Chuck weighs in on social conservatives, game, and discourse:
SoCons seem to be fixed on the idea that men who are trying to overcome are somehow dishonest in their behavior towards women. But I ask, is anything more dishonest than the subjugated white knights and doting fem-boys when it comes to the objects of their desire? Gamers replace “You look pretty” and “I really like you” with “You have something in your eye” and “You really like me.” All of these can be true statements, there’s no lying involved, but the frame of mind of the speaker has changed. The former were lines from a typical man in pursuit of a woman. Her gorged ego sucks them down and puts them on the pile of “lines I’ve heard a million times”. The latter are true statements as well, but they come from a man with a different viewpoint. This man, either naturally or with the impartations of Game, makes observations that aren’t “natural” to most men. We’ve been taught “if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.” But forcing “something nice” – as an “honorable” man would do to appease his woman – is as dishonest as anything. The thing that is lost on SoCons and other opponents of Game is that Game attempts to restore honesty and openness to male/female interactions. Game tries to make men comfortable with the truth. With Game, I don’t have to suck up to my girl just because I think that’s what I have to do to keep her interested. I don’t feed her compliments so that she won’t leave me. I tell her she’s pretty when I think she’s pretty, and I tell her she has shit in her eye when she has shit in her eye.
OneSTDV claims my and Beta Prime’s “beta revolution” is doomed to failure:
Yet, what will become of these reformed betas, those transformed by Game into sexually desirous alphas? If the disconnect of betas results from a lack of sexual satisfaction, then why does the Beta Revolution think he’ll be satisfied with a return to provider status. Game affords him a plethora of women, while his mental and moral tools provide him a comfortable and independent living. In addition, men’s relatively slow physical aging allows him access to fertile women well into his 60′s. The formerly beta man has no incentive to return to provider status, besides some nebulous connection to a cultural renaissance. Rather, it’s conceivable these former betas devolve into hedonistic and nihilistic Roissy-ites, dismissing the larger repercussions of sexual deviancy in order to pursue personal sexual satisfaction.
Beta Prime’s response:
This critique assumes that the Beta Revolution consists solely of advocating Game to betas as a means of simple sexual satisfaction, neverminding the benefits in promoting skill at social interaction (opening sets) and in maintaining fun, romantic relationships. This critique then, I think, falsely assumes that the ‘betas’ who we are trying to stir up are the same orequal to the natural alphas who, at present, hold all the sexual cards. When I say equal I mean having those same intellectual and personality qualities which, when pervasive in a society, amounts to a more functional, less chaotic existence. The natural alphas, not that they are our enemy, usually do not have the level of conscientiousness and intelligence needed to keep the motor of civilization going that the betas do.
Dennis Mangan’s response:
Admittedly, game could never provide the material for saving the West. But the idea that once a man learns how to be attractive to women, that he will forsake home and hearth and cubicle to sake his lust in the arms of prodigal women beggars the imagination. It assumes that game is utterly transformational, changing a man’s character so profoundly and changing him from nerd to Casanova so completely, that forming a harem will be nearly the only thing on his mind, and that he will abandon his former goals of forming a family, saving for retirement, and in general enjoying a quiet life.
My response:
As others have already stated, OneSTDV, your argument rests on the idea that learning game will automatically turn betas into uncaring lotharios. This is false because:
1) Merely learning game will not utterly transform a man. Most betas don’t want to be PUAs or cads, they just want a girlfriend or god forbid, a wife.
2) Being a lothario is not possible for many betas because they are either genetically incapable of it or they are unwilling to put in the work necessary. One doesn’t go from reading the Mystery Method to swooping women all the time – it takes time and hard work to reach that level of mastery. Roosh Valizadeh, a beta who transformed himself into a successful player, spent several years and expended considerable effort to get where he is today. Most betas are not going to go that far.
Novaseeker disputes Lawrence Auster’s claim that the game debate is over, citing Todd White’s response to me as full of strawmen and false assumptions:
It assumes that Strauss, like Roissy, sums up or exemplifies Game, and that no-one could ever use it for another purpose. The ironic thing is that Roissy himself, as recently as last week, had a long post here, dedicated to how one of his readers has successfully integrated Game into his marriage in order to save it – and how he succeeded in doing so without becoming an unfaithful rake. To highlight people like Roissy and Strauss, while ignoring people like Dave from Hawaii, is to set up a straw-man: a false picture that “this is all Game isâ€, when in fact this is not the case.
Thursday reminds traditionalists and social conservatives that, yes, they got it wrong and the Roissys and Devlins of the world got it right:
Sadly it has taken traditionalists almost 100 years to even begin to realize that the series of sexual revolutions in the 20th century were primarily driven by female sexual desire, not male sexual desire. Until recently, traditionalists have tended to assume that the behaviour of women in the Victorian era was a close reflection of their unconstrained sexual nature. The signals indicating otherwise were indeed there to read much earlier, but that doesn’t mean they were in fact read. Other aspects of female sinfulness were acknowledged, but the primarily female driven nature of 20th century changes in sexual mores was not put forward by any traditionalist or social conservative before F. Roger Devlin. One might reply, as Auster does, that it is axiomatic that the sexual revolutions of the 20th Century were changes in who young women slept with. But that ignores the differing explanations as to why they started doing so. The usual social conservative/traditionalist explanation was that bad males had gotten these young girls to sleep with them because these poor females wanted love and affection (but not sex) and those bad males refused to give them love and affection unless they slept with them. Those innocent females didn’t really want the sex, you see, they just wanted to be loved and cherished, but they had to give these men sex outside of marriage or else these bad men would move on to some girl who would have sex with them. It was sexual extortion, aided by the fact that the young man could now say, “But you won’t get pregnant. We have birth control now.”
Virginia Gentleman opines on Mr. Auster over at Roissy’s:
The whole Auster thing has been very interesting to read, since I generally take a favorable stance towards his writings, even if I don’t necessarily accept everything the man writes. It does, however, strike me as unnecessary internicine warfare.
I certainly don’t mean to engage in the sort of juvenile emotionalism usually on display when a teenager shrieks, “You don’t understand me!â€, but keeping that in mind, I have a creeping suspicion that, on this issue, Mr. Auster et al are simply not connected to the conditions on the ground as of late August 2009. Mr. Auster’s usual perceptive insights do seem to have failed him in this instance.
The recurring mental image is one of senior officers (Aust-rians, perhaps?) arguing that an infantryman with a fixed bayonet, elan and a commitment to the offensive will triumph over the flatbilled hordes, accompanied by the faint strains of a Viennese waltz. Meanwhile, those of us actually on the troop trains are being addressed by a burly commissar who bellows, “Next stop, Stalingrad! The one with the rifle shoots…â€, with the screams of sirens mounted to Luftwaffe dive bombers echoing nearby.
This is not, of course, to disparage Mr. Auster et al; I think we can be reasonably certain that the world that they grew up in simply does not exist at this point in time. It would almost be unfair to expect them to know conditions on the front lines for those of us in our late twenties-early thirties.
Meanwhile, the advice of various correspondents agreeing with Mr. Auster (typified by, “Read Proverbs twice daily; some day your prince/princess will comeâ€) would be downright insulting if I didn’t think it was being issued with honest motivations. As for my part, I’ve got a long checklist of things that have been tried; it largely matches the advice and practices of Mr. Auster’s correspondents. What do I have to show for it? Not even so much as a T-shirt.
If we’re worried about Western Civilization, then we need those who generally agree as to its value and worthiness of preservation to be producing the next generation faster than the other side(s). After all, if you see a growing trend of Islamicization of the West, who’s going to resist it? We certainly can’t count on the multicultural cult to do so.
Adopting the words of a cinematic character in Verhoeven’s Starship Troopers: “You disapprove? Well, too bad! We’re in this war for the civilization, boys and girls.†We have the destination in mind and we more or less know how to get there. All we need are the troops, and there’s only one way to get them. Refusing to use all available devices against our civilizational opposition seems tantamount to unilateral disarmament for the good guys. I didn’t favor it during the Cold War and I certainly don’t favor it now.
Finally, Tupac Chopra made me laugh with this comment:
Auster is Don Imus to Roissy’s Howard Stern.
And we commenters are Roissy’s “Wack Packâ€
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
What bothers me is that Auster and his cronies have declared “victory” because their willful ignorance has prevented them from understanding any perspective but their own. The truth is that, when it comes to the relations between men and women, these men are “useful idiots” who unwittingly promote a feminist worldview. Like many traditional conservatives, they’re stuck in another century and unable to sensibly deal with the problems of modern society. They don’t have any realistic solutions, so they just infight and snipe at everyone else.
I have the same impression.
I also think that they believe that biocons, Gamers and so on are like gnats in need of being swatted away. To be honest, I think that society is changing, again, in the sense that men are adapting, now, and morphing into something else. It’s not happening in just one way, but many ways: some are becoming more deeply beta and feminist, others are learning Game, others are burrowing into the churches .. but men are changing. There’s a lot of change, and the traditionalists are pretty much against change, so that leaves them in a fairly unstable place, I think.
A victory was declared because it was admitted that game, in and of itself, cannot spare the West from decline. As per FB, “attempting to replace traditionalism with game is like trying to replace a car with a fuel injector. Game’s utility to traditionalism is as a part of it – it cannot take its place because it is not a complete ideology.” Novaseeker likewise says “This is, of course, correct — “Game†is not a systemic worldview, nor is it intended to build one, or replace one.” Mangan repeats this: “Admittedly, game could never provide the material for saving the West.” In short, this indicates that game ALONE cannot serve the purpose of the biocons, which is what had been hitherto conveyed by apologists of game. It is still left to them to find game’s utility to the overarching traditionalism.
I think I have to agree with the cons. Game only works in a sexually permissive culture such as the one we currently find ourselves mired in here in USA.
It does not work in arranged marriage cultures. The people in those cultures have different values and marry for different reasons.
Here in the USA we hardly even marry anymore, unless we are gay.
The socialcons really made fools of themselves.
First and foremost, never ‘debate’ with a social con until you get them to answer Step 1 : Have them define what ‘Game’ actually is, as per their understanding.
Only after Step 1 can we proceed to Step 2, a debate.
But you will find that their comprehension of what Game is is grossly off. By a lot. So how can there possibly be a debate? You might as well debate Game with a woman.
Other observations :
1) Socialcons attack Game maily because they are afraid to confront feminists. Feminist shaming language is extremely effective against socialcons and their white-knight psychology. Hence, they attack Game instead. Much like anti-US leftists get so worked up over Guantanamo, but are afraid to condemn Al-Qaeda when AQ beheads civilian hostages and gouges the eyes out of US troops.
We could not even get the social cons to condemn the unfair divorce laws. Imagine that.
2) We really are at the top of Maslow’s Hierachy : we are self-actualized. Social cons are one level below, which is why we understand them fully, but they do not understand us. Leftists are one level lower than social cons, and thus two levels lower than us, in Maslow’s hierarchy.
Those are my thoughts. But never give a social con the unearned privilege of a debate before he can actually define what Game is.
It does not work in arranged marriage cultures. The people in those cultures have different values and marry for different reasons.
Wrong. LTR game works all the same in arranged marriage cultures. Are you sure you know what LTR Game is?
No, game is criticized because of this: “Temptations exist to misuse Game. Game is such an effective set of tools that there exists a great temptation to misuse it, or to use it in a self-serving, amoral way. In my view, this is to be discouraged, both for reasons of the larger society, as well as for reasons of personal happiness. However, the risk remains that it will be abused — it’s a powerful tool, and needs to be handled carefully. (Novaseeker)” Traditionalists have no qualms about accepting that there are profound differences between the sexes but the dilemma remains that game is an unwieldy psychological weapon that is not necessarily conducive towards the conservative aims of biocons. There house is not yet in order.
No, game is criticized because of this: “Temptations exist to misuse Game. Game is such an effective set of tools that there exists a great temptation to misuse it, or to use it in a self-serving, amoral way. In my view, this is to be discouraged, both for reasons of the larger society, as well as for reasons of personal happiness. However, the risk remains that it will be abused — it’s a powerful tool, and needs to be handled carefully. (Novaseeker)” Traditionalists have no qualms about accepting that there are profound differences between the sexes but the dilemma remains that game is an unwieldy psychological weapon that is not necessarily conducive towards the conservative aims of biocons. Their house is not yet in order.
Personally, I find the entire “debate” between the Game community and the socalled SocialCons to be greatly flawed.
Like TFH has said, and I agree, it seems clear to me that the SCs have little if any understanding of Game in an overall sense, nor of any of its fundaments or undergirding principles. This alone makes it very hard to have any form of enlightened discussion, let alone debate, for simple lack of proper information to begin with, regardless as to whether one takes a pro or con position wrt Game. As it so often happens though, it is human nature to rail the loudest and longest against things one has litte if any information, accurate or no, about (note a recent commenter’s disdain at my posting astrological renderings of the Fiore-Jenkins/Sodini tragedies; five’l get you ten said commenter knows almost next to nothing about astrology!).
The second flaw I see in the Game-SocialCon Debate is in the idea that Game must somehow address, even “save” Western Civ. I don’t think it’s Game’s or the PUA’s job or place to be Western Civ’s saviors. What seems clear to me is that the SocialCons have clearly lost in their efforts to bend WC in their way, and it would seem to me a much better use of energy for them to examine where, how and why they’ve failed so abyssmally, and so repeatedly, over the past few decades, instead of basically demanding that something they’ve already declared was flawed to begin with-Game-do the dirty work and heavy lifting of “saving” Western Civ that they couldn’t do themselves.
The simple bottomline is, that in a free democratic society where interpersonal relations is based on the principle of freedom of association, Game, works. It is a complex of ideas, behaviors and concepts designed to win the sexual attraction of a Woman, or indeed, a number of Women. It is rooted in Evolutionary Psychology and Biology, has been repeatedly field tested, and has wide application accross sociometric groups and cultures.
Having said that however, it is entirely up to the individual Man in question as to how he wishes to use Game-does he wish to live the life of a Libertine? Does he wish to get a girlfriend? A wife? Does he wish to put that sexual spark but into his relationship or marriage? All of these options and more, are available to the Man w/Game.
And THAT, to me, is Game’s true strength, for it gives a Man OPTIONS. For so much of human history, and certainly this is the case for the modern era, the vast majority of Men were at the mercy of the Fates when it came to winning the affections of a young maiden. All of the nice platitudes and pretty lies so many young Men were sold, have proven over and over not to work for the aggregate Male. Dating and mating, already a deeply murky matter for the vast majority of young Men, was essentially a hit and miss endeavor, filled with many a lonely night, and scores of rejections.
Game changes all that. It gives Men the tools that have been proven to work on Women, and it has been seen and proven that even a minute amount of understanding and effort-effort is key-can a Man turnaround his situation literally overnight. I myself have seen this. Many here can attest to the same thing in their own lives.
As a practitioner of Game-both natural and assisted, if you will-it is a powerful feeling to know that if I want, I can have as many Women as I can handle-that I’ll never go lacking for female company if that’s what I desire; that the term “involuntary celibacy” would never apply to me.
It occurs to me that if the SocialCons are truly interested in saving Western Civ, they might consider addressing themselves to areas of life that are less about trading in abstract ideas and tilting at ideological windmills and fighting lost causes in some misguided attempt at principled martyrdom, and instead focus their efforts “on the ground”-there are thousands of young White Conservative Males who are not getting laid, let alone facing the prospect of living a good chunk of their lives alone because not only do they live in a greatly changed social landscape their dads and grandads wouldn’t recognize, but they also have no guides or mentors to help them on the path to true happiness-which, if you’re a Man, means being between a Woman’s thighs. If the SocialCons really want to make a difference, they can start by helping its next generation get Game.
The Obsidian
“The second flaw I see in the Game-SocialCon Debate is in the idea that Game must somehow address, even “save†Western Civ. I don’t think it’s Game’s or the PUA’s job or place to be Western Civ’s saviors”
It was never stated that PUA’s/rakes had to be the standard bearers of WC or that socons demanded this of them. No, they are far too occupied in their lifestyle to care a fig for the West. Game is but a tool and, choosing to use it for their libertine ends, PUA’s are not expected to save anything. For those who style themselves as biocons, however, it IS incumbent upon them to demonstrate that game must be incorporated into the larger framework of conservatism. It is the professed mission of FB and Beta Prime to mount an intellectual defense of the beta and, by extension, the civilization in which he flourishes. Instead of an apolitical rake, biocons do have a responsibility to articulate their understanding of how game fits in conservative thought. In their eyes, the debate cannot be more pertinent.
Well said, Obsidian.
If you have not already, check out my lenghty demolition of Todd White on the ‘Todd White throws down the Gauntlet’ thread. It is archive-worthy if I do say so myself.
There cannot be a ‘debate’ about Game without socialcons comprehending Game. The thing is, they don’t know what they don’t know.
Just ask a social con to define Game, as per their understanding of it. They just won’t do it. They cannot define it. And if they try, they get it wrong by a mile.
This merely proves to me that Game is exclusively the province of Outside the Box Thinkers (OTBs). That is why we see an amazing array of intellects and thinkers within Game. It has attracted the OTBs from all over.
Why does the Game community have to make it fit into conservative thought. It is the socialcons who are struggling to define any remaining relevance of themselves, while Game, by contrast, is ascendant.
As far as Game fitting within right-wing principles, in short, Game is consistent with :
1) Self-improvement through personal efforts, rather than handouts
2) Free market entrepreneurship
3) Freedom from subjugation inflicted by the insidious forces of feminism (which socialcons failed to stop and even unwittingly helped).
4) Providing strong male role models to younger men
5) Self-determination and personal liberty.
That is a hell of a lot better than socialcons have done in the last 40 years. There is no other group in America that has failed more consistently and totally, in the attainment of its own stated goals, than social conservatism.
Wrong. That is game as per YOUR understanding–or, I should say, exercise–of it which just happens to coincide nicely with many aspects of conservatism. What you enumerated above is game as you perceive it. Game is a tool (widely acknowledged fact) which cannot, per se, lend itself to any ideology. It is not as if everyone on the planet, having studied the science behind it, would automatically become a prudent fiscal conservative. If anything it would probably promote rakish dissipation, in the main, rather than an impulse to save civilization. And the traditionalists are not struggling to keep themselves relevant. Just as game has not been falsified by feminist society, so too has the Traditionalist thinking not been buried by liberalism.
{ 2 trackbacks }