I’ve spent the past few days corresponding with Todd White, a conservative blogger and author who takes issue with my advocacy of game. My recent replies to him are long enough to make a blog post out of – which is precisely what I’m doing. Regular programming resumes tomorrow.
These are my comments on his first post about game:
Todd White: According to Bardamu – and other bloggers – we need “Game.”
Ferdinand Bardamu: I believe you’re confusing Roissy’s opinion on this with my own. I advocate game as a short-term salve and not as a long-term solution. As I and others have written, having men behave like indifferent cads will speed up society’s destruction. The long-term goal is to topple the structures (no-fault divorce, alimony/child support, welfare, etc.) that making using game the only viable option for men. “Traditional values” can only flourish if there’s an incentive to hold to them. Roissy’s worldview – “drink, fuck, and be merry, for tomorrow it’s all gonna burn” – is not something you can build a conservative movement on.
TW: From the perspective of both Gamers and their critics, Game is a reaction to the “Sexual Revolution.†And of course, that’s partly true. But could there be an ever greater instigator of the “Game Revolution?†Yep, you guessed it: Reductionism. And more specifically, Darwinism.
FB: A popular myth is that the intellectual foundation of game is Darwinism. This is incorrect. Only the Roissysphere and Steveosphere hold to this view, a backwards rationalization based on their own biases. The Mystery-Neil Strauss conception of game, the view that is by far the most popular, bases its precepts on a quack pseudoscience called “neuro-linguistic programming“. Ross Jeffries, the godfather of the seduction community, also based his theories on NLP. Darwinism didn’t enter the picture until Roissy came along. [My sneaking suspicion is that social conservatives are rejecting game because they believe that it is wholly a product of Darwinism. My studies in history and literature show that the facts behind game were known long before Darwin was a dirty, perverted thought in his father's head - ed.]
That, and the basic concepts behind game have been around for a long time, since before the sexual revolution. Last week, I posted two Lord Byron poems in which he espouses the same attitudes and behaviors that Roissy does. One of my fellow bloggers, Welmer, wrote a recent post entitled “Carl Jung: Founding Father of Game.” My point: you don’t need to be a Darwinist to accept that game is effective.
TW: How can the principles of Spiritual Rationalism apply to my dating life? Well, S.R. advances a philosophy of personal integrity (“Be good and be smartâ€). So a Spiritual Rationalist would have no interest in expending time and energy for casual sex. A Spiritual Rationalist would never judge the suitability of a mate by their physical appearances (except in some very rare instances which I won’t elaborate on here). A Spiritual Rationalist would never lie, deceive, or cheat other people in order to appear more “desirable†to the opposite sex. A Spiritual Rationalist would never pursue a woman – any woman – who valued lying, deception, or superficiality in their partner. A woman who loves the “bad boy†is of no use to him. A Spiritual Rationalist would seek a woman who scorned all of the “bad boy†behaviors, and prized reason, faith, and especially love.
FB: So this is your vaunted alternative to game – an elaborate version of telling young men to “just be themselves?” You’ll forgive me if I think your advice is rather impractical. Game is popular because its principles are concrete, its advice specific, and its philosophy practical. I’ll go through your paragraph point by point.
TW: Well, S.R. advances a philosophy of personal integrity (“Be good and be smartâ€).
FB: What happens in a world where virtue is punished and vice rewarded, as our world is? Everyone will become a sinner. There have to be tangible benefits to being a person with integrity (beyond what gratification the person gets from it) in order for people to follow that route.
TW: So a Spiritual Rationalist would have no interest in expending time and energy for casual sex.
FB: Nice strawman. Game isn’t about “casual sex,” it’s about making oneself attractive to women. What happens from that point forward is the man’s choice.
TW: A Spiritual Rationalist would never judge the suitability of a mate by their physical appearances (except in some very rare instances which I won’t elaborate on here).
FB: This is wishful thinking. A man needs to be physically attracted to a woman in order for a relationship to be possible. Looks matter.
TW: A Spiritual Rationalist would never lie, deceive, or cheat other people in order to appear more “desirable†to the opposite sex.
FB: Again, game is not about lying. If anything, game allows a man to be more honest with himself, by enabling him to express his true desires.
TW: A Spiritual Rationalist would never pursue a woman – any woman – who valued lying, deception, or superficiality in their partner. A woman who loves the “bad boy†is of no use to him. A Spiritual Rationalist would seek a woman who scorned all of the “bad boy†behaviors, and prized reason, faith, and especially love.
FB: Getting good with women is the only way to be selective enough that you can afford to do this. Game helps you get good with women.
TW: As Brian Raines learned, there is no use in pretending to be someone you’re not.
FB: See above point about game and honesty.
TW: At every stage of the courtship, he should think rationally while permitting himself – one step at a time – one earned step at a time – to love his girlfriend unconditionally. A woman should love a man for who he is, and vice versa.
FB: Unconditional love is a myth and an excuse people use to indulge in their worst habits. Should Charles Manson’s parents have loved him unconditionally? If you want someone to love you, you have to mold yourself into someone worth loving. Game is a tool that can help you accomplish that.
TW: If a person accepts Darwinism, and also accepts Roissy’s assertion that the best (indeed, the only) way to enjoy the company of women is through “Game,†isn’t it logical to ask, “What’s the point?†Why should I expend so much time and effort for the chance – just the chance – of sex with women I don’t even like? No sexual pleasure can fill the void that such an meaningless existence creates?
FB: Who said anything about “sex with women [you] don’t even like?” The only way to find a woman that you DO like is to get out there and find her – she’s not going to just fall on your lap. Hell, casual sex isn’t even a requirement – you just need to know what you want and more importantly, how to get it. That’s where game comes in.
For an example of a “conservative” use of game, see Dave from Hawaii’s use of game to keep his wife in love with him.
TW: Gotta love those “Alpha Males!”
FB: If alpha males are getting all the women, then men will seek to emulate them. The only way to change this is to change the system that gives these scumbags all of the benefits.
Here are my responses to his second post:
Todd White: I don’t understand this at all. The vast majority of people – even among ideologues like myself – do not make decisions about their personal life on a day-to-day basis with the goal of changing society. What can be the justification for allowing your life to be used as a sacrifice for social progress? And what is your definition of progress?
Ferdinand Bardamu: You know the feminist catchphrase “the personal is the political?” They had a point in that statement – a successful revolutionary movement must address the personal needs of the people it is claiming to help. Specifically, these needs must be addressed in a way that allows individuals to reap the benefits either immediately or in the near future.
Take the Chinese Civil War. The war was very regionalist, pitting wealthy urbanites (Nationalists) against the rural peasantry (Communists). Because his power base was in the cities, Chiang Kai-shek had little concern for the peasants, and his armies treated them with indifference at best and utter cruelty at worst. Mao Zedong saw this and ordered his followers to help the peasants they encountered in any way they could. If a villager needed a well dug, the Communists helped them dig it. If they needed to find a missing child, the Communists helped them search. If a village needed a schoolteacher, the Communists provided one. The Communists’ goal was to alleviate the suffering of the rural poor, but simply spouting Marxism at them would not have helped on its own. By assisting the Chinese peasantry with their personal problems, Mao won their undying support – and with their support, he won the war.
This is what I am advising conservatives to do. The chief problem of our modern society is the sexual starvation of beta males (or average men, if you prefer). Denied the possibility of procreation, these men are dropping out of society and leaving it to fall apart. The long-term political goal of conservatism is to undo the governmental and social institutions that have forced these men into the shadows. Until then, however, these men need a way to sate their lusts. Game is the best way, in my opinion, to help them do this. By helping these men solve their personal problems, we can thus win their support for our political goals. Every movement needs its foot soldiers, and the “average men” are an ideal market for conservatism, but unless conservatives find a way to solve this problem, their efforts to turn back leftism are doomed to failure.
My blogging comrade (blograde?) Φ sums it up best:“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).”
TW: Relatively parochial issues like welfare reform. I’m not a fan of welfare myself, but I can’t imagine any scenario where I would allow the most important thing in my life – my love of a woman – to be dictated by the hope that one day – maybe – through my actions – society will be motivated to change its welfare laws.
FB: Your dismissal of welfare as “parochial” is part of the problem. Welfare is a VERY big contributor to the current mess we’re in. The clearest example of this is in the black ghettos. Pre-welfare, poor black women needed to marry men in order to put food on the table. With the Great Society, these same women no longer had to worry about starving, giving them free license to throw out their husbands and pursue bad boy alphas. The young boys saw this and realized that the only way to get with women was to become a violent thug. The fact that the government later passed a new law that barred households with a man from receiving welfare worsened the problem. The root of many problems afflicting the black community is welfare – getting rid of it will be a major step in the right direction. [See this reply I made to Obsidian for my description of the other factors harming blacks and poor whites and my solutions for solving them - ed.]
For middle-class whites, the dominant issue is the anti-male marriage laws. Half of all marriages in this country end in divorce, and more than 2/3rd of all divorces are initiated by women, and no-fault divorce laws allow couples to split for any reason. Custody of the children goes to the woman 95 percent of the time – a woman has to be completely crazy, ala Britney Spears, in order for the man to get custody. In addition, the man will see his wages garnished for child support, and should he lose his job or otherwise fall on hard times, the government shows no mercy, labels him a “deadbeat dad,” and throws him in jail.
I don’t know your current relationship status, Mr. White, but let me ask you this: are you willing to get married knowing full well that there is a 50/50 chance your marriage will end in divorce, a 70 percent chance that it will be your wife who will initiate the divorce, and a near certainty that you will not only not get custody of your own children, but have your earnings taken away for child support and risk being thrown in debtors’ prison should you fall on hard financial times? Maybe you’re willing to play those odds, but I’m not, and neither are millions of men. I do want to get married and start a family eventually, but when I do, it won’t be in America, and it won’t be with an American woman. I value my life and my freedom too much to risk having them taken away.
TW: Again, I don’t understand this. You casually dismiss the twin intellectual foundations of “Game†– which is your prerogative – but then you – as a Gamer – don’t offer an alternative foundation. Normally, I would say that is your prerogative too, but in your writings you clearly advocate Game to advance a larger social purpose. That purpose should have a clearly-stated intellectual foundation. I believe that Game’s foundation – whether you recognize it or not – is “Reductionism.†What is Reductionism, and why is it harmful to the individual and society? See Lawrence Auster’s posts here and here. At the age of 29, Reductionism holds no appeal to me. I’ve traveled that road before, and I have no interest in traveling it again.
FB: Part of the problem is that there is no consensus on the foundation for game. Game and its advocates are in a position similar to that of Christianity in the early days of the Roman Empire. As an underground movement, Christianity had no organized churches and no central authority to define what its main tenets were, and as a result, there were numerous heresies such as Arianism that toyed with the basic theology. The First Council of Nicaea was convened specifically to reach a consensus on what Christianity was and clear up confusion.
Game is in a near-identical position. As an underground movement, there is no central source or document codifying in clear terms what the precepts of game are. The various schools of game – the Roissy school, the Mystery school, etc – all agree that game works and is effective, but can’t agree as to why. I imagine as game becomes more popular, we will see a “First Council of Nicaea” event to sort these issues out. My views on game are influenced by Roissy’s writings, but are somewhat atypical (or at least I think so), so take them with a grain of salt, but here’s what I believe.
I have no facts to support my assertions, but I would imagine that Roissy and many Roissysphere writers come from math and science backgrounds. I come from a humanities background. When I became acquainted with the seduction community, I began noticing bits and pieces of their philosophy in the works of literature I was reading. Those Byron poems I linked to are a prime example – he wrote those poems before Darwin was even born, and yet he managed to arrive at the same conclusions of the Darwinist Roissy school of game. This fascinated me, so I started doing my own research into the subject. What did I find? The principles underlying game are echoed in the literature and history of the West, going all the way back to the ancient Greeks. If you want a better idea of where I’m coming from, read Robert Greene’s “The Art of Seduction.” As a self-help book, it’s useless, but as a study of human sexuality in Western history and culture, it is INVALUABLE.
Have you read Michel Foucault’s “The History of Sexuality?” A dreadful book that gets everything wrong, except for one thing that it only gets half-wrong. Foucault notes the emergence of an intellectual discourse on sexuality in the time he was writing (the 1970′s), when there wasn’t one before. He wrongly attributed it to the Industrial Revolution. I posit that there is an emerging discourse on sexuality, but it is not the result of the Industrial Revolution, but the Sexual Revolution.
Game, in my opinion, works because its principles spring from the unconscious body of knowledge of sexuality that people had prior to the Sexual Revolution. I call it an “unconscious body of knowledge” because nobody ever wrote it down or thought about it much. Things like why women shouldn’t sleep around or why they shouldn’t chase men like Roissy or Ryan Jenkins didn’t need to be justified intellectually – they were self-evident. Now, where this knowledge sprang from is up for debate. I am sympathetic to Darwinist explanations, but Darwinism is an incomplete theory, which is why I don’t criticize anti-Darwinists such as yourself or Lawrence Auster as heavily as some of my colleagues. Point is, this “unconscious body of knowledge” is time-tested and exists independently of Darwinism. [I laugh at the atheist idiots who have elevated Darwinism into a religion. I imagine that in the next century, Darwinism will be superseded by another theory that is closer to the truth. Such is how science works; we get closer to the truth, one little leap at a time - ed.]
The sexual knowledge of our forebears was junked by 60′s counterculturalists in their mad drive to destroy old ideas. I would compare what they did to the burning of the great library at Alexandria, except that what the counterculturalists did has done far more damage to the world. Nature abhors an intellectual vacuum, so feminism came flooding in to fill the gap. The claims that gender is a social construct, that men have been keeping women down for all eternity, that all sex is rape – these wrongheaded assertions have infected the government, the churches, the culture, and have caused no end of suffering for men and women.
Game is part of the emerging discourse on sexuality, the re-emergence of the “old knowledge.” The first step was the advent of the seduction community, a purely pragmatic movement focused on getting unlucky men laid. The second step was the rise of the Roissysphere, inspired by the first writer to connect game to conservatism, human biodiversity and the decline of Western civilization. The next step, I imagine, will be the formation of an ideological movement folding the practical knowledge presented by game into the existing goals of conservatism. One of my colleagues, Beta Prime, established a new blog entitled “Beta Revolution” for this specific purpose. My own writings on this topic have attracted considerable attention (as our exchange shows), and I’ve only been blogging for a month!
For another example, let’s take the emergence of Christian apologetics. There was no such thing as “Christian apologetics” in the Middle Ages, because the average medieval European regarded Christianity’s tenets as self-evident. Beginning with the Renaissance, the science discoveries of men like Galileo and Copernicus sowed doubt into the minds of believers. From there, Immanuel Kant stated that God’s existence could not be proven. A hundred years later, Nietzsche declared that God was dead. World War I was the straw that broke Christianity’s back, and the post-war period saw the rise of prominent atheist intellectuals such as Bernard Shaw and the members of the Bloomsbury Group. It fell to writers such as C.S. Lewis to mount an intellectual defense of Christianity.
I would argue that “gamers” are in a similar position, offering “sexuality apologetics” arguing the reality of human nature against leftists and feminists. Game’s mere existence as a proven method of seducing women disproves every single claim made by feminists and leftists about sexuality in the past forty years. It’s the intellectual equivalent of a hydrogen bomb, and can do as much damage to the leftist cause. Therein lies the value of game to conservatives. The current ferment in the blogosphere in regards to game will likely lead to the establishment of intellectual coherency regarding its tenets.
TW: What is impractical about being truthful to yourself and loving yourself for who you truly are?
FB: It’s impractical because it’s not specific. Game offers specific advice for real-world situations. The difference between what game advocates and what you advocate is the difference between giving someone wandering a thick jungle a map and a compass and giving them a pep talk – “You can do it! You can find your way out!” Pretty words, but they don’t help.
That, and “loving yourself” comes across as self-evident. It’s like saying that the key to a long life is breathing.
TW: And why is it “practical†to dislike yourself and create a false persona to achieve morally questionable goals?
FB: Telling people that they aren’t cutting the mustard as they are and that they have to improve, as game does, is not the same as telling them to “dislike” themselves. And “morally questionable goals?” I’ll quote myself on that one:
“Think of game as being like a butcher knife, which can be used to carve up meat or carve people up into meat. Does the fact that some sick individuals do the latter mean that butcher knives can only be used for that purpose?”
“Game is nothing more then a tool, with its application left up to individual use. If it seems that the loudest proponents of game are hedonists, that’s because we live in a hedonistic era, and says nothing about game itself.”
TW: To be honest, I don’t think our world punishes virtue and rewards vice. I really don’t. It’s true the world isn’t perfect, but it’s also a place where – more often than not – happy, moral people thrive, and immoral people eventually discover (usually the hard way) that their immorality creates negative consequences.
FB: A world in which a model citizen like George Sodini goes twenty years without a girlfriend and Scott Peterson, a guy who murdered his wife while having an affair with a pretty young thing, gets besieged daily with throngs of women offering their hands in marriage, is a world that doesn’t reward virtue. Not at all. To quote myself again:
“In the past, men who played by the rules won out in the end. No more. Women of all types are spreading their legs exclusively for pick-up artists, cads, players, badboys, and other men whom a healthy society would regard as the scum of the earth. Men like George Sodini who succeed and contribute to society have only their right hands for company, while bottom-feeders are drowning in more vaj then they know what to do with. Is this just? Is this right?”
TW: Looks should never be the number one basis for determining whether or not you should date a woman. That’s silly. The woman you love is always beautiful. If you think I’m naïve, so be it.
FB: It’s not the sole determinant, but it’s an important one. This was recognized prior to the Sexual Revolution – marriage contracts stipulated that wives had to service their husbands sexually whenever he said so, which entailed staying in shape and keeping the pounds off. “Marital rape” was an oxymoron. Of course, this was also wiped out by the feminists.
TW: That’s not my understanding of game. I watched a few episodes of The Pickup Artist. Lying was definitely a part of the seduction, and proudly so.
Lying doesn’t help you “get good with women†– unless by “get good†you mean having an unhappy relationship, which is the inevitable result of a relationship founded on lies.
FB: Watching a few episodes of a show about pickup doesn’t make you an expert on game, anymore then reading a few chapters of Genesis makes you an expert on the Bible. See my above comments on game being a tool.
TW: Ha! I don’t think they did! Which is why he became a murderer! ;) But seriously, unconditional love is not a myth. Ask most parents how they feel about their children.
FB: Lots of people believe in all sorts of kooky things, like that Saddam Hussein caused 9/11 – doesn’t make them true. The difference between parents who love their children unconditionally and parents who don’t is that the children of the former grow up to be drug addicts, criminals, college dropouts, and wastrels. If you love someone, the best thing you can do for them is love them conditionally – it sets a standard that they will hold themselves to. Otherwise, they’ll end up failing you, and YOU’LL be unhappy.
TW: Ask yourself: Why is it so important for you “to get all the women?†Seriously. Wouldn’t it be better to just find one wonderful woman who you love and who loves you? Forgive me, but I have a hard time understanding your premises.
FB: It’s not about “getting all the women,” it’s about getting A woman. The drive of all living beings, including humans, is to procreate. Without that drive, we’d have died out ages ago.
Men will do anything to win the love of a woman, and this motif is so burned into our culture that it’s past the point of being a cliche. Off the top of my head – “The Importance of Being Earnest,” in which Algernon and Jack go so far as to change their names to win the hearts of the women they love. if women demand that men marry them in order to win them over, then that’s what men will do. If women exclusively reward scumbags, non-scumbag men will emulate them just to get a foot in the door. I’ll direct you to my colleague Whiskey, who has written extensively on this issue. Theodore Dalrymple’s “Life at the Bottom,” which informs Whiskey’s thought as well as my own, is also worth a read. Incentives matter, and right now, the configuration of society rewards men who behave like Ryan Jenkins. If you don’t like this, you need to start working on a plan to kill the underlying causes. See my manifesto for an outline of how I think this should be done. Even if you don’t agree with me, I suggest you hang around and pay attention to the Roissysphere – the current blog furor over game suggests this thing has serious legs.
I forgot to address this in my previous response, but you wrote:
“Love is a beautiful thing. Someone should tell Roissy.”
I’m not terribly interested in arguing Roissy’s positions – he can do that himself – but I will say this; love is a crucial component of a man’s sexual satisfaction. Roissy has stated this before, and I agree with him. I would characterize the hierarchy of ideal male romantic satisfaction like this, in order from most satisfying to least:
long-term relationship (including marriage)
fling
one-night stand
soliciting a hooker
masturbationFinally, Todd, both you and Lawrence Auster have characterized me as a “reductionist.” That label is not wholly inaccurate, but I believe your aversion to reductionism is misplaced. I read your piece on why you turned away from reductionism, and your reaction to it is akin to a former alcoholic campaigning for the government to ban alcohol – indulging in it excessively is bad for you, but that doesn’t make IT bad, it just makes excessive indulgence of it bad. Reductionism in moderate doses is necessary to understand the world around us. Have you ever baked a cake or cooked any sort of food from a recipe? Then you’ve engaged in a mild form of reductionism. You can’t comprehend anything, including human societies, without considering the disparate parts that make up the whole.
Anti-reductionists such as Mr. Auster claim that “reductionists [are] unable to articulate and defend our civilization, because [they are] unable to articulate the things that make up our civilization, such as religion, philosophy, political science, morality,” but I’ve never heard Auster or anyone else of his persuasion offer a satisfactory alternative explanation as to WHERE all of those things came from. If “reductionism” doesn’t explain the West’s uniqueness and ascension to glory, then what does? Geographical accident (the Jared Diamond/leftist view of the world)? Dumb luck? The will of God? Much like a cake is made from specific ingredients, so the West and other civilizations were created from a convergence of factors. Identifying the particular mix that made the West is key to saving it. If Auster is too stubborn to realize this, then frankly he’s useless. ["Religion, philosophy, political science, morality" - NONE of these things fell out of the sky. Their existence is owed to factors biological and cultural - ed.]
Part of the reason I’m writing this, Todd, is because I think you’re a smart guy and I can get through to you. You said you were 29? I’m a bit younger. We’ve grown up in the same degenerate cultural milieu, and the comment you sent to View from the Right shows that you’re aware of the factors that have made our society the way it is. I’m doing this because I don’t want the greatest civilization in all of human history to collapse because the people who were supposed to be manning the guard towers were looking in the wrong direction, allowing the barbarians to sack the town square.
Best of luck to you.
{ 82 comments… read them below or add one }
I’m interested in something mentioned in this post: Men being attracted by a woman’s physical looks and how this is/isn’t right, normal, or good.
I’ve always believed that it is perfectly normal for a man to be attracted to a woman in the beginning because of her “looks” …
but what I want to know is this:
Am I right in thinking that a man *instinctively* goes after those women that strike himnot just as pretty, but also as healthy and fertile?
And that it’s not necessarily the skinniest and “sexiest/prettiest” women that win a man’s heart ~ but instead, those women that have a tidy, healthy apperance vs. those women that look/act masculine, a-sexual, or slobby and unkempt.
Feminists make a huge deal out of men being attracted by a woman’s looks but I think they are totally missing the mark. Because Feminists are so hell-bent on either having nothing to do with fertility, or, delaying childbearing until an unreasonable age, they don’t understand a man’s instinctive attraction to health and fertility.
Either that, or I’m completely off of the mark and marriage-minded men are solely attracted, via their raw lust, to “sexy” women and it has nothing to do with fertility.
My thinking is: There is a huge disconnect today between women and their fertility. So a man admitting that he is attracted by a woman’s “looks” is seen as a pig because so many modern women think only in terms of infertile “casual sex” vs. fertile sex with the goal of making babies.
If I’m not totally wrong here then one of the many things that we must do in order to bring our society back to sanity is reconnet women to their fertility and the joys of motherhood…
Until then men with “game” will be spinning their tires because they’ll never really be attractive to women ** in the normal healthy sense ** … for why else do we bother to get married except to have exclusive sexual rights with each other in order to gurantee that the offspring belong to us and not some other lover?
Er… obviously that’s placing marrige in its most base form…
“The Mystery-Neil Strauss conception of game, the view that is by far the most popular, bases its precepts on a quack pseudoscience called “neuro-linguistic programming“”
This is not entirely true. In his book “The Mystery Method,” Mystery says that the philosophical basis of game is biology. He states that women are attracted to men who the women’s instincts indicate have high “S+R value,” survival and replication value. I don’t know whether he mentions Darwin by name, but his statement that women are attracted to men based on their biologically programmed antennae for replication value is clearly Darwinian in ethic.
You are giving NLP more credit than it deserves as the historical basis for game. NLP proved that women had certain attraction switches that could be turned on through words and behaviors. This truth caused Mystery to do a trial and error study of female attraction, using himself as the test subject. What he came up with was largely the Evo-Psych based theory we see today.
The Steveosphere has added to the reality of game by casting it as a reaction to feminism, though this has only occurred in the last year or so.
Its shallow of men to expect to marry a 10. Its not shallow to expect that you will actually have some substantial physical attraction for your wife.
That’s right. Gurus like Mystery and David D. got many of their ideas from reading Darwinian books like The Selfish Gene, The Red Queen, and Sperm Wars. NLP was used by Mystery’s predecessor Ross Jeffries, but it is generally agreed that it was Mystery not Jeffries who came up with most of the major breakthroughs in pick up theory.
I don’t think Auster or acolytes like Todd White or Laura W. will ever get game. They have already defined game as including deceit and based their arguments on that false premise.
Adding on to the prior comment, it seems as though you may be trying find a basis for game that is not Darwinian. Presumably this is because a Darwinian basis would turn off many potential allies (Auster being the most obvious example) or you yourself reject Darwinism.
My suggestion would be to ignore the cause of game’s effectiveness–whether god made women to like dominant men or whether evolution did so. What matters is that it works, and that it indicts liberalism as a false religion. Many creationists, Auster included, have stated that they accept that evolution occurs now, but they state that speciation could not have occurred through Darwinism, and therefore that creationism remains viable. Perhaps a similar detente could be found between the Darwinian game theorists and the traditionalists.
It does appear to mostly be a generational thing. Younger trad bloggers like Pi, Jonathan Jones, Jacob M. (Hermes), and myself do get it. Any new concept, especially one dealing with sexuality, has the potential to be really frightening to older people.
@ F Bardamu:
This may be surprising, but I actually think the Beta Revolution, as described in your manifesto and on Beta Prime’s site, will FAIL.
I think it’s a brilliant and elegant solution, but I don’t think it will work.
Beta Revolution will Fail
“[God] made women…”
The Steveosphere has added to the reality of game by casting it as a reaction to feminism, though this has only occurred in the last year or so.
Correction: the Roissysphere has done this (wrongly, BTW: the seduction community certainly didn’t originate as a response to feminism.) Steve Sailer still thinks that game is about convincing women that you dominate other men at work.
It’s quite awkward and uncomfortable to be in the position of both being a traditionalist AND making the statement, so typically associated with the cultural left that has done us so much damage, the the older generations just don’t get it when it comes to sex. But in this case, it happens to be true.
BTW, who is Jonathan Jones?
He is one of the team of bloggers over at Postmodern Conservative, now one of the blogs over First Things. He used to post over at the Catholic blog Vox Nova. He occasionally comments over at Roissy’s.
I have a new post up at my blog that replies to Larry Auster’s assertion that traditionalists had it right about female sexuality all along. See here. I cut and pasted some from my comments here, but there is substantial new material too.
Michelle, you’re assuming a false disconnect between fertility and sexiness. Just about every signal that a man takes as “sexy” has been shown to be either a signal for fertility, a signal for survivability, or as a signal for interest. In other words, the ability to have a baby, the ability to have a baby that will survive, or an invitation to come make a baby.
Examples:
Large breasts sag, so high, firm, large breasts are a signal of youth. Small breasted women don’t sag as much, so their youth is in more question.
Symmetry has been shown to be a signal of fertility, its also considered a sign of beauty.
Hair displays health; long, beautiful hair signals the individual has been healthy a long time. Good genes for the baby.
Red lips and cheeks indicate a rush of blood, which is an attraction signal. Same thing with pert nipples.
Girls have short legs, which lengthen when they become fertile. Long legs are a fertility indicator.
Waist-hip ratio has been shown to be most desirable at the same constant throughout history, a constant that indicates “child-bearing hips”.
Etc, etc, etc.
Any MRA movement, whose intentions it is to repeal loathsome laws, will be doomed to failure because they cannot refute this charge that will be leveled by the Left: “You are only advocating such positions because you are embittered by your inability to get steady sex.” And they would be right, for how many here could say unhesitatingly that, if regularly receiving sexual satiety, they would remain stalwarts of their cause?
Ferdinand:
roissy wasn’t the first to tie Game to Darwin…Mystery did that years ago.
Also, there is obviously a fundamental difference in the way both sides perceive the use of “Game”. Todd believes that it is immoral because it involves lying to women and things of that sort.
But it strikes me that “Game” and social shaming by other men, and really this whole conversation is about changing the *fundamental framework of men’s thinking* about this issue. Men only *don’t* seduce women because of our socialized behavior; if we can change that socialization (which so many -isms try to do for their people) we don’t have to be boxed in by the feeling of lying or manipulation. “Game” and the teachings behind it merely seek to overthrow what is believed to be the Truth.
It seems by Todd’s argument that a man who naturally treats women the way that Gamers *strive to* is at least moral because he’s acting according to his personal nature. Is that moral relativism or what?
I generally agree, which is why I foresee only catastrophe ahead, really.
Posec – “And they would be right, for how many here could say unhesitatingly that, if regularly receiving sexual satiety, they would remain stalwarts of their cause?”
I may well be in a small minority (but, hopefully, I’m not entirely alone), But, I certainly can.
In fact, I’m one of those who can fully attest to the reality of using a form of long-term, marital “Game” to keep up a healthy (and I dare say, heavy) sex life.
I’ve made the point elsewhere, but some of us ARE capable of doing something specifically for the benefits of others. I first came to be interested in Men’s Advocacy (beyond the scope of Men’s Rights alone) with an eye towards my son’s interests/future prospects – but, I now also acutely feel for men (as a class) for the “dangers” of what we all face, individually, vicariously through a loved one, or simply as a class.
Novaseeker has previously made the point that men don’t tend to take an active interest in looking out for the interests of other men, and while that has been historically true, the only way to change it, is to purposefully determine that we will do otherwise.
In this too, I hope that I am not alone.
Chuck: No, I am not a moral relativist. I believe that men should treat women with utmost respect at all times, whether they’re Alpha, Beta, Omega, Klingon, whatever.
I also am a highly successful practitioner of game who intends to use it to have a successful family life.
The game community and the recent discussion of it, including OneSTDV’s post this morning, ignore the male desire to procreate. Roissy, who has stated that his purpose in life is hedonistic sex, is unusual. If he doesn’t care that his genes will die–that he will fail in the Darwinian arena–that’s his prerogative. Most men do not feel this way.
Additionally, men are virtually the only group of humans that care about society as such. I don’t particularly care about other men per se, but I certainly care about my people. This is why +80% of political blogs are written by men–we are the guardians of our tribe. Finally beginning to perceive ourselves as a victim group may also have a useful effect in making men organize. Anger is a powerful motivator.
There will be plenty to motivate men when the scales fall off their eyes. Their apathy so far is because they are not aware of the extent of the problem. The media–against us to the bitter end–is extremely effective at keeping the vast mass of humanity from perceiving reality.
Yet, you’d be surprised at how fast the tables can turn once macro variables change.
If the economy keeps souring and resources get scarcer for women, as well as federal thuglife subsidies, resource-laden beta males are going to start looking a lot more attractive to women…
Remember, it doesn’t take that much to tip the delicate balance from one side to the other…
The MRA “buzzword” goals should be FAIRNESS & RESPONSIBILITY.
2 things sorely lacking in American society today. But if unfair legislation was repealed and sluts and alpha thugs were forced to take personal responsibility, that’d be enough to get beta males laid again.
You wrote: “I also am a highly successful practitioner of game who intends to use it to have a successful family life.” I laughed when I read that. Forgive me.
FB,
EXCELLENT anaylsis in your dialogue w/Todd White, “Game Skeptic”.
And in that vein then, I thought to present something a bit different to the Grand Assembly for their consideration…
As some here and elsewhere may be aware, I am a Man of many talents; one of them is astrology. Have been at it, hard, since 1992. Taught it at the university level, had articles published, have a blogsite devoted to it. And have more in store along those lines in the coming months. Stay tuned.
The following is an astrological version of what we often talk about here. If you go to the blog Lucy Looks At The Sky, you’ll see her take on the George Sodini tragedy, and, if they are still there, my comments and her “ultimate” (no surprise!) response.
I’ve taken the liberty of copying said exchanges and posting them here. Would deeply appreciate any and all feedback.
The Obsidian
Todd White,
Then you still have no clue what Game is, and how it can be used to save and strengthen marriages as well.
Roissy had an article about this just last week.
Frankly, you still have far to incomplete a grasp of Game (and female psychology in general) to be criticizing it at all.
I am beginning to think that the socialcon hostility to Game is itself because they are afraid to confront feminists, and are afraid of the shaming language that feminists will use very effectively against socialcons. Social cons are effectively failing the ‘Beta-test’. (I dislike the term shit-test)
Much like anti-US leftists are far more ready to condemn Guantanamo Bay than to condemn the beheading of hostages held in Al Qaeda captivity. It doesn’t take courage to criticize the harmless target.
I dare say that practioners of Game are at the top of Maslow’s hierarchy, and social cons are one level below that (and leftists, one level below social cons).
Game is exclusively the preserve of outside the box thinkers. It is futile to get easily boxed in thinkers to think outside the box.
Hence 80% of men and 99.9% of women will never, ever grasp what Game is. If they see it in action, they will rationalize that somehow it is a scame, or immoral, or whatever.
Michelle Therese : Congratulatons, you are one of 0.1% of women who gets it (or at least is curious enough to ask the right questions, without preconceived dogma). Some lucky man will be happy with you.
The Fifth Horseman – “I am beginning to think that the socialcon hostility to Game is itself because they are afraid to confront feminists, and are afraid of the shaming language that feminists will use very effectively against socialcons. Social cons are effectively failing the ‘Beta-test’.”
Hummm?
You might just have something there. Perhaps it would be instructive for them to check out http://mgtow.net/ipbforum/index.php?showtopic=926
Todd:
even when they don’t treat us in kind? Please read my blog post from this morning to see what I mean.
I agree. The pendulum is at an extreme, and the Four Horsemen of Male Vengeance (described elsewhere by me) will all tip the balance around by 2020.
SoCons are just failing the Beta-Tests, and are vulnerable to traditional female shaming language (more so than any other type of men).
That is all it is. Not much more to it than that.
The following is the actual exchange between myself and Lucy, the self-styled feminist astrologer:
O: Lucy,
I’m a bit late to the dance, but what the heck, might as well toss my hat into the ring.
My name is ……., and like you, I too have an interest in that which is both the astrological and the political. As you might guess, after taking a quick glance at my blogsite, I have a bit of a different take on Sodini, one that I should like to think Women in our time really need to consider.
O: I haven’t blogged on Sodini just yet, but I’ll probably log some words on him at one of my usual astrohaunts a little later. I’ll repost them here when I do. Would love to hear back from ya.
August 23, 2009 at 12:53 pm
O: Lucy,
OK, just finished my two cents on the Sodini affair. Again, haven’t posted it on my blog yet, but I did post it up over on Sasstrology.net, a hangout of mine. Lemme know what you think.
A Few Thoughts On George Sodini
Sunday Aug 23 2009
Earlier this month, George Sodini, a suburban Pittsburgh PA native, walked into a local gym and proceeded to shootup the place, kiling three outright and wounding nearly a dozen others, before turning the guns on himself. His grisly acts of violence immediately hit the news.
I’ve been a bit busy of late tending to other business, but closely followed the blogosphere in the days and weeks to follow, and no surprise, the usual suspects were quick to condemn and vilify. But this time said usual suspects were met w/a clear, present and growing voice coming from the Male side of the Internet, who makes a very convincing case that Sodini’s travails, and ultimate demise, requires just a bit more examination than he’s currently getting.
However, sad to say I might add, the astrolosphere, if I may call it such, is still woefully behind-packed to the gills w/practitioners who are female and thus have little understanding or real interest in life from a male point of view, much of their offerings on the affair are little more than mere astrological sprinkles on warmed over feminist boilerplate; one astrologer even includes the word “misogyny†in her subject title on Sodini.
Sigh. What else is new.
Readers here at Sasstology and elsewhere know and understand well that my key interest is in assisting Today’s Man on the astrological path and, when the spirit moves, to astrologically opine on the state of our times from an unabashedly male point of view. So, on this lazy afternoon-after respects to the deceased have been paid and laid to rest, and after all the sound and fury from the usual suspects, astrological and otherwise, have had their say and have died down-I thought now would be a good time to offer some thoughts on the very sad life of George Sodini.
According to various sources online, Sodini was born on Sep 30 1960, no birthime as yet known, and presumably in or around Pittsburgh PA. Several astrologers have noted his Lights being in Air Signs (Sun in Libra, Moon in Aquarius), his Venus-Neptune conjunction in Scorpio, and the t-square involving his Sun, Mars and Saturn (among other things), and have rightly noted the inherent challenges indicated therein with regard to these astrological configurations.
But what I noted w/keen interest, was the utter lack of commentary on the role the Outer Planets played, not only on Sodini’s life, but for us all. We astrologers know well that the Outer Planets-Uranus, Neptune and Pluto-have tremendous importance, because they represent not only the Modern Era for Humanity, but also the ways in which our world will continue to change. One of the biggest ways it has changed, has been respect to Dating and Mating.
Of particular note here is Neptune, on Sodini’s birthdate, at about 8 Scorpio; as mentioned above, its conjunct Venus and, at 6AM (the time I use for setting Solarscopes), is also square the Moon. Astrologers have noted the “personal†implications for these aspects, and they are largely accurate-often it can speak to unrealistic or even irrational ideas or notions concerning Women-but it can also represent being deeply disappointed, “letdown†by Women as well.
Clearly, this too was the case wrt Sodini, per his very lucidly written blog, since taken down, but can still be seen in excerpts thanks to the efforts of various bloggers online to save them. They are easily Googled.
Neptune represents the “dream†or ideals that a society aspires toward, which can often incorporate spiritual/religious themes as well. In a modern, democratic society, it represents the idea or belief, that said system can work for anyone, if they apply themselves.
However, in Sodini’s case, we see that Neptune’s aspects to the two foremost “female†planets we have in astrology-the Moon and Venus-that he felt betrayed, or letdown in love.
And because an Outer Planet is involved here, and is seen making a prominent appearance at the moment of the shootings themselves, rising in the Aquarian Asc and square the MC, it gives us astrologers cause to consider in what way Neptune, and quite possibly the remaining Outers, have played a big role here.
The simple truth is, that the dating and mating landscape has greatly changed. A Man like Sodini-law-abiding (up until the shootings), successful (net worth of 250K at the time of his death), and very well gainfully employed as in a law firm-simply doesn’t have the kind of cache’ he once did even a quarter of a century ago. The idea that being on the straight and narrow, “nice†and so on, is becoming more and more, something that is not only no longer relevant, but something that is actively eschewed by Women enmasse, because Women in our time no longer need to temper their mating choices due to financial considerations, since they are fully self-supporting, and since social censure is at an all-time minimum. In short, this means that Women can choose mates on criteria that they really want-and the evidence is in-often those “wants†are NOT what Sodini, and so many Men, were taught all their lives.
If we consider Sodini’s birthdate from the point of view that it represents a “bigger†chart than merely his natal, and instead gives commentary on the state of Women in our time, this makes sense, both on the macro level, and as well on Sodini’s “micro†level. Again, we’ve noted how Neptune is conjunct Venus, both in Scorpio. Keen astrology students know well, that Venus isn’t at its best in Scorpio; techinically, its what is known as being in its Detriment. It suggests that Venus is kinda “brought low†in some way or another-in this case, that it will tend to be attracted to the rakes, badboys and ne’er do wells that Sodini, and millions of other American Men were drilled not to be like. The Neptune part of this then, represents the “rude awakening†Sodini got, and again he explains very clearly on his blog, with regard to Women and what they really want.
Also, consider that Sodini’s Moon is in Aquarius-which is very, very interesting when we note that this same Moon Sign shows itself again on the night he went on his shooting spree, and, matching the same Moon Sign as that found in the chart for the United States(!)-a very powerful commentary, astrologically speaking, about the very changed world in which we live along these lines, especially for Women.
Since we’re on the national level in this discussion, it is also interesting to note that, in the American horoscope, we see that its Moon, at 27 Aquarius, is getting “primed†by transiting Neptune’s imminent conjunction, to come very soon. In the 3rd house, we can expect to hear more and more about American Women being “letdown†in someway with regard to their lovelives-and of course, blaming Men for it. Not ever considering the role they themselves might have played in the way things are, right now.
This is the lesson of Neptune, both collectively and individually-to have an ideal, live up to it, but not to deify it, and when human beings fall short, not to grow embittered, blame others or in some other way, rationalize their failures on someone else. For all his pain and real insights shared on his blog, in the end, Sodini’s actions are his own, and he must be held accountable-not his mother, not his brother or father, not even the Women who spurned him, real or imagined.
That said, American Women must now understand, that in all things, there not only must be tradeoffs, but there also must be accountability-the badboy, the cad, and the playa may indeed be “hotter†and just not “boring†than the Sodini types (again-good looking, gainfully employed for years, and considerable net assets), but these kinds of Men come at a price. Postmodern, postfeminist America has afforded you the chance to choose who you really want-but all choices carry with them, consequences. Some good, others, not so good. One of them, will be the occasional “flipping out†of the Sodinis, Chos, and others of the world, who after being shown the truth for themselves, can’t or won’t handle it, and decide to go make right via violent means. With transiting Uranus and Pluto due to square each other very soon, I suspect we’ll see quite a few more “rage killings†centered on the very themes of this post. It will be the “tax†Women in our time will have to pay, because clearly, they don’t want to “go backâ€, nor do I think they should. Instead of merely condemning the Damned, they instead might want to consider what their New Grrl Order will really look like.
Comment and reply, invited.
Holla back
August 23, 2009 at 2:05 pm
L: Hi ……,
Thanks for visiting and for your comments. I definitely appreciate your perspective, and your analysis on Sodini’s chart, especially the consideration of the outer planets. It’s true that expectations for what each gender desires in a partner have radically changed, in that working women don’t necessarily require a traditional “provider†anymore, which is probably very different from what Sodini’s generation grew up with. Indeed, since the family model is often a subconscious guide to what we want in a partner, it’s probably additionally confusing for people of his generation still seeking relationships. Not only is the traditional patriarchal model not really the norm anymore, but the current economy just does not support it.
What I take issue with is 1) the assumption that feminism is not concerned with the male perspective, and further, your seeming perplexity as to why most female astrologers would be understandably rattled by such a cold-blooded and specific tragedy and 2) the fact that you, like many men blogging on the subject, seem to view this as a further sign of how WOMEN AT LARGE need to modify their behavior to better accommodate men.
I’m shocked that you buy into this whole “nice guy/bad boy†fallacy. I want to point you to two brilliant articles on this exact subject as it relates to Sodini. Basically, he was not really a “nice guy.†He was someone who was seriously disturbed, and who was perfect bait for these R. Don Steele types who pitch the snake oil that men are entitled to anything and anyone they want, and if they’re not getting it, it’s the fault of women as a whole. Furthermore, twelve women who had nothing to do with Sodini suffered as a result of his sense of entitlement. No one knows if those women preferred “bad boys†or “playas.†It doesn’t matter. Some of them are dead now.
I am terrified that you really believe there will be more “rage killings†like this one. (Personally, I don’t think the term “hate crime†is that far off the mark.) And if they continue to happen such as this one did (that is, innocent women being gunned down in a public place by a lunatic), that will say even less about how Women As A Whole (you know, because we all regularly convene and plot how we’re going to continue to mess with men’s heads) need to modify their choices. What it really ought to address is this exact kind of entitlement shown pretty exclusively by men, and how one man’s personal rejection does not justify globalized venom towards all women, just as much as one woman’s violent experience of men (such as the one I had) does not necessarily justify globalized hatred towards all men.
From what I read on your blog, particularly your analysis of “alpha,†“beta,†and “omega†men, I would imagine that you buy into evolutionary psychology, which I personally think is fundamentally flawed because, in addition to being based on extremely ethnocentric and sexist assumptions, it implies in not so many words that people will never really change. I find those kind of absolute statements about gender to be limiting as far as psychological growth goes. It also makes me wonder- to really, intellectually excuse someone like Sodini and mean it, which one do you believe you are?
    by lucywatchthesky August 23, 2009 at 5:28 pm
O: Hi Lucy,
Yes, I’m quite familiar w/both the Salon piece and the Alas, A Blog post, which also dealt w/an alternative perspective from another blog that I read from time to time, and to which I might refer you: Roissy in DC has taken up the Sodini issue and offers a compelling analysis that, no surprise, raised a rather violent reaction from corners familiar to you. You might want to checkout what he and other commenters have to say about Sodini. Its worth a read.
As for evo-psych, for my money it makes far and away more sense than the grave misnomer known as “evolutionary astrology†which you might be familiar with and may even be cool with. If so, what a case of the pot calling the kettle black that would be.
Finally, let’s be clear. I did not excuse Sodini’s actions, indeed I went out of my way to speak to this. And as for what I said about what Women Really Want, only a grossly naive or perniciously disengenuous individual would attempt to explain away what we all can easily see w/our own eyes. History is replete with the simple fact that rakes, cads and badboys get far and away more Women than meek, mild guys like Sodini, presumed mental illnesses or not. To even have to entertain such a discussion among obstensible adults, is kind of laughable on its face, really.
Lastly-in no way do I wish Women to have to change anything about themselves. I don’t want them to do anything they don’t want to do, etc. All I’m saying is that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction, that even minute changes to the social-ecosystem can radically alter the way human beings do business, and that we all, Men and Women alike, would do well to think about this moving forward.
I think it’s very unfair of you to give Steele short shrift. Though I’m not particularly familiar with him, I applaud him and other Men who in their own way, have attempted to help Men like Sodini-who are legion, make no mistake about it-in a make or break area of their lives. For all the talk of compassion in other things, even animals, some of whom can be dangerous to human beings, just a bit of compassion for the plight of Men like Sodini from us astrologers would be a nice thing to see.
August 24, 2009 at 8:21 am
O: Oh, and I meant to speak bout your assertion that I do not think feminism isn’t concerned w/Men, etc. Well-for the most part, they aren’t, lol. Nor am I saying that they should be. I’m only pointing out a fact-that astrology has within its ranks, a heck of a lot more folk like you, than of me, and its up to folk like me to raise up. And so, in my own small way, I do.
August 24, 2009 at 8:37 am
O: Lucy,
I thought you might find this interesting. Sueng-Hui Cho, who killed more than 30 people and wounded upwards of 50 before commiting suicide, was born on Jan 18 1984 in Seoul, South Korea. No birthtime, but we see some similarities btw his chart and Sodini’s:
First, note that both Men had Mars in Water Signs. Second, both have their Mars in aspect to both Neptune and Pluto, the latter being very important, because of the fact that it forms a formidable Sexual Aspect-and because Pluto disposes of key planets in Scorpio. In Sodini’s case, Venus and Neptune are in Scorpio; in Cho’s, Mars, Saturn and Pluto are in Scorpio.
We see in Sodini’s case that the Sun is square a Mars-Saturn axis, a clear indication for the potential for violence. In Cho’s case, we note that while not technically in conjunction, we can see that Saturn being in the same Sign as his Mars and Pluto play a powerful role in explaining his frustration sexually.
As we both know, Scorpio is among the most powerful sexually-inclined Signs. Had both these Men had help-and Sodini was closer to that help than Cho-things might have turned out differently. A lil Nookie goes a long way toward soothing the savage beast.
Think on it.
August 24, 2009 at 8:47 am
L: You know, I have to say- I was listening with full attention until this: “Had both these Men had help-and Sodini was closer to that help than Cho-things might have turned out differently. A lil Nookie goes a long way toward soothing the savage beast.”
What a nauseating thing to say. Really. You write that you don’t think women need to modify their behavior, but a statement like this implies that Sodini and Cho (and all men, really) are ENTITLED to sex, and if only some women had put out, this could have been avoided. No individual is entitled to sex, regardless of gender, nor is it women’s responsibility to be sexually available, for any reason, but especially not to be vessels for seriously mentally disturbed men’s aggression. I’m not at all surprised that you read Roissy in D.C., which I have no desire to revisit. He and R. Don Steele and countless others only think they are helping men, but in fact they are worsening the problem. They are driving men and women further apart by convincing vulnerable men that women are less than their inferiors, that they’re pure commodity.
I do have compassion for Sodini; clearly he was mentally ill. But I’m also not going to excuse that his killing spree was deliberately planned to target women, and the fact that he did, in the truest sense of the word, hate women. Because I have met men like him before, and when something like this happens, it reminds you that you really can never know how deep someone’s hatred goes, and what kind of things they might do if in their megalomaniacal minds they believe they have had enough. As a woman, it worries me. And just like Kate Harding wrote in her Salon piece, I will not concede that he was “really a nice guy,†because he WAS NOT. There WAS something wrong with him. Same with Cho. Same with more guys than I even have room to list that I’ve personally dealt with. And that’s exactly the problem- no one is telling these guys that there is something wrong with them, which would solve far more of their difficulties than trying to make them into Pick-Up Artists.
    by lucywatchthesky August 24, 2009 at 10:24 am
O: Lucy,
Just got finished reading Kanazawa’s piece, and while you made it clear you disagreed with him, you didn’t layout specifically WHY. I would like for you to do so, we can have a more informed discussion on the matter, as I’ve found Kanazawa’s work to be an interesting read.
As for Sodini, again, I am not excusing what he, or Cho, did. But let’s be frank. Please name me a Sodini or Cho-like figure, say, 40 years ago? And no, Charlie Manson wouldn’t cut it, because he had far and away more access, sexually and otherwise, than either of these men did.
The truth of the matter is that there have ALWAYS been guys running around w/a screw or two loose, Lucy. What is different in our time, are guys like Cho and Sodini who decide to take their pain out on those whom they believe are their tormentors-women. I don’t agree w/them, but that doesn’t change the fact that, as I’ve said before, times have changed, and with it, both the good and bad.
And finally, if I may-if you have such a long list of men in your life that you can instantly recall off the top of your head that are in your view psychotic, perhaps they aren’t the only ones who need to be told about themselves.
Please don’t hate on the PUAs or Game; they’re doing a serious Public Service.
August 24, 2009 at 1:03 pm
L: Thanks very much- you’re banned.
Your sexism is disgusting, and personally attacking me is uncalled for.
Get out of my blog.
…………………………………………
So, as we can see, the Battle must be fought on all fronts…including the celestial.
Comment, and reply, invited!
The Obsidian
Beta. Lesser Beta in fact.
See what I wrote elsewhere about feminist shaming language and Beta-tests being extremely effective against socialcons, resulting in social cons attacking Game just because they are afraid of shaming language from feminists.
It is exactly the same thing as anti-US leftists readily condemning the treatment of Guantanamo detainees, but staying silent on the beheading of civilian hostages by Al-Qaeda. It is easy to criticize the harmless party.
Game practitioners are at the top of Maslow’s Hierarchy (self-actualization). SoCons are one level below that, and leftists/feminists are one level below still.
By jove, I think I’ve got it.
In every exchange that Ferds had with Todd White, I see more than a little envy between the lines of Todd’s text.
He will, of course, deny that strenuously.
But every man has, at some point, been envious of another man who captured the heart of the hottie that the Beta coveted. Todd has felt this many times in his life.
Game merely teaches men how to BE that man. Any conservative who advocates personal responsibility and entrepreneurship should support this.
Isn’t being a conservative about the belief that ‘if you work at it, and shun handouts and entitlement mentalities, you will achieve your goal’. So Game is exactly this. So why are socialcons against Game?
Well, I already said why.
Shameless self-promotion hoping to add to the discousre and fill in some of the gaps:
http://chuckross.blogspot.com/2009/08/games-incongruent-terms-of-discourse.html
inspired by Ferdinand’s post (once again)
Feminist shaming language does not enter into it. How will you confront them if you have no comprehensive arguments–game is simply a tool, not an ideology– to refute feminism? How would a single man respond if they said this: “You are only advocating such positions because you are embittered by your inability to get steady sex.†Could he do much more than mumble incoherently at that? With what rejoinder to this disabling charge should he shoot back? Is it even possible to counter?
Lol, when you’ve been intellectually beaten to a pulp and got nothing back…there’s always censorship. Feminist tactic #342.
The interesting thing about 50 years of feminist misandrism and beta male oppression though – is that it’s led to a spiritual-emotional renaissance of men.
While women en masse have degenerated into braindead skanks like Britney Spears, men have done some SERIOUS soul-searching and leapfrogged several levels past women in self-realization/actualization, if not casual sex and societal power..
Anyone else notice this? The thoughts and ideas coming out of this generation of heavily-oppressed men simply blows away anything from these vapid, status-quo females far beyond the pale.
Feminst shaming language DOES enter into it. Such language is extremely effective in subduing social cons, and their lashing out at Game shows it.
Game is more than a set of tools. The core beliefs of Game, which relate to how women think and what they will respond to, despite the bait they place in front of Beta males to see if they will take the bait (and thus fail the test), is paramount.
Could he do much more than mumble incoherently at that?
Of course he could do more. This is very textbook, for novice students of Game. This is a ‘Beta test’, that a man who knows how to pass will actually use to gain attraction from women.
Getting past an elementary obstacle like that is a very simple element of Game 101.
You amuse me, 5th Horseman. No, really. You do.
Posec,
Here is the catalog of female shaming language (which social cons are desperately afraid of) :
http://mgtow.net/ipbforum/index.php?showtopic=926
Avoiding these and turning them around is easy.
byrdeye:
good insight. i’ve noticed as much myself. this thought is one of the ideas that sustains me when i think that all is lost. in the realms of male/female interaction and in political discourse, one would get the idea that this country is fucked and men are doomed. but there are recursive feedback loops and adaptation of the sort you’re talking about that keeps things hovering around some mean of social stability.
entitlement, proved time and time again, leads to complacency. women have been complacent for some time now; in the mean time, men have struggled. the struggle strengthens us. we’re not as hindered by misguided pretty lies that the world is just and nice.
of course, at some future point, men will become complacent. we’ve done it in the past, we’ll do it again. women will surpass us, and the dance will resume.
the only thing we absolutely don’t need is some outside force (i.e. government, brainwashing) that will make the climb back up the hill too steep.
“Of course he could do more. This is very textbook, for novice students of Game. This is a ‘Beta test’, that a man who knows how to pass will actually use to gain attraction from women. Getting past an elementary obstacle like that is a very simple element of Game 101.”
What substantive reply would you give? If you were in the political/ideological realm making a cogent case for why laws that are effectively misandrist merit repeal, do you think the feminists would be issuing lame beta tests hoping implicitly that you emerge the victor? No, they would be tenaciously defending the system that is so beneficial to them; this would not be a frivolous episode. What disarming reply would you give?
Byrdeye,
It is true, but only a small fraction of men have done this.
Like I said, 80% of men are incapable of comprehending Game. Socialcons are among them.
But, 99.9% of women are also incapable of comprehending Game.
Go read the link. Then go read the suitable article on Roissy’s or Roosh’s.
To what link are you referring? And does it provide a counterargument to my hypothetical leftist/feminist charge?
Birdeye,
Yea. I’ve long made the case that the astrology field is to heavy, pardon the pun, w/types like Lucy-and that its way past due that we give at least a bit of attention to the interests, needs and concerns of Men. My aim is to present astrology in a way that is attractive to Men and that unapologetically speaks to their concerns.
As for my exchange w/Lucy, if you actually go to her site and read her piece on Sodini and compare it to mine-written on a lazy Sunday afternoon on my smartphone basically off the top of my head after a nice session w/my lady-you really can stop the comparison right there. No wonder one is hardpressed to see feminists actually debate.
The Obsidian
Evolutionary psychology shuts down much of feminism quite well, which is why feminists are working overtime to shut down evolutionary psychology.
True, but it also appears to be approaching some sort of critical mass.
None of these “fringe” movements are stagnating, ALL are growing. And I’ve watched with interest as MRAs, PUAs, New Age and I guess now some socialcon men have been integrating together to form a “new man” from the ashes of the Feminist Holocaust.
Where as we integrate micro and macro, sex and spirituality, personal and political, natural with learned…while cutting out all the mis/disinformation BS we’ve been fed – we are synthesizing (or rediscovering) from the grassroots a new “Steve Austin.” And it is becoming a wonderful creation to behold, using feminist oppression as our impetus for forced, conscious evolution.
I mean, seriously, not to pretend like we are not still walking in the valley of the shadow of death now – but we are BLOWING by women-at-large these days. I can’t help but notice that thru live conversations and reading blogs. I can almost see the sandy ground beneath their well-heeled feet starting to give way…to the truth.
Whatever doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger. And sort of like how antibiotic overusage has created superbugs, feminism is now creating supermen.
Stay strong fellas, when all our forces finally join like Voltron, it will be no more Mr. Nice Guy as kicking toy anymore. Our time is coming…so keep on truckin’.
Note, when I say, “BLOWING by women-at-large these days,” I mean mentally, emotionally & spiritually…if not sexually and sociopolitically in real-life metrics yet, lol.
But the groundwork for that is at least being laid out now…
As far as the legal angle is concerned it’s very simple: you state quite plainly, citing mountains of evidence, that changing the system such that men are not discriminated against in family courts and so on, is bad for *children*. You make it about the kids, not sex or attraction or anything else. You make the debate about those *laws* about the impact on kids. That argument can be won, if conservative politicians had the cojones to make it.
That *not* changing the system would be bad for children. Ugh too many comments today.
…And the hits, just keep comin’…
Again, in keeping with the spirit of this thread, that of the “skeptics” (read, HATAHS) of Game, the following is yet another exchange between myself and a lady who calls herself “April Aries”. This is taken from another astrology forum that I frequent, and where I posted my Game-informed astrological thoughts on Sodini:
O: Hello April Aries,
Replies below:
I find it interesting that you would suggest that dating books and the like are for losers; what then, do you make of the very popular book The Rules? Or the ever present articles on the covers of Cosmo, Redbook and the like? Seems to me that we reserve the word, “loser” for MEN, when it comes to such things, but never for women.
AA: Maybe I overstated: A book with the title “How to date young women,” which is what Sodini had on his coffee table, is for losers. The premise is, basically, that middle-aged men, no matter what their circumstance, or, apparently, mental state, have the right, based on their having of the all-mighty penis, to date 18-24 year-old poon if they follow those simple steps. Such a book IS for losers, IMO.
O: Yes, overstatement may indeed be your strong suit, lol. Seriously though, the very idea of a book being written on the topic suggests strongly that the reader has to improve oneself in order to even have a shot at achieving his objective. No one said anything about a “right”. It doesn’t say or imply that in the book in any way that you or anyone else could make a rational case for. Now, you may or may not like the premise, that’s fine, but a completely seperate issue.
AA: I don’t like The Rules or any popular dating book today (i.e. He’s Just Not That Into You, etc.) because I think most of those books package common sense in a slick cover with maybe a few twists.
O: There is hardly ANYTHING “commonsensical” about the vast majority of the books, articles, shows and the like geared to women along these lines, yet again, I’ve yet to hear anyone, let alone women like yourself, say a peep about them without being prompted to do so. This suggests to me that there’s something a bit more going on on the psychosocial level that I may be writing about in due course. Stay tuned…
AA: I despise Cosmo magazine as I think it’s an editorial wasteland, and Redbook is written for a demographic of women slightly older than myself. I read the Economist, the Nation, the New Yorker, etc., and TRUST me, there are no articles about How to Date Young Men, or the like, in those publications.
O: If I were a betting man, I’d lay serious odds that any one of said pubs would see a jump in their subscription rate by at least 50% if they indeed began offering such advice to their largely male readership. Not a bad idea!
O: For many women, since these aren’t the men they want anyway, them simply staying out of sight is a welcome development for them. For the men involved, and again, they number in the millions, there can be no worse fate than involuntary celibacy.
AA: OK, here is where you and I part ways. Anyone, barring perhaps a handicap that includes paralysis or a coma – can get laid.
O: Wrong. The vast majority of Sodini-looking men out there, DO NOT get laid. Fact.
AA: What anyone can’t do is get laid by what they perceive to be their dream fantasy person. Sadly, if you are an overweight covered in pimples icky idiot like the kid in that movie Superbad, you are NOT going to get a second glance from a girl who looks like a Miss Universe contestant UNLESS you have a lot of cash and she’s into that, or you have powers of mind control. The end. A person like that MIGHT get a look from someone on their physical level, however – to wit, an overweight pimply girl with icky fashion sense.
O: There’s a good degree of truth to this, but the trick is, you need to be telling this to your girlfriends, and not the fellas. Men are much more inclined to “settle” than are women, for what should by now be obvious reasons. Since you’re so well read and all. ;P
O: GAME. It has literally changed lives, and has gotten to the point now, that clinical psychologists are beginning to take the movement seriously, if for no other reason than to figure how to capitalize on the trend (please see the Urban Scientist on Psychology Today’s website for more on this). I think that is definitely one, and perhaps the only real workable, solution for lovelorn men in our time
AA: Except most intelligent, attractive women are hip to Game now. Yay for the Internet. We know the “talk to the so-called unattractive friend and ignore the target” trick. We know the “insult and ignore” trick. Twenty years ago, guys might have had more luck with this, but the Internet has leveled the playing field. There are now blogs written BY men exposing GAME to women.
O: Yup, and MORE MEN THAN EVER are indeed getting laid, on the regular, with Game-often w/the very same women who love to read about said men writing about it. Yay for the Internet, indeed! Do you honestly think Mystery or Style has suddenly hit a dry spell because women the world over know who they are and what they do? *chuckle* Please allow me to let you in on something: its usually the most smartest women who are most susceptible to Game. Go and read what Style has to say about this in the book The Game for yourself. Again, I have studied the matter. Based on your above comments, I trust you know the rest of that classic saying.
O: Its a serious problem we astrologers need to start taking seriously, because as you rightly point out, all the guys ain’t crazy. They just need a bit of help getting laid.
AA: Fine, but again, this goes back to keeping it realistic. I consider myself attractive. I think Reggie Bush is hot as hell. But with his looks, money and connections, he can pull the Kim Kardashians of the world. I understand that, and even though I think I could charm Reggie if given the chance, I know that a high-profile athlete will likely want someone high-profile, too.
O: Noted. However, w/all due respect, you attempting to give a degree of veracity to the discussion is like me trying to do the same wrt the experience of childbirth to a group of pregnant women. Sure, I can discuss what I’ve read, seen etc, but at the end of the day I am not a woman and therefore can never truly know what it’s like to give birth myself as a man.
Similarly, you simply cannot understand what the sexual marketplace is for men, and as your above hypothetical shows, the average man, not the “alphas” like RB. Simply put, you, as an attractive woman, will have dozens of chances for sex offered by men over the course of any given month; the average guy not so much.
It is because of the way women and men are made, that explains this. Males display, females choose-and the nature of female is to choose the best male she can get. That’s neither here nor there, but what it does mean is that if the average Joe don’t do something to make him stand out from the rest of the pack, chances are very high he’ll go high and dry like Sodini, not having gotten laid since the last century. Literally.
Game helps the average guy stand out from the pack, and no amount of “Game would never work on me” rap from any woman is gonna change the simple fact that it DOES indeed work, if done correctly. In fact, its been my direct, firsthand experience, that the women who tend to shout such things the loudest, are the ones who are soon spread eagle on the bed.
AA: Middle-aged men with receding hairlines and beer bellies have to understand that 20-year-olds aren’t checking for that. They want the Reggie Bush’s of the world, too. Unless old dude is handing out some dollars, then the game does change for some females. Donald Trump is a prime example of this. He can “buy” a beautiful wife and trade her in when she gets to be too “old.” The average man can’t do that, so the average man can’t act as if he’s entitled to a gorgeous woman.
O: Sure, however, as I note below, Sodini wasn’t balding or pot-bellied. And I know for a fact that men can and do bed much younger, and hotter, women all the time. One of my own girlfriends was 18 at the time I met her; I was in my early 30s, just for a quick example. Given Sodini’s assests as we know them, he could have easily scored a chick in the 30s, if not younger. He just needed the right teachers and support circle to help him out, as I have earlier indicated.
AA: That was Sodini’s psychosis. He did not understand the concept of pay-to-play like probably many of those idiots who bought into that book did.
O: And you base this on your extensive reading by his own hand, or by a secondary source? In other words April, have you actually read Sodini’s blog? For the record, I have.
AA: I bet the majority realized the book was bs, pulled out their wallets and purchased a mail-order bride from Asia or Eastern Europe and shut up.
O: And you would be one who was quckly departed from their liquid assets. I take it you’ve not heard of the IMBRA provision of the VAWA Act.
Moreover, what analytics can you offer to backup your assertion made above? I’d like to peruse those results, please.
AA: They had the beautiful young woman the book promised them, but they had to pay for it. Sodini did not feel he needed to pay for it, he felt his penis entitled him to it. And when he didn’t get it, he snapped.
O: What made him snap was basically having blue balls for a quarter of a century. Trust me, that’s enough to make the vast majority of men flip out, lol.
But seriously, all of this is water under the bridge. The bottomline is that Sodini wasn’t fat, balding, etc. By all accounts he was a successful, not bad looking man for his age who simply had a hard time picking up women.
I say Game could have helped him. I personally have seen the results it has made in men’s lives, AND, there are women, in this very forum, who also think that Game is a good thing. On that basis, I stand by what I initially have said.
But you can most definitely feel free to holla back;)
The Obsidian
I’ll take your non-argument as an admission that you’re insights have been exhausted.
Needless to say, this is a great start so why is this step not more prevalent among biocons (arguing for the children’s welfare)? The Left, however, will not stop there. The feminists will argue that the nuclear family is an oppressive, bourgeois institution, the patriarchal nature of which is so destructive. Once the debate takes this tone, where do you proceed?
I’m married and regularly get my marital dues.
I remain a stalwart of the cause.
Therefore I am the example that blows the libtard example out of the water.
Of course they’d come back and say that I’m married to some traitor to the female sex or some crap like that.
Interesting how she cites a buff, Black football player as her “ideal man.”
And implies that White males only have a shot at similarly-attractive women if they are wealthy and can afford to purchase them from overseas.
It’s because in this age, Black men can do no wrong, and White/Asian men can do no right. Feminism gave Black men a pass to be the most macho, violent, chauvinist men in this country – lest be accused of racism. As a result, they were allowed to be “as bad as they wanna be,” and not hamstrung into nutless manginas like a generation of law-abiding Sodini’s and Cho’s.
And in addition, Jews and their obedient Anglos have gone so far as to openly hero-worship Black men out of guilt. Just take the lastest Hollywood movie, “Inglorious Bastards,” for example. As usual, it’s yet ANOTHER Jewish anti-German flick…with an anachronistic Black-on-blonde sex scene gratuitously inserted in. I mean, how more tiresome and transparent can their agenda get here, lol?
Because they damn well know that life imitates art…
Stats. They like studies, they have flaunted them. We can flaunt them back in spades about how their new family model correlates with every manner of dysfunction in “the children”. Make it all about “the children” and “the future”. The discourse should NOT be “men’s rights”. That is DOA in this culture. Make an argument about family centered on children, though, and you have some legs, because the literature is against them, despite their ideology, and children are a powerful political weapon (cynical, yes, but we’re fighting the left, which is inherently cynical in method if not substance).
Why haven’t biocons advocated anything? Biocons are on the ground floor of the building. Socons are on the top floor. I think it’s fairly silly to have expected biocons to have advocated anything specific yet. Perhaps these kinds of discussions are the groundwork for articulating that.
I would say that neocons are on the top floor and traditionalists are near the bottom. At any rate, Bottom floor or not, biocons could occasionally launch a few anti-leftist polemics that illustrates the harm inflicted on children under the single mother ethos. But assuming that they studiously ignored the stats and continued playing the Marxist card, how would you respond?
But assuming that they studiously ignored the stats and continued playing the Marxist card, how would you respond?
If they are dyed-in-the-wool Marxists, you won’t convince them my political debate. I learned that with Marxists in eastern europe in the 80s. Traditionalism isn’t really a counter, either. If we let the argument get to ideology, they probably win, as they have done for the past several decades.
Understood–but if you went about making the case against Marxism on an ideological basis, what would your points be?
That is a problem but it isn’t completely effective. First, getting a steady stream of sex isn’t going to eliminate the marriage strike. (The marriage strike isn’t caused by guys who aren’t getting laid after all.) It isn’t going to stop FRA. Second, shaming language progressively loses effectiveness. Third, they don’t really believe that since the obvious answer to keep female privilege would be to have some take the bullet and have sex with sexless guys. (It’s either that or an unsustainable police state.) The last thing they should want to do is create an ever growing horde of sexless men they really believed that sexless men caused MRA.
“Adding on to the prior comment, it seems as though you may be trying find a basis for game that is not Darwinian. Presumably this is because a Darwinian basis would turn off many potential allies (Auster being the most obvious example) or you yourself reject Darwinism.”
I don’t reject Darwinism, but neither do I elevate it to the level of a religion. Darwinism explains many things, but it is imperfect.
“My suggestion would be to ignore the cause of game’s effectiveness–whether god made women to like dominant men or whether evolution did so. What matters is that it works, and that it indicts liberalism as a false religion. Many creationists, Auster included, have stated that they accept that evolution occurs now, but they state that speciation could not have occurred through Darwinism, and therefore that creationism remains viable. Perhaps a similar detente could be found between the Darwinian game theorists and the traditionalists.”
That’s the point that I’m trying to make.
Lion and Horseman: I read Roissy’s article about the Aussie dude’s marriage. I didn’t find it very convincing. I don’t have any interest in “negging” my fiance or pretending that I’ll cheat on her with another woman. That’s not what I’m about. Sorry.
but if you went about making the case against Marxism on an ideological basis, what would your points be?
I know that you are trying to corner me into admitting anti-materialism as the only way to confront these people.
The thing is, I never would deploy that against a Marxist. They believe in materialism in a religious sense. So I would deploy a kind of materialism that undermines, critically, Marxism, if I had to debate them. And that is the essence of bioconservatism. It has more power to undermine Marxists (cultural and otherwise) than traditional conservatism does, precisely because of its materialist basis. It’s much harder for them to dismiss, now that the science is falling into place, precisely because it has its basis in materialist science. And that’s precisely why they are so agitated about the growing presence it has in the academy. They can hear the footsteps, and these footsteps scare them much more than traditionalist ones do.
I know that tradcons and socons have fought Marxists for decades with antimaterialist arguments. It makes sense therefore that when a conservative materialist perspective comes into being, that it is subject to the same scrutiny, as wedded as some tradcons and socons have become to their own arguments against the Marxists. But rather than seeing this as a threat, conservatives should see it as an opportunity to deploy a weapon against Marxists that pulls the rug out from under their feet, and does so in a way that garners a lot of public/populist support by merely restating what we have all accepted as CW for a long time, albeit now expressed in scientific terms.
Chuck: If a woman disrespects us, you are correct; we are under no obligation to respect them back. But our de facto position vis a vis women should be one of respect.
You got me, Horseman. I’m afraid to confront feminists. I’m actually a feminist in disguise. I knew you’d blow my cover eventually ;)
You are not a feminist in disguise, but you are definitely afraid to confront them, given how their textbook shaming language is very effective on socialcons.
Translation : Todd White is stumped. He knows he has no remaining proper arguments, and therefore has only the weakest of gasp remaining.
What I said is true. And you know it.
Which, under Game, it is.
You are still entirely unequipped to discuss Game, or female psychology. You still know nothing about either.
@ Obsidian:
Excuse me for not adopting a Sagan-esque demeanor here, but:
Astrology is retarded.
It was not so much an attempt to corner you as it was an attempt to see what the standard biocon attitude is towards anti-materialism. Why is this so important to ascertain? Because, once it permeates politics, the ‘bio’ part of biocon will not be in dispute, but the ‘con’ certainly will be. There are implications in HBD that dovetail with the leftist agenda (e.g welfare). It will then become necessary for those whose object it is to preserve the West to distinguish themselves from these hypothetical ‘Bio-radicals’
I don’t see any implications. Promotion of the nuclear family, as much as it can be done, for those fading few who choose it, a clear choice between multiculturalism and welfare (you can have one but not the other), high trust networks requiring a mostly uniform ethno-state, and fertility being a function of age, these are all hard-wired constraints upon society that biology imposes.
It is like recognizing thermodynamics in the design of a steam engine. Once you understand the basics, some designs will obviously be more efficient (and safe) than others.
If for no other reason, it would be healthy to provoke debate between SWPL desires for multiculturalism, and traditional welfare. That if you have the one, you cannot have the other because it’s abused. That this punctures PC dogma and hilariously arcane PC rules of who ranks where in the victimology status chart is just gravy.
It is VERY important to have this debate, because recent science suggests evolution can take place among humans in around a thousand years, though not without genetic costs (Harpending/Cochran’s work). Since social policy/construction/culture is the major environment affecting natural and sexual selection, it’s important to choose wisely. To become either Switzerland or Somalia.
I know social cons hate Darwin, evolution, and the knowledge that it applies to human beings too, that we are animals as subject to it and death as any other living creature, but there it is. We are in fact animals. Amazing and astonishing animals, but animals nonetheless and we hide away from our background at our great, great peril, something Christian writers have always emphasized, starting with the First.
For traditionalists, it probably is not about hating Darwin, evolution, and its application to man. Although, for them and their society, there remains cause for concern because their culture does not exactly follow from HBD. HBD will tell you how massive Third World immigration will affect America but it will not tell you to halt said immigration. It is plausible that ‘bio-radicals’ who wish to alter the demographics would hasten it onward. Hence, other arguments are required for the conservative thinking of the biocons.
Byrdeye,
The gal I was talking to was Black; I don’t think she meant anything racial by her “hypothetical” example.
That said though, why not use Brothas like me to really put one on White Feminists? Clearly, we saw what happens when they get cornered. I think we should use every weapon in our arsenal to win the debate.
Going back to the two exchanges I posted, notice how both gals tried to argue that I was somehow in favor of a Man being “entitled” to sex w/a Woman-what utter nonsense(!). If that were the case, there would be no need to learn Game, right? Simply being a male w/a penis is enough.
And then of course, Lucy accuses me of the very thing she bans me for, “personally attacking” me by calling me a “sexist”, though she never backs up the claim. However, in my case, I merely asked her a question about something she mentioned of her own free will about her past-and in so doing, I also brought up a very important principle in the metaphysical world…
That being this: you are what you attract. If all you seem to attract are headcases, “misogynists” and “sexists”, as a Woman, what does that say about you?
Hmm?
But, as we can see, Lucy wasn’t prepared to handle the truth. Much to learn, she has.
I am sure more exchanges will be around, since I belong to a number of forums where Women who think like April Aries and Lucy abound. I’ll repost them here when they do happen.
Holla back
The Obsidian
Damn, those are some long ass e-mails. Have to disagree that the foundation of Game is NLP, though. That’s true of Jeffries’ Speed Seduction, but Mystery is very much Darwinian, mixing evolutionary theory with his experiences with stage performing and magic to create a unique mix of Game, of which Neil Strauss is a student.
Ah, ok well we can remove the racial angle then…simplifying matters here. :)
And I agree, although Jewish/White feminists have the most clout, feminism should be fought on all fronts. But Jewish/White ones can be targeted most because they do wield the most influence.
In any case, I agree that feminists BY NATURE DON’T PLAY FAIR. In your case, they created strawmen to knock down and leveled false accusations to justify censorship. Nothing but dirty tricks and sleazeball tactics. And simply par for the course when dealing with these womyn.
Anyhow, it is great for you to raise your voice in these niche (female-dominated) areas like astrology with both Black and White feminists. The more places and frequently our voices are heard, the better. Eventually, we will reach a grass-roots critical mass and saturation point.
Much support, man!
Gosh these are poor examples of ‘evidence’ and logic. You’ll believe anything (that suits you) if you believe this counts as verification. Is this what they teach in American schools?
Second.
But I enjoyed reading the conversations anyway. Thanks for posting them. Still, it seems pointless. Most women, especially feminists, are impervious to logic and reason. They simply do not operate on that plane.
There is true that meeting women (or men) depending on your gender, can be helped along by understanding gender differences and a little bit of science. It is misleading to call it a Game, it is science.
….”From the perspective of both Gamers and their critics, Game is a reaction to the “Sexual Revolution.â€
No, actually it is just part of the revolution itself.
{ 1 trackback }