Filed under Feminism, Game, Politics, Sexuality, Sociology
The Roissysphere and its moral and intellectual objectives: a proposed manifesto
The ever-inquisitive Posec left this comment on my “Funny People” post:
From the tenor of this piece you clearly have an animus for Sandler’s “morally suspect” alpha character yet you will take mincing betas to task when they end up acting like Rogen’s conciliating Ira. What eludes me is that while you champion game as a salve for society’s ills (and berate conservatives for failing to do so), the adoption thereof would entail the alpha behavior exhibited by Simmons–which you did not heartily endorse–with all the concomitant callousness. If you indeed find such behavior reprehensible, how is this to be reconciled with your touting of an ideology which glorifies it? This is a matter of genuine curiosity–the resolution of which might not be so elusive after all if my conjectures are correct–but what say you?
While writing out my response, I realized that what I had to say on this matter needed to be seen by as many people as possible, so I promised to answer his question on the blog today.
I’ve been helped in this by comments and writings from other bloggers recently. Elusive Wapiti left this comment on the blog last week:
As a side note, I also find it interesting that so many men on a diversity of sites (game blogs, Christian blogs, etc) have come to the same conclusion that underinvested men aren’t a healthy thing for a society. For crying out loud, the social scientists (I use that term loosely) note–and have been warning for years–that the glut of unmarried guys in Asian societies breed discontent, crime, and terrorism. Why would the glut of unmarried guys in the West have any different effect?
Φ of Delenda est Carthago wrote this, striking at the heart of what I want to discuss:
Likewise, an understanding of HBD recommends two different but not necessarily contradictory approaches to the problem of beta sexual impoverishment:
-
On the micro level, betas should learn game (the PUA community); and
-
On the macro level, we must reverse the social policies of the last 40 years (social conservatives).
Personally, I recommend both. I appreciate the criticism that the social conservative program is unlikely, but at least legally and socially enforced monogamy has the advantage of having worked at widely distributing sexual access and, yeah, also sustaining civilization.
Finally, a leftist chickblogger linked to my Sodini post and in addition to the usual accusations of misogyny (or, in her case, “mysogyny”) and getting my name wrong (its Ferdinand Bardamu, honey – get some culture if you don’t understand the reference), she used the opportunity to display her half-assed knowledge of evolutionary psychology and sexuality:
Sexual partners are chosen by women based on, virility, the ability to care, and availability of superior sperm. Are you a virile, stable man who has a superior gene pool? Well, you will get the best women. However, it is also more likely that you will be cheated on. It’s falsehood that women don’t like to keep their options open. It’s not personal, we just want the best genes. If you don’t have them, well I guess you are shit out of luck.
So, according to Dogwoman, being an alpha male makes you MORE likely to be cuckolded. The seduction community LIED to me! Thank Yahweh there’s an obscure grrlblogger with poor spelling and grammar to set me straight.
Men are not [selective], not really. A chance for gene exchange is a chance for gene exchange. Sure they like ‘em young because the chance for continued reproduction is higher but really, they’ll take what’s available in the pool. As often as possible. In the weirdest settings.
That explains why cougars have to force themselves onto men in order to have a prayer of being noticed, something young women, outside of hookers, never do. And why whenever a granny is widowed, there’s never a line of dudes looking to hit that shit.
Female service goes to those who offer the best choice for survival of the offspring.
Funny how the type of men who receive “female service” has changed in recent years. I wasn’t aware that the sideshow freak with the pierced soul patch and fruity pimp hat is “the best choice for survival of the offspring,” or why women only realized this in the past twenty years.
If MF wants to throw some kind of evil man hating plot into it, well, that’s his right. His bizarre UPDATED ranting about ugly middle aged women not being good enough to sleep with tells me that he is probably a Beta male as well.
Not wanting to screw miserable, infertile old hags makes a man beta? Somebody should alert Roissy and Roosh – they’ve been living a lie!
I could go on for the rest of this post, but Dogwoman’s argument boils down to this: the West’s current sociosexual configuration reflects the laws of nature, beta males are supposed to get screwed over in nature, therefore they deserve to get screwed over by our society. The only recourse for betas, according to this logic, is to bend over and butter up. She’s essentially arguing for social Darwinism, which is verboten when talking about blacks or poor people, but is apparently A-OK when it comes to men. Had Dogwoman been alive in previous eras, she’d likely be publishing polemics on why blacks deserved to be enslaved or why Jews deserved to be gassed with Zyklon-B. It’s because Mother Nature wills it!
The issue that I and other bloggers are confronting here is the sexual impoverishment of beta males in the modern West. Western civilization is uniquely superior to all other societies because it was built by and for betas, harnessing their physical and mental power to create advanced technology, stable systems of governance, and economic prosperity. No other civilization – not the Chinese, not the Africans, not the Arabs, not the Amerindians – has ever managed to reach the heights obtained by European states and their offshoots because of this crucial difference. The reason angry ladybloggers can sit on their dimpled derrieres in air conditioned buildings and write blog posts displaying their painful ignorance to the world is because of the beta males who designed and built all of those things. Without them, as Camille Paglia said, “we would still be living in grass huts.”
To benefit betas and keep them invested in society, checks were placed on the sexual behavior of women and the alpha males whom they lusted after. The configuration of marriage afforded betas a chance to procreate, while protecting the women with whom they entered into holy matrimony. In the past four decades, these checks have been annihilated. Using the power of the state, radical feminists initiated a massive redistribution of wealth from the provider beta class to women. Alimony and child support payments, along with no-fault divorce, have annihilated marriage’s value, while welfare state programs such as WIC (Women, Infants, Children) reward women who become pregnant out of wedlock. Put simply, the socialist state has reduced the value of the provider beta to nothing. If provider betas were a corporation, it would have filed for bankruptcy and had its assets sold to the highest bidder years ago. Without the opportunity to reproduce, betas will give the bird to society and drop out, leaving the world to rot.
With their value gone, betas have no choice but to learn game to have a crack at getting laid (exempting prostitution, which is illegal, costly, and isn’t as satisfying as nailing a woman who WANTS your love-wrench in her she-place). The nature of game allows any guy to apply its teachings to his life, right away and without delay. However, game is not a complete long-term solution to society’s woes. Urging betas to take on the behavior and mannerisms of alphas will get their penises wet, but it will hasten the coming collapse. A nation of badboys is a nation that will cease to exist in time.
It is important to remember that the existing system that allows women to act out their hypergamous desires is in no way a creation of nature. “Empowered” and “independent” women are dependent on the state-sanctioned transfer of wealth to themselves through welfare, alimony, child support, and also need punitive laws such as VAWA, IMBRA, and “must-arrest” domestic violence clauses that afford them disproportionate power and privilege. Removing these laws and socialist wealth transfer agencies will tear the floorboards out from under the New Girl Order. Conservatism, with its credos of small government and social reservedness, is the ideal ideological system to accomplish these goals. However, working towards uprooting the anti-male government-media complex will take time, and no conservative thinker has proposed a way to address the needs of men right now.
With this, we return to the Φ post I quoted earlier:
Likewise, an understanding of HBD recommends two different but not necessarily contradictory approaches to the problem of beta sexual impoverishment:
-
On the micro level, betas should learn game (the PUA community); and
-
On the macro level, we must reverse the social policies of the last 40 years (social conservatives).
Personally, I recommend both. I appreciate the criticism that the social conservative program is unlikely, but at least legally and socially enforced monogamy has the advantage of having worked at widely distributing sexual access and, yeah, also sustaining civilization.
Ba-ba-ba-ba-bingo.
To combine these seemingly at odds goals, we need a new strain of conservatism that acknowledges the realities of human sexuality while maintaining its ideological integrity. The current crop of conservatives writing on this topic have failed us because they don’t understand the realities of the modern sexual marketplace. There is a ray of sunshine in this thunderstorm, though – we may not need them.
Consider Steve Sailer. I imagine most of my readers know who he is and what he writes on. During the 90′s, Sailer wrote for National Review, that venerable organ of respectable conservatism. For the past few years, though, Mr. Sailer has been blacklisted from NR and other mainstream venues – the only outlets that will publish him are “disrespectable” organizations like VDARE.com, the American Conservative, and Taki’s Magazine. And yet, with the rise of the Internet and blogs, Steve Sailer’s work has inspired a legion of similar-minded bloggers collectively known as the Steveosphere. Writers like Half Sigma, Ron Guhname, Razib Khan, and the Audacious Epigone have taken Sailer’s ideas and theories and used them to develop and present ones of their own. He may be a nonperson in our egalitarian public society, but Sailer has never had more influence then he does right now.
Similarly, in the last year, I’ve witnessed a community of writers and thinkers spring up around everyone’s favorite cad blog, Roissy in DC. Roissy isn’t the first person to write on seduction and what women want, but he is the first to link it to human biodiversity, conservatism, and the decline of civilization. His writings have influenced bloggers from all walks of life, including Whiskey, Novaseeker, Half Sigma, Michael Blowhard, Dennis Mangan, Welmer, Φ, Alpha Dominance, slumlord/The Social Pathologist, OneSTDV, Chuck, Keoni Galt/Dave from Hawaii, T. aka Ricky Raw, 11minutes, Ganttsquarry, myself, and many others who can be found on my blogroll. In fact, yesterday I plugged a new blog by DGL “devoted to the cause of the beta.” And this doesn’t cover the countless commenters at these sites that have ideas and theories of their own to contribute. With two or three exceptions, I found all of the bloggers listed in my “Game/Sexual Politics” category through Roissy. And like the Steveosphere, the writers of the Roissysphere have circumvented traditional methods of information propagation in order to present their ideas to the public. And we aren’t being ignored – the ideas put forth by Roissy are being discussed in other venues. Despite having only been blogging for a month, my own posts are being quoted and discussed on forums and blogs both sympathetic and hostile. The Roissysphere’s influence grows daily.
With that in mind, I propose a list of objectives that Roissysphere bloggers and denizens should consider. I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I believe these goals are noble and necessary:
- We must mount an intellectual defense of the beta male. This includes illustrating the nature of the beta male’s role in creating, developing and maintaining civilization and the necessity of having them invested in society. Whiskey in particular has done admirable work in this department.
- We must provide a means by which beta males can sate their sexual lusts. Advocating game is the most obvious means to accomplish this, and the one I chiefly endorse, but I am open to other considerations. Some sectors of the MGTOW community have suggested expatriating to other countries with more amenable womenfolk, for instance.
- Outsiders regard our views as misogynistic – therefore, we must make the case as to how our proposals will benefit women as well as men. For example, liberated single women are disproportionately employed in professions that are dependent on a stable government and law and order. Should the government collapse, those women will be starving in the streets.
- Most importantly, we must work towards social, political, and economic changes that will destroy the existing sexual dystopia and secure a place for the provider betas in Western society.
The sole alternative to this is already occurring – the slow, painful collapse of the greatest and most humane civilization in mankind’s history. The devastation of Rust Belt cities such as Detroit is the result of the provider beta class disconnecting from society. This is the future of the West if we continue down our current path – infrastructural collapse, technological stagnation, and the breakdown of governments on every level. The black ghettos of the U.S. are the most stark examples of this coming hell. We’re reliving the fall of Rome. Restoring the role of the provider beta in society is the only way to prevent this disaster, and anyone who opposes liberation for beta males is an enemy of Western civilization.
The most significant revolutions did not begin out of nowhere. The American Revolution didn’t start with the Declaration of Independence or at the Battles of Lexington and Concord – it began a century before when John Locke published his Two Treatises of Government. Michael Blowhard has already posited the emergence of game as a revolt against modern society, and as my “Funny People” post showed, many are aware that something is drastically, seriously wrong in the West – all we need to do is show how the pieces fit in the puzzle.
My hope is that the Roissysphere will inspire a new generation of conservatives and libertarians who will put our ideas into action. The alternative is certain oblivion. My proposals may be a long-shot, but they’re something.
Dogwoman’s argument as you interpret it:
the West’s current sociosexual configuration reflects the laws of nature, beta males are supposed to get screwed over in nature, therefore they deserve to get screwed over by our society.
See, right now there is no law of nature.
Abortion is not part of nature.
Reliable birth control is not part of nature.
Reliable condoms lowering std chances is not nature
State support when pregnant to/raising a bastard is not nature.
I have come to the conclusion which I have written in other places.
Natural state of a woman:
Chaste if no provider present (i.e.: Single)
Fairly faithful if together with an alpha provider
Promiscuous if a non-alpha provider is present.
Slutting around when single would have left many women dead from hunger, if not killed outright, according to the laws of human nature. Especially if the men she slutted around with were of a different tribe.
Also, it is not a law of nature that a woman can walk around half naked, shoving her sexuality in men’s faces without risk of anything. this is akin to me putting my dick into the mouth of every second woman who crosses my path.
Women right now are riding on the unnatural train of civilization’s protection and support, coupled with technological advances minimizing the natural risks of risky behavior.
The only recourse for betas, according to this logic, is to bend over and butter up.
the recourse that will be taken by the betas, if society survives that long without bein overrun/invaded, is to take away that social support and to refuse to take part in that protection of women by society. Cant stop technology, but once protection and support is gone, what’s a super condom gonna help?
I tell people never listen to a woman.
They tell me that I hate women.
Look at the next paragraph. It is written by a woman. It causes high risk of brain damage to anyone trying to use logic to understand it.
Sexual partners are chosen by women based on, virility, the ability to care, and availability of superior sperm.
No need to go into this, just watch who the women bang, and virility and ability to care is least on their lists, if not having negative effect.
Does anybody disagree that this kid is banging the hottest chicks in town?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkFJcd0jo9s
virile? care? even questionable on the best sperm thing.
Then we continue our journey of killing some brain cells:
Are you a virile, stable man who has a superior gene pool? Well, you will get the best women.
So, you were the best of the best.
Stable.
superior gene pool.
You got the best women.
But,
However, it is also more likely that you will be cheated on. It’s falsehood that women don’t like to keep their options open. It’s not personal, we just want the best genes.
I thought I just got the best woman because I have the superior genes/best genes?
If you don’t have them, well I guess you are shit out of luck.
I repeat. Five sentences ago, I was selected the honor of getting the best woman because I had the best gene/superior gene, and now I am shit out of luck because I don’t have them?
Try logic on this one.
(What happened in between is that best gene man decided to commit to best woman. this single action napalmed his gene source)
If MF wants to throw some kind of evil man hating plot into it, well, that’s his right. His bizarre UPDATED ranting about ugly middle aged women not being good enough to sleep with tells me that he is probably a Beta male as well.
I’d rather say healthy standards.
Having choice.
Not banging everything on the way.
Respecting himself.
Talking truth.
Being,… me.
And being fucking proud of it.
You must have been one heck of a nerd in high school. What you, unfortunately, failed to ever realize is that while the football players may have gotten the cheerleaders in high school, those same football players had a shocking wake up call when they hit college. Meanwhile, the nerds who couldn’t get a cheerleader to look twice at him, often grew up to find a plethora of women interested in him as he reached adulthood.
Unfortunately for you, you are still stuck in that high school mindset. What is worse, is you obviously feel completely inadequate sexually and powerless in many other ways as well.
You talk a good “game” but in the end your talk is really a cover up for your feelings of inadequacy and powerlessness. What is worse is that you take yourself so completely seriously you can’t even recognize tongue-in-cheek when you read it.
Women like a man who is confident. A man who is not intimaded by an equally confident woman. They want a partner, not a protector or leader. Thankfully, there are plenty of such men out there. On the other hand, most women can smell insecurity and desperation 3 blocks away. Such a man will often be sent packing shortly after the first “hello” should he manage to even get that far.
This, of course, explains why men who are shrouded in feelings of inadequacy and powerlessness often want the 15 year old teenie bopper. She is a much easier target for those of you who can only feel they have control over their own life by attempting to gain control over someone else’s.
I’ll say this for Dogwoman. She took you to taks and obviously hit a nerve! Good for you Dogwoman!!
How sad for you, that the best you can do is “fake it” via “game.”
Great post. I love how you tied in Game, conservatism, and gender issues.
I especially found this paragraph perceptive:
“To benefit betas and keep them invested in society, checks were placed on the sexual behavior of women and the alpha males whom they lusted after. The configuration of marriage afforded betas a chance to procreate, while protecting the women with whom they entered into holy matrimony…”
Though I would not consider myself a member of Roissysphere. I am assuredly a Steveosphere member and I would classify Half Sigma and Mangan similarly. I think Game is extremely interesting and, above all else, IT WORKS! But I rarely write about it or men’s issues.
I did however write a post about how beta males are actually more successful in reproducing their genes (though not directly). It ties into your claim that beta males produce stable societies but might not have as many sexual opportunities:
http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2009/07/game-high-iq-and-evolutionary-success.html
Great post. I’ve linked to it.
Home run Ferdinand. Reminds me of F. Roger Devlin’s work too. If you haven’t read him I just link several of his articles in my sidebar on alphadominance.
Excellent post! Betas turning alpha is a short term solution to getting laid, which, as you rightly said, will simply hurry up society’s destruction.
However, they could certainly use a little manning up. The betas of the past were not the mincing pussies they are today.
“Restoring the role of the provider beta in society is the only way to prevent this disaster, and anyone who opposes liberation for beta males is an enemy of Western civilization.”
A lot of people fail to realize that the ‘National Socialist’ revolution in Germany (1933-45) was the biggest ‘beta revolution’ in the history of the White-Western world.
There are incredibly disturbing parallels between the terrible Weimar period in Germany (1918-32) and the degeneracy of modern America – stay tuned for a new ‘beta revolution’ in the U.S. of A, folks.
Two more suggestions:
1) We need to encourage Roissy to write a book ASAP.
Chritian Lander has proven HBD has substantial market potential among young, white, college educated, libertarian-conservative leaning, American men.
Young, college educated, white men are who you need to win over in order to get a political movement out of an embryonic stage.
Roissy needs to take HBD to the next level by putting his great literary talent to use to create the ultimate sociobiological takedown of feminism.
2) Get the word out to white women that f&$#ing carbs are what make you fat, and not animal fat.
There are countless young white women who would be reasonably attractive (5-8 range) for stable, white, beta males but who are currently non-dateable because they are eating too much pasta.
It is so sad that the only way you can get a date is to knock a woman over the head like some cave man and force yourself upon her. OMG, pathetic, pathetic, really really really pathetic.
“Women won’t date me.” wah, wah, wah. Perhaps it isn’t the women who need to be fixed. Perhaps it is simply YOU. Nah, that couldn’t possibly be it.
Oh God, thank you I haven’t laughed this hard in a long time! It’s like a laughgasm.
dogwoman:
“Oh God, thank you I haven’t laughed this hard in a long time! It’s like a laughgasm.”
it’s strange that feminists aren’t interested in actually debating arguments. i’d love to actually hear a feminist debate any of these points in a civil fashion to say why they agree/disagree. instead, we get retorts like this that just leaves everyone in the dark.
really, is this the best dogwoman can do to respond to what the rest of us thought was a thorough evisceration by our host?
is feminism this intellectually bankrupt?
dogwoman, stick to ad hominems and other shaming tactics, like ole’ sparky, who’s either a grrrl or a mangina.
I slotted you in because you read and link to Roissy, Whiskey, and myself, and that shows in your writings. There’s considerable overlap between the Steveosphere and Roissysphere, for already-stated reasons.
debate with logic? You all are so busying with your mock intellectual masterbation that there is little, if any, room for real discussion or logic.
In addition, given your obvious lack of respect for women, it is unlikely you would give any honest consideration to an argument presented by one.
BTW, your pal’s blog is full of ad hominems and other shaming tactics, which is why I chose to respond in kind. Somehow I seriously doubt he has sufficient intellect to hold up to a serious debate. Which might also explain his overwhelming feelings of inadequacy. Much easier to blame someone else than to look within and improve one’s self.
You can’t get laid, must be the woman’s fault. You can’t get a job, must be a woman’s fault. Government won’t allow men to beat their wives anymore, must be a woman’s fault. Government won’t allow a man to rape his wife anymore, must be a woman’s fault.
Funny thing though, our government is still made up primarily of men. This would mean that men were the ones who actually passed these laws. Men were the ones who passed the laws for child support and alimony too. Though, I am sure it was the alpha men who passed such laws. Why? Because alpha men don’t need to phsycially beat or force themselves upon a woman. Only men like you do.
Oh, but don’t spell out the facts. That would just confusion the delusional thinking that goes on here.
“You must have been one heck of a nerd in high school…What is worse, is you obviously feel completely inadequate sexually and powerless in many other ways as well.”
Attacking someone by commenting on their emotional state…how womanly of you.
“What is worse is that you take yourself so completely seriously you can’t even recognize tongue-in-cheek when you read it.”
“Tongue-in-cheek” doesn’t exempt anyone from a good beatdown.
“Women like a man who is confident. A man who is not intimaded by an equally confident woman. They want a partner, not a protector or leader. Thankfully, there are plenty of such men out there. On the other hand, most women can smell insecurity and desperation 3 blocks away. Such a man will often be sent packing shortly after the first “hello” should he manage to even get that far.”
I agree. That’s why I practice and advocate game as a way for men to boost their confidence and social intelligence.
“This, of course, explains why men who are shrouded in feelings of inadequacy and powerlessness often want the 15 year old teenie bopper. She is a much easier target for those of you who can only feel they have control over their own life by attempting to gain control over someone else’s.”
Or maybe it’s because the “15 year old teenie bopper” looks better naked. Occam’s Razor, sweetie.
“How sad for you, that the best you can do is ‘fake it’ via ‘game.’”
It’s only faking ’til you make it.
“We need to encourage Roissy to write a book ASAP.”
Didn’t he already say he was doing just that?
“Oh God, thank you I haven’t laughed this hard in a long time!”
You misspelled “cried.”
so?
Didn’t he already say he was doing just that?
Ah, I didn’t know that he was already working on a book.
Bravo. This is constructive. I love the blending of Game and MRA. I made a similar, less articulate point on Welmer’s blog today about that very thing. Game is what saves the MRA movement from becoming bitter, whiny and ineffective. “Empowerment” for males. Victimhood may work for feminists but will never do the same for men.
Game helps individual men in the short term. Why not have more satisfying relationships with women until political progress is made on more tangible policy issues? Hell, what if progress isn’t made? I’m sure not opposed to individual men( and women as a result) leading happier lives as society slowly collapses around them.
I also like how you talk about selling these ideas to women. This strategy may not bear fruit now, but down the road, when feminist ideas are better seen as destructive, it will be needed and rewarded.
Spot on in regard to “respectable” conservative outlets. I think it’s a combination of pedestal game as a result of social conservatism, not wanting to discredit mainstream conservatism as “sexist”, conservative commentators doing pretty well in their own personal lives and a complete lack of understanding about unconstrained female nature.
This is the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about in mainstream conservative media. This is the third rail on steroids. I have to mention one man that has a clue. Dennis Prager. He is a religious Jew with a syndicated talk radio show. He talks about and confronts male/female differences. That alone makes him miles ahead of almost everyone else.
“Roissy isn’t the first person to write on seduction and what women want, but he is the first to link it to human biodiversity, conservatism, and the decline of civilization”.
This is why Roissy is a daily must read. Couldn’t have said it any better. I like the fact that he recognizes the problem, diagnoses the reason for the problem, and promotes a proactive solution to the problem. Men are free to take whatever percentage of advice he gives, and use it any way they like. Married men, like Dave in Hawaii and PA, or PUA supremes, like Roosh and G Manifesto.
Thanks to the Internet, alternative voices are heard. I’m pretty pessimistic, but I figure if a few beta males read this stuff and improve their lives as a result, it is worth it.
It seems I was correct in my assessment of the objectives of game. For one to argue that men ought to transform themselves into characters whose actions they condemn would be the summit of intellectual incoherence. So I surmised that, based on the conservative sympathies of the ‘Roissysphere’, the sake of game was to assume superficially the aspects of louche alphas but nothing on a fundamental level, for that would serve to exacerbate the societal decline they despise. My conjecture was confirmed, serendipitously, on the very day I wrote my comment by DGL’s new endeavor when he wrote of the alpha pose (and presently by your post). Since this is indeed the case I would propose that biocons–to coin a neologism here–not lose sight of rarefied conservative philosophy. Dexterous as Roissy and his ilk are at articulating the perils of the sexual bazzar, they show no deference to past authorities and conservative thinkers and this leaves them unmoored in a sea of stygian decadence. Defeating the Left will take more than mimicking pimps. But perhaps, with the mission statement of DGL, a paradigm shift is in the making.
Excellent ideas, of course.
One group that we can co-opt into the cause is, believe it or not……Islam.
If we can get Islam to move away from violence, particularly indiscrimimate violence, and more towards a strategic and coordinated attack on feminism and faggotism, hiding behind the ‘multi-cultural’ shield to deflect feminist defense as ‘racist’, we finally have the silver bullet.
The mistake of the GOP/Neocons was to fight both feminism and Islam. Instead, getting the two to interact with each other more is the most effective way to dilute both, and find equilibrium.
“is feminism this intellectually bankrupt? ”
No. It is worse.
Show me footage in the last 10 years of any ‘feminist’ debating a serious non-misandrist like Tammy Bruce or Dr. Helen Smith (let alone a man). Where has any ‘feminist’ ever even agreed to such a videotaped debate?
Another problem is that laws can be changed in secret without a vote by elected representatives. The alimony/child support formulas are far worse today than they were even 12 years ago. But no one was informed of the change, let alone got a chance to vote on it or vote for/against officials voting on it.
Ferdinand,
ditto the comments about the good post. this all reminds me of the fledgling moments of the libertarian movement. perhaps roissy is mises/hayek and we can all be his murray rothbard, spreading the word to the masses.
anyway, i agree with most of your points except for one. extolling the virtue of the beta grates against each man’s natural desire of a will to power – the will to be alpha. to me, it almost follows a socialistic type argument in that it would lead to everyone being the same. if we say that betas are good (i mean they are, but if we idealize that) we undermine our own personal desire to be better than beta. and it’s dishonest for us to say “you guys all need to be beta and happy, but i’m gonna strive for alpha.”
the thing that we really need – and i apologize if i misconstrued what you’re advocating – is to become OK with a world that follows a social hierarchy of alpha/beta. there will be some alphas that get a lot of the spoils, but we have to get away from pointing out the shortcomings of men who don’t quite match that ideal. it’s a double-edged sword we’re arguing for here.
one thing that does need to be done, that comes outside the realm of male social hierarchy, is a reversal of the power women hold in so many spheres of life.
Dating is not the problem. Even Sodiini got dates. Not many but he got them.
The question is, can the current society support investment by most men in most women and children? If most women are banging a few men, then the answer is no. You’ll get at best something between the Mongols, the Ottoman Empire, the Pharoahs, or Saudi Arabia. Such systems are “stable” but provide a lot of bloodshed and don’t produce any technical innovation, they tend to be conquered by “beta” run societies that mobilize wider and deeper resources.
Under the current female sexual utopia, women make the short-term trade-off for as many Alpha guys they can have. Which provides little incentive for most men who are Beta to invest in them. Casual sex with some cougar who’s lived the life of Sex and the City? Sure. Marrying them and being an involved, supportive husband and father? No.
Women are greater risk seekers than men (i.e. chasing dangerous and potentially lethal bad boys: the Petersons, Drew and Scott, Johan Van Der Sloot, OJ Simpson, etc.) and prefer sex now to companionship later and overestimate their time of attractiveness.
The future is most men passive and uncaring about women, except as intermittent casual sex partners. A few Alpha men having most of the women and settling late in life with a Catherine Zeta Jones. Periodic violent oubursts by lunatics like Sodini and Cho who will find no defenders of female targets. Defacto single motherhood, with at best chaotic and fragile co-habitation not marriage. Children, particularly boys, out of control and running in packs.
If women deliberately set out to make a society between South Central and Chav Britain, they could not have done a better job. Societies that invest men deeply and broadly in women and children MUST offer men something other than porn, casual sex, and non-stop competition over uber-Alpha.
Islam is a non-starter because the polygamy is baked in. The violence and everything else is the result of polygamy and the consequence of for every man with four wives, three men with none.
In fact, the lack of male cooperation on anything but raid-type activities is a feature of polygamy.
Think of how the current system of ruthless male competition for women by being uber-Alpha degrades male cooperation. Now amplify that by a factor of one hundred. That is Islam.
Child support in a society that replaces marriage with co-habitation, and female ideas of fidelity (which is to say, not much) will result in:
Constant suits denying paternity and requiring DNA.
Relatively high “non-paternal events” making men even more dis-invested and removed from children.
A “spread your seed” ethos among men to impregnate as many women as possible while taking responsibility for none.
Most men not reproducing — and thus uncaring to hostile to children.
In addition, as women earn more and men less, in the “Mancession” and sex imbalances in college attendance (more women than men attend and graduate), alimony can and will go the other way.
In other words, women who are lawyers, doctors, accountants, etc. and who live, however briefly, with men who earn less (cubicle farm occupants, sous-chefs, waiters, baristas, etc.) will be paying alimony. In fact, this is already happening. This will force women who earn marginally more (and sometimes barely marginally more) than prospective cohabitant men to forgo that and seek casual sex.
Thus the sex-marketplace and legal system cuts both ways, women who seek commitment and love, will not find it with men without considerable risk of alimony, as Britney Spears found out. A society of K-Feds does women and men alike little good — but the current system including women’s preference for Alphas such as K-Fed and staying on the market too long and differential earnings alongside the legal structure guarantee it.
Take things to their logical conclusion. Short term sexual marketplace gains by women produce a whole generation of K-Feds who seek to become gigolos and extort money from women through palimony.
From Posec: “this leaves them unmoored in a sea of stygian decadence.”
I couldn’t agree more. It takes years to cover your ground enough to feel confident in turning out a coherent statement. I’ve been reading Sailer for about five years now, and I’ve rarely disagreed with him, but I’m glad I stuck my nose into the other blends of conservative, libertarian, and even liberal thought. Whether we know it or not, we owe a great debt to men like Burke, Kirk, Francis, Mises, Rothbard, Buchanan, Buckley, Burnham, Brimelow, and even Tom Wolfe and Larry Auster, and I could go on.
Bioconservatism (informed by HBD) along with MRA/PUA, etc. ought to gain perspective of its (their) relation with other conservative movements and institutions.
@ Chuck:
I get what you’re saying, and I only speak for myself, but when I say ‘beta revolution’, I don’t mean a general flattening out of the social landscape or any overthrow of alphas or of the desirous alpha qualities, all of which are very male qualities. I mean to overthrow the united front of feminists and leftist queefs who make policy. My few posts so far are the beginnings of an attempt to unify the so-called dual strata of alpha-beta.
Here is the irony.
The left is so bothered about the concentration of wealth into too few hands.
But has actively created the concentration of sex into too few males.
And, as most men would agree, they would rather be poor with lots of quality pussy than rich and celibate. Hence, an injustice all around.
“You can’t get laid, must be the woman’s fault. You can’t get a job, must be a woman’s fault. Government won’t allow men to beat their wives anymore, must be a woman’s fault. Government won’t allow a man to rape his wife anymore, must be a woman’s fault.
Funny thing though, our government is still made up primarily of men. This would mean that men were the ones who actually passed these laws. Men were the ones who passed the laws for child support and alimony too. Though, I am sure it was the alpha men who passed such laws. Why?”
For any specific individual man, not being able to get laid or hold a job is a matter of personal responsibility (a standard, I might add, most cunts don’t hold to themselves). The problem, as Whiskey and Obsidian have pointed out, is SO MANY men not getting laid or holding jobs.
Why they’re not holding jobs is a complex result of technological change, but also the result of the influx of cunt into the workforce and the public policies adopted by those alpha males to give them preference in those pursuits.
As for not getting any, bear with me:
You ask “why?” Here’s the answer: feminism is a GREAT deal for men at the top. In another time, women weren’t allowed to attend college in large numbers, and those that did had very limited career opportunities. For the large number of them that were waitresses and secretaries, or in pink collar professional jobs as nurse, teacher, or librarian, it was an upward move to marry a stand-up guy who was an auto mechanic or union blue collar worker. And women ALWAYS want to mate up–feminists are deluding themselves if they think otherwise. Under those circumstances the pool of eligible men was sufficient, and under Marriage 1.0 most men had a shot.
Now we have a situation where those who formerly were waitresses/secretaries/nurses/teachers are now corporate executives, tenured faculty, partners and clinic directors, and the poor union guy is left behind. Thus huge numbers of men are excluded from the pussy market, now left only to the handful of alphas at the top. Great deal for them, isn’t it? The cunts they are banging are self-sufficient to boot, and can even pay for their own abortions! No more shotgun weddings.
And THAT’S why those alpha men passed VAWA, IMBRA, CEDAW, Title IX, etc.
The reality is that we are never going to live in a society of “equality”. If we don’t live in a world where men rule, we are going to live in a world where cunt rule. George Sodini is not the wave of the future. Darren Mack is.
Whiskey, I hate to crib, but at least I’m giving credit. You said it far more eloquently than me:
“Particularly given the college gap (more women than men attend), and attendant earnings gap, with some professions being profoundly feminized, several factors will negatively affect both men and women. Women, in feminized professions, such as medicine, law, and government, will compete heavily over the few men in such professions that are “Alpha” while the men in the professions who are not, will be regarded as “gay” and treated as sexually invisible. For most women, this means finding partners in a bar or other impromptu social gathering, with the collapse of mediating mate-finding institutions like Churches and neighborhood groups. This means, essentially, selecting on the hottest PUA in the bar, for most college educated women professionals. Which will price most men out, most of the time. Ordinary men who are college educated will increasingly opt out of competition in which they mostly lose in favor of porn and hobbies and “bromances” or seek women abroad by expatriate opportunties. A few will look to PUA gurus to become PUA themselves in the ruthless bar/club competition.
For the increasing majority of men NOT college educated, either a ruthless entrepreneurial path, which produces a few winners and a lot of losers, or chav-style brutality, will be the norm for being successful with women. In other words, Gordon Ramsay or the typical soccer yob. With lots of “mate-ism” (working class bromance) and macho displays.”
“the thing that we really need – and i apologize if i misconstrued what you’re advocating – is to become OK with a world that follows a social hierarchy of alpha/beta. there will be some alphas that get a lot of the spoils, but we have to get away from pointing out the shortcomings of men who don’t quite match that ideal. it’s a double-edged sword we’re arguing for here.”
I agree. This goes back to the difference between “male alphas” (leader of men types) and “female alphas” (socially dominant types) I highlighted in my “Funny People” post. A moral societal system fuses them together – men who are smarter, more successful, harder working, etc. get the best women. In our current world, the two are increasingly separate – see my Sodini post. By advocating game along with the other goals, I hope to see a restoration of that ideal. For an idea of what I’m getting at, see the “Randian man” concept that Ayn Rand pushed in her novels – men like Howard Roark and John Galt who were both “male alphas” (successful, entrepreneurial) and “female alphas” (women wanted them).
IMO, conservatives give Roissy too much credit. Yes, his unique point of view has sparked a lot of discussion, turned a lot of people on to an HBD/evo-psych view of relations between the sexes, and helped people realize the inadquecy of mainstream conservatism on these issues. But he doesn’t make half the prescriptions that people seem to think he’s making. He doesn’t really advocate that our civilization be saved. He’s positioned himself more as the disinterested observer, saying “I thought you peons might like to know that if you want to maintain a comfortable, prosperous society, women’s sexual behavior will have to be restrained. Do with that information what you will. I wish you well either way, but as for me, I’m just going to have fun chasing tail.” That is not a view that’s conducive to building a civilization-saving movement.
For example, see his recent entry on the Australian teenage boy party animal who threw a party that caused $20,000 in damanges, then acted nonchalant and refused to apologize for it on the news. Roissy’s advice to men was to act like this kid. He advocates that men live their lives this way. Is that conservative? If everyone threw a party causing $20,000 in damages, where would we be?
This leads in to another important point: not only Roissy, but the Roissysphere in general, is not critical enough of what you’ve called “female alphas.” Of course it’s absolutely essential that women’s sexual behavior be restrained, but I’ve seen barely anyone call for any sort of restraints on alphas. The fact is, it would be impossible to restore the balance of relations between the sexes by stigmatizing only female sexual misbehavior, while not only turning a blind eye to, but positively congratulating, alpha-male polygamy, as Roissy does. Women need to be shamed into not indulging their desire to always chase the alpha male at the expense of husband and kids, but alphas need to be shamed into not tempting the women to do so. In any case, if we succeeded in de-sluttifying all women, where would alphas get their harems?
http://joshxiong.com/?p=177
I happened to read someone’s response to 500 Days of Summer and then suddenly thought, “why does this sound like such an unrealistic story?” Of course, it was a movie, but googling the words “beta male” with the name gave me Josh Xiong’s article. It’s interesting how this guy, who doesn’t appear to have much of a stake in the HBD/’bioconservatism’ world aside from including HalfSigma in the blogroll, makes the exact same observations.
And by that big of a stake in the HBDosphere/Sailersphere I mean the complete lack of connection from his blog to those in the “untouchable” realm that includes Roissy, Sailer, Inductivist, etc.
*and by exact same observations I don’t mean the same conclusions.
“IMO, conservatives give Roissy too much credit…That is not a view that’s conducive to building a civilization-saving movement.”
Due to the decentralized nature of the Internet, Roissy’s own personal position on the matter isn’t terribly relevant. If he doesn’t want to take up the torch, others will.
“For example, see his recent entry on the Australian teenage boy party animal who threw a party that caused $20,000 in damanges, then acted nonchalant and refused to apologize for it on the news. Roissy’s advice to men was to act like this kid. He advocates that men live their lives this way. Is that conservative? If everyone threw a party causing $20,000 in damages, where would we be?”
Straight in the you-know-where, which is why I and others don’t view game as an all-encompassing solution to society’s problems.
This leads in to another important point: not only Roissy, but the Roissysphere in general, is not critical enough of what you’ve called ‘female alphas’…In any case, if we succeeded in de-sluttifying all women, where would alphas get their harems?”
Keep in mind that the Roissysphere is still in its infancy. I would argue that a sane society would reserve two-thirds of its condemnations for women and one-third for “female alphas.” “De-sluttifying” women will solve most of the problem – all that remains afterwards is to paint womanizers as the loathsome individuals they are. This was done in past centuries – words like “cad,” “rake,” and “libertine” were not intended as compliments, and save for the Restoration comedy period, players were depicted in popular culture as pitiable losers who always met a violent or humiliating end. This isn’t too far off from the truth – Casanova, for instance, was a vagabond who when he wasn’t wooing women, was either bumming off of his friends for money or on the run from the angry victims of his con artist schemes. Byron was a violent spendthrift who ended up dying in his mid-thirties of a fever in Greece.
I don’t really see how it’s possible to reconcile the roissysphere and the steveosphere. Roissy thinks betas are the foundation of society, but he’s also contemptuous of them and encourages men to become less beta and more cad-like. He disparages marriage and children. Also, by disparaging older women, he’s disparaging the guys who end up married to them as they grow old together. That’s because roissy, unlike Steve, and by his own admission, is interested in feeding off the corpse of the old world rather than saving it.
You seem to be promoting game as a way for provider betas to get their foot in the door with women, and that’s fine, but that’s not roissy’s ideal.
Roissy is indispensable because he’s an excellent writer who promotes non-PC views to a wider audience in a way that makes it look cool (certainly cooler than us steveosphere dorks could ever manage). Hopefully, he’s a gateway drug. But his views as a whole aren’t really suitable for a conservative movement (though you could pick and choose some). So why put his name on the manifesto?
“Roissy is indispensable because he’s an excellent writer who promotes non-PC views to a wider audience in a way that makes it look cool (certainly cooler than us steveosphere dorks could ever manage).”
I have heard praises sung to Roissy’s writing but Cold Equation struck a chord here when he observes as an aside that other writer’s works in the steveosphere suffer from a death of the diverting. Is he esteemed as an excellent writer because he can present his salacious subject matter in so fashionable/cool a way as to unfailingly electrify and entrance various viewers; or, if his topics were more lofty in tone, is his style as a litterateur truly formidable?
“But his views as a whole aren’t really suitable for a conservative movement (though you could pick and choose some). So why put his name on the manifesto?”
I put his name on it because Roissy’s writings have had untold influence on a large number of bloggers, including myself. Without him, half of the blogs I listed in the post would not exist, and the other half would be different in tone. Given the response I’ve received so far from many Roissy readers and commenters, there are plenty who are either on board with my idea or are at least sympathetic to it. That, and good marketing always helps.
Furthermore, Roissy’s oeuvre is a massive step forward for the concept of game in general. Prior to him, the biggest proponents of game were the seduction community, who not only have zero concerns beyond getting laid, but are regarded by society at large as weirdos. Look at the picture of Mystery I left in the post – does that look like a guy you’d trust? Aside from Roissy, the two biggest non-seduction community bloggers are Roosh Valizadeh and Assanova. Roosh is very Roissy-like in thought and worldview (in fact, the two of them are friends in real life), but going by what he blogs about, he is as unconcerned with the future of the West as the Mysterys and Neil Strausses of the world. Assanova is not only unconcerned with saving civilization, he has come out and said that he loves the current dystopia and doesn’t want it to end. In addition to what he already has done, Roissy makes game seem normal and respectable. Like him or not, he’s the best we’ve got.
It can all be boiled down to this – males are generally ‘Apollonian’ in orientation, whilst females are generally ‘Dionysian’ in orientation. This balance has become all screwed up in the White West and thus gender relations are in chaos as a result.
Right now the Dionysian nature of many White-Western females is increasingly unchecked and wild – just go to any urban bar or club on the weekend and you can see that. At the same time, many White-Western men have been becoming less Apollonian (thus more Dionysian/feminized) and are engaging in various Dionysian behaviors which are undermining White-Western culture.
If you have no clue what I am taking about, read the following link for a decent overview of the Apollonian vs. Dionysian issue – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonian_and_Dionysian
*Edit–That should be ‘dearth of the diverting’
The bottom line – roissy apparently gets laid a lot. If you’re a guy and you get laid a lot, you’re cool and other guys want to be like you. If you don’t, you’re not cool and other guys don’t want to be like you. This includes one’s choice of politics, regardless of whether the alpha or the beta make more sense. I wish people would make rational decisions instead, but that’s not reality.
The steveosphere, is, frankly, a nerdy community, and most of the guys (they’re almost all guys) in it are probably beta (maybe even omega for all I know). That’s one of the barriers to adoption of HBD or nationalism – the cool guys who do things like fuck supermodels are all loudly proclaiming that they’re PC citizens of the world, while HBD and nationalism are left to nerds and rednecks, and our leading light, Steve Sailer, leads panhandling drives that involve complaining about how his ’88 Honda needs repairs. Which side are most people going to want to emulate?
But roissy has flipped that around, making the PC guys like Jessica whatsername’s (the Jezebel editor) husband “beta of the month” while he, the right-wing neanderthal, is the stud. Lots of guys would want to be like roissy.
It’s not just roissy. Our own host here, fbardamu, seems to be getting a lot of traffic, especially for a new blog, with the same formula of right-wing politics + sex. I’m glad to see these ideas reach a wider audience, by whatever means.
>Look at the picture of Mystery I left in the post – does that look like a guy you’d trust?
Sure I’d trust him – to spread human papilloma virus.
“Sure I’d trust him – to spread human papilloma virus.”
Heh, good one.
As I thought, the hymns to his writing style are to be chiefly owed to his amative abilities and his inversion of the political dynamic, i.e the association of sex and the Right, lending to it an appeal that is all the stronger. This type of syncretism, as you mention, may indeed be the ingenious vehicle wherewith to convey conservatism–an alluring gateway that urges readers to step through it. But assuming that Roissy never constrained himself exclusively to game and instead became a more general conservative pundit what potential would he have had?
Roissy without the game stuff would be Whiskey/testing99.
I disagree with any return to patriarchal traditionalism, which imo is retrograde and authoritarian, and essentially sexual socialism. What we need are fundamental changes in the current mating market which would strengthen the beta male position and bring about more fair and stable outcomes. Women currently are in their superior position not just because they have freedom to indulge their natural hypergamy, but because all of the medical/technological (birth control, safe abortion, etc), political and legal changes in the past 50 years have gone their way. Women now enjoy both the benefits of traditional and modern attitudes towards women – they get to have their cake and eat it too. In order for men to level the playing field we need to fight back, to raise our collective market position while lowering women’s: Legalization of prostitution, sex technology such as virtual porn and sexbots, cheaper surrogacy, artificial wombs, import foreign women, better male birth control, choice 4 men (male abortion), mandatory dna paternity testing, father’s rights, revise all relationship contracts including marriage, eliminate all female privilege (cultural chivalry, excessive gov’t entitlements, lack of female accountability in all spheres, etc). Once this happens the mating market will level out and produce a more stable/healthy society (more marriage, more monogamy, better social support system for kids, increased birthrate, etc), but I don’t think we’ll ever return to a time where most people were virgins who married for life; that’s just not most people’s idea of happiness. The best we can hope for is to reduce the gap between the sociosexually rich (alpha males, women) and the sociosexually poor (betas/omega males). Essentially we need to do for the mating market what liberals have done for the economic markets – redistribute power downward – so that most (if not all) men would feel invested in society.
Conversation is a lost art and it seems people of both sexes will fall for not only looks, but conversation. I’ve had guys fall for me because I was kind to them. We all did better when we let men be men and understood that they need time to do their own thing. In older times, the adults help conversation along, helped with introductions and we showed more respect to each other. This was true of many classes. Eschewing that has caused many of our current problems.
[...] Thoughts on Thoughts on a Manifesto Jump to Comments The following post started out as a comment on Chucks blog. He has a piece up regarding Ferdinand Bardamu’s excellent manifesto. [...]
“On the micro level, betas should learn game (the PUA community); and
On the macro level, we must reverse the social policies of the last 40 years (social conservatives).
Personally, I recommend both. I appreciate the criticism that the social conservative program is unlikely, but at least legally and socially enforced monogamy has the advantage of having worked at widely distributing sexual access and, yeah, also sustaining civilization”
———————–
Agreed 100%!
Thing is, liberal policies over the last 40 years have all been about redistributing resources hard-won by beta K-gamers to “bad boy” r-gamers. Thus, heavily tilting the mating game in their favor. No wonder women prefer them so much now. Cuz due to government intervention, they now get the best of both worlds with them – the bad boy “studliness” along with the redistributed resources and innovations of beta nice guys.
Basically, there are 2 political extremes of people in this world:
The strong and self-reliant believe in the survival of the fittest aka “Social Darwinism.” That fair competition brings the best out of people. And in personal responsibility. These are conservatives (or libertarians, etc).
The weak and socially-dependant believe in blaming the strong for their relative weakness and that fair competition is cruel. They demand handouts and unfair entitlements to get equal results for unequal afforts. And in collective responsibility. These are liberals.
Now, while liberalism may sound more seductively “cool” and “compassionate,” it never proves sustainable due to its core ideology of anti-personal responsibility. Which is why our country, especially the liberal mecca of California, has socially and financially melted down in just 50 years of this Jewish meme warfare. Not to mention every other Commy country out there, as well. Which was precisely its true, intended purpose. To “create order out of chaos” and pave the way for the NW0.
To add insult to injury, due to tax-funded welfare and social services that cater to single moms (40% of new American moms now), etc…beta males have been effectively FORCED to cuckold for alpha stud bastard babies.
So, not only are beta males getting shunned by womyn more now, but they even must PAY for their basturds spawned with alpha sperm donors!
But the real sad thing is how most beta males are so stupid that they actually support and vote these liberal politicians into office term after term… Enthusiastically shooting themselves in the foot!
In order for men to level the playing field we need to fight back, to raise our collective market position while lowering women’s: Legalization of prostitution, sex technology such as virtual porn and sexbots, cheaper surrogacy, artificial wombs, import foreign women, better male birth control, choice 4 men (male abortion), mandatory dna paternity testing, father’s rights, revise all relationship contracts including marriage, eliminate all female privilege (cultural chivalry, excessive gov’t entitlements, lack of female accountability in all spheres, etc). Once this happens the mating market will level out and produce a more stable/healthy society (more marriage, more monogamy, better social support system for kids, increased birthrate, etc)
You do realize that much of this is rather unlikely. The virtual porn will happen, and sexbots may at some point as well. But as for the rest? You will need women to play ball for *all* of that, and why would they? Why do we need women to play ball? Because men are divided on these issues, as we know.
Men’s rights stuff is not new. There are old-timers, vets if you will, who started as activists in the 70s and have long since given up. Why? Because men do not unite on these issues, and women only care about things when they directly impact women. Activism on these issues does not work. There are personal solutions available to men, but not political ones. For us, it’s the reverse of what it was for women: women said the personal was political (and thereby invited the jack boots of the state into personal relationships, which women love because it’s like having an armed to the teeth older brother to beat up your boyfriend or husband at will), but for us the political is personal. There are no political solutions for us at this time which are in any reasonable way achievable, even with conservatives in power. There are, however, personal solutions for dealing with the social catastrophe that is the aftermath of the feminist revolution. We need goals, in my opinion, which are less lofty and more realistic, such as the survival of individual men in this very hostile environment.
That’s because roissy, unlike Steve, and by his own admission, is interested in feeding off the corpse of the old world rather than saving it.
You seem to be promoting game as a way for provider betas to get their foot in the door with women, and that’s fine, but that’s not roissy’s ideal.
I think, again, that Roissy also agrees that the current order is far from ideal. He just disagrees that saving it is a realistic option at this stage of the game.
I was born in the 50s, and by the time I reached high school (early 70s), the divorce rate was skyrocketing. I was particularly shocked when Catholic men with BIG families began to divorce their wives (“we grew apart”) and marry women who were only 5 or 10 years older than their eldest child.
By the early 80s, I had a co-worker who was unmarried and pregnant — I asked her if she planned to marry the father of the baby. She really did shock me by saying that she didn’t know if she would or wouldn’t. HE was eager to get married, but SHE didn’t want to make a commitment. I really was stunned. I had known girls who had gotten pregnant and the guy refused to get married, but it never occurred to me that any sort of normal woman could care enough about a guy to have an affair with him, but refuse to go through with a marriage once she was pregnant.
I think that the 70s were very hard on women in their 30s to 60s, who were dumped for younger women, and who had no real education or job skillls that would enable them to maintain anything like their previous standard of living. The ones with young children tended to remain impoverished until they remarried. Girls who grew up during that time period were a mix of conservative girls from stable families, to radicalized feminists who put their education and career ahead of everything, because they didn’t have any trust in men or in the no-fault divorce system.
From what I remember, the really rampant female promiscuity didn’t seem to start until the mid 80s or even later. And I would say that the really outlandishly alpha male behavior promoted by Roissy and his ilk was possible only in a few cities, and only for the most alpha of alpha males prior to the early 90s. At this point, there does seem to be a general breakdown of all prior restraints on sexual behavior, outside of those who are deeply and sincerely religious. For instance, women BRAGGING about one-night stands and openly admitting past abortions seems to be very recent to me, maybe the last 10 years in most parts of the country.
There does seem to be a chicken and egg problem with male/female social relationships at this point, or maybe a ratcheting problem, with each decline in civility by one sex being outdone by a more severe decline in civility by the other.
I do agree that the illegitimate babies and their mothers are sucking up a skyrocketing portion of the national wealth as their numbers grow. It wouldn’t be so bad if their children grew up to be productive members of society, but most of them seem to become even more dysfunctional than their parents.
A final thing that I have noticed is that when illegitimate children are born into what was previously a socially conservative family, the boys often grew up to have trouble with the law, while the girls seemed to fair better. But when those girls grew up, they almost always ended up having illegitimate children themselves, and the children turned out badly whether they were boys or girls. Female gang members were rare to nonexistent when I was growing up. They are common enough now.
My theory is that a low level of illegitimacy in an extended family tends to provide a sort of herd immunity for the occasional bastard, but when you get a truly matriarchal family structure in which adult males are always transient, you end up with a completely toxic and dysfunctional situation. Most of the girls and many of the boys are sexually molested by transient males, and nearly all of the children are subjected to physical abuse by transient males. They grow up angry, bitter, and confused and sometimes filled with rage.
In the words of John Mclaine:
“Welcome to the party pal!”
I just heard a shocking statistic on a local newscast. A full 50% of the students in my county school district (one of the largest in the nation) are considered to be from households that are low income enough to recieve either free or reduced school lunches. 50%! I am positive this is one of the ramifications of women having bastard children instead of forming a family with a good beta male. The funds aren’t there for this to go on forever.
“The bottom line – roissy apparently gets laid a lot.”
Speaking as a woman, I have to say that I just don’t believe him if this is him. That is not an attractive-looking guy. No amount of ‘game’ is gonna help that.
[...] The Roissysphere and its moral and intellectual objectives: a proposed manifesto [...]
“Outsiders regard our views as misogynistic – therefore, we must make the case as to how our proposals will benefit women as well as men.”
The way to appeal to women is to show them (if it is the case and I strongly suspect it must be) that their children are/will be better off with beta male dads and growing up/living in a society run by beta males.
Guarantee the well-being and success of their children, and the women will follow.
One thing I’d like to suggest to beta males out there (luv you guys! — esp. my husband ;-) ) is to please, please, please stop wasting your time on shallow, liberal women no matter how hot they are. And, please, for all our sakes avoid actually mating with them! (I mean having kids with them.) We don’t want their psychopathic genes in the gene pool anymore!
You’re a Jew. You’re not a White European so White women are of no concern to you. You have your own Jewish women to deal with.
Don’t speak of your concerns about White European Men & Women.
Most the hard-core feminists are Jews who started this mess.
Ginger, what you are likely to see, with your own children, should you have them is this:
Daughters, if you have them, will find only guys who did their best to turn themselves into variations of bad-boys because that is what women sleep with and desire. And their male fellows, having practiced ignoring what women say (“I want a nice, decent guy”) and looking at what they do (sleep with bad boys) will ignore their pleas for any other kind of man.
Men don’t do subtle — you can have us as mostly all Don Drapers, or Jim from the Office, but you can’t have both.
Sons if you have them, will to the degree they tune out whatever you say about women, be successful with women by being “bad,” dangerous, caddish, loutish, substance abusing, and more, just like Don Draper. With an extra dose of verbal acuity, if they are lucky enough to physically mature early relative to their male peers (Jake Ryan vs. Anthony Michael Hall in 16 Candles).
If they actually buy what you and society says women want, they will be bitter betas who have porn and Xboxes as their relationship, eventually they’ll figure out (probably quite late) that society (and their mother) lied to them about what women actually want (as opposed to the pretty lies they say). This will make their relationship with you pretty rocky.
If you are lucky, you’ll have a younger boy with older sisters, so he can observe first hand who they get ready early for on dates, so they don’t ever wait, and who they make wait and treat casually or worse. A younger boy with older sisters gets in the habit of emotionally manipulating women, does not put them on a pedestal, and knows what they like (excitement and danger) and gives that to them: rides a motorcycle, gets into fights, gets high, has tattoos, and other things that women find irresistable.
So let me get this straight. Roissy’s hobby is deluding 20yo homesick Russian au pairs into thinking they love him enough to let him have unprotected anal sex with them. You guys think this is awesome and will somehow rejuvenate the West. I guess I cannot understand this because I am a girl. Please, manly men, explain.
Well, Roissy’s rules can be used for such hobbies, but I would imagine in the conservative world, the idea is to make their wives happy enough they have a stable home to make a family in. About half the dudes who comment on his blog are married or engaged, f’rinstance, and have reported their rejuvinated testicularity has made their marriages better.
Personally, I think it’s a lost cause. I’m going to buy an island somewhere and drink tropical drinks while watching Rome burn.
Yeah I totally believe what people who read Roissy say about their marriages. I am sure when they get their wives to look up for a sec from their Snarry fanfic epic it’s an improved look.
I don’t know a single married father whose reaction to Roissy is other than “I will kill it if it gets near my daughter,” which being somewhat high-T myself is pretty much my reaction.
Let’s be serious here. There are slatterns who are young and attractive; Roissy is not blogging about bagging them, but is deliberately targeting virgins and near-virgins who are far from home. This is not about being “testicular,” it’s just a gross case of nihilism in someone who is such a wuss he got the existential willies seeing his mom in a nursing home. There is clearly no hope for the West from the kind of people who are so dead to the difference between good and evil that they don’t see evil when it’s right there, telling you how evil it is.
The “point” of Roissy is to bring the civilization to its knees sooner than would otherwise be the case. He has explicitly said this. He believes that the rot in the culture is terminal, it has metastasized, and cannot ve reversed at this stage. The West, as we know it, is done. So his approach is to bring that sooner rather than later so that we can move on to the next successor civilization to Western civ.
“There are slatterns who are young and attractive; Roissy is not blogging about bagging them, but is deliberately targeting virgins and near-virgins who are far from home.”
I think you’re either misreading or misunderstanding ole Roissy. Besides which, I’ve dated a good half dozen rooskies, one was 18: none were anything remotely like “near virgins.” I don’t think it is possible. Russians are very bad people.
http://nazbol.cc/2008/02/limonov-on-russia/
“Russian women are very, very bad. The worst of all. Russian women is like the Russian Government. Most Russian women at least are good looking when they are in their twenties. Some Russian women are gorgeously beautiful. But they are bad. They are treacherous because they have no moral principles. Christian faith was eliminated during existence of the Soviet Union so nobody taught Russian women morals. No such discipline was taught in Soviet schools. Russian woman hates man because she is envying him. She wants to be as brutal and stupid as him, she wants to lay on a divan doing nothing as man does, but she has less possibilities. Russian woman is disastrous, relationships with her destined to be tragedy. There is no way that you will end happily. You must subjugate her. If not, she will subjugate you. On both occasions, you will lose.”
Well, when you put it that way, novaseeker, he does seem kind of evil.
I figure he’s a clear seeing nihilist. I consider myself much the same way. Why bother trying to live a decent life in a cesspool? When the mormons come and rule over the wasteland, there will be order again. Until that day…. fuhgeddaboudit!
Yeah, I used to think I was immanentizing the eschaton by indulging in my vices too, but the difference between me and Roissy is I was 19 and I got over it.
I am not misreading or misunderstanding. He likes hurting young girls who are far away from home. I could have said South American interns instead of Russian au pairs.
Well, I don’t know why you read my stuff then: I am just as bad -au pairs (the last one was Austrian) and everything. I just see no reason to write essays about it. It’s what men do when we can. We like em young and hot. Innocent would be nice too, but that doesn’t exist any more unless you’re a pedophile. Hence crap like what Roissy writes.
I think you’re somehow missing on how bad modern women are. The entire concept of virtue is gone, forever; kaput finito, goneski. There are isolated pockets of it in other cultures, but whatever is touched by America is done. Sure, American men are pathetic little twits, but the women are fever swamps of immorality.
This girl I know … you may have met her once too, though she was pretty young then. Beautiful, intelligent, two masters degrees, ambitious, excellent job probably makes more money than I do; looks like a Waterhouse painting. I was considering doing horrible things to her, so I went and read her LJ. She wrote, in her LJ, about her transformative experience selling herself for $400 to some sweaty fat nerd on craigslist. She did it as a form of “self improvement.” Some kind of “empowerment” thing to prove she had power over men or something. Even I was pretty horrified. I saw her in a bar recently where I was drinking beer with my Turkish pal. She came up to me, and of course gave me the ole kiss on the cheek, because I’m awesome. My Turk pal had just got done telling me he’d love to stay in America and get rich, but he doesn’t want his son to be a pouf. I told him there were worse things that would happen to his kids in America, and one of them just said hello to me. He couldn’t even wrap his brain around the concept.
Now, I can respect a whore who does it out of necessity, or even one who is kind of broken from being molested when she was young. She’s providing a sort of service, and being useful to society within her compass. Someone who would do that to themselves on purpose: that’s really fucked up.
Can you blame Roissy for wanting to cornhole some Russian chick who at least has enough self respect to not sell herself on craigslist for a couple dollars? I don’t blame him.
I keep reading you because in a better world we would have been good friends. I wish you would stop the bad stuff you do.
Lupo,
Before the mormons come and take over the wasteland, muslims will have outbred them 100 to 1, and looking at the immigrant surge towards europe it is clearly seen they like to move over here, but still bring the culture with them from which they were apparently running away from.
Na.
It will be run over by muslims. And sadly not logical or open minded ones like the ones from your turkish friend’s home, but rather the fanatic radical ones from the deep middle east and north africa.
The only way to stop them (besides nuking half the world) is to force feminism onto the muslim world.
It did stop the western civilization.
I have a different perspective. I don’t think Muslims are going to take over anything. Muslim countries would starve to death without the West to tell them how to feed themselves. I do think insane liberalism will cause enormous backlashes and ethnic cleansing in Europe at some point. Look at history: sure, some fruitcakes blew up a couple of subway trains. The Serbs wiped out thousands of muslims. Rooskies, probably hundreds of thousands. Who you think is gonna win? Just because the Europeans are run by degenerates at present doesn’t mean they will always be. I will be sad when this happens, because many of the persecuted minorities will be innocent, decent people just looking for a better life. The real blame belongs on the liberals who forced this on Europe.
I think the Mormons already run big parts of America; they’re one of the things in this country which actually work. This is pretty insane, but they make up a big chunk of our intelligence officers and colonial administrators. Also, if a meteor hit DC, where would you rather be? Utah or Michigan? To ask the question is to answer it.
Dude: I’m bad -it’s obvious. Don’t you read my blog?
[...] dayHow mainstream dating advice harms womenDon't trust any woman over 30More on Auster getting itThe Roissysphere and its moral and intellectual objectives: a proposed manifestoRequired ReadingNo true woman falls for [...]
[...] Lupo wins the Defending the Undefendable Award for his advocacy of lechery and hybrid vigor: [...]
[...] “men’s rights awareness”: To continue….I believe with the advent of the “Roissysphere,” I think we are now witnessing a new phase in MRA…a merging of the two spheres – [...]
[...] is in all probability the best thing that could have happened for MRA-game community relations. As I’ve already stated, the loose oeuvre of the Roissysphere combines the practical knowledge of game with the political [...]
[...] chasing alphas and playing the field right up until they hit Wile E. Coyote territory, you need to remove the incentives they have to do so. No-fault divorce, VAWA, welfare, affirmative action – they all gotta go. If you’re [...]
“The devastation of Rust Belt cities such as Detroit is the result of the provider beta class disconnecting from society. ”
Seriously? Your writings are usually pretty well reasoned, so I’d like to hear what has lead you to that conclusion. I thought it was because the American auto industry (among others: textiles, manufacturing, and steel) imploded after becoming unable to compete with third world labor costs, Japanese quality, and German engineering.
I can see why there are claims that this is all thinly veiled misogyny. I keep seeing a recurring theme that feminism is primarily to blame for the direction society is headed when there’s plenty enough blame to go around. Isn’t this the same kind of victimization talk that most of us complain about hearing from minorities and feminists?
Women wouldn’t even be in the work force to the degree they are today if our “alpha” leaders hadn’t gotten us into the senseless wars they did. Our forefathers turned them into Rosie the Riveter when it was convenient, and were unable or unwilling to put the toothepaste back in the tube. Companies liked the prices they could charge two income families, so traditional, single income families are penalized. I’m suprised no one ever mentions that as one of the causes for the irrational pricing that lead to the real estate bubble. Similarly, laws regarding child custody, spousal support, and financial/food assistance are because of the abdication of traditional male roles in favor of pump and dump “game” playing. We could argue chicken and egg all day on whether that was in response to female financial liberation or vice versa.
I’m just saying we should man up and take our share of the blame instead of whining like pussies and lessening our own substance by retreating to shallow views and tactics.
Even though I’ve seen bloggers go to great lengths to circumvent the assumption, prostitution seems to be a de facto solution in this philosophy. In their reasoning that the more fulfilling thing is to make (or become so bad ass that it’s automatic) a woman desire you, I could respond… why should you care? It’s already been laid out in more than a few posts that, in slut targetted sex at least, their desire nor pleasure should be your concern. So… if we’re already treating them like whores, in this context wouldn’t it be even more “alpha” to have become financially powerful enough (Hef, Sultan of Brunei, etc) to simply buy a woman to use for your pleasure, and then discard them for the next experience.
Another thing I wanted to throw out there for discussion… the terminology. You guys have phenomonal vocabularies, so I don’t get why these legitimately profound thoughts about self-confidence, traditional values, and the nature of manhood are reduced to “game” as though it were some kind of a con. And that’s all these hucksters trying to sell books are, con artists, liars. Presenting yourself falsely, manipulating the object of your desire through deception… sounds like a bitch move to me. A true alpha male is a man of confidence, intelligence, compassion, humor, cunning and strength. That shit sells itself to women.
The words you use frame the topic, and currenty the vocabulary inspires mental images of shifty con-men and sadistic pimps more than the rat pack. Dean and Sinatra were men of substance and talent, not just swagger. Even if a great deal of it was illusion and stage presence, they had gravitas.
Plus it smacks of, “don’t hate the playa, hate the game” simplistic ghetto philosophy. Are we fallen so low that pauper class, ignorant, posturing thugs and athletes are the best model for a real man that we can imagine. I know our society strives to cater to the lowest common denomenator, mostly to expand market share, but embracing the stupid for a little testosterone injection is a piss poor trade.
There’s also a lot of talk about sluts diminishing their value, whereas polished studs are desirable alphas. My experience is that it only works that way in a social environment (large cities, disconnected social circles) where your history doesn’t become known. The type of girls I assume we’re all looking to attract as potential wives are not much more accepting of sleeping around than we are. Women that are disease concious, even less so. And try attempting to win over your prize contender when you have to disclose the herpes you caught from the perfect 10 stripper you so proudly gamed into your bed. I’m not necessarily saying to not screw the unholy hell out of that stripper, just that slutty behavior and approaching sex in the same gamelike fashion sluts do, it also has its consequences for men and no one hits on that. Maybe I’ve just missed those posts, but not being a fun viewpoint, I doubt it’s considered much. Would your father have courted your mother with the same attitude, would you want them to?
Now, some of the above is devil’s advocate play, because it seems like there isn’t a true consensus about what is essentially a reassertion of the masculine in the face of growing system wide contempt for the straightforward, aggressive, confident, and virile personality that embodies that ideal. Steve McQueen, Patton, Robert Mitchum, Hemmingway, Twain, Tesla, and Sinatra are some of my favorite examples. To illustrate the point I think everyone in these various x-spheres are trying to make, who would be their modern equivalent? How sad is it that you really have to ponder that one for a while? What does that say about where we are as men?
And anyone who says Arnold needs a punch in the throat. Yeah, Conan was awesome… but he’s a horrible actor, false, and a shitty governor. Before you go spouting Mr. Olympia garbage, body building is a super gay men’s beauty pageant that is marginally more consequential than pro-wrestling. Being king of that doesn’t buy any Übermensch cred with me. He can run a decent game though, and he’s fucked a Kennedy, so maybe that’s about the calibre of mascot that some of these folks deserve.
Heh… that was a fun first post :)
A true alpha male is a man of confidence, intelligence, compassion, humor, cunning and strength. That shit sells itself to women.
I agree with you that they are true alpha men, but they product doesn’t sell anymore, either to women or to other men. The drugged up musicians, spivvy bond dealers and sports meatheads are all getting both laid and societies rewards. Jimmy Stewart would have no place in today’s West.
Even your examples of masculinity are pretty shit. Sinatra could sing, and act the man, but he was too closely linked to the mob and lived a life of indolent pleasure. Dean was pisshead. Tesla was your classic aspergy guy, Hemmingway took the easy way out by blowing out his brains. Patton had his issues and McQueen was a druggie.
If you want to know why the West is imploding, why the U.S. is a hollow shell of its power, it’s because until about the 1960′s virtue was rewarded, the ideal man was the quiet hard working man, not the “star” and society was organised toward rewarding that man. The other thing is the world knew the difference between right and wrong. Boring basic stuff. But it’s the stuff of power, empires and happiness.
In fact if you want to see a sample of pure 100% masculinity, calmness in the face of death, monogamy, decency and plain bad ass. Check this guy out.He personally led his troops into battle in ww2, unlike Patton. He developed the bombing tactics that destroyed Germany. He kicked Japanese arse, Stalin was scared of him.He orginised the Berlin Airlift. Mao paid him honour with a captured Japanese sword. He never cheated on his wife. He took the piss weak post war U.S. Air Force and turned it into the Sword of Armageddon. He did not want to fight the Vietnam war but his advice was rejected. Judo wrestler, drag racer:the list literally goes on and on.
He who was completely and utterly pilloried by the U.S. media on both sides of the spectrum. You know when a country dishonours men like this, the country is fucked.
Sorry about the italics.
””””radical feminists initiated a massive redistribution of wealth from the provider beta class to women.”””
From men not just betas. Lot of rich men have become poor men through the redistrobution of wealth.
Lets say a millionaire with a 200000 legal bill.
Or the false accusations. Look at the dude that posts on spearhead that lost everything basically.
I must say that this is the most insightful article I have seen in a while regarding the true nature of feminism and its effect on western civilization. A lot of intelligent “betas” recognize what is happening, but I have never before actually seen someone put pen to paper regarding the issue. The reason for this is that men are by nature prideful and are loathe to show weakness. By admitting that they are being cut off from sexual access by the destruction of marriage is to admit that they are not the greatest lover of all time. The betas dont want to admit that they are not a 10 on the sexual scale, and the alphas wont say anything because they are too busy reaping the rewards at the expense of their fellow men. Personally I dont see how this will change anytime soon, especially when most men are too uncomfortable to broach the topic. Women have more or less shamed men into submission with the time honored attack that goes something like, “you are just upset because you have a small penis.”
One thing I disagree with you on however is that betas need to develop “game.” For someone who has written such an intelligent article this is just plain stupid. For one thing, the main reason that boys are struggling in school now is that they are desperate to find ways to get sex rather than looking toward acheivement as the means to get and keep a stable mate. When a mans energy is dissapated by trying to impress women through something other than concrete achievement, he is weakened, as is society. Moreover, the more people that get “game” the more game will be required. Women dont go for guys with game, they go for guys with more game than their peers. The standards for attracting a woman will simply be made more difficult for the majority of men, not less so.
[...] back when I was just a fringe player in the Roissy- and MRAspheres, commenter MMWW left this remark on one of my early posts: Here is the [...]
[...] Interessante Beobachtung: “Here is the [...]
[...] marketplace. It’s been said before, but uninvested men are perfectly happy with letting their civilization collapse around their feet. When every beta/omega dweeboid who can’t get a lay to save his life can have sex with a [...]
[...] same time that images of sex are shoved in every man’s face, forces work behind the scenes to deny actual sex to many of these men. The steak of carnal release is waved in their faces every waking moment of their lives but is [...]
Allow me to disagree. Alpha and Beta males appeared after WWII with all the changes that occured in the West. Before that, there were only males. Think of all those males who served in WWII or WWI. Were they Alpha or Beta males? They were none. They were just males as opposed to females and only males were eligible to be fighters.
Go back to ancient Greece. Were there Alpha or Beta males? No. You might have depictions of the soldier, the athlete, the priest or the philosopher, but everybody in the gymnasium were taught in the same manner. In Sparta, all males were taught in the same manner; they had no Alpha or Beta males. Socrates was a soldier as all Athenians but he was a philosopher also. Does this mean that he was Alpha or Beta male? No, none of them. The two categories did not exist.
Alpha and Beta males are the product of women empowerment. I doubt at all whether this distinction ever exists in nature. When you give women power to control lives and to set the rules according to their selective mind, the two categories will eventually occur.
[...] potential crisis and saving Western civilization in the process. They’ll also begin agitating for social reform that will make marriage a more viable option for men. Yeah right, and I’m a Canadian [...]
[...] of the Web. His post “Love in the Time of Game” provided the thrust of his thesis. Ferdinand Bardamu’s manifesto is there because it dovetailed with the first phase of my blog’s more [...]
[...] truth – if you want to sell anything, you have to be cool. Coolness is the primary reason why the Roissysphere blossomed out of nowhere to become a potent intellectual force in the span of less … while the much older men’s rights movement is perennially fighting off accusations [...]
[...] you want to sell anything, you have to be cool. Coolness is the primary reason why the Roissysphere blossomed out of nowhere to become a potent intellectual force in the span of less … while the much older men’s rights movement is perennially fighting off accusations [...]
Great article! I am still digesting all of it, it was well written and thought out.
You laid a wicked logical thrashing on that broad.
[...] I’m a Gamesman who gets into girls’ pants by being all aloof and jerkish. I think feminism was a disaster for the West, and I believe that different peoples would be better off in their own states, running counter to [...]
[...] Completely irrelevant side issues when you consider that the singles market is so screwed up that guys have to read a book by a freak wearing a stupid hat in order to figure out how to even get laid. Or that working a minimum-wage job and playing video games all day is more economically sensible [...]
[...] “The Roissysphere and its moral and intellectual objectives: a proposed manifesto” – If the Sodini piece put me on the map, this one solidified my place among the ranks of the alternative right. In hindsight, calling it a “manifesto” was dumb, but whatever. When Dennis Mangan picked it up a day later, it ignited a week-long war in which pro- and anti-game bloggers and commenters, represented by Dennis and Lawrence Auster respectively, duked it out all over the blogosphere. It ended with lots of hurt feelings, no changed minds, and a WHOLE lot of publicity for my fledgling blog. [...]
[...] What Mystery doesn’t mention is the amount of time it took Casanova to bed each of his paramours. While the 18th century was a more sexually liberated time than you would think (prudishness was a historical aberration of Victorian times – read a history book if you don’t believe me), it was still nowhere close to the Bacchanalia we live in today. Wooing a girl took time, and Casanova pursued many of his targets for weeks and months before they would give in to temptation. Indeed, this is part of what makes his achievements as a seducer that much more extraordinary. This is all Roissysphere 101. [...]
[...] are you conservatives going to campaign for something that matters, instead of chasing the shiny baubles the liberals wave in front of your face? When are you going [...]
[...] navel-gazing. Conservatives complain about sexual promiscuity, but they never notice that the sexual marketplace has shifted so dramatically that a large amount of men are now left without any companionship. They look at the few men who are [...]