantra that "marriage is for chumps" because it sexually ties a man down for life to one slowly aging woman, is about marriage in general, not just marriage 2.0, and is fundamentally serious.
Oops, I switched the "former" and "latter" in my last comment.
ReplyDeleteAll the same, there are certain non-conservative ideas he's quite serious about
ReplyDeleteI would agree with that. Ultimately he's not a conservative.
And there _are_ degenerate things about Roissy. But many of his critics tend to throw the kitchen sink at him and say that his writing contains almost nothing of use to anyone who isn't degenerate themselves. That is clearly false.
ReplyDelete@ Gamers are not “acting masculine”. In a traditional (aka masculine) society, they'd be stomped into the dust. Gamers are just another fungus growing on the rotting tree of Western Civ, just one more symptom of our decay - Severn
ReplyDeleteDitto. And to prove that in a truly masculine society they would be stomped into the dust, let us remember:
@ Wickham was the gamer, who impressed everyone at first sight... If P&P has any reference to Game it would be an anti-Game manual. - Pat
Absolutely. And in another Austen novel, Sense and Sensibility, the “alpha” Willoughby had an odious affair with the Colonel’s ward. Willoughby then abandoned her and left her with his child! When his aunt was informed of this scandal, she, a lady of rectitude, demanded that he make reparations to the unfortunate girl whom he had seduced. When he refused, she expelled him from her estate and also disinherited him.
The 1995 film adaptation of Sense and Sensibility with the famous actress Kate Winslet is pretty good by the way. Every time I watch Edward proposing to Elinor at the end of the film I find myself almost on the brink of tears.
But going back to our guy, Willoughby. As you said above, what top blokes alphas are... However, in our inverted world the fungus growing on the rotting tree are called “alphas”. No wonder why the nationalist site Counter-Currents Publishing (see the right side of my blog for my collection of its best articles) has Nietzsche’s “transvaluation” of today’s “values” as a sort of motto. Oh irony of ironies. Nationalists are using Nietzsche as Zarathustra’s voice to preach a reversal of suicidal liberalism...
Dennis,
Because I wrote it in a rush, there’s a superfluous “the” in my above sentence that you quoted, a “the” that I now eliminate: “Petronius did not save Rome, nor will promiscuous gamers save America.”
Reading Petronius in these interesting times is opportune. I myself have three distinct translations of his Satyricon: the first novel the West produced. And what a game you find there!