Whiskey brings the pain over at Mangan’s:
My first problem with Audacious Epigone is that he/she uses the webtools of the GSS instead of downloading the data and looking at it through something like say, MySQL to view the individual observations. To get a reality check on how many observations by classification per year. Sometimes they are astonishingly small. Small numbers of observations can induce errors. Not seen in the Web tools.
My second problem is that AE and Agnostic assume a static-state strategy for reproduction, when we have ample evidence that this is not so: Blacks in America had an illegitimacy rate of 24% in the 1960′s, compared to over 70% nationwide and 90% in the urban core today. White British working class folks had illegitimacy rates very low, now approaching Blacks. Whites had a rate of 2-4% illegitimacy rate in the 1960′s, now approaching 40% for the White Working Class according to Charles Murray. Europeans according to both Keeley (War Before Civilization) and Wade (Before the Dawn) were polygamous, with few men reproducing, and only switched during Christianity. Ghengis Khan or his contemporary has produced through direct male descent 8.3% of the men in and around Mongolia — an astonishing number if you work backwards (Khan must have monopolized the sexual services of nearly all women then in those areas).
My THIRD problem is that AE IGNORES the issues of environmental change: contraception, independence of income (no need for Dads/support) and anonymous urban living (no social shame) that give women, for the first time EVER in history near total freedom. NEARLY TOTAL FREEDOM. To not expect massive changes in behavior with removal of all constraints, is just plain illogical.
My FOURTH problem is that correlation is not causation, i.e. fewer sex partners can be correlated with White/Muslim/Indian religious/family control over women, something not seen in Black women where MORE sex partners equals MORE babies. I.E. a conservative, Muslim women who has few (one basically) sex partner and is very religious will have quite a number of women (in Yemen the TFR rate is around 8). Those not so religious, in urban areas with anonymity and rising incomes and available contraception, will have few (in Iran, Tunisia, and Algeria the number is below replacement and around 1.7). BUT, Black women in the urban core have more kids than highly educated Black women with fewer sex partners.
Thursday — Human history did not start yesterday. We are in fact moving towards the usual state of affairs — most men being locked out of reproduction and investment in society, making them violent, dangerous, and prone to periodic overthrows of civilization. MOST of human history is women plus elites vs. Joe Average trying to game resource distribution and reproduction. That’s basically the story of the human race after agriculture.
N/A — You ignore Black Ghetto women, British Women, and increasingly White US women, who are having illegitimate kids, in very chaotic and unstable (unlike Scandi nations) cohabitation if that, with whoever excites them the most. You need to go onto women’s forums, such as D-listed, or TMZ, and see the type of stuff posted to get women off the pedestal you built for them. CLEARLY, the trend for the younger cohort is much more sex, casually, with reproduction being whoever is sexiest, and the single mother as model. There is no “quality women” — Christian women cheat, become single mothers, and so on at rates exceeding that of their non-religious peers. Marriage has been redefined to a temporary partnership between a hot woman and a “Kitchen Bitch” who takes care of the kids (by other men) while the woman has “passionate affairs” and that model is basically, dead, defaulting to single motherhood.
Aaron — You don’t understand the nature of T vs. IQ. The sweet spot for High T is median IQ. Moving away from median, you get the same level of T at 140 IQ as you do with a Short Bus rider of 60 IQ. Your hipster girls are banging High T alphas on the side, without question. Reality check — we are indeed animals, and the main environment we interact with is our social one. Darwin DOES apply to us, as it does to all living things.
TGGP — My criticism of Malloy is that his model is too simplistic and requires static over time behavior that is binary, for both men and women, and lacks any predictive power. For example, China has more men than women, and is a hypergamous hell with HOARDING of women by high officials. Same in India, Saudi Arabia, and indeed the Arabian peninsula where men outnumber women yet 33% of all marriages are polygamous. Women can and WILL share with other women a superior man in power/status. Moreover, such men can use force/power to construct harems. Meanwhile, men facing competition from other men with resource disparities fall into “toffs vs. ruffians” models, with crime/violence/brutality checking and/or equaling status, or simply using force to break apart harems.
Moreover, WHY would a woman with her own money, income, anonymous living, and birth control WANT a provider? When she can HAVE HER CAD without need for a provider? If Malloy’s models were right, we would see China filled with law abiding men competing over provider status instead of the seething cauldron of violence it is. Japan with it’s relatively equal sex ratio should see men catting about instead of acting as withdrawn “herbivores” devouring ugly hentai porn, featuring school girls violated by tentacles. Heck the US ought to have most men catting about with an equal sex ratio, yet most guys in the US post-College go years between women. Meanwhile, the Black Ghetto with Jail removing many men from the sexual marketplace, is characterized by an ultra-violent competition over women. Rather than simple catting around. What do you think those killings are about?
Malloy’s model lacks any predictive power — so no matter the emotional satisfaction that putting women on pedestals gives, the model is useless in understanding human sexual behavior.
{ 54 comments… read them below or add one }
Ferdinand,
As I’ve said before, the last people who should be opening their mouths wrt Game are the socalled “Quantbloggers”-these are almost entirely White high IQ guys-which means, they basically don’t get laid much. Therefore, they have almost no understanding of Women, Sex, Relationships or Social Dynamics, and, as Whiskey noted above, have to rely on completely outmoded models of human sexual relations in order to craft any kind of argument. Its really laughable to read this stuff coming from a group who self-proclaims that they are interested in data and not subjectivity.
I’ve said it once, it bears repeating: if ever there was a bad time to be a high IQ White Guy, this is it. Not only do Women no longer need a nice guy w/a nice job, the wider society is saying to such guys, “we don’t need you” either-not when we can Sanjay or Chang to do the same job at half the price. This no doubt is at the core of the “Quantsphere” movement, and is no accident that it would grow almost in direct proportion to the Game/PUA movement.
Revenge of the Nerds, indeed.
O
All the theories of the “quantsphere” fall apart when these four are introduced:
Birth control
Condoms against STD’s
Abortion
Child support/State child support/state subsidized child care/birth money
Forget about laws, social support, other supports and welfare etc.
The above four are enough to let women loose from their given by nature shackles.
The rest is also as effective but it is more difficult for the effects of these (laws, welfare etc) to be seen by the q.bloggers in the sexual context.
Millions of years of natural restraints not existing anymore… This by itself is big enough.
Bwwhahaha! More like “Revenge of the Alphas”!
I can’t remember exacty which Ancient Greek philosopher (probably Plato or Aristotle) but he pointed out that all civilisations follow four stages that mimic the life span of a man: infancy, youth, middle age and old age. Each civilisation starts off small, grows up and becomes strong, gets grumpy and complacent and, finally, falls into senility and dies.
Has Western Civilisation had its time? It’s gone from ‘infant’ Alpha rule where the warriors pacified the lands, to ‘youthful’ greater Betas who rule with intellect and strength, to lesser Betas who try to rule by imploring everyone to “play nice” and “not use physical force nor dishonesty to get your way because we’re not very strong and can’t defend ourselves” and slowly lose their rule because they are merely living off the inheritance that the Alphas and Greater Betas worked hard to build. So how long will be before we enter the final, chaotic senility where nobody rules (Omegas can never rule, ever) in which in which new Alphas will have to pacify the chaos (where lesser Betas and Omegas will learn their “yes sir, yes sir, three bags full sir!” lest they get backhanded on their candy-arses.) and society begins anew?
Gil, ZG,
I find “big, macro” discussions both interesting and disconcerting, because while they make for great conversation, they do little to help a high IQ White guy actually get laid. No one here is influential enough to change public policy, so in a big way entertaining “big” discussions are little more than masturbatory. Learning Game is a much better use of a guy’s time.
I think the reason why so people in the Quantsphere kick dirt on Game is because it actually puts many of the Conservative/Libertarian concepts into practice that said groups claim to revere. For example the C/L school stresses the role of the Individual and the idea of Merit. So does Game-in the end, you are the X-Factor, the only constant amidst the many Women you come into contact with. Moreover, Game will give you exactly what you put into it, no more, no less. Yes, there are guys out there who will get more of out Game, be it due to their superior work ethic, or their having more natural stuff to work with. But in any event, this reflects the C/L principles of not all Men being equal, yes?
It’s aways interesting to hear the very same people who decry Affirmative Action for Blacks turnaround and say, we need some sort of public policy change in order to help that section of society who can’t get laid on their own, do so. Its just very interesting.
O
I wasn’t kicking dirt on ‘game’ nor black people.
Gil,
No offence taken, but I do tink all this talk of “saving Western Civ” acts as a very good cover for many guys NOT DOING ANYTHING RIGHT NOW IN THEIR OWN LIVES TO MAKE THEM BETTER. Maybe its a “side effect” of being so highbrow (ie, high IQ=”living in one’s head”), but all that abstract stuff doesn’t really accomplish anything in your own personal life, unless you’re in a direct position to change/influence public policy. If you’re not, you need to be spending your time learning some Game. The end.
O
I think the reason why so people in the Quantsphere kick dirt on Game is because it actually puts many of the Conservative/Libertarian concepts into practice that said groups claim to revere.
Yep, this is important.
That is why the socialcons/betaCons are actually part of the left, rather than the free-market right.
Game IS entrepreneurship and meritocracy.
“I do tink all this talk of “saving Western Civ†acts as a very good cover for many guys NOT DOING ANYTHING RIGHT NOW IN THEIR OWN LIVES TO MAKE THEM BETTER…all that abstract stuff doesn’t really accomplish anything in your own personal life, unless you’re in a direct position to change/influence public policy. If you’re not, you need to be spending your time learning some Game.”
Can anything else aside from game constitute self-improvement? Also, do not underestimate those who are in an indirect position to influence public policy. No one of the Frankfurt school were ever elected politicians but cultural Marxism came all the same.
Pons Seclorum,
The Frankfurt School? Are you serious? We’re talking about a group of guys who can’t even get in a girl’s pants here. Come on.
All the floppin around about Gam on the part of the SocialCon/HBDsphere is a simple cover for the fact that THEY’RE ANGRY AND PISSED OFF that they didn’t inherit the world and with it, the hottest babes, on a platter because they’re supposedly the Best & the Brightest. Well, tough, the world doesn’t work that way, and all they’ll accomplish is being viewed as Sour Grapes Sore Losers & Haters.
Period.
O
Is it always a given that those who have invested themselves in an issue are motivated by anger alone? Would you yourself acknowledge that your aversion to discussing macro issues is brought about by personal animus? You say that discoursing on saving the West is self-indulgent and impractical but can this merely be the masking of your spite against those who would broach the topic? As for the Frankfurt school, they may not have been lotharios par excellence but that hardly diminished their efficacy in insidiously promoting their ends. They may not have gotten into girls’ pants but they burrowed their way into academia and in so doing brought about the current state of affairs which many find so distasteful. Does the fruit of their efforts appear so dubious now?
PS,
No, I was talking about your idea that the Quantsphere is akin to the Frankfurt School-at least the latter guys were getting their freak on. These guys, by and large, can’t.
As for macro discussions, I love em!-I’m just saying that in the end, they really don’t do anything to help the individual guy out there reading this get his dick wet. And before you turn up your nose, it all starts there-if you can’t even make a Woman say “yes” to a night with you, you can forget about getting her to say “yes” to a lifetime with you-and your grand plans to save Western Civ goes right down the tubes.
PS, the thing I love about Game is that it centers on the individual, gives him practical, no nonsense tools, steps and methods that have been proven to work, and stresses the importance of being brutally honest w/oneself as well as diligent effort in order to see results. Again, it mirrors perfectly the ideals enshrined in Conservatism and Libertarianism, and one would think the SocialCons and HBDers would be the last ones to dis Game. But, as we all can see, that’s not the case.
O
“Again, it mirrors perfectly the ideals enshrined in Conservatism and Libertarianism, and one would think the SocialCons and HBDers would be the last ones to dis Game. But, as we all can see, that’s not the case.”
It is not a matter of maligning the tool, as game is analogous to character building, but how it is to be used. Game stands alone and has yet to incorporate itself within a larger conservative framework (though FB has possibly found a spoor by way of Byron). For those of a conservative bent, It needs a philosophy i.e. to act as a counterpoise to the libertine tendencies of other game adherents.
PS,
As I’ve said many times here and elsewhere, Game is devoid of any ideology in and of itself; it is completely up to the individual as to how he would use Game in his own life.
I’ll take myself as an example. Now as a rule, I’ve always eschewed “Same Night Lays”. Not because I couldn’t get them-I could and can still do it if I wanted to-but because that was never my style.
Instead I use Game to build LTRs with. That’s more my style. And yup, I’m a Conservative, so it fits in w/my personal ideology.
Now, if I simply wanted to whore it up w/Women, Game would be accessible to me there too. Its all up to the individual.
The problem with the SocialCons and HBDers is they can’t get out of the way of their own ideology to see Game for what it is-a highly effective tool to win the SEXUAL ATTRACTION of a Woman. What happens after that, is up to you.
O
“Now, if I simply wanted to whore it up w/Women, Game would be accessible to me there too. Its all up to the individual.”
Right, but being a conservative it should also be in your interest to find a way to check the libertinism that will inevitably ensue from those who do elect to employ game for prodigality.
PS,
No, my ONLY responsibility is to myself and those I care about. That’s it. Anything more is gravy.
SocialCons and the like have to get out this airy-fairy notion of “saving” something. As TFH and others have clearly pointed out, they can’t even “save” themselves at this point.
O
I agree completely with this and find it insightful as usual.
The Frankfort School is merely the latest pop-up of long-term trends. Mary Wollstonecroft was preaching free love in the 1780′s. Byron, Shelley, Keats, and Mary Wollstonecroft Shelley put it into practice. The Oneida Community embraced it, and fell apart, predictably, in the 1840′s. Mary Woodhull preached it in the 1870′s. Virginia Woolf, in the 1920′s and 1930′s.
ALL aristocracies, want to end limits on their sexual expressions, whenever and wherever possible. Cultural Marxism is merely the latest overlay on decadent aristocracies doing what they want.
Thanks for the Quote FB!
“No, my ONLY responsibility is to myself and those I care about. That’s it. Anything more is gravy.”
Strange words from one who passionately advocates game as a curative for America’s dejected men. What are they to you, these lovelorn, amorphous multitude? And yet do you not wish to better their lot and instill within them the means to attain true happiness? This sounds suspiciously like ‘saving’ them from a macabre, forbidding fate. Both TFH and yourself fall into a conundrum–you desire to appeal to the greatest number of men while simultaneously maintaining that saving others is an absurdity and that yourself and your relatives/acquaintances are of any real concern.
It is more than laughable that socialcons (i.e. BetaCons) are so worried about the libertine tendencies that Game can result in, and that this needs to be contained…..
WHILE BEING UTTERLY OBLIVIOUS TO, OR EVEN COMPLICIT IT, THE BIGGEST LEFTIST FOOTPRINT IN AMERICA TODAY. The anti-male divorce laws are the bigest bastion of leftist intrusion into the lives of ALL Americans, and many other social problems flow downstream from this.
But BetaCons are too afraid to confront feminists, due to the fact that feminist shaming language is super-effective against these Socialcons. Hence, they are more than happy to demand more and more from men, while demanding zero from women. Hence, socialcons are effectively members of the left, rather than the right.
Right, but being a conservative it should also be in your interest to find a way to check the libertinism that will inevitably ensue from those who do elect to employ game for prodigality.
Yes. As a result of this, I think socialcons are as much a part of the problem as radical feminists. So there.
Game has arisen directly as a result of the 100% failure rate of socialcons for the last 40 years.
Both TFH and yourself fall into a conundrum–you desire to appeal to the greatest number of men
Wrong. I haven’t said this. I have in fact said that 80% of men are utterly incapable of even comprehending Game.
while simultaneously maintaining that saving others is an absurdity and that yourself and your relatives/acquaintances are of any real concern.
I want to save others. For this, feminism has to fail totally. Since socialcons are ‘useful idiots’ that happily let themselves be used by feminists, the rapid rejection of socialcons by average men is a step in the right direction.
The Oneida community were the precursors to hippies and it is doubtful that either were aristocratic by character. They might have even felt such a comparison to be repugnant and anathema to their egalitarianism. Regarding the cultural Marxists, they were salacious insofar as it promoted their radical agenda and chances are that they kept their personal lives modestly spotless. If this is not the case, they excel at obfuscation. Still, your point stands.
Is Pons Seclorum the same person as ‘Posec’? If so, a different vocabulary will have to be used.
“Wrong. I haven’t said this. I have in fact said that 80% of men are utterly incapable of even comprehending Game. ”
You have repeatedly excoriated socons for offering nothing of value for the average man and offer game in its stead as a relevant remedy for this group. How do you reconcile this with your Pareto-type dichotomy wherein 80% of men will never comprehend game? Why spray all of your bile on socons when game relegates a majority of men to beta-tude? Where does the average man fit within game’s superstructure?
“I want to save others. For this, feminism has to fail totally. Since socialcons are ‘useful idiots’ that happily let themselves be used by feminists, the rapid rejection of socialcons by average men is a step in the right direction.”
You recently wrote that the public at large failed to see and stanch the feminist influx. Does that not make nearly everyone a simpering ‘betacon’, complicit in society’s undoing?
You have repeatedly excoriated socons for offering nothing of value for the average man and offer game in its stead as a relevant remedy for this group. How do you reconcile this with your Pareto-type dichotomy wherein 80% of men will never comprehend game?
Easy. Everyone knows that smoking has horrendous health effects, yet a fair percentage of people still smoke. It is widely known that more education translates to higher income than dropping out of high-school, yet only 20% of US adutls have a college degree.
Why spray all of your bile on socons when game relegates a majority of men to beta-tude?
Because average men are victims. Socialcons are pompous gasbags who claim to be able to deliver something of value, yet fail shambolically at best, and are Eichmann’s of femiNazi utilization (at worst).
Socialcons are an ideology that expects to have followers. You have effectively admitted that they are useless and empty, with the pathetic excuse of saying ‘well, average people were equally duped’.
You still don’t have the courage to admit that you failed. You didn’t read Obsidians comment of the month in the profound and punctilious detail that you laughably expect the youth of America to study history textbooks with. His comment totally ends the ‘debate’ that Betacons think they are having.
Why the cowardice?
Plus, what do you ultimately want from this board? You come here, write a lot but say nothing. No one here can discern any realistic or coherent solutions from you.
Once again, Obs wins. Change indeed will come at the micro level since it wouldn’t be considered manly to ask for public policy changes to correct the evils perpretrated against us.
In 50 years, in Mormon and Muslim America, feminism will be a forgotten joke.
“what do you ultimately want from this board? You come here, write a lot but say nothing. No one here can discern any realistic or coherent solutions from you.”
Why do bother to revel in game when 80% of men will never enjoy its delights? I have not heard anyone here complain that I am bereft of realism or an inane babbler. I would recommend you look to yourself since your scribblings epitomize redundancy. Yes, we get it–the left pulled the wool over our eyes and everyone except socons are at fault whilst the insouciant average man and leftists themselves do not merit censure. So how do the latter groups escape your stinging criticism? Write something new and explain this non-sequitur.
Look PS, it’s like this…
Polling suggests that Women who are married tend to vote Republican far more than do Women who are not married. So, if the SocialCons are really serious about “saving” Western Civ, they’d be shooting for more marriages, because that’s one way to influence public policy.
Now-how do you make this happen? Simple-GAME. Oh, and for those who have a theological POV on all this, yea, the Bible’s rife with Game. Look it up.
Now then PS-what do you say to that?
O
“Now-how do you make this happen? Simple-GAME. Oh, and for those who have a theological POV on all this, yea, the Bible’s rife with Game. Look it up. Now then PS-what do you say to that?”
That sounds fine. But do you have a concurrent philosophy that will account for those who will use game for libertinism? I’m not saying prevent the libertinism from occurring but to have a conservatism to check any excesses that the libertines are heir to.
PS,
The only way to “check” libertineism is to present a better convincing argument against it. That’s the way w/all politics, present a better, more convincing argument. In fact, in a free democratic society, that’s the ONLY way to do business; being a libertine ain’t illegal.
SocialCons and the like need to be more concerned w/actually helping the young Men in their ranks, rather than spinning their wheels dealing with stuff that doesn’t amount to much at the end of the day. Its really as simple as that.
The Obsidian
“The only way to “check†libertinism is to present a better convincing argument against it. That’s the way w/all politics, present a better, more convincing argument. In fact, in a free democratic society, that’s the ONLY way to do business; being a libertine ain’t illegal.”
I never said libertinism was illicit but when it becomes too prevalent it will incur a cost consequent to all cad societies. Based on the attitudes of biocons, however, a cad society is not exactly the model that meets their approval. Naturally, they should be suspicious of rampant libertinism since it can lead to the conditions that presently surround us.
“The only way to “check†libertineism is to present a better convincing argument against it. ”
It should be the objectives of conservatives to craft this kind of argument.
“You still don’t have the courage to admit that you failed. You didn’t read Obsidians comment of the month in the profound and punctilious detail that you laughably expect the youth of America to study history textbooks with. His comment totally ends the ‘debate’ that Betacons think they are having.”
I actually did read and replied to it in an earlier thread but you failed to address my comment. Without further ado:
I didn’t get far in my perusal of Obsidian’s comment before I came upon this:
“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 [sic], and so repeatedly, over the past few decadesâ€
Now this struck a chord and seemed so very familiar to me…Ah, I know….it sounds like my call to a “profound and punctilious study of historyâ€! For these are the kinds of questions I seek to ask–namely, where did we (all conservatives, not socons only) go wrong? All of the sudden I do not seem so laughably out of it.
Posec,
Again, why are you avoiding any answer to Obsidian’s comment of the month? All you ever say here is ‘Since Game cannot solve everything, it should not be practiced’, and ‘we socialcons are relevant even though we offer nothing of value to the average man, and are proud of our 100% failure rate over 40 years’.
Until you can do a punctilious line-by-line response/rebuttal to that comment, you are simply dodging the inconvenient realities of socialcon impotence and failure.
I have no reason to respond to anything you write until you offer a counterargument as to why socialcons are still anything utter than empty. I will request that Obsidian and Ferdinand also refrain from responding to you until you address the points in that comment in profound and punctilious fashion.
Socialcons are more than useless. They are actually HARMFUL to the average man, since they indoctrinate men into going into situations that are deadly to them.
More and more, it appears that socialcons and feminazis are de facto in league in a good cop/bad cop fashion.
I have not heard anyone here complain that I am bereft of realism
What? You are THE most bereft of realism, among any commenter here. Roissy himself made a point of pointing this out to you.
So how do the latter groups escape your stinging criticism?
Because unlike BetaCons, they don’t hold themselves out as a group who claims to be able to deliver benefits from following them. Socialcons do, which is why the are THE most failed ideology in America over the last 40 years.
You don’t realize that in a free marketplace, results matter, and a failure to deliver results will lead to a loss of followers. Your lack of grasp of this, and unwillingness to confront feminists out of your own cowardice, shows socialcons to be members of the left, rather than the free-market, meritocratic right.
Answer this:
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 [sic], and so repeatedly, over the past few decadesâ€
Now this struck a chord and seemed so very familiar to me…Ah, I know….it sounds like my call to a “profound and punctilious study of historyâ€! For these are the kinds of questions I seek to ask–namely, where did we (all conservatives, not socons only) go wrong? All of the sudden I do not seem so laughably out of it.
How is studying history and asking those important questions, which you deride me for, not doing what Obsidian encourages socons to do (turning their energies towards figuring out where we all went wrong)? How is this so objectionable?
Do a thorough, indeed a punctilious, commentary on ALL of Obsidian’s sentences in that comment. Not just one, but ALL of it.
How is this so objectionable?
Objectionable? No. Realistic? HELL NO. This is why socialcons are such a joke – no attachment to reality, and no interest in actually delivering results.
Now go do that punctilious rebuttal of Obsidian’s comment. No further responses until you do.
“What? You are THE most bereft of realism, among any commenter here. Roissy himself made a point of pointing this out to you. ”
You are the only one who has argued this. None beside you have complained so loudly about my comments. Roissy never explained to me why my views are so unrealistic when I asked this of him. If you think this was because the answer is self-evident, it is not. I never intended for everyone to study history just those conservatives so inclined. If you think history is so useless go argue that to the Austrian School which relies on–the shock of it all!–arguments based on historical precedents and past thinkers. Is theirs a pointless task? Does Ron Paul need game?
How is it not realistic when this is a course that Obsidian recommends for socons? Is he wrong in thinking so?
I will deal with his concluding paragraph which contains the thrust of his argument:
“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 instead focus their efforts “on the groundâ€-there are thousands of young White Conservative Males who are not getting laid…because not only do they live in a greatly changed social landscape…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.”
Here Obsidian encourages socons to be mentors to the misguided and befuddled youth of our day. In another space, though, he left no latitude for this when he observed in effect that man do not give a damn about each other. Where will this hypothetical solidarity be found then if mentoring in game will naturally fall apart? How can socons and the next generation band together under the banner of game and “make a difference” when the resultant competition, fueled by game, will cause much difference? Per Obsidian, game is not meant to save the West but somehow it can do something far more uplifting like uniting men together to tread “on the path to true happiness.” I suppose all else pales in comparison before this aspiration.
Alright, TFH–have at it.
PS,
It has been shown that a “men’s movement” will not work, probably due to HBD reasons-in other words, men won’t band together in such a way as to press claims for legal redress, because to do would be admitting publicly that they are weak and ineffectual. Yup, that may sound silly, but evolution ain’t no joke, and take a look around-what men’s group is making any real headway on divorce or family law, child support laws, sexual harrassment laws, (false) rape laws, IMBRA, VAWA, etc, et al? Yea, I thought so, NONE, that’s what.
So, the only real change that can be made, is on the individual level, and that’s where Game comes in. It can help a guy learn how to improve himself so that he can win the sexual attraction of a Woman. After that, if he wants to pursue a Conservative lifestyle, its completely up to him. His choice.
All TFH and I, and for that matter Ferdinand, are saying is that we need practical, no non-sense methods and tools and information that actually works for guys who either can’t get laid at, or who want to improve their chances in the dating game and by extension, their lives. That is a noble, and reachable goal for most Men. No, Game aint perfect, nor will most Men become the King of All Playas. But the average guy w/average Game WILL see his chances with Women improve. Those of us in the know have seen it firsthand.
Look PS, we can go round and round forever and a day here on what’s to be done to save Western Civ. And for what it’s worth I’m sympathetic to your position-so is Ferdinand, and Roissy, and TFH, etc. But we’re pragmatists as much as anything else, and I argue one major factor in that is Game FORCES a Man to be brutally realistic in ways that ideologue Republicans can never be. We understand that the ONLY real, viable option a guy in our time has now is Game, because everything else either doesn’t work or can’t work because its too unrealistic.
Now again, if you have a better, more proven plan for a Man in our time to find happiness, brother, I’m right behind you. Otherwise, please stop being an obstructionist, sit down, and be quiet.
The Obsidian
Obsidian,
What of substance has Posec ever said at all, really?
I have told Posec that until he can do a line by line commentary/rebuttal/suggestion of REALISTIC alternatives regarding your Comment of the Month, I will ignore him. I request that you and Ferdinand do the same boycotting. We have nothing to gain from him, it is he who needs us to think that his ideology still matters.
It is time to ignore him until he does some heavy lifting in terms of recognizing why his ideology failed, and why it is so terrified to hold women accountable. BetaCons seem oblivious to the need for ‘results’ when courting customers in a free marketplace.
“So, the only real change that can be made, is on the individual level, and that’s where Game comes in. It can help a guy learn how to improve himself so that he can win the sexual attraction of a Woman.”
Why then not learn to improve oneself, period? Self-improvement can extend out beyond the sexual arena without necessarily neglecting it. The same devotion applied to game ought to be directed into other fields of interest–yes, even if that thing in particular will not produce amative abilities.
“Look PS, we can go round and round forever and a day here on what’s to be done to save Western Civ. And for what it’s worth I’m sympathetic to your position-so is Ferdinand, and Roissy, and TFH, etc. But we’re pragmatists as much as anything else, and I argue one major factor in that is Game FORCES a Man to be brutally realistic in ways that ideologue Republicans can never be. We understand that the ONLY real, viable option a guy in our time has now is Game, because everything else either doesn’t work or can’t work because its too unrealistic.”
True enough. Candid, honest assessments are valuable and I am applying that very rigor to the viewpoints expressed here and their corollaries. I am more of a critic than an obstructionist.
A critic?
a) How can you be a critic of something you don’t really understand (Game) that deals with a group you have little experience with (women)?
b) It is a bit rich for a representative of an utterly failed ideological group (social conservatives) to call himself a ‘critic’ of a highly successful practice that is not even an ideology at all.
[NO SOCK PUPPETS - ed.]
Indeed, Game Bit. Indeed.
Again, I don’t have an axe to grind w/anyone who takes issue with Game. All I ask is that they be well-informed on the topic, so they don’t embarass themselves when they engage folk like us, who DO know what Game is and what it isn’t.
The PS’ of the world simply do not understand Game; moreover, they have no real alternative that actually works. That’s the problem I have with them; they have nothing to offer a Man, but they want to take Game which does have something to offer, to task. It is illogical.
O
“It is a bit rich for a representative of an utterly failed ideological group (social conservatives) to call himself a ‘critic’ of a highly successful practice that is not even an ideology at all.”
Overturn any feminist laws lately?
Do you understand conservative philosophical tradition in its entirety? Has it really failed? If it was defeated it was the cheap, hollow victory of leftists. If conservatism truly failed we would all be liberals and none of these blogs would exist. The fact that you, or anyone here, harbors conservative sympathies is indicative of the philosophy still having potential.
Aside from knowing that game can be used as a tool for either conservative or libertine ends, what more is there to understand about it that would deem one as “well-informed on the topic”? Specific techniques excepted, there is not much more to game.
“The PS’ of the world simply do not understand Game; moreover, they have no real alternative that actually works. That’s the problem I have with them; they have nothing to offer a Man”
Regular, old self-improvement is worthless?
Obsidian,
The paradox is, no one who understands Game would oppose it, because it makes as much sense to ‘oppose’ Game as to oppose being a good communicator.
Game, in a sentence, is merely “A profound and punctilious study of female psychology since it is distinctly different from male psychology and usually contrary to a woman’s own stated words”. That is what Game is. Game draws upon communication skills used by salesmen and politicians for decades, but uses specifically those that would work on women, and the sequence of steps that lead from initial contact to sex to (if desired) a lifelong marriage. Men mainly use Game to get laid, but could certainly use/adapt Game to sell products to a woman too.
a) Social conservatives are not right-wing. They are effectively become left-wing, as others have pointed out. This is because they preach without regard to results, and are happy to swindle the followers who trusted them.
b) Conservative philosophy HAD potential. It will have potential again if thinking people are in the lead. As long as people like you are in the lead, social conservatism is as dead as a doorknob except as the ally of the left that it presently is.
c) It is not our job to overturn feminists laws, as we never claimed to be a political party. It was your self-declared job, and you failed without a fight. So shut up and get out of the way, loser.
[NO SOCK PUPPETS - ed.]
“The paradox is, no one who understands Game would oppose it, because it makes as much sense to ‘oppose’ Game as to oppose being a good communicator.”
One need not be opposed to something in order to criticize it. Look at this very entry “Quantblogger foolishness in regards to game”. Does this now mean that all these erstwhile HBDers will suddenly break ranks, despise the quantsphere, and renounce all that they learned therefrom? No, but people here nevertheless delivered criticism of what they saw to be shortcomings. This criticism did not mean that the commenters here are ready to become leftists. It didn’t mean that they categorically oppose the quants. They saw something off and they exposed it. Is doing the same to some of game’s consequences permissible or is it an intolerable slight?
You don’t need to be a political party in order to oppose and campaign against a law. Ever hear of those things known as lobbyists and their support groups? They are not political parties in themselves but they are affiliated to them. That avenue was open to you so why was it that you took no action? Because it wasn’t your job? Why bother carping at the feminist laws at all if you so casually brushed aside your responsibility when you could have been allying with those of like minds. Others are to be blamed for your apathy? Way to pass the buck.
“Conservative philosophy HAD potential. It will have potential again if thinking people are in the lead. As long as people like you are in the lead, social conservatism is as dead as a doorknob except as the ally of the left that it presently is.”
How do you know that I am not a “thinking person”? Would I be here if I were not?
This has been a highly informative thread. Thanks guys. PS is clearly arguing from a sexually conservative standpoint, so calling him a leftist is merely dismissive. In terms of the sexual marketplace, with Game being equated with better marketing, sales, and entrepreneurship, PS’s position might be considered protectionism, but not leftism. Just a thought.
It shares many, many common traits with leftism, such as idealism over reality or results.
Furthermore, his ideology is anti-male, as he wants the burden of sexual conservatism to be held by men, merely due to his cowardice in terms of confronting feminists (who are the real originators of what PS abhors).
These social conservatives are paragons of weakness, cowardice, and failure to deliver results.
[NO SOCK PUPPETS - ed.]