Commenter John left this remark on my blog last week. I’ve edited it slightly to add paragraph breaks:
I can respect what you are doing with this blog to some extent, but you are very wrong if you think you are somehow rebelling against feminism. You are playing right into the hands of the feminists, and are playing into their game all the way.
As you have stated in some form or another many times, most women, at least modern American women, want to be treated like slags. They get off on it. By fucking and chucking them, you really arent rebelling, you are simply giving them exactly what they want. If a woman can be used like a fuck bag her whole life without consequences, she will be perfectly happy as long as the daddy state provides her with a cushy service job and and an alimony check.
So then, who are you really hurting? The only people you are fucking over is 95% of the male population that will no longer get laid or find a suitable marriage partner because she has already been butt fucked by 50 fat bad boy cocks. This is exactly what the feminists want- the ability to fuck men like you with impunity at the expense of the vast majority of the male population. If everyone gets “game†then there will still only be 5% of the population that is getting pussy. The standards of game will simply increase. Women want this. They want to eliminate the ability of men to gain power and love through achievement, which is the heart and soul of civilization, and instead allow them to achieve a marginal level of female attention and influence solely through arbitrary sexual attractiveness.
The only way to stop the feminists from exerting control over the society- and yes that will eventually mean you too- is by refusing to fuck slags straight out.
Marriage was instituted by natural selection. Societies that adopted strict codes of sexual morals and marriage were ones that were able to harness the power of the entire male populace, enabling them to dominate other groups and increase reproductive success. The fact is that when it comes down to it, having a big dick or rougish charm doesnt make you a good soldier, thinker, or builder. By allowing every man to have reproductive success through marriage to virginal women, and strict consequences for adultery, men were free to form bonding, productive, and competitive but healthy relationships with each other and achieve nothing less than the entirety of western civilization. It was through the self control and sexual power checks placed on the alpha male (and by alpha I mean sexual alpha, often a beta in every other regard) that made this possible. If the alpha male gets married and refuses or is compelled not to fuck other women, every woman that is not chosen by him will have to attract a beta for marriage. The only sexual relationship allowed is within marriage, so all of her sexual charm and manipulation must be toward that end- toward making a man want to MARRY HER, which requires her not to be a whore. Women’s sexual power is therefore nullified, and the onus is put on her to attract the best possible long term mate. Patriarchy is thus upheld first and foremost by alpha male self control.
Women achieve power by turning men against each other and eroding their ability to cooperate, compete, and bond in a productive manner. When a man’s energy and competitive spirit is focused on trying to sexually one up other males by improving his “game,†he becomes a tool. In a healthy society, all of the energy that men invest in sexual “game†is spent on other games that are far more vital to the society as a whole- trying to achieve for one’s family and honor, resulting in successful soldiers, scientists, builders, and fathers. By reveling in your ability to “win†at the feminists game, you become nothing more than a dildo that they use to gain more independence from the male populace. The end result of this of course is societal collapse and slavery, which will destroy alphas and feminists alike, but like the feminists, you are content with this as long as you get your pussy and aren’t alive to see the consequences.
Sigh…so many misconceptions, so little time. Let me address the sheer wrongness of this comment point by point.
I can respect what you are doing with this blog to some extent, but you are very wrong if you think you are somehow rebelling against feminism. You are playing right into the hands of the feminists, and are playing into their game all the way.
As you have stated in some form or another many times, most women, at least modern American women, want to be treated like slags. They get off on it. By fucking and chucking them, you really arent rebelling, you are simply giving them exactly what they want. If a woman can be used like a fuck bag her whole life without consequences, she will be perfectly happy as long as the daddy state provides her with a cushy service job and and an alimony check.
Women don’t want to be fucked and chucked – they want loving, committed relationships with alpha males. Call it the Lover/Provider complex, analogous to the male Madonna/Whore complex. 11minutes explains:
High ranking Betas are the ultimate dream of any woman. These men are as close as reality can get to the unachievable unity of Provider/Lover that women dream up in their romance (novels). Any alpha skill will propel a beta into higher desirability, while keeping all lights in her her rational mind on green: this guy wets pussy AND can be introduced to parents! Swooooon…
We can get a similar view from F. Roger Devlin:
Hollywood comedy, for example, has long pandered to the primitive female instinct to seek a mate with limitless provisioning capability. A stock hero is the handsome, jet-setting bachelor. His wealth is simply there, without his needing to go to any trouble to acquire it, leaving him free to devote full attention to romancing the heroine.
In “That Touch of Mink” (1962), Cary Grant flies Doris Day to Philadelphia in his private jet for a plate of fettuccini. She tags along as he addresses the UN. They go to a Yankees game and sit in the dugout with the players (he owns the team, apparently). He furnishes her with a new wardrobe complete with private fashion show. He buys up all the tickets on a peak-season flight to Bermuda so she can have the airplane to herself. None of this fantasy is based upon the heroine’s rational concern that the children be adequately provided for; it is pure female luxury. Grant is played off against a “creepy” rival whose unworthiness consists in his having to hold down an ordinary office job, vacationing in East New Jersey instead of Bermuda, and dining on TV dinners and inexpensive wine.
This movie, along with the many others like it, actually gets cited as an example of wholesome entertainment from a more innocent age. The average dull-witted conservative media critic cannot perceive anything objectionable since there is no explicit or extramarital sex. In fact, such “romantic” pictures amount to a kind of gold digger’s pornography. In contrast to Jane Austen’s plot lines, where real risks and difficulties are encountered and moral lessons can be learned, these movies are mere wish fulfillment. They set women up for disappointment by teaching them to have unrealistic expectations about love and life. And, of course, they create absurdly unattainable standards for men.
The ultimate fantasy for women is not being nailed and bailed on, but ensnaring a man who can both provide for her materially and make her feel good down under. The fact that the character traits that allow the latter often preclude the former doesn’t occur to them at all.
And even if women wanted to be fucked and chucked, so what? Children would rather eat candy then vegetables. If the parents let them stuff their faces with Kit Kats and Nestle bars, the children will have won a short-term victory, but poor nutrition will eventually catch up with them and cause obesity and other health problems. Similarly, if women wanted to be pumped and dumped, doing it to them would satisfy them in the here and now, but would also do irreparable harm to their sexual market value down the road. Their “victory” would be a hollow one.
As for the “alimony checks,” the money that sustains the “alphocracy” is quickly running out. At his blog, The Fifth Horseman has written on the maxing out of tax bases all across America. New York, California, and many other states are facing deep budget shortfalls as the cost of government outpaces its ability to bleed the populace dry. The center cannot and will not hold.
So then, who are you really hurting? The only people you are fucking over is 95% of the male population that will no longer get laid or find a suitable marriage partner because she has already been butt fucked by 50 fat bad boy cocks. This is exactly what the feminists want- the ability to fuck men like you with impunity at the expense of the vast majority of the male population.
There’s nothing stopping a guy from screwing a chick who’s had a battalion of dicks swinging through her baby gates, aside from his game. As for “suitable marriage partner[s],” you have other options. Exercise them.
If everyone gets “game†then there will still only be 5% of the population that is getting pussy. The standards of game will simply increase.
This is a popular meme among detractors of game, one Roissy refuted months ago:
Imagine if all the world’s women suddenly turned into 10s overnight. Ask yourselves: Would this
a. increase
b. decrease
c. have no effect onthe aggregate happiness of the world’s men? Does anyone seriously doubt this would not be a paradisiacal wonderland for men everywhere? This is because women’s beauty, at least over the timespan of a few generations before long term evolutionary change had a chance to alter the male mental landscape, is an objectively definable trait in which its supply would increase if the number of 10s increased. Only over the very long haul would men’s preferences gradually shift upward in refinement toward uber 10s — new female creatures would then be born representing 11s, 12s, and super ovarian 20s.
In the same way, this is how game works its magic on women. Male game operates like female beauty. The more of it there is in the world, the happier the world’s women will become. Women will feel the same pleasurable feelings from the first man she meets running tight game and the 1,000th man she meets running tight game. Since women are by nature status whores, over a long enough time as evolution molds their daughters’ brains they will begin to preferentially select the best gamers from among the bunch. And they will go on, as they always have, attempting to land the highest ranking man they can afford given their looks, which means seeking the man who brings the full suite of attractive male power attributes to the table.
The only way for game to increase womens’ standards in this fashion would be if the current sexual dystopia persisted for the length of time it would take to cause evolutionary shifts in human behavior – in other words, hundreds to thousands of years. No human society in recent centuries has remained static long enough to affect such changes.
Women want this. They want to eliminate the ability of men to gain power and love through achievement, which is the heart and soul of civilization, and instead allow them to achieve a marginal level of female attention and influence solely through arbitrary sexual attractiveness.
“Wanting” is irrelevant. What matters is the ability to follow through on those wants – and feminists’ ability to do so will soon erode entirely.
The only way to stop the feminists from exerting control over the society- and yes that will eventually mean you too- is by refusing to fuck slags straight out.
In another comment, John wrote this:
The only real solution I see to reverse feminism is for sexual alphas to refuse to fuck slags…
Not gonna happen. The one thing men can be guaranteed to slit each others’ throats over is women. Going all the way back to the face that launched a thousand ships, men have burned cities, crushed civilizations, and exterminated whole tribes in the service of the great goddess Pussalya. From Cleopatra to Guinevere to Joséphine, women have reduced mighty empires to dust through their manipulations and machinations. Not only that, being the horny bastards that they are, men will never surrender their sex privileges in a world in which the spread legs of a lady come cheap if you know the score. Any alpha who gives up his slice of the pussy pie merely leaves more for the others, and even if a large group of them were to agree to keep their cocks out of the cooch cookie jar, the agreement wouldn’t hold because the first one to betray the brotherhood would reap the biggest rewards. In the amoral abyss of the modern world, there is absolutely no argument you could make to an alpha who chooses to chase women with abandon that will convince him to renounce his ways – none.
Marriage was instituted by natural selection. Societies that adopted strict codes of sexual morals and marriage were ones that were able to harness the power of the entire male populace, enabling them to dominate other groups and increase reproductive success. The fact is that when it comes down to it, having a big dick or rougish charm doesnt make you a good soldier, thinker, or builder. By allowing every man to have reproductive success through marriage to virginal women, and strict consequences for adultery, men were free to form bonding, productive, and competitive but healthy relationships with each other and achieve nothing less than the entirety of western civilization. It was through the self control and sexual power checks placed on the alpha male (and by alpha I mean sexual alpha, often a beta in every other regard) that made this possible. If the alpha male gets married and refuses or is compelled not to fuck other women, every woman that is not chosen by him will have to attract a beta for marriage. The only sexual relationship allowed is within marriage, so all of her sexual charm and manipulation must be toward that end- toward making a man want to MARRY HER, which requires her not to be a whore. Women’s sexual power is therefore nullified, and the onus is put on her to attract the best possible long term mate. Patriarchy is thus upheld first and foremost by alpha male self control.
This is actually correct. Thing is, how do we get from point A to point B without blowing up everything in the process? Patriarchy will re-assert itself, but not until after the feminists and leftists have destroyed what’s left of civilization.
Women achieve power by turning men against each other and eroding their ability to cooperate, compete, and bond in a productive manner.
If that’s the case, then how can you say with a straight face that “the only real solution I see to reverse feminism is for sexual alphas to refuse to fuck slags”? You’ve just admitted the impossibility of your own proposal.
When a man’s energy and competitive spirit is focused on trying to sexually one up other males by improving his “game,†he becomes a tool.
Do you have a better solution for winning romantic and sexual companionship? No? Then get back to the back of the classroom and start taking notes.
In a healthy society, all of the energy that men invest in sexual “game†is spent on other games that are far more vital to the society as a whole- trying to achieve for one’s family and honor, resulting in successful soldiers, scientists, builders, and fathers.
We’re as far from a healthy society as you can reasonably get without lapsing into Dark Ages savagery.
By reveling in your ability to “win†at the feminists game, you become nothing more than a dildo that they use to gain more independence from the male populace.
You mean the BETA male populace. The womenfolk very much love being dependent on the alpha male populace.
The end result of this of course is societal collapse and slavery, which will destroy alphas and feminists alike, but like the feminists, you are content with this as long as you get your pussy and aren’t alive to see the consequences.
Society is cooked. All we can do is pull up a lawn chair, crack open a beer, and watch it burn.
As much as I can respect the intentions of those who want to save civilization, the thought of dudes banding together to take down the top five percent of men and redistribute the vagina supply among themselves is just dumb. There’s no going back – we can only do the best we can with what we have. The only solutions are individual ones.
{ 19 comments… read them below or add one }
Look at how women act, not what they say (or what you think) they want.
Honestly, do you want to live a life filled with the fear of being dumped and destroyed for not being ‘alpha’ enough? What if you lose a job, get ill or simply want to follow your interests.. Do you deserve such shoddy treatment? and you want such an arrangement for what? sex? you can just buy it.. kids? not worth having in this era.. in any case why should you care about the world once you die.
It is always cheaper to just buy sex (what you really want) and ignore BS.
The fundamental problem with what John wrote is that alpha males are not going to give up getting laid — there’s no incentive for them to do that. And the idea that the beta males are going to force them to do it is laughable — it has never happened in history, really. What needs to happen is for there to be a general collapse, and then *women* will enforce monogamy again on themselves, and the alphas will just have to deal with it.
1. Great post as always, Ferdinand.
2. “Kit Kat” as a tag should be a regular feature.
3. I like the new format, but is there any way to put the comment button at the end of the post instead of the beginning? I think you will probably get more comments that way as it encourages people to click it as soon as they finish rather than having to hunt around for it.
So, how did Patriarchy work in the past?
Master Dogen:
Not sure if I can, but I’m still tweaking the back end, so I’ll see what I can do.
“So, how did Patriarchy work in the past?”
Scarlet Letters, syphilis, and no child support. And, occasionally, Le Pimpe Slappe.
So, how did Patriarchy work in the past?
A woman had two choices, become a
whorewife or become a member of a religious community.The species is mostly a pair-bonding species — pair bonding coupled together with opportunistic cheating by men and women alike. Men and women both had an “interest” in policing the level of overall sexual license, because of the downsides for each of them due to the infidelity of the other. And women also had an interest in policing the sexual license of their own sex, because when female sexual license is permitted, it quickly becomes a race to the lowest common denominator –> in other words, the sluts ruin it for all of the other women, because it discourages men from committing to women in general — something that harms all women. So historically women have played a huge role in regulating their own sexuality — slut shaming, social rules around sex, in some culture FGM and so on, all of this primarily came from women as a means of controlling the sexuality of their own sex. The idea that feminists have that this was largely male-forced is rather misleading.
The trouble is, once the genie is out of the bottle basically the only ones who can manage to put it back in the bottle are the women themselves. The alpha males are living high on the hog in the current culture, getting more access sexually to more women than they have had in the West pretty much ever. There’s no incentive at all for them to want to change the system — this is a system that is an alpha male’s dream, really. For women, the issue is more complex, and I think often a woman’s attitude about the current system varies by age and SMV. When women are younger, the current system appears favorable to all but the highest SMV women (who are screwed, really, because the alphas who would be their “normal” mates under a monogamy system are screwing around with lower SMV women just because they’re available, and have no real incentive to commit to a high SMV woman) — women in the middle of the pack have sexual access to alpha males and can deploy that sex in an effort (usually a futile one) to try to snag an alpha into committing to them. These women are, in effect, punching well above their weight in sexual terms, much higher than they would in a monogamy system — so they are the real beneficiaries, together with the alphas, of the current system. I think that as women age and realize that the idea of snagging an alpha commitment is not going to materialize, they can begin to see that having so many women throwing themselves at these guys sexually really hurts the ability of themselves to find mates in numerous ways: (1) it makes it harder for these women themselves to be attracted to and bond with men of their own SMV level, because they are used to punching above their weight, (2) many of the men in their own level are not as interested in them knowing that they have been screwing alphas in their early 20s and (3) the guys often improve their own participation in the market as they age to 30 and beyond, thereby making these same age and level women even less attractive to them. I think therefore that the attitude of at least some women towards the current scenario changes as their life experiences begin to add up and as they themselves begin to age.
In summary, the current set up favors (1) alpha males and (2) middle of the pack women. It disfavors: (1) most males, (2) the females both at the top of the pack and the ones who are below the middle of the pack — both of these sets of women will have a harder time in this dating/mating setup than the middle of the pack women. And, in the long run, as the mid-pack women age out of the highest SMV levels, and are more serious about commitment, the current system begins to turn against them. It never, however, turns against alpha males — they win the whole way through. And that’s why it’s foolish to think that they will be incented to change their behavior or even the system as a whole. Only women can really change it, by reinstituting sexual morality among themselves. But that seems also to be unlikely precisely because the mid-pack women in their early 20s are “benficiaries” of the system in the sense that it gives them at least a “shot” at snagging an alpha to themselves. That’s why the system is becoming entrenched, really.
I think most women would “like” the best possibility, being with an Alpha who is their husband, the Mr. Big Fantasy on Sex and the City.
But most would be happy being Kobe Bryant’s cheated-upon wife, or Mrs. Tiger Woods, or whoever. Most would also be happy being fucked by tons of Alphas. Even if it means being alone, they can have cats or what have you for company, and be happy knowing they screwed as many Alphas as possible. Women dislike as much as possible ordinary men (they HATE HATE HATE Betas) and find “Kitchen Bitches” utterly disposable.
I would liken the time now to somewhat like the French Aristocracy. Before the French Revolution. Violence, sudden death, mobs of angry men, these are the “levelers” and what makes the formerly beta male into the new Alpha. The Russian Revolution, the Chinese Communist Revolution, the Iranian Revolution, all echoed that and had as a large component lots of young men priced out by women’s innate Alpha-fucking preference, the sexual marketplace.
Short of that, women of course won’t change. But with a violent revolution they will change, because those that don’t will be facing death, as was the case in the other violent revolutions. Then women’s freedoms go away and they are mere prizes to be handed out, or kept among the betas to keep them from repeating the revolutionary cycle. [No one is a more ruthless authoritarian than a former revolutionary who took power because they know how it was done.]
But overall, considering Nehring and Loh’s writings, Julie Powell’s, and others, I’d say most women (about 80% easily) would have in this order of preference:
1. Mr. Big married and faithful.
2. Tiger or Kobe and cheating.
3. Chris Brown slapping them around.
4. Fucked and chucked by Alphas.
5. Eaten alive by Hyenas.
6. Relationship with a “kitchen bitch.”
7. Tortured to death by Al Qaeda.
8. MARRIED to some ordinary guy.
The new “norm” is a a few Alphas like Tiger Woods having most of the women (it’s worth noting that Woods took his Wife, his three !!! mistresses off the market for a total of four women) and betas having none. I don’t think that is sustainable in the long run.
It disfavors
I still don’t see how it disfavours these tow groups. If anything, we’ve finally revealed that beta males are not attractive to women, and that women are only really attracted to alphas. I’d argue that by revealing this information, we’re saving men from wasting their time with women who don’t want them. In turn, women get the alpha males that deliver sexual satisfaction. I fail to see the downside for anybody. I’d much rather see a man and woman be lonely than attached to each other in a dead, sexless marriage or one where either partner feels the need to cheat.
No, David is right. Philip Longman said so:
“Without implying any endorsement for the strategy, one must observe that a society that presents women with essentially three options — be a nun, be a prostitute, or marry a man and bear children — has stumbled upon a highly effective way to reduce the risk of demographic decline.”
So it seems civilisation is doomed. Fair enough. However, what really worries is me is how long before things start to fall apart?
Wow, my simple question produced a lot of thought and some good answers.
But, I don’t really think the answers given fully explain things.
The problems of Marxism may not seem relevant, but oddly I think they are. Marx talked about several great social classes, Capitalists, Bourgeoisie and Workers. Each of class supposedly worked for its own advantage, classes “act”. Of course this isn’t true, only individuals act, all Social Science must begin from that point as Max Weber and Ludvig Von Mises taught us. That doesn’t preclude the importance of traditions, or of group selection, but it does mean we have to be careful.
What Novaseeker and Ferdinand Bardamu are missing is that Alphas are like Capitalists. Sometimes it pays them to unite and often it doesn’t. A Senator who has fun screwing all his interns and a charismatic drug dealer may both be Alphas, but they have very different interests. These two probably want each other dead. But, they share a common interest in encouraging the current sexual mores and values. This isn’t the only interest at play from the male alpha side though.
The situation is really more complicated, I have no full explanation, but just think about this. I’m British. Back in the 19th century in Britain politicians and other upper-class people would often speak out against gambling as a sin. They passed laws against it and tried to instill shame in those who did it. However, they very often gambled themselves. Gambling remained legal at horse racing courses. But, the money involved was much more than the working classes could afford.
This hypocrisy made a great deal of sense to the upper classes. They could enjoy gambling and the associated socializing themselves. And, it provided the useful side-effect of bankrupting the more stupid aristocrats who overindulged in it. But also, they were seen as opposing the destitution caused by gambling addiction in the lower classes. Of course whether the laws did anything about such addiction is debatable, all that mattered for politics is that they were seen to be doing something.
If powerful alphas thought about this carefully they would see that something similar is in their interest. They need to find an excuse to sell a sort of hypocrisy that accepts alpha behaviour in high-classes while denigrating it in lower ones.
In the world of environmentalism Al Gore understands this sort of perfectly. He has convinced millions of people that it’s fine if he flies around the world in a private jet, but they should pay more for their airfares.
The fact that there are few equivalents to Al Gore in gender politics makes me think that politicians haven’t really thought about this much. I think they may simply unthinkingly accept the status-quo, or consider it something so long-term that can’t do much in their own short political careers. If they actually thought about it what they would desire is an “enabling ideology” (a Maxist term that’s useful here) that supports alpha-male behaviour amongst themselves while discouraging it amongst the masses. Perhaps the electoral cycle is too short to make that in their interest though.
Maybe being a slut is unenvironmental? Can anyone think of a suitable pretty lie?
A thought, from this starting point:
“As much as I can respect the intentions of those who want to save civilization, the thought of dudes banding together to take down the top five percent of men and redistribute the vagina supply among themselves is just dumb. There’s no going back – we can only do the best we can with what we have. The only solutions are individual ones.”
Actually, the “band” would be a barbarian tribe… Almost by definition, it’s the final nail in the coffin of society, and then redistributing pussy = women re-institute their own sexual mores (IE, Chastity as much as possible, and reliance on males for protection.)
So, it’s sort of the final step in destruction of this society, and the first step in birth of the new one.
I can empathize with your (the OP’s) first comments and confusion. The current state of male-female relations truly warrants the term “sexual dystopia.”
It might help to point out that “game”–albeit not by that name–has been practiced since men have been roaming the earth. That is, men have been using psychological tools and physical ploys to get inside women’s panties/loincloths/animal skins since the dawn of time. And examples of good game exist in centuries old literature. Shakespeare and Lord Byron come immediately to mind as examples. Moreover, the animal equivalent of game is practiced in some form or another by non-human species as well (e.g., Matt Ridley’s description of the Peacock’s tail, grouse mating rituals, etc.). So, it can’t really be “game” per se that is the recent problem here. Game is simply the organized assembly and presentation of the same seduction tools that have been around forever.
Rather, as Novaseeker pointed out, the problem started not with “game”, but with changed sexual mores on the part of women. Feminism, along with structural changes such as easy contraception, abortion, and workplace opportunities (but mostly feminism), led women to think they should be equal to men in every way. It led to the idea that women not only *could* be like men in terms of sexual expression, but *should* be like men in terms of sexual expression. Not only that but feminism removed the shaming element that helped keep this female urge in check.
Taking your second comment further… I, like you, favor Weber’s social theory over a more “collective” or Durkheimian explanation. As a result, I look at the possible incentives to the following versions of your question: How did “game” become so popular so fast? And why would the alphas who’ve recently codified game be so willing to share it with others? Shouldn’t they keep it among themselves to improve their odds in this zero sum game (i.e., the limited number of women in a bar, the limited use and wear out of openers)?
As for why game has spread so fast… The above state of female affairs had put a big question mark over most men’s heads when it came to women. Over a little more than one generation, the world of female behavior no longer matched the one described by their mothers or grandmothers. More women than ever before began to openly sleep with bad boys and ignore the nice guys–and, not only that, the women were proud of it. (You go, girl! You’re empowered!) In the face of this, game contained not only the explanation but a potential solution in the face of this odd behavior. No wonder “game” traveled like wildfire through dry brush on a hot windy day. Men had been thirsting for this. Neil Strauss’ book became an instant international bestseller whereas if published thirty years earlier, my guess is it wouldn’t have registered as a blip in sales. Previously, there just wasn’t the need.
As for why a PUA would spread the knowledge of game in the first place or share his insight with others, I think the modern codification of game was a group collaboration to begin with. It wasn’t done by “naturals” who might indeed want to contain it. It began as a network of frustrated guys who were each looking for answers. No one guy had the solution. Only through collaborative forums like alt.fast.seduction has modern game emerged. That is, it was a collective discovery or assembly and so continues to be a collective dissemination. …That, and the chance to make a buck!
I think Anonymous (who would be better of using a name so we could have a discussion) is trying desperately to convince himself and others that society isn’t on the road to ruin. Unfortunately, I think he is in a state of denial or bargaining. Whereas most of us have reached the state of acceptance.
The biggest hurdle to any widespread action by alpha males is:
1) How the hell do you convince them anyway? I’ve known about the community for years and I was open to learning about it when I found it. For most outsiders it is bullshit because they don’t, or can’t, except the premises about how dirty human nature is.
Most naturals probably labour under the same delusions about women we had when we were nice guys. If you tried to sell this viewpoint to most people who have no, or only minimal contact, with the game community, you’d be considered a nut.
2) It is, as fbardamu said, a prisoner’s dilemma situation (though he didn’t use those words). If you do not understand what a prisoners dilemma situation is then I suggest you do some reading before replying.
3) There are always more up and coming alphas who we can’t see.
4) A lot of alphas are selfish pricks who cannot see beyond their own short term gratification. See the above blog post about that idiot in Britain.
5) There are just too many alpha males, not to mention higher betas and omegas who help to enable the shit storm. It will take the changing of attitudes of all them to reverse the decline. Can’t see that happening.
6) Women are masters of deception, cunning and twisting words. No matter how great your argument it will lose out to some female bullshit. Don’t believe me? Look at how feminism swept up the intellectual life of the West. Feminism, and all feminist arguments are idiotic, but they still won out simply because sense can win against nonsense, since the latter is easier to produce.
7) From above. Most people would rather stick their head in the sand anyway.
8) Not everyone wants this society to survive anyway.
9) A lot of natural alphas always suppose that whatever happens they will win out. So why worry?
10) Very few guys can handle self enforced celibacy.
Feminism and its ilk has already won. We are only now becoming aware of it and imagine that therefore there is still time to stop it. By all means Anonymous, go ahead and try and stop it. But at least develop a workable plan.
To everybody else I am more interested in how long things are going to stay this way before they decline? And what will be the first things to decline? Where will be the safest place to be?
What John doesn’t get is that sluts and groupies don’t see themselves as such, but as equal or even superior to the alphas who fuck them. Most guys (including the alpha himself) sees her as a dumb slut, but she views herself as a high status goddess whose specialness is validated by the sexual interaction she has with the alpha. It makes her feel as though she is viewed as equal in status to alphas and therefore alpha relationship material. Of course she is simply a cheap fuck doll, and as she gets older she’ll realize this, and then start to become bitter and whine that there are “no good men” until she resentfully settles for some sex-starved beta nice guy to pay for her shit and to also provide for any bastards she had with alpha bad boys.
Game is what allows the beta to realize that he is the sucker in this whole equation and that the alphas he may’ve thought of as immoral and the women he may’ve thought of as victims are the winners. It helps betas to then fight for their share of the pussy, while swearing off any chivalrous or gendered obligations to women. This way women get nothing from men – alpha or beta – except dick and indifference. Men defeat women by starving them of attention, relationships, love and committment and all of the other chivalrous bullshit women gain status and self-esteem from attaining. IOW, we need to beat the matriarchy at its own game, and we do this by applying Game mentality to all aspects of the sexual, social and political system – not by going back to patriarchal traditionalism (women hate beta providers anyway – I’m not taking care of some woman).
“To everybody else I am more interested in how long things are going to stay this way before they decline? And what will be the first things to decline? Where will be the safest place to be?”
Why!?
Those will be the most exciting times, as was mentioned by another commentor, times like these are reminiscent of pre-revolutionary nations.
What else would the vast majority of men live for if not violently knocking this whole absurd mess over whilst it bursts into flames?
“Why!?
Those will be the most exciting times, as was mentioned by another commentor, times like these are reminiscent of pre-revolutionary nations.
What else would the vast majority of men live for if not violently knocking this whole absurd mess over whilst it bursts into flames?”
I want to know whether this will happen in my life time. I want to know whats going to happen long term so I can plan for it. I want to know when its going to happen so I can benefit from it. You can all be pillaging, burning and raping. I plan to be making a profit of it all.
Secondly, I require medical treatments each month. Without these I am pretty much fucked. If the shit hits the fan in my own lifetime I want to cover my arse. I plan to live a long and hedonistic life.
This will not be a big massive explosion like a bomb. It will be a slow (and possibly speeding) decline. The fall of the Roman Empire took generations. I want to know whats going to be the first things to happen so I can profit from them. And I want to know what things to avoid.
A quote from Gone with the Wind that has resonated with me:
“There’s good money in empire building. But, there’s more in empire wrecking.” – Rhett Butler (Margaret Mitchell, 1936).
{ 8 trackbacks }