Todd White e-mailed me a link to this comment he sent to Lawrence Auster. It’s worth a read. There are also two more VFR entries that you should check out. See my previous post for the other entries.
More on Auster getting it
About Ferdinand Bardamu
I run this joint. Follow me on Twitter here, on Google+ here, and friend me on Facebook here. Find out more about my upcoming book, The Eternal Solipsism of the Female Mind and Other Essays, by clicking here.
Previous post: How mainstream dating advice harms women
Next post: A note on threaded commenting
{ 72 comments… read them below or add one }
I think he’s back to not getting it:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/014014.html
Don’t count on Lawrence Auster getting it :
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/
But why do we care if he gets it? Again, allies of Game are libertarians and fiscal conservatives. Social cons are the same thing as leftists – they just follow 2 different religions (leftism is a religion).
Ferdinand,
Who cares if Lawrence Auster gets it? I never ever heard of Lawrence Auster until you mentioned him. Don’t overrate his importance.
80% of men, and 99.9% of women, will never, ever comprehend Game. No need to bother trying – they just will not get it, nor should they get it.
It seems you still want more people to know how Game is mutually beneficial to both men and women (which it is), It is an exercise in futility, so don’t bother.
Let me put it this way :
Social cons still think men are the problem, because their moral code is derived from an era long past. An era before the legal/media complex. Social cons are dinosaurs, quite analogous to those who persecuted Galileo.
Unless and until I see social cons fighting the unfair divorce laws, I have no use for them. I am not holding my breath for this.
But they have to arrive at these conclusions themselves. If they do, we should join their efforts against feminism. But until they do, we had best ignore them and their feeble Betatude.
Conservatives/Libertarians who appear to ‘get it’ are :
Allahpundit
John Derbyshire
Greg Gutman
Glenn Reynolds.
None of whom are social cons. Build alliances with THESE people, rather than waste time with social cons.
As always, someone pops up to illustrate the maxim that libertarianism is applied autism.
Extreme individualism is part of the disease and the complete free market in the search for a mate is the problem in itself. Read Houellebecq. Only social conservatives have the potential to grow some balls and actually do something to constrain female nature. They just need to get over their white knight complex. Libertarians are lost in their idiotic “the market will solve everything” squirrel run. They are irrelevant.
Social cons will not grow balls in the forseeable future.
Part of the disconnect is that social cons only encounter churchgoing girls on Sunday morning, while Game practitioners encounter urban sluts.
Both live in a filtered environment that overrepresents extremes, thus, both will have a tinted view of reality.
No, social cons not “getting it” has naught to do with their purported affinities with Leftism (in point of fact, libertarians have far more in common with the Left) . I suppose their aversion has to do with the possibility of the the corpus of the conservative tradition being discarded withal in the ecstasy of a biocon ascendancy(remember the rise of the neocons?). Whither would Burke reside amidst biocentrism? I cannot vouch for how biocons feel towards such luminaries of the past but chances are that they will be viewed as superannuated. Not that this will happen as a matter of course, seeing that biocons and traditionalists have a common perspective of man’s nature; but there are those–Novaseeker and Fifth Horseman– who already deem the latter as philosophically inanimate. The risk of such wholesale abandonment of classics is therefore plainly visible. However, with the professed missions of FB and Beta Prime to incorporate apologias of the West into their discourse, there is still latitude for such concerns to become unfounded. On the other hand, casually dismissing traditionalists who adhere to philosophy as dinosaurs will not help matters any.
Thursday –
SOCONS will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever stop blaming men, because their world view is that women are foals, are under our thumbs, and so on. This is their world view. It does not match reality. Women *are* empowered now that they have the vote. They are an independent entity.
The sophomoric fantasies of SOCONism have no place in our movement. None.
Yes, we know they are independent entities; I do not think that is in dispute. But who empowered women in the first place and for what reason? Again, this is another case of a penetrating diagnosis that completely disregards the etiology.
SOCONS will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever stop blaming men
Assertion is not argument. Permit me to doubt your ability to so confidently predict the future.
their world view is that women are foals, are under our thumbs, and so on.
Explain to me again how these views are somehow inherent to social conservatism? Oh, except they aren’t.
Libertarians are irrelevant both because they have an underappreciation of man as a social animal and an underappreciation of the need for government.
Okay men are to blame.
What next SOCONS?
Men back in church? *laughter*
Any other practical ideas or is this just ideological posturing on the net?
What ever happened to women becoming secondary to one’s “mission”? Or was that, too, ideological posturing?
Okay men are to blame.
You’re ignoring the issue. Again, explain to me how blaming men is an inherent part of social conservatism?
Oops, you can’t. [Sound of house of cards crumbling.]
You’re ignoring the issue. Again, explain to me how blaming men is an inherent part of social conservatism?
Oops, you can’t. [Sound of house of cards crumbling.
Oh yes, I can feel it all crumbling down around me, Thursday. You have utterly defeated me and everyone else who thinks as I do. I am ever in your debt O superior one.
How about this: SOCONS always blame men for this catastrophe, because SOCONS take the assumption that the feminists do, that men are in power, and therefore all is to blame on men. Women and feminism are irrelevant. It’s because all men are not like Thursday. Fuck yeah. If all of us were like Thursday then there would be no problem.
SOCONS are the ideological provocateurs, not us.
Again, what permitted men to be eclipsed by women and vaulted them to their new station? Care to discuss the matter further instead of pointing feebly at the problem as it is now?
Liberal men did. So what. My concern is how we get out of this, and no, it is not getting men back to church, because the churches are feminized.
Oh? So urging men to adhere to a ‘mission’ while giving them no practical advice to do so is not ideological posturing?
O hey, I have an idea, Posec!
Let’s get on men’s backs. You know, like we do on father’s day, but let;’s do it every day. Lets make it clear to men that they are worthless slags who are responsible for the current state of affairs, and if they aren’t willing to suck it up, then let them die. After all as Ian B. said, let them die. This is how compassionate conservatives think, right?
Why did liberal men do this and what ideology were they following? What is the origin of feminism? These are the questions that need to be answered in deep detail and not perfunctorily passed over like “yeah, it happened…”.
Game is all about practical advice. Your philosophy is pie in the sky idealism that bears no resemblance to reality.
SOCONS always blame men for this catastrophe
Socons have blamed men in the past, but I’m baffled that you think this somehow proves that they must do so in the future. The error in logic is really quite elemental.
Again, the fact that social conservatives have blamed men in the past is not a demonstration that there is a logical or necessary connection between social conservatism and blaming men. Asserting it over and over again won’t make it so.
I am ever in your debt O superior one
Judging by the logic displayed in your comments, I am superior. ;)
Liberal men. And again, so what.
Listen we all agree that it started in the enltmt which led to hegelianism and marxism and so on. Don’t be a pedant. We know these things. It makes no difference. Hegelianism/Marxism/Feminism has won. You have lost. All that remains is survival.
You’re an ass. You are sniping like a typical internet asshole who has no balls. Say what you mean, jackass.
“Game is all about practical advice. Your philosophy is pie in the sky idealism that bears no resemblance to reality.”
Are not women supposed to be subordinate to a man’s mission? I must be remiss because rarely do I read about Roissyites articulating such missions which would serve seduction so well. Has even one person developed this most necessary conception?
What? You haven’t even tried to demonstrate that there is a necessary connection between social conservatism and blaming men.
You’ve stated that social conservatives have blamed men in the past. That’s true, but it doesn’t demonstrate that they must continue to do so in future.
Then show me where socons are not blaming men in the context of men/women issues like DV, marriage, divorce and so on.
Good luck with that in 2009.
Then show me where socons are not blaming men in the context of men/women issues like DV, marriage, divorce and so on.
This is just an evasion of my question.
It is also irrelevant, because it only looks to the past. Honestly, looking to the future, social cons are the people you are most likely to find support among because they are the people who are least opposed to patriarchy and traditional gender roles.
Or you could try persuading the likes of Julian Sanchez, Brink Lindsay, Megan McArdle, Will Wilkinson, Kerry Howley, Matt Welch etc.
More generally, libertarianism will fail to in this area because it insists on viewing people only as individuals. It’s a species of liberalism. Unlike traditionalist conservatism which recognizes the inherent validity of certain categories, such as, for example, male and female.
What government position am I running for? At any rate, has anyone formulated a mission, the purpose of which is to ensure that women are not placed on a pedestal?
I will never be convinced of the utility of social conservatism until I see the proof in the pudding, and to date social conservatives have sold every single gender/sex issue down the river, shamelessly. History? Sure. But past is prologue.
And without a track record I have no interest in assuming that socons have anything better in the future planned than they had in the past, other than recruiting votes through spinning pretty lies.
It was a good libertarian, J.S. Mill who wrote The Emancipation of Women. Right liberalism as much as left liberalism is to blame for our current situation.
Game doesn’t place women on a pedestal.
without a track record I have no interest in assuming that socons have anything better in the future planned than they had in the past
What constituency then do you hope to persuade? It’s pretty much the socons or nothing.
If you choose nothing then OK, that’s your prerogative, but it means deliberately choosing to lose. And if you deliberately choose to lose, why should anyone else care?
“Game doesn’t place women on a pedestal.”
You have yet to respond to my query. Who in the Roissysphere has acted in accordance with this precept: “You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority”? So who among them have crafted a mission and do they discuss it regularly?
That is interesting in terms of intellectual history. It is not interesting in terms of what to do now. My impression of intellectual conservatives (and I am not unsympathetic to intellectuals in general) is that they are out to lunch about what to do now.
There is no constituency other than men. Simply men of any persuasion. It won’t be pre-disposed ideologues like you. mostly, but some will be from there. But otherwise, it’s just about men.
That’s your mission, not ours.
According to Roissy it needs to be the aim of all who would practice game. “They [women] in fact want to subordinate themselves to a worthy man’s life purpose, to help him achieve that purpose with their feminine support, and to follow the path he lays out.” How does this need for a “worthy life purpose” not affect you?
How does this need for a “worthy life purpose†not affect you?
Ah, but that’s a personal goal rather than a collective mission.
There is no constituency other than men.
Then you have no constituency at all. The conflict of interest between different men and different groups of men is too great. Great Roissy quote:
Like one of the commenters from yesterday’s post pointed out, the first cute girl to bat her eyelashes at one of these revolutionary Che Betas will have him betraying the brotherhood faster than you can say “just the tipâ€.
Really it is the socons or nothing.
So have you encountered an individual one who has professed a specific goal that could constitute a “worthy life purpose”?
Indeed. The delusion that women are weak and innocent–”white knight syndrome” in Roissy lingo–is a root cause of beta dysfunction. What women are really like I don’t yet fully understand, for they do seem to have greater compassion et cetera than men do. Clearly they do not have compassion for the plight of the beta though. Roissy claims they actively despise the beta as the lowest of vermin. I’d guess it’s more the way men view fat girls, only fat girls who would constantly making furtive but obvious and discomfiting advances.
Yes. Leftism is a direct descendent of Christianity, Nietzsche’s slave morality.
Women like beta men and are often very nice to them, until the poor guy makes sexual advances.
Then you have no constituency at all.
Then all that is left is the end. I welcome it. It will let us move on to something else.
Not important to me. I do not wish to have a collective purpose.
You can’ not have a collective purpose because you are not a collective. To reiterate, have you found any game bloggers who, in accordance with the above injunction (Roissy commandment III), have devoted themselves to a primary purpose?
True. I was thinking more that they despise the beta as a sexual being.
For men who aren’t getting laid, learning to attract women is the mission. Once those skills are acquired, a man should not let any one woman become his central mission, according to this meme in the game community. The whole mission idea is from the following book: http://www.amazon.com/Way-Superior-Man-Spiritual-Challenges/dp/1889762105.
The concept may be overblown. It may simply reflect that a man who makes pleasing a woman his main objective cannot possibly be acting dominant.
Taking a jaunt over to Roissy’s and reading your comments there, then rereading your comments here, it’s dawned on me that you’re probably going through some pain and despair beyond what my words and arguments could have caused. Whatever it is, I wish you the best.
Game, like life in general, is full of paradoxes such a this. You just have to work through them on a practical level and not let the theory get in the way of doing what you have to do.
Libertarianism will fail. It could only succeed if everyone had an IQ above 115. Unfortunately for those with high intelligence–everyone partaking in this discussion–for us it would be perfect.
Most game practitioners were beta males who discovered game within the past five or so years. For the beginning of the PG (post-game) life, learning to live as a high status male is their natural mission. Once that acclamation has occurred, a new mission can be undertaken.
Anecdotally, I’ve read many accounts of men who have a new vigor for their careers and other activities once they get mating handled.
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and all… physiological needs such as mating come way before anything else.
Again not my interest. I don’t have a collective purpose. My own purpose is my own.
“Again not my interest. I don’t have a collective purpose. My own purpose is my own.”
That point having been established, have you come across practitioners of game who, like you, have a purpose that is their own to which they are attached and that they use with such prowess that it became their overriding goal?
Yes — married men.
What do they have to say regarding this?
Thursday – “Again, the fact that social conservatives have blamed men in the past is not a demonstration that there is a logical or necessary connection between social conservatism and blaming men.”
The reason that men will tend to selectively blame other men is largely (and simply) because they will get positive feed-back from women for doing so — and negative feed-back (typically, no sex) if they blame women and point out their roles in the creation of given problems. Social conservatives are every bit as prone to do this as any other group/entity.
Perhaps the most glaring (and, too me, most disappointing) has been the way that the modern Church has followed along in this same way (as opposed to leading). Far from following Paul’s admonishment to “Be not conformed to this world”, I see ample example of the Church leading the way in bending over backward to accommodate Feminism’s intrusion (amongst it’s female members) and to find ways to blame men for anything and everything, in accordance to the desires of the “enlightened” Christian Feminists — all the while convincing themselves that their efforts to appease women are really just being Chivalrous (Chivalry having largely morphed into more female appeasement than female protection).
Social conservatism, being closely linked with the modern church, has (naturally) chosen to follow suit.
Because the leadership of both church and conservatism have little or no desire to anger their female constituencies, it seems likely that the selective blaming of men WILL continue for the foreseeable future. The link may not be hard and fast, but it has a certain “safe” logic to it.
Posec – “That point having been established, have you come across practitioners of game who, like you, have a purpose that is their own to which they are attached and that they use with such prowess that it became their overriding goal?”
Men who practice “game” withe the unsavory goal of getting women to have sex with them, are, in my opinion, simply being more honest than men who practice “Nice Guy(TM)” on women, with the same goal of getting them to have sex.
Lot’s of Nice Guys are even more obsessed with getting laid than PUA’s, it seems to me. Some will invest/waste far more effort. time, and expense in trying to woo women by placing them of a pedestal and grovelling and begging to reciprocally like them back (and, someday, have sex with them).They are just more frustrated because their approach of trying to be what they been told women want is mostly unsuccessful, because it isn’t really what women want.
If one is ultimately pursuing sex, I see no more honor in “kissing up” to women than in “gaming” them.
Game has been characterized as a way for men to reassert their erstwhile vigor which has been sapped by Leftism for decades. Crucial to this recovery is a sense of not yielding to the whims of women and being bonded instead to a mission in which a man can exercise his latent strength. Although this need for a mission is a core tenet of game, it is virtually never discussed and those of the community are mute on this issue. Dereliction of this dimension of game, which is inseparable from character building, is baffling and so I wonder why it is so saliently absent. Moreover, ultimately pursuing sex would be incongruous with being the constructive mission since it would place women as your primary goal. Notwithstanding how much more honest PUAs are than nice guys in their intentions to bed women, they cannot be effective if their mission is to do so.
“Notwithstanding how much more honest PUAs are than nice guys in their intentions to bed women, they cannot be effective if their mission is to do so.”
Perhaps you could explain what you mean by “mission”? I think most men have attaining sex as a “goal”, but not a life mission, to the exclusion of all else.
For most men, a “mission” would be something more on the order of creating and supporting a family – which, coincidentally, first requires a man be able to attract the romantic/sexual attentions of a woman. An important step which having “Game” will go a long way towards achieving.
I suppose one could consider the long-term investment of time put in by Nice Guy’s trying to get sex from women friends as “mission-like” – unlike the quick success/failure of the PUA’s attempts.
sl werner and posec both make valid points.
But posec, I would disagree that the Game community does not emphasize char. building. It does. There are many more luminaries in Game than Roissy or Mystery.
I have.
By mission I mean an activity or effort that a man pursues in order to build an identity apart from one’s interest in women. When couched in terms of game it appears as follows: “They [women] in fact want to subordinate themselves to a worthy man’s life purpose, to help him achieve that purpose with their feminine support, and to follow the path he lays out.†Forming a family can count under these terms but having the mission be sex might compromise one’s game since such a focus is gynocentric.
I noticed that game certainly can aid in character building but I have yet to see bloggers actually mention that they have found a mission and who write of it alongside their other observations. It could be that I just have not gotten around much in that particular sphere but it seems as if finding missions should be a topic of utmost importance. And I also agree that there is more to the game community who care for defending the West, as this blog and Beta Revolution attest.
Posec:
Yes, having a mission apart from women is of paramount importance in being successfull with the fairer sex, but since such missions will necessarily be unique to each individual man, there is not much discussion of it in the “Game-o-sphere” since men gather in such places to discuss the circumscribed aspects of women as such.
On this whole “importance of discussing mission” nonsense –
If I were to enter a discussion of using hammers to pound nails, the relative merits of Craftsman vs. Stanley (let alone using a rock) is not valid unless it is in a contextual analysis of building a deck vs. a cathedral ?
SteveinTX
How is the importance of having a mission nonsense when it is a core tenet of those who would practice ‘game’? Unless you disagree with Roissy telling men to make a mission one’s priority in life.
From your response, I see only three possibilities:
1) You didn’t actually read my comment;
2) You are so incredibly dense as to not understand my comment;
3) You decided to conflate and disingenuously tangent, because you have nothing – except your hobby-horse.
SteveinTX