When a good post comes along, you must plug it

by Ferdinand Bardamu on September 20, 2009

in Linkage

Brought to you by Ferdinand Bardamu, society editor of the Roissysphere.

Starting out, Capitalist Lion Tamer posts a tribute to the dark, sharp and hilarious dialogue in the video game Portal:

It needs no qualifications. The dialogue is incredible, shot full of dark humor and unexpected twists. You can read the entire game script here, which includes a beautiful ASCII drawing of a cake.

Portal is one of my favorites for this reason. Here’s the huh-larious ending song from the game, poached from CLT’s post:

Trumwill states the reason why nobody wants to date fat people:

No, the main reason that we are averse to dating fat people is that we do not find it aesthetically pleasing. I am coming out and admitting it. A lot of people won’t. They will try to turn it into a health issue or a discipline issue or a moral issue and everything they can to avoid admitting to being that superficial. And though I don’t think the health aspect of it is entirely a ruse (many such people won’t date smokers, either), I think that if it’s true that they would not date someone with a thyroid problem that they can’t seriously attribute it to health, discipline, or morality. Rather, we attribute it to those things so that we can feel better about ourselves. I don’t think that everybody is necessarily lying, unless we count self-deception.

Check and mate.

Also from Hit Coffee, Trumwill’s recipe for Teeny Tiny Breakfast Burritos and how it compares with McDonald’s burritos:

You can imagine my shock when I calculated up the calories and fat grams and discovered that my TTBB’s are worse than McDonald’s. Holy cow, I wondered, if I’m using lower-badstuffs and higher-goodstuffs ingredients and I am worse than McDonald’s, what in the world are they using?! Where do they get their low-calorie, low-fat sausage and eggs?! Do they have some sort of Superfarm? They should totally advertise that!

I can smell the deliciousness – and coronary disease – all the way out here in New Troy.

Kamal S. reminds us of the dangers of idolizing ideology:

Ideologies are contingent and limited, conservative, liberal, libertarian, leftist, rightist, capitalist, socialist, each of these is a plucked over corpse of ideas, their gleaming white bones reflecting the sunlight ever so pretty. Linger there too long and you may find your bones littering the desert of human ideas.

Something to keep in mind.

11minutes analyzes one of Charles Bukowski’s novels:

The thing about Bukowski is that he is obsessed with telling the truth. He tries to be honest to himself, to the reader and to the women he is with. And in that light, all of the above makes sense.

Women are used to men lying their asses of to get a piece of theirs. And they hate it for many reasons. The biggest one of them being that sneaky attempts to score are a sign of low social status.

Want to play this game? You gotta be ballsy enough to be honest.

Cless Alvein, the token leftist of the Roissysphere, has thoughts on white dudes seeking love abroad:

Misconception #4: WMGAW [White Men Going Another Way - ed.] “can’t get white women”.

There’s a bit of truth in this. For one thing, foreign women have no interest in American notions of social status, whereby having chased an oblong ball in high school makes one sexy, but having an interest in computers makes one asexual. They don’t respond as strongly  to the crass gimmicks (”game”) that work on American yuppies. Finally, for an upper-middle-class Polish or Korean woman to be seen with a “bad boy” below her level of intelligence and couth is just not socially acceptable. So foreign womens’ tastes in men are indeed more (for lack of a better word) cultured than those of American white women.

We, the cultured and intelligent “beta” males, can certainly “get white women”. It’s not exactly hard! On the other hand, we don’t want most of the available ones when we realize how much better we can do by expanding our pool to include other races and nationalities.

Cless is on good footing. Now if we can cure him of his SWPL sensibilities…

Sgt. Raymond, the host of Bulletproof Pimp, posts on the Annie Le case and sexual starvation:

Sexual poverty leads to violence. If a man steals food, it’s reasonable to conclude that he’s hungry. If a man steals drugs, he may very well be trying to feed an addiction. And if a man rapes a woman, it is probably due to a lack of sex (i.e., sexual poverty).

When you create sexual losers, you run the risk of creating monsters.

Default User writes on the differences between extroverts and introverts. From the second part:

We all need a certain level of total stimulation to be comfortable, too much and we are stressed but too little will leave us bored and restless. Because introverts have more internal dialog the base level of “noise” in their brain is higher. It takes less external stimulation to bring the total level of stimulation to a comfortable level. It is for this reason that extraverts need more external stimulation (their brains are relatively quiet).

That explains all the voices in my head.

Chuck posts on the link between fear and arousal in women:

In short, the response to a socially-dominant male resonates from the same hormonal epicenter and is similar in nature in both genders. The difference is that we call one fear and one attraction, depending on the gender. The chest thud mentioned above often occurs along with a gulp or a swallow. One of the tell-tale signs of a female’s attraction to a man is “the gulp”. It’s a subconcious reaction to the presence of power, and we men do it too – it’s a submission reflex. Women are most attracted to men they fear. This fear isn’t the fear felt of serial killers or rapists; it’s the fear of exposure and submission. The amygdala helps explain the attraction to bad boys and high testosterone men as well. The aroma of social domination they exude arouses the amygdala and quickly makes its way down the spine, emptying its neural load in the vagina.

I can smell your fear, honey. It smells like…pussy juice.

Roissy spells out the range of game’s effectiveness:

As game, or in weightier parlance, psychosocial dominance, sits at the pinnacle of male character traits that women find attractive, a man will get more bang for his social investment buck by learning game than he would by working hard at improving himself on more conventional metrics such as career advancement, wealth generation, educational attainment, or material acquisition. He should do all those things to the best of his ability, of course, but if he could only choose one path to pussy, I would counsel him to learn the science of seduction. A grad school degree requires an additional 6-7 years of commitment after high school plus crushing debt; career advancement requires years of kissing ass and working late; wealth generation requires a lifetime of prudent financial management; material acquisitions require hard-earned money and their effectiveness at attracting and keeping pussy is questionable.

Doubters and haters, hit that link before you continue to spew your nonsense on this blog or any other.

Aoefe offers an admirable articulation of the Roissysphere’s benefits for women:

All the information I take in I want to apply to my life in a useful way. If I’m being too picky because I’m older than the optimal age I’ll have to face a life of singleness because I can’t (it’s not even won’t) compromise. I refuse to fit into any stereotype and will not go the way of the cougar – it repulses me. I’m a very sexual woman who will not slut around and that leaves me with an empty bed and I live with that. I will behave like a quality woman because frankly I’m a quality woman. Roissy’s men believe in a quality woman I can see that. There is some confusion perhaps in regards to the Madonna/whore complex but I see it as minimal.

A very good read.

Talleyrand posts on the proper way to put a woman on the pedestal:

When you are interacting with any other woman, whoever your are with, compare that woman to your ideal.  Measure every attribute.  Notice every flaw, notice how they fall short of your ideal.  How inferior they are to the perfect woman.

As far as I’m concerned, the only truly perfect women are six feet under.

Marquis admonishes Facebook stalkers, male and female:

To the men: if you are a stalker, do not ever read my blog again. You lack the essential requirements to be a man, to be dubbed part of our gender, and your status has been f’ing revoked. You want to “out” someone, do it to their face instead of hiding behind the keyboard or worse yet resenting them for something they don’t even know that you know.

All those who stalk with Facebook should be dragged out into the street and shot. Repeatedly. In the face.

Assanova offers some pointers on direct game:

Now some of you might be wondering what it means to come at women with absolute conviction and authority. What it means is to tell women what you want, give directions instead of asking for permission or the green light, don’t let them see you as a joke (smiley boys), don’t let anyone tool you, and to reflect all of this in your body language; leaving all self doubt behind. You have to go about this as if you KNOW that there is no chance in hell that anyone is going to defy you; adding just a hint of “fear” as if anyone defies you or gets in your way, there will be consequences.

Every woman respects a man with sack.

The unstoppable Whiskey writes on the redefinition of marriage in the modern world:

Ultimately, this will play out on an ever declining quality, productivity, and ability of the American workforce. “Boltons” do not go the extra mile for a system that produces frustration and rage. The ability to extract tax resources from this Middle class will collapse as its productivity and earnings collapse. The “New Girl Order” is not economically sustainable, and a lost decade, characterized by continual economic decline and political infighting over Male and Female Middle Class objectives, either removing or protecting the world of “Ashley Madison” the rule of the day. Women can of course block any move to fix restrictions on the “Ashley Madison” world, either culturally or politically or both. But Middle Class women cannot force the “Boltons” to work extra hard. Casual theft, shirking, slacking, a desire even at the extremes to loot or burn down the company as seen in “Office Space” is far more likely. Men without any reason to provide, generally do the minimum possible. The hidden cost of the “Ashley Madison” world is a slide to say, Romanian work ethic and workforce skill levels.

Whiskey is, in my opinion, the most important blogger in the Roissysphere aside from Roissy himself. If you’re not reading him, you’re in the dark.

Guy White posts on the reality of lesbianism:

Men claim they like lesbians, but they don’t. They just like polygamy. You want multiple straight girls.

Click for pictures!

OneSTDV lays a beatdown on social conservatives and traditionalists who oppose game:

Auster and his ilk are all too comfortable in their compliant role as the female’s carnal mate. See Auster’s almost unbearable description of the female below. The social cons and their creed of “just be yourself and you’ll find a nice girl” believe this to be true because they’re afraid of the reprucussions of confronting the female status quo.

Also see Obsidian’s brilliant essay on the subject.

Welmer has some choice words for greedy waitresses:

I’m getting to that point with waitresses. I am quite frankly sick of their entitled, bitchy attitudes. I don’t care if they serve me a sandwich underneath a couple of pushed-up, scented breasts; I don’t go to restaurants to masturbate, after all. Give me a professional, deft man who handles the table with skill and reserve and I’ll be all too happy to pay him what he deserves. But after reading Ms. Raskin’s bitchy, greedy little screed, I’ve vowed that the next slut who tries to squeeze some extra cash out of me by shoving her tits into the center of my visual field gets 10% and no more.

That’s part of why I prefer restaurants that don’t have waitstaff. (That, and I hate waiting for food.)

Tal Sutsa reports in the eXiled on the increasing anarchy in inner-city Memphis:

The reality is that, like in Afghanistan and Iraq, no one has a monopoly on violence in Memphis. Cops won’t respond to calls in the area because they’re usually setups, where someone is waiting behind a building or on a rooftop to pop a couple of shots at whoever shows up in blue. Not that anyone would want the cops to come anyway. At night, GD’s with AK47’s and baseball bats wrapped in barb wire patrol the streets making sure nobody breaks into anything or nobody tries selling drugs or sex that isn’t supposed to be. You can sure as hell can trust the GD more than the cops. You never know if a cop is going to turn out to be crooked or not.

The end is coming, and it’s not going to be pretty.

Vox Day elucidates the reasons why published writers hate reading the work of wannabes:

Second, after two spells on the Nebula novel jury, a year participating in the Critters Workshop, and six months working as the de facto gatekeeper for a fantasy publisher, I never, ever, want to read any new writer’s unpublished fiction ever again. Still less do I feel like arguing with a writer over why my opinion of his writing, which he sought out in the first place, is wrong. If you think much of the fiction that is published today is pretty awful, you’re correct. It is nevertheless markedly superior to the stuff that is being rejected. I don’t care if you think your first scribblings are brilliant or not, the probabilities dictate otherwise and I’m quite willing to swap the chance to be the first to recognize an unpublished masterpiece for the privilege of not having to read three dozen attempted crimes against the reading public.

So, so correct.

Finally, PUBLIUS of The Shotgun talks about the cult growing around Canadian MP (and son of a former Prime Minister) Justin Trudeau:

The Cult of Justin is something out of a Third World country, or Massachusetts. The Divine Right of political inheritance. The priest need only rise and say: “I proclaim thee, Justin son of Pierre, to be the rightful Prime Minister of Canada. Away foul usurpers Iggy and Stephen.” He’s still youngish – by political standards – so he needs to climb the un-greased pole slowly. Let the old men exhaust themselves. It will only make his ascension all the more glorious. For now he bides his time, preparing for the future. Delivering platitudes to school girls who swoon, so that one day he may deliver platitudes to the nation, and watch the MSM swoon.

Swarms of women getting wet between the legs for a handsome, articulate, minority politician who has accomplished little to nothing in his career – now where have we heard THAT before? And here I thought the land of my ancestors was still semi-sane. Who wants to bet that Pierre’s loin-fruit will become PM sometime in the next twenty years?

{ 35 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Cless Alvein September 20, 2009 at 1:21 pm

Ferdinand:

Great scrape. Lots of great posts and I don’t have time to read them all, as I’m busy writing this week’s material.

On Trumwell and the aesthetics of obesity: the issue with obesity is not that it’s universally unattractive, but that very few men find it attractive. I would put the ideal weight for a 5’8/173cm woman at 138-144#/63-66kg. That’s a BMI of 21-22. I love a bit of muscle, and I don’t mind a little bit of flab. I’ll readily admit that my tastes in women are to the “heavier” side of the spectrum, probably 80-90th percentile.

The proportion of men who like fat (BMI 26+) women is small, maybe 0.5%. In medieval times, these women were very rare. If they were still rare, they’d have “niche power”. In modern times, there are very many women in that range compared to the small percentage of men wanting them. So they’re screwed just on ratio.

On me: Thanks for the plug. Also, I don’t think I’m especially “leftist”. I support universal healthcare for the same reason I’m concerned and disgusted by the erosion of monogamy: social justice and stability. (Also, universal healthcare would be great for entrepreneurs and startups, who are getting seriously screwed by the current system.) I don’t like casual sex, so I’m a bit of a “social-con”, but I fully support gay marriage on ethical principles (love and family values are wonderful and should be upheld, regardless of gender) and I’m for legal abortion on practical grounds. In Europe, I’d be an economic centrist, although I’m quite left-of-center by American standards. On the other hand, Europeans don’t pay that much more in taxes (we pay so many different kinds of taxes– federal, state, local, sales– that we actually total up in the same ballpark as the EU countries) but they get a lot more government services. I think we ought to take a serious look at how the Euros do things. The US government serves the very rich, the very poor, and the old, mostly ignoring everyone else, and that’s wrong.

On Chuck with “fear and arousal”, I agree that that’s one way to arouse women. I don’t think it’s the only one. Some women become sexually attracted to “bad boys” because, in the lawless and bad old days– and they were very bad– this was the type of man about to commit rape. This short-term sexual attraction response is a defense mechanism that kept women alive during an evil era when an “alpha” could rape a woman and suffer no consequences. (This is not to say “women want to be raped”, which is false, or in any way to excuse rape, which is completely unacceptable.)

I think long-term female sexuality is much more subtle and multi-faceted, and also a lot more individualized. A few “game” elements are present in it– the relationship’s more fun with playful teasing, but I wouldn’t call that “negging” because it should come naturally– but overt pick-up artistry is going to be detrimental.

On Whiskey and Ashley Madison: that’s hilarious. To the first video’s credit, the shitty husband is pretty fucking alpha. The “other man” looks like a cute, young beta. So these things aren’t as cut-and-dry as they seem. On the other hand, that Mercy video is a recruiting ad for the Sodini Academy of Pointless Violence. I didn’t read the rest of his post. Very long, and terrifying.

2 mike September 20, 2009 at 1:28 pm

That guy Justin Trudeau is almost a stereotype in terms of of being French-looking. It would be like if Obama looked like Morgan Freeman or Michael Clarke Duncan.

I think the reality we are facing here is that when the native men (white Anglo Canadians) are feminized and villified, the native women will lust after something (anything!) else. Even if the “other” is just as wimpy as the native, the women do not “know” it on the same visceral level. Hence why Intel is trying to pimp Indian computer nerds rather than white computer nerds as “rock stars” in their commercial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqLPHrCQr2I

3 OneSTDV September 20, 2009 at 4:18 pm

Anybody want to obtain the racial demographics of the last shot around 0:26?

From a quick glance, the racial demographics seem legitimate. Good number of Asians/Indians, mixed with a good number of whites. Only 4 blacks, probably an overrepresentation, but not horribly so.

But what’s obvious: the HUGE amount of women! No way they have more than 15% women and the gender ratio seems to be more in this commercial.

4 aoefe September 20, 2009 at 5:08 pm

Thanks for another shout out, appreciated. I love the song at the top of the post – very very cool and funny as heck!

5 whiskey September 20, 2009 at 5:08 pm

Thanks for the kind words and plug Ferdinand.

Upon thinking about Chuck’s point on social domination, I would say that there are key differences between men and women relating to social dominance in men, mostly along patronage networks. Those who arouse “too much” fear as Alpha males generally have lots and lots of people trying to kill them: Caesar, Alexander, Stalin, Saddam, Napoleon, and so on. Hilter had 42 known attempts to kill him, almost all of them from various Army officers and the like, not partisans or what have you.

Most male patronage relationships are “voluntary” in that if MEN are ticked off enough, feel they have nothing to lose, they will do their best to kill a superior and historically have been hard to stop in that role. Machiavelli in the Prince discusses a Roman emperor who aroused too much fear in among his retinue.

6 Thursday September 20, 2009 at 7:37 pm

Whiskey is, in my opinion, the most important blogger in the Roissysphere aside from Roissy himself.

Whiskey is pretty deranged and has a propensity to grossly exaggerate when he’s not just plain making shit up. Most of what Whiskey writes is junk and what is valuabe can be found elsewhere.

Here is a good example of Whiskiana:
http://entitledtoanopinion.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/nothing-like-data-to-ruin-a-good-theory/

7 Tupac Chopra September 20, 2009 at 9:18 pm

Thursday:

Don’t hate.

Ap-preci-ate.

8 teageegeepea September 20, 2009 at 9:50 pm

My other posts on Whiskey/testing99 can be found from here:
http://entitledtoanopinion.wordpress.com/?s=testing99
http://entitledtoanopinion.wordpress.com/?s=whiskey

Bulletproof pimp is wrong about sexual deprivation. As Jason Malloy has pointed out, rapists actually have more sex than the average man. They are generally the type of man who has a high demand for sex and low impulse control. The sexual deprivation induced by a high male-to-female ratio actually makes men more civilized. Ghettos with lots of black men locked up or dead have some of the worst crime rates (including rape) but the remaining men have lots of sex (frequently unprotected), because women have fewer options.

9 Thursday September 20, 2009 at 10:06 pm

There isn’t one good idea in Whiskey’s writing that can’t be found in either Roissy or Devlin, and there are a ton of “gems” like the following: women only love assholes, women hate hate hate all beta males even when they don’t hit on them, large numbers of urban women have 50+ partners, humiliating betas is a good way to impress women. Not to mention all the neocon moonbattery he spouts over at Sailer’s. He’s a complete embarrassment.

10 Cless Alvein September 20, 2009 at 10:11 pm

On sexual deprivation: orgasm and sex are overrated. Outside of a stabilizing emotional context, they actually lead to increased desire and stress. Orgasm doesn’t necessarily cause a couple to pair-bond; there’s the “Coolidge effect”, whereby interest in a partner plummets after orgasm. These tendencies lead to the cycle of sexual addiction. This is as true in men as it is in women, and it’s one of the major reasons casual sex is unhealthy.

Pair bonding, sensitive love-making, and oxytocin are underrated. These tend to make people more relaxed and happier, and are responsible for the great feeling after a night of passionate sex. This is why karezza and so-called “tantric” sex make people not only enjoy sex more, but also enjoy life more. Some people would consider it painful to cuddle for two hours and not get off, and for this reason it’s important to pursue balance.

Criminals, most often, aren’t sex-starved. They’re “touch-starved”, and it often goes all the way back to maternal neglect in childhood.

11 Cless Alvein September 20, 2009 at 10:13 pm

Then I wonder if, even by PUA standards, Whiskey is caught in a misogyny loop.

The relationship between thinking women are evil and meeting evil women goes both ways.

12 Hermes September 20, 2009 at 11:02 pm

You forgot all the off-base stuff he makes up about conservative religious communities. Like the idea that evangelical women all whore it up at nightclubs on Saturday night and then present themselves to church as good little girls on Sunday morning. I don’t have links right now, but he’s said a ton of things like that.

13 teageegeepea September 20, 2009 at 11:34 pm

Blaming behavior on bad-mothering is something of a throwback to Freud. Have you read The Nurture Assumption? Beyond a sort of bare minimum that separates most people from feral children, kids tend to develop alright on their own. In most primitive societies the parents don’t do much of what we’d consider parenting, so instead kids are brought up by older siblings and neighbor kids. Siblings can even substitute for parents in the case of orphans.

Bloggers have made a big deal out of George Soldini, without asking how representative his case is. They make foreboding statements about all the future Soldinis being created out of loser nerds. Nerds have had low status for a long time, and I’ll conjecture that they as a class are much less homicidal than married men. Among males, asians have the lowest marriage rate, perhaps because they do not get the benefit of same-race preference that every other race of women display (asian women seem roughly indifferent between white and asian males). Asians are also the least homicidal, and one Virginia Tech shooter does not disprove that.

I have been suggesting marriage as a proxy for lack of “touch-starvation”. If you can think of something better to test your theory, I’m all ears.

14 OneSTDV September 21, 2009 at 12:10 am

Off topic @ FBardamu:

You may want to read this:

http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/09/governor-paterson-not-such-a-bad-guy.html

I imagine you kinda, sorta disagree.

15 Ferdinand Bardamu September 21, 2009 at 12:16 am

Here’s what I posted over at Half Sigma’s:

I agree that Paterson should run for reelection, if only because he is all but guaranteed to lose. The recent polls have him lagging behind Rick Lazio, a loser who hasn’t held office in a decade and whose greatest claim to fame was being defeated by Hillary Clinton in 2000. When you being beaten by a guy like Lazio, FAIL isn’t a strong enough word for how much you suck.

16 Niko September 21, 2009 at 12:27 am

“evangelical women all whore it up at nightclubs on Saturday night and then present themselves to church as good little girls on Sunday morning”

As a man whos bedded his fair share of ‘church girls’, I can assure you he ain’t too far off the mark there.

17 ganttsquarry September 21, 2009 at 12:37 am

Yeah, and he’s a cold hearted misogynist. Lazio that is. The way he tried to intimidate Mrs. Clinton in that debate was an outrage.
/

18 Pons Seclorum September 21, 2009 at 2:38 am

“…a man will get more bang for his social investment buck by learning game than he would by working hard at improving himself on more conventional metrics such as career advancement, wealth generation, educational attainment, or material acquisition. He should do all those things to the best of his ability, of course, but if he could only choose one path to pussy, I would counsel him to learn the science of seduction.”

This is a corroboration of what I was driving at a while back–namely, that endeavors that are not conducive to amative abilities are still to be pursued and are not of dubious value. These contain a different kind of value.

19 The Fifth Horseman September 21, 2009 at 2:59 am

And you, Ponsie, continue to pretend as though anyone suggested otherwise. No one has quit their jobs to become a full-time PUA (unless they start a seminar business).

Why do you pretend this? Because BetaCons are grasping at straws to avoid taking responsibility for their own emptiness and comprehensive failure.

You seem intent on setting some world record about using the most words to say the least. You have written pages and pages to dispute something that no one claimed. Meanwhile, other people use Game to improve their lives.

20 Pons Seclorum September 21, 2009 at 1:02 pm

“And you, Ponsie, continue to pretend as though anyone suggested otherwise. No one has quit their jobs to become a full-time PUA (unless they start a seminar business).”

While it was not claimed that game would supersede all other endeavors that did not pertain to seduction, the verdict of the gamers on these matters was far from clear. Moreover, you have maintained that non-neocon conservatives are timorous ‘betacons’ who must bear “with their own emptiness and comprehensive failure “, as if they alone were responsible for the social phenomena you deplore. Even if you never claimed that game was to be embraced at the expense of all else, you still insist that conservative philosophy has lapsed to the point of irrelevance. That is why I am “using the most words to say the least”; I do it to offer a counterpoint to all those who would claim that non-neocon conservatism is somehow bankrupt.

21 teageegeepea September 21, 2009 at 8:21 pm

Audacious Epigone responded with the GSS to Whiskey’s claim about the stratospheric number of partners supposedly common among women. Whiskey has reiterated his objection to the GSS, but never responded to the refutation AE & I made of that argument.

I responded to Whiskey’s claim that “young women hate Christianity” here. In a comment there I reference a study on abstinence that was misinterpreted as saying that the religious are just as slutty: that is directly contradicted by the very title of the study. It is controlling for religiosity that makes abstinence pledges irrelevant, because those religious enough to make such pledges are less slutty in the first place.

22 Obsidian September 22, 2009 at 8:45 am

PS,
I wholeheartedly agree with Roissy’s point, in that the vast majority of guys, do what they do with the hope that what they do, will lead them to a Woman at some point. What Roissy is simply, and clearly, saying, is that such a route is a fool’s errand in our time. Learning Game is not only vastly cheaper, but is also vastly more effective.

Now, PS, here’s the deal: the day when you could work at the job and be a Company Man, is over. They say the average career now is about five years, not twenty or thirty. Hell, you can’t even do your twenty in the military anymore-theyll try to push you out before then, unless you’re an officer, and even then its not a lock.

Again, I agree with Roissy-a Man should do the aforementioned things to the best of his ability. But this is what I would add: a Man should do these things, ONLY IF HE WANTS TO, & ONLY FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL REASONS. It can not and should not, in any way, be connected to any notions that these actions will somehow play a role wrt appealing to Women. When it comes to that sphere, money, education and career, are now irrelevant.

Take myself, for example. I’ve been considering among other things, going back to school. But the reason why I haven’t pulled the trigger yet, is because I wanted to be brutally honest and very cleareyed as to WHY I was doing it. And now I am-I want to go back to school, NOT to get a job, NOT to get a Woman, but to go back to school FOR ME. Period. If more money and/or Women comes as a result of that, all the better. But that’s not the sole or even secondary reason. I have Game-natural and otherwise-for all that.

The more Men wakeup and smell the coffee surrounding these issues, the happier they’ll be. Today, I do the things *I* like to do, and I’m as happy as a clam. And get loads more pussy to boot.

Heaven.

The Obsidian

23 Thursday September 22, 2009 at 10:28 am

You mean like this:
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/august-2009-beta-of-the-month/#comment-131907

I love how every last assertion in that comment is dead wrong.

24 Pons Seclorum September 22, 2009 at 12:42 pm

“Again, I agree with Roissy-a Man should do the aforementioned things to the best of his ability. But this is what I would add: a Man should do these things, ONLY IF HE WANTS TO, & ONLY FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL REASONS. It can not and should not, in any way, be connected to any notions that these actions will somehow play a role wrt appealing to Women. When it comes to that sphere, money, education and career, are now irrelevant.”

Exactly, and I would argue that the two spheres would need to remain separate even if social conditions had not changed so much.

Now my only bone of contention is with TFH’s assertion that socons were solely responsible for said social shifting.

25 Obsidian September 22, 2009 at 1:14 pm

PS,
My take on TFH’s views, is that he is holding the SocialCons to account, for their failure to obtain their own stated goals and objectives. No, the SocialCons aren’t responsible for the new landscape we see before us; but they ARE responsible for their many, many failures.

At any rate, glad to see that we agree on the other points.

O

26 The Fifth Horseman September 22, 2009 at 2:20 pm

Things would never have gotten this bad if Socialcons had had even the slightest clue as to what feminists were doing with the divorce laws, ability to make false rape accusations without penalty, etc. Socialcons and feminists are in full agreement that women should not be held accountable, and men should take the blame, etc. If there ever was a ‘with friends like these, who needs enemies?’ example, this is it.

Now, socialcons are criticizing Game, without realizing that they allowed the climate to arise, that created Game as a necessary response. Of course, their opposition of Game is meaningless, given their 0% success rate of blocking changes they do not like.

27 Pons Seclorum September 22, 2009 at 2:43 pm

“Things would never have gotten this bad if Socialcons had had even the slightest clue as to what feminists were doing with the divorce laws”

Per your narrative, nobody knew of these shadowy maneuverings so Obsidian’s statement stands: “No, the SocialCons aren’t responsible for the new landscape we see before us; but they ARE responsible for their many, many failures.” Failures there have been, but they were not from some purported alliance between socons and feminists. How could they have colluded in the first place if socons were ignorant of feminist machinations? If afterward socons appeared to be browbeaten or complicit, it was because the law alterations were already a fait accompli and not because they were sympathetic with the feminists.

28 Rollory September 22, 2009 at 6:08 pm

What exactly is facebook stalking?

Maybe I am not using it in the common/expected manner. I have under 10 friends on there, I have set all the “only show to friends” options, and anyway there is no information on the account aside from 1 photo, my RL name, and one note that consists of a rant about a speeding ticket I think was unfair. I can’t imagine objecting to anybody in the world pulling up that information and poring over it. There’s nothing they wouldn’t be able to infer from the public record.

29 The Fifth Horseman September 22, 2009 at 7:30 pm

Exactly, and I would argue that the two spheres would need to remain separate even if social conditions had not changed so much.

Typical Ponsie pettifoggery : saying ‘I would argue’ in relation to something no one claimed or advocated to begin with.

Again, it appears you want to set a world record for using the most words to produce the least value.

Socialcons were the groups that appointed themselves the Gatekeepers of cultural traditions. They held themselves out as such.

But they were utterly, utterly powerless to preserve any of the things they cherish.

Hence, I have never seen a weaker, more empty group than BetaCons. Thus, socialcons are worthy of ridivule and ostracization.

Now my only bone of contention is with TFH’s assertion that socons were solely responsible for said social shifting.

So why are you too afraid to do a punctilious line-by-line discussion of Obsidian’s ENTIRE Comment of the Month? I thought you said being punctilious was easy. Then again, since socialcons are synonymous with ‘all talk and no action’, your failure to do this task is predictable.

Daylight has been shone on the emptiness of socialcons.

30 teageegeepea September 22, 2009 at 8:32 pm

I love how in another thread at this site he responded to somebody (Malloy perhaps?) by saying their data conflicted with what he’s read in some books by a bunch of feminists.

Whiskey could contribute to the wider pool of knowledge if he checked for data to back up all the assertions he makes. As it is, he frequently gets things backwards.

31 The Fifth Horseman September 22, 2009 at 8:46 pm

So you are saying that socialcons are too dumb to be allies of feminists, and instead are merely instruments used by feminists?

I’ll agree with that.

This also proves that nothing a social con says should be given any importance, and should be held up to men as examples of what not to become, as a man.

32 Pons Seclorum September 22, 2009 at 9:24 pm

“So you are saying that socialcons are too dumb to be allies of feminists, and instead are merely instruments used by feminists?”

Surely, projection is your forte because I said nothing of the kind. How could socons have been the instruments wherewith the feminists effected their agenda, when this assumes that there was a political confrontation in which both parties met and disputed with the socons being duped in the end? But there was none. As your version of events has it, the entire polity was duped since the divorce laws were a cloak and dagger machination, of which even insiders had scant awareness. You, and everyone else, was therefore used by the feminist cabal. Give yourself a few lashes for being so heedless.

33 Capitalist Lion Tamer September 22, 2009 at 10:04 pm

My humblest apologies on not getting in here sooner to thank you for the plug (and I was batting leadoff, no less). Glad you enjoyed the post and even happier you felt it was worth sharing.

I’ve peeked in now and then on your site and find myself to be somewhat out of your demographic. (I’m mid-30′s, married, with kids), but I would imagine you have more in common with my co-blogger, rf interference.

Despite all that, you have a well-written and passionate site, so I can’t knock you there. There are too many lazy bloggers running their collective asshole=opinions out there, so it’s always refreshing to see one that isn’t.

So, as the politicians are fond of saying, “I may not agree with what you say, but I am willing to send your sons and daugthers to their deaths to fight for your opinion to say it. (Not mine. They stay here. At the compound.)”

Well, at least they used to say that. I have a feeling the saying has been skewed over the last 8 years or so. Now it runs more like this:

“I may not agree with what you say, but I’m pretty sure I can find a loophole in the Homeland Securities Act that will allow me to arrest you.”

Once again, thanks for the advertising.

34 The Fifth Horseman September 23, 2009 at 12:26 am

Ponsie,

Blah blah – as usual, a lot of words from you without saying anything.

when this assumes that there was a political confrontation in which both parties met and disputed with the socons being duped in the end?

Even worse, they ignored the impotent socialcons, and bypassed them by changing the laws under their noses. By your own admission, socialcons were too dumb to notice what was happening (and are still too dumb to notice it after the fact).

Socialcons have a 100% failure rate regarding their stated objectives. Whether they were complicit with feminists or, as you indicate, to dumb to notice is secondary. What is a fact is that socialcons are the epitome of “all talk, no action”.

You don’t seem to think a movement has any obligation to deliver the results it has advertised itself as being champions of. No one is attracted to failure (well, except socialcons).

Can you even admit that results matter? Perhaps your indifference towards (or even disdain towards) results is why you can grasp what draws results-oriented people to Game.

This is demonstrated by your exteme cowardice in not doing a punctilious review of Obsidian’s ‘Comment of the Month’. Your failure to rebut that essay is an admission of its comprehensive accuracy.

35 Pons Seclorum September 23, 2009 at 12:54 am

‘This is demonstrated by your exteme cowardice in not doing a punctilious review of Obsidian’s ‘Comment of the Month’. Your failure to rebut that essay is an admission of its comprehensive accuracy.”

A punctilious review was not necessary as the concluding paragraph itself refuted the essay e.g. how can men mentor one another in game, as Obsidian recommended in his finale, when he before admitted that men generally could care less about each other? TFH, how do you reconcile that prescription with this impulse among men to be scissile?

“Even worse, they ignored the impotent socialcons, and bypassed them by changing the laws under their noses. By your own admission, socialcons were too dumb to notice what was happening (and are still too dumb to notice it after the fact).”

They ignored the neocons along with the rest of the polity. Were they, and yourself, too dim, ignorant, and impotent to oppose feminism as well? They casually disregarded your views on the issue of divorce so I suppose you were not a force to reckon with either. If socons were too dumb to notice, which I never claimed, then neocons must have been similarly lacking in intellectual vigor and alertness. Why do you continue to take no responsibility for having been unable to detect and dismantle the amendments of the divorce laws?

“You don’t seem to think a movement has any obligation to deliver the results it has advertised itself as being champions of’

How successful have your politics been lately?

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: